This is miguided, corporations are a product of the free market and a cornerstone to capitalism. There is no coercion involved, there is no conflict with the non aggression principle. If you choose to do buissiness with a corporation you accept the limited libility, there are plenty of other buissiness forms that do not have this protection but it is so essential that it dominates in all modern economies. Dont be afraid of legal personality it is just a concept.
There is nothing about the corporation that first requires the state. Corporate law is not state law it's a law of economics that describes how corporations form and function. Corporations co-opt the state for their interest but this lie that they require the state in some way is an illusion, there is nothing to prevent the emergence of a corporation, with or without the state. In fact, corporations simply become the state through consolidation under mercantilism where there is no government.
@DKshad0w Evidence for what? I guess it's too much to expect a little specificity here. You're asking me to prove a negative here. Name one specific requirement of a corporation (an actual requirement, something specific) that also requires the state. If I'm responding to the wrong thing, be more specific next time you ask.
You never explain how it is that when somebody purchases a stock it is not a voluntary free market action but rather a singular and exclusive power granted to the buyer by the state? 3:20-3:35
I have no idea what you are getting at there.
Also I do not think it is possible to remove speculation from life and the state can do nothing but add to it.
Anybody involved in any kind of exchange with a corporation pays the taxes of that corporation in hidden ways, meaning customers, owners, employees, creditors, suppliers, and contractors etc Suggesting otherwise is misleading.
I think owners of stock should only have liability to the amount of their investment. When a fraud or a crime is committed under any circumstance you always pursue compensation and total justice against that individual or people involved in committing that crime, and secondarily to that stock holders lose their investment, otherwise you make people responsible for other peoples actions and eliminate capital available where a separation between ownership and management is required.
So let us just face it!!! It creates an enviroment of competition, fear of losing there job though dependencies. where domination is legal. All this creates a a.. licking culture where people denies there own sovereign conscience and there own and others dignity and it even promote those values.
Excellent and very well made. I'm trying to write a short story on Corporatism so I'm gathering as much information as possible. Any body know where I can learn more?
@madmethod21 Austrians talk a lot about how government colludes with corporations. You should read Roderick Long's article Corporation versus the Market. Long is one of my favorite contemporary libertarians and his point of view is usually very insightful. I would link the article but youtube blocks almost all links. It's very easy to find on Google, though.
It's probably too late to help with your story but it's never too late to learn something new ;)
people that support a state , support the theft, or taxes that states are founded on. Theft is immoral. Supoorting theft is immoral. People that support government are immoral.
I am not positing that Friedman's IDEAL society is the best, but mainly my opinion that capitalism leads to state existence which inevitably leads to a collusion between the two to create a corporatist state.
Free markets are an IDEAL society, one that can only be maintained an upheld with a government enforcing laws to punish those who would use force/coercion. Anarcho-capitalism would never work, as a state would inherently rise from it.
Realizing what a corporation was is what brought be from anarcho-communism to market anarchism. Before then, I assumed that this corporatism was essentially a free market rather than a state created dynamic.
Yes but capitalism leads to corporatism. Capitalism rewards wealth and eventually it concentrates. Once that happens the wealthy will attempt to affect policy and create bureaucracy to protect and serve them. Once that happens, you have corporatism. Free markets are not immune as capitalist champions will have you believe.
Bureaucracy is not mutually exclusive to a strong central government.
Also the model of a true free market can only exist with no state, however that is impossible since a state's existence is directly tied to land ownership. The only way true anarchy can be achieved is when all power structures are abolished, and that includes private ownership and property. A state will always arise within a capitalistic model.
A state exists when any power structure perpetrates on the people. Within a capitalistic model, it assumes voluntary trade of "private property." Land is not infinite, and is not equally distributed amongst people. It is also not a voluntary because you have to lay your head to rest somewhere. This land people live on WILL BE taxed. Therefore free market forces work against itself, because it creates an alternative power structure. It is a myth, and has and never will exist in pure form.
People who think land ownership in a free market is analogous to a power structure as in the state miss one crucial distinction. Without the state nobody, absolutely nobody can tell you what to do when you're on your OWN property. They can't tax you, impose laws on you or anything else. You are your own property's ruler.
Of course, if you are on somebody elses property that somebody else rules. But that's how all property works. It is a balance between your ownership rights and somebody elses.
How is a system that inherently separates people based on "those who have" and "those who don't," not creating a power structure? People with the most "stuff" or private property will inherently be more powerful.
Also please tell me how private land selling and buying will not lead to coercion, with or without a state? The fact that it is a finite and necessary resource for everyone prevents it from being free of coercion.
Tehansen your statement about property is right. Unless we view ourselves as belonging to it instead of the other way around there's no way to solve that problem. Even Native Americans had tribal territories. But It's a matter of degree. I think it's better to have a free market system than what we have now. it'd be great if land could be divided up equally & start fresh, but it isn't gonna happen. At least in a free market you can save/borrow to own land since you pay no tax&keep all earnings.
But what about the common areas in which people will be forced to travel to do business or to recreate? These areas will and can be regulated by whomever owns them. This belief that a state can somehow be separated from a free-market makes no sense at all since land/property ownership is what brought rise to states in the first place.
Land is finite, it is also a necessity for all people.
Do you honestly believe everyone on earth will own there own property? The people who do not own property will have to rent to live on it. Which essentially means they are paying taxes to the owner. The people will be at the will of the owner.
one major problem is the greed which lingers in most people. people will find ways to get more. Also with todays weapons I can kille you on your property without stepping foot off of mine.
Anarchy is a lack of power structure. All power structures. Anarchists discredit anarcho-capitalists as being anarchists because capitalism is simply another power structure.
"Anarchy" simple means "without coercive ruler" or "without coercive authority". Self ownership is proved by your every act and property is a natural extension of that (rooted in causality). Denying property actually INVITES coercion of the individual and is therefore anti-anarchistic. Anarcho-socialists can't seem to grasp that.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't a power structure that you point to any more than quid pro quo trade is a power structure. Intrusion of society against an individual is.
Capitalism also assumes that private coercion would not occur in the market. However that is disregarding human nature. The only way to prevent this coercion would be to enact laws and therefore a strong central body to enforce these laws. The invisible hand is a myth....
Actually state isn't dependent on land ownership at all. What do you think "public property" is? It is essentially land that is unowned and it's un-ownership is enforced by the state, yet they act as IF they own it by regulating and policing it.
Furthermore, state itself infringes regularly on property rights through taxation and regulation of private property itself. It's anti-property then, except of course for the elites described in the video.
or If you know somody who is going to do something bad. Are you going to call the police.
sorry I come from a family of millitary men and women. I myself am a black belt jiu jitsu. and I agree walking away is often the better choice. and I try never to provoke. but you can't always walk away. my crooked nose is evidence of that. how about protecting your kids. I know how it should look like in utopia, but how about the transition period. just wondering
The maker of this vid sure takes a lot for granted
I don't get the human shield idea, the share holders put in $5 for shares, the share goes up to $7, they gain $2, if the company becomes insolvent, they lose $5
Which is what they put in. So I don't get the limited liability thing
Unless, hes talking about, like, the company does something that harms someone, you can only sue the company, not the individual behind it
Like Enron, oh wait, those individuals, WERE put in jail, thats right.
yeah the majority of em got off i beleive, and the "jails", 4 star resorts and the ones footing the bill are the ones that got fucked in the first place
All your thoughts put into words, by 1 man, who is educated, literate, and articulate enough to just spout it all out, as it really is.
NO politician can ever tell the truth, because the truth is, they are laughing at us. Gordon Brown and the like, are "alloed" into politics to givw the impression that they are running it.
They make NO decisions, and their only difficulty is wording the truth, as though it were acceptable, in any way.
Hmm, interesting take on the corporation. They do certainly shift losses (if they fail) to creditors and investors, but investors and creditors willingly take the risk--at least for the most part.
A corporation is incorporated by a government where as a company can be started by anyone in a common law country with or without government approval.
The corporation that Stefbot is talking about is called a de jure corporation. There are a couple of states that allow "de facto corporations" that do not have any of the statist privelieges the typical corporation has but these a virtually non-existent.
I think it's great what you say stef, and I don't care about your big forehead or your jelly like looks, keep up the fight, I direct as many as I can, in freedom:-)
Stef, your forehaed is beautiful and so is the jelly like body, I just said it in reaction to what I have been reduced to lately, I guess my brain is rebeling in all directions, I know now I will never have my free society, I will die enslaved by statists no matter what I do. Sure I'm working on personal life, but this truth is making me very sad, I will die A SLAVE, even freestateproject.... now I know the real truth... the statist will harvest me for my yield, no free society.... crying:-(
At last, ther eis osmeone else who understands the "Priest" classses in our society.
ALL freemaosn are occult priests (jewsih).
Everyone with a university degree is "ALUMNI" (Enlightened).
ALL priests must wear black capes, when they become a priest.
So when they get tehir degree, they wear a black cape. Theblack hat is to show that they they wil keep everyone else in the dark, on a TILTED chess board (tilted in their favour).
I love your videos and think that there is a lot truth in them. However, what can people like me (the "average Joe") do about it? We are all somehow stuck in this reality. We all have to pay our taxes and unwinllingly contribute to this system, however faulty it is. If we do not pay our taxes, what happens? We go to jail...
Somehow I think we cannot fight the State. It would be mad doing so. It is a battle we cannot win. At least not my generation.
Not speaking for Stef but dropping my 2 cents off. It would seem that this is a long term issue. By informing fresh minds and allowing them to bloom perhaps eventually the idea of governing with violence will be seen as "What the hell was in the water during those times?" The weapons may be in state hands but the whole concept requires the "average Joe's" to believe in the lie for it to function.
The City of London is also a corporation, and so is The Crown. These date back more than a thousand years.
Not only is the 'corporation' a legal-fiction or legal-entity, but so to is the 'person'.
In law, by definition, a man is not a 'person', but HAS a 'person'. With this 'person' he/she may interact with 'corporations' and their laws under its jurisdiction or on the same level as them.
Any organisation made up of many people and in which membership requires true consideration (in the legel sense of the term) requires some sort of rules, structure, and the means to enforce those rules and discipline those members who contravene them. That's true whether it's a corporation, a company (with or without limited liability), a cooperative, a commune, an association, or even a criminal gang. All except the criminal gangs depend on the state for ultimate discipline.
From Wikipedia: "Consideration is a concept of legal value in contract law. It is a promised action, or omission of action, that the promisee did not already have a pre-existing duty to abide by. It can take the form of money, physical objects, services, or a forbearance of action. Both parties to a contract must pass consideration to the other party for there to be a valid contract." In other words, any organization that does not ask anything of its members has no need for discipline.
Fascism is one word, but let's break it down to simpler terms. A corporation exists for one goal only...to maximize profits for the people who own the corporation. This can produce many innovations and product improvements in a competitive environment, which is the primary argument in favor of capitalism. The state, on the other hand, is supposed to be the representatives of the citizenry, all the citizenry. The citizenry places these people into a position of power in order to ensure (cont.)
(cont.) that we have a mechanism to protect ourselves from external attack and also to ensure that our internal systems are formulated in such a way as to offer fairness and equal opportunity to, at least, the average citizen. Given that people who own corporations seek to maximize their own welfare, they are in direct conflict with state interests which attempt to maximize the welfare of all the citizenry. When corporations take control of the state, who cares what it's called. Totalitarianism?
That's a big leap you're making saying the primary concern of the state is the welfare of the people. Governments seek self-interest like any human organization. Businesses make money by providing goods and services desired by people. Governments make money through violent force, and justify that force with problems in society. Thus, governments profit more when problems in society are greater. It is therefore hardly in the best interest of a government to eliminate these problems.
I'm not sure that I said that the primary concern of the state is the welfare of the people, and that certainly is quite the opposite of my belief... :)
I'm not saying that governments actually operate for the welfare of the people. I'm saying they have a raison d'etre such as organizing a defense from external invasion and to enact and enforce laws that protect one citizen from attack, theft or fraud by another citizen. In addition, they are also useful institutions for organizing projects that are useful to all the people such as bridges, roads, dams, monetary systems, etc. So yes, to organize projects that are for the welfare of the people.
So, you need to threaten a population with violence to protect a population from violence? You need to steal from a population to protect them from theft? You need lie to citizens to protect them from fraud? You wish to have an organization in charge of infrastructure that profits best when infrastructure is collapsing? I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is for the welfare of the people, am I missing something?
Yes, your missing an opponent with whom to have your argument unless you are arguing that there are never useful purposes in a group of people organizing to accomplish collective goals. Is this what you are saying, in basic terms? That all such organizations will eventually become corrupt? There would certainly be much evidence to support such a position, however I still feel that it behooves us to attempt to develop a system of collective action that minimizes the potential for corruption.
I'm not saying that all such organizations will eventually become corrupt. I'm saying that if these organizations are governments, they are corrupt the moment they are created. A government accomplishes everything it does through the use of violence. If you want to avoid corruption, the solution is obvious - simply have a society in which no one has the right to use violence against anyone else. That means no governments :-) Collective projects can be accomplished without guns.
Okay, so we have "a society in which no one has the right to use violence against anyone else" and then someone breaks that rule and commits violence against someone else. What happens then? Is it then strictly up to the family or friends of the victim to deal with the matter with return violence? Or should they just let the matter drop? How would you enforce the rule of non-violence if someone chose to defy the rule? And if three people choose a leader, that leader is the government.
A government is a group of individuals that hold a COERCIVE MONOPOLY of the legitamite use of force wtihin a geographic region. Government and police are two totally different things. Anytime you hear stef say "violence" think "the initiation of force".
A leader is a not a government. A government is made up of rulers, not leaders. Leaders gain authority over individuals by consent awhile rulers gain authority through violence.
There are many ways a stateless society can deal with violent crime. I'd encourage you to check out Stef's other videos, and his book on Practical Anarchy. He discusses this issue in great detail :-)
Could corporations still work to societal benefit if we removed corporate personhood? The mitigation of risk to individual investors is good for starting large and difficult projects. At the same time those running the company shouldn't feel free to externalize the cost of their business on society. Maybe variable levels of liability instead? If someone is on the board of directors they could lose their limited liability status. encouraging responsible behavior.
I always assumed in a stateless society corporatism would simply run rampant. For they would ultimately control the use of force while the majority suffers. Maybe my views are a bit marxist in the end but I dont particularly believe in a utopian society. But now I am curious to how you think a stateless society would function?
The state is just a territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence. W/o this monopoly in place, how could a minority cow the majority? W/o a state to which to outsource violent actions, minorities would not themselves perform violence, for two reasons. First, violence is extremely expensive. Second, there's no telling who might do the same to you in return.
With the state in place, a minority who wishes to do violence to the majority can convince the state to do it. Then the taxpayer covers the costs (taking care of reason #1), and there's no fear of violent repercussions, since the state has a monopoly on violence (taking care of reason #2).
The concept of the state is only in place because of mass agreement. Would it then require the same cooperative agreement to dissolve the state? Let's say the next generation awakens to the violence of having a government and doesn't agree with it. Does the momentum of government fade?
The idea of the state as the "protector of 'our' values, 'our' way of living, 'our' this or that" exists b/c of mass delusion, which exists b/c of mass indoctrination and the general inability to break such indoctrination on one's own. The state is in a good position to fund and administer such indoctrination, and even to imprison or kill those who would break it for others, should such naysayers actually pose a threat.
Sure, if everyone suddenly saw the light, as it were, the state would dissolve. That's not likely to occur, as far as I can see. Statist apologists are too influential, and they're paid too well. Most of them are very intelligent, and surely more than a few of them know what they're doing.
Historically, states collapse b/c of natural and economic disasters, and that's it.
Only to rise again. So the delusion never really collapses. It's like trying to protect a precious artifact by setting it on fire only to realize it only burns it away and then saying next time we'll use more fuel for the fire. If it's primarily a psychological "disease" how do we cut it out of our minds? What mental surgical too is required?
Generally people commit to their mistakes, even more so than their successes. The bigger and more long lived the mistake, the harder they hold on to it, despite the evidence, despite the arguments. They find a way to rationalize, to justify, even if it's absurd.
The state is a BIG mistake, on the part of those deluded into believing it is a protector or caregiver for the people, as opposed to itself. For most people, I'd say there's no surgical tool big enough or sharp enough.
That doesn't even speak to the fact that the apologists are waiting in the wings, w/ all of your information and more. What many libertarians and anarchists fail to appreciate, I believe, is that there must be thousands of statists who know exactly what they're up to. They've got all the information their would-be opponents have, and more. It's not as though they're operating under a delusion, like most. They've got a profit motive to brainwash others, and coerce those that resist.
With all the intellectual muscle they hire to indoctrinate their enforcers and the people at large, you'd figure at least some 'fancy suits' long ago figured out who they were and what they were doing. Morally these men are the same as 'bandits,' only they've taken up the state machinery to protect themselves. Individually they might be less dangerous, in that they are not ethical robots, and be open to reason. Their apparent apathy to the enormity of their misdeeds speaks volumes, though.
Well, when I'm bored, I watch videos on Youtube, and often I can't help but comment. I feel obligated to a conversation once it starts, so I continue it.
Take from my opinion what you will. I'm sure you realize it's not the Gospel. You'll do what you want, and, if that's rail against the moral bankruptcy of government to your buddies, go for it.
As for me, I haven't decided. More and more often though, I find myself thinking: if I see things this way, what am I waiting for? The basket of goodies is right there for the taking.
The state is a coercion-run machine left over from past generations of the rich and clever, so that the rich and clever of the future could use it to tax the poverty and stupidity of others. If I think I'm so damn clever, what's holding me back?
Inded the whole mess seems overwhelming at times but it seems important enough to fan the flame. Ultimately all we have is our own integrity and genuine curiousity. Perhaps the best thing one can do for the sick is to not be one of them. (As I brush off my halo and turn up my nose:)
You omitted mentioning that the Church also acts like a corporation to maximize profit and power and minimize loses and responsibility.
Jesus admonished believers against individual riches, but said nothing about corporations, so corps like the Knights Templar were strictly prohibited from owning anything as individuals, but as a corporation they were except from any vow of poverty. And so they became wealthy beyond imagining.
Individuals who murder individuals could be stoned or burned to death, but their corporate murderers would never be tried for murder.
I find that the religious often preach or commit violence with no remorse by shielding themselves behind their religious corporation: "I'm not the one saying you should die, it's the Lord of the Bible who commandeth me to kill you".
We are herd animals, so it's natural for people to justify any outrage saying, "the Bible says so, and all agree with the Bible".
Also, this is true of lynch mob mentality, even devoid of any religious or governmental context.
Perfectly decent and circumspect individuals who wouldn't think of killing a person, may feel compelled, entitled, and safe to do so when they feel surrounded by a crowd intent on murdering a targeted individual.
The same goes for wars: few people will take up arms against others, but feel justified in doing so if their not alone in doing so.
Yep, the ogvts basically work FOR the corporations. But the govt has osme powers becasue the peopel may resist or revolt. If thats the case, the corporations may give in, over some small issue.
In the UK, its called the "House of Lords".
Or, at least, all its memebrs woudl eb form the house of lords.
Theyve got t WELL wrapped up.
but they always have had. A Labout govt should get teh peopel more,and they will if you pressure them.
If not they wont. thats why cops march and protest,it works
That's kind of the exact opposite you preached not a long time ago, but anyways... good decision to leave the trail of constantly advocating corporations.
I think out of all the videos I've see, this is the one rather disagree with.
Corporations themselves are not necessarily violent, no do they necessarily require violence to maintain their existence. It's the interactions some have with governments that bring about the violence. They 'donate' to politicians who will increase their power beyond what exists for the majority of companies. See Disney's copyright BS, or Haliburton/KBR's business in Iraq for example.
It's a symbiotic relationship. Law enforcement is the muscle for the corporations. The courts lean towards their desires. The military clears competitors out of the way. So yes, the corporations are not violent - they outsource that job to the government.
Not ignore it but would see that the real threat is the physical injury from the people who carry out the violence. The mob boss already knows he's encouraging violence but the hit man is usually made to think that it's for some greater good.
I don't think hit men generally believe they're serving a greater good, but I think police and soldiers generally do... and they're the ones we're actually talking about.
Anyway, it's the mob boss' money and desire which together enable the hit man's violent action. W/o the mob boss, the hit man could not possibly exist.
Maybe the hit man DOES have some twisted ideology to justify his actions, but this ideology is not the driving force of his actions, but a rationalization for them.
Yes. The Cuban independence movement was fuelled by the general populace feeling that they were being taken advantage of by large corporate interests including mafia operated organizations. In order to get a fairer share of their production, they confiscated properties they felt had been awarded to current owners through corrupt practices of the Batista government. Of course, many of these properties were owned by both American corporations and mobsters. Pressure was therefore exerted on (cont.)
(cont.) the American government to impose embargoes on trade with this revolutionary government in the short term and work on methods to depose the new leader, Fidel Castro, and his government in the longer term in order to re-institute American financial control of the island country. Communism had already been established as a much feared financial system in the U.S. and, therefore, corporations would have no problem convincing the government to take whatever actions necessary against Cuba.
In one of the examples of corporations having exclusive rights he mentions patents and copyrights.
This is just not true. Any individual can obtain either of those. Copyrights being especially easy.
That being said I do agree that corporations socializing losses while privatizing profits is a massive distortion on the market. This practice is essentially punishing good companies. This can lead the evolution of companies in the wrong direction.
They do get special treatment in local monopolies.
As far as inventions go, very few come from the government. The vast majority come from individuals either working on their own or for an R & D department.
In the US most government funding goes through a bid process and the government doesn't retain any rights on the IP unless its classified. Sometimes no bid contracts come up and those are just wrong!
Most IP surrounding internet and mobiles are owned by a large variety of corporations.
But im not gonna argue, i gove up. There are more peopel who are happy in la la land, than there are living in hell (and occupying the same space), so im not gonna knock the system, any more.
It all works better than i could control it, and they have been doing it for centuries.
So im not gonna argue any more. Just accept that, if you do your best, MOST of you will be ok in the end.
It wont be great, but its better then fighting them.
I think you know they are not ALL part of any group, except humans (maybe, lol).
I don't really care to argue either.
I am engineer. I have invented methodologies, software, and devices. I have worked for companies designing state of the art technology. I know even more people who have invented stuff. There is no inventor conspiracy.
The freemasons is pretty much just a theistic fraternity. In case you haven't noticed many inventors are not very religious and sometimes even atheist.
It seems to me that the state doesn't produce violence but people who are violent produce the state. Gov/Corp/Religion are only the synthetic sugary icing on an otherwise poisoned cake. The violence actually comes from the people who carry it out, yes? If I start screaming "Go kill people and bring me their money" off of my balcony and some folks obey, who is the real threat?
No, the whole problem is that peopel who run the state, have the power to make decisions against the peopel who pay the state, for their own benefit.
After a little spiraling out of control, they try to enslave the populus, the populus kills them.
Then a fair form of rule is installed, but it still alows the govt power ot deceive and steal form the peopel. So they DO. Then they feel so powerful, thta they try to enslave the peopel. The peopel kill them.
If you want the shortest possible answer, it is thta the country is controlled through the freemasons network, and so ALL decisions are ultimately made by the heads of that OCCULT society.
The head in the UK is the duke of westminster, and its made him the RICHEST man in britain - £11Billion)
Its infiltration of the populus leaves us working til we are 70, and them retiring at 45 yrs.
And they wil get MUCH more pension and FREE healthcare.
At the end of it, they are free and we are SLAVES.
You're still missing my point. In order for anyone to "control" someone else by force there must be some use of violence. Does the Duke of Westminster hold a gun to someones head and say work til you're 70?
Yes, his enforcers. They are the scary ones. Any madman can say "Chop up those babies becasue I have a fancy suit" but it's the people that follow that who are the threat.
His enforcers are scary, but not as much as the man in the fancy suit, whose actions provide incentive for violence, incentive which would otherwise be absent. See the other thread.
Yes but the enforcer who will use violence for an incentive is the real threat. The man in the fancy suit is evil for providing it but he is not an actual threat. In fact some religious enforcers follow an imaginary man in a fancy suit.
This is miguided, corporations are a product of the free market and a cornerstone to capitalism. There is no coercion involved, there is no conflict with the non aggression principle. If you choose to do buissiness with a corporation you accept the limited libility, there are plenty of other buissiness forms that do not have this protection but it is so essential that it dominates in all modern economies. Dont be afraid of legal personality it is just a concept.
dloksrednil 3 days ago
Corporations are evill
Engravingsful 1 month ago
" It is no longer a choice; my friends, between violence and non-violence. It is either non-violence or non-existence." Martin Luther King Jr
dapop1001 3 months ago
The biggest threat is not the corporations, but the ill minded sheep that blame capitalism for corporatism. This makes corporatism stronger.
jjenson2006 4 months ago
There is nothing about the corporation that first requires the state. Corporate law is not state law it's a law of economics that describes how corporations form and function. Corporations co-opt the state for their interest but this lie that they require the state in some way is an illusion, there is nothing to prevent the emergence of a corporation, with or without the state. In fact, corporations simply become the state through consolidation under mercantilism where there is no government.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
Evidence?
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@DKshad0w Evidence for what? I guess it's too much to expect a little specificity here. You're asking me to prove a negative here. Name one specific requirement of a corporation (an actual requirement, something specific) that also requires the state. If I'm responding to the wrong thing, be more specific next time you ask.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Think War is hard work? Smelting metal for millions is even harder.
makemap 1 year ago
This was either thumbed down by a fat cat or someone who was bored. Can't say I blame the latter but c'mon.
ThePaleWriter 1 year ago
You never explain how it is that when somebody purchases a stock it is not a voluntary free market action but rather a singular and exclusive power granted to the buyer by the state? 3:20-3:35
I have no idea what you are getting at there.
Also I do not think it is possible to remove speculation from life and the state can do nothing but add to it.
ujisx 1 year ago
Anybody involved in any kind of exchange with a corporation pays the taxes of that corporation in hidden ways, meaning customers, owners, employees, creditors, suppliers, and contractors etc Suggesting otherwise is misleading.
ujisx 1 year ago
I think owners of stock should only have liability to the amount of their investment. When a fraud or a crime is committed under any circumstance you always pursue compensation and total justice against that individual or people involved in committing that crime, and secondarily to that stock holders lose their investment, otherwise you make people responsible for other peoples actions and eliminate capital available where a separation between ownership and management is required.
ujisx 1 year ago
So let us just face it!!! It creates an enviroment of competition, fear of losing there job though dependencies. where domination is legal. All this creates a a.. licking culture where people denies there own sovereign conscience and there own and others dignity and it even promote those values.
Tbonyandsteak 1 year ago
Excellent and very well made. I'm trying to write a short story on Corporatism so I'm gathering as much information as possible. Any body know where I can learn more?
madmethod21 1 year ago
@madmethod21 Austrians talk a lot about how government colludes with corporations. You should read Roderick Long's article Corporation versus the Market. Long is one of my favorite contemporary libertarians and his point of view is usually very insightful. I would link the article but youtube blocks almost all links. It's very easy to find on Google, though.
It's probably too late to help with your story but it's never too late to learn something new ;)
KingLeon1daz 7 months ago in playlist Voluntaryism/ Anti-Statism
people that support a state , support the theft, or taxes that states are founded on. Theft is immoral. Supoorting theft is immoral. People that support government are immoral.
gosmokesome 2 years ago 5
excellent video, just wonderful. thank you
coreyalan23 2 years ago
This is one of those videos that would make the world a better place is everyone were to watch it (and take it in, obviously).
sharperguy 2 years ago
I am not positing that Friedman's IDEAL society is the best, but mainly my opinion that capitalism leads to state existence which inevitably leads to a collusion between the two to create a corporatist state.
trehansen 2 years ago
Free markets are an IDEAL society, one that can only be maintained an upheld with a government enforcing laws to punish those who would use force/coercion. Anarcho-capitalism would never work, as a state would inherently rise from it.
trehansen 2 years ago
wow
PurpleCottonMouth 2 years ago
Realizing what a corporation was is what brought be from anarcho-communism to market anarchism. Before then, I assumed that this corporatism was essentially a free market rather than a state created dynamic.
dhushw 2 years ago
Yes but capitalism leads to corporatism. Capitalism rewards wealth and eventually it concentrates. Once that happens the wealthy will attempt to affect policy and create bureaucracy to protect and serve them. Once that happens, you have corporatism. Free markets are not immune as capitalist champions will have you believe.
trehansen 2 years ago
But how will the bureaucracy be created and enforced without the state? (genuin question, really appreciate an answer, thanks!)
hbt22 2 years ago
Bureaucracy is not mutually exclusive to a strong central government.
Also the model of a true free market can only exist with no state, however that is impossible since a state's existence is directly tied to land ownership. The only way true anarchy can be achieved is when all power structures are abolished, and that includes private ownership and property. A state will always arise within a capitalistic model.
trehansen 2 years ago
Well, no bureaucracy is not exclusive to a strong central government but I think the free market would eliminate alot of bureaucracy.
And when you say anarchy what do you mean? How would you define a state (not state:government) of anarchy?
hbt22 2 years ago
A state exists when any power structure perpetrates on the people. Within a capitalistic model, it assumes voluntary trade of "private property." Land is not infinite, and is not equally distributed amongst people. It is also not a voluntary because you have to lay your head to rest somewhere. This land people live on WILL BE taxed. Therefore free market forces work against itself, because it creates an alternative power structure. It is a myth, and has and never will exist in pure form.
trehansen 2 years ago
People who think land ownership in a free market is analogous to a power structure as in the state miss one crucial distinction. Without the state nobody, absolutely nobody can tell you what to do when you're on your OWN property. They can't tax you, impose laws on you or anything else. You are your own property's ruler.
Of course, if you are on somebody elses property that somebody else rules. But that's how all property works. It is a balance between your ownership rights and somebody elses.
DoublePlusHuman 2 years ago
How is a system that inherently separates people based on "those who have" and "those who don't," not creating a power structure? People with the most "stuff" or private property will inherently be more powerful.
Also please tell me how private land selling and buying will not lead to coercion, with or without a state? The fact that it is a finite and necessary resource for everyone prevents it from being free of coercion.
trehansen 2 years ago 3
Tehansen your statement about property is right. Unless we view ourselves as belonging to it instead of the other way around there's no way to solve that problem. Even Native Americans had tribal territories. But It's a matter of degree. I think it's better to have a free market system than what we have now. it'd be great if land could be divided up equally & start fresh, but it isn't gonna happen. At least in a free market you can save/borrow to own land since you pay no tax&keep all earnings.
kingofthebrittains 2 years ago
But what about the common areas in which people will be forced to travel to do business or to recreate? These areas will and can be regulated by whomever owns them. This belief that a state can somehow be separated from a free-market makes no sense at all since land/property ownership is what brought rise to states in the first place.
trehansen 2 years ago
Land is finite, it is also a necessity for all people.
Do you honestly believe everyone on earth will own there own property? The people who do not own property will have to rent to live on it. Which essentially means they are paying taxes to the owner. The people will be at the will of the owner.
Presto!! A state has been created.
trehansen 2 years ago
2% of American soil is inhabited. There is alot of room for everybody!
hbt22 2 years ago
one major problem is the greed which lingers in most people. people will find ways to get more. Also with todays weapons I can kille you on your property without stepping foot off of mine.
Garhunt05 2 years ago
"A state exists when any power structure perpetrates on the people."
By this definition the family is a state as well, the we can´t have that`?
hbt22 2 years ago
Anarchy is a lack of power structure. All power structures. Anarchists discredit anarcho-capitalists as being anarchists because capitalism is simply another power structure.
trehansen 2 years ago
"Anarchy" simple means "without coercive ruler" or "without coercive authority". Self ownership is proved by your every act and property is a natural extension of that (rooted in causality). Denying property actually INVITES coercion of the individual and is therefore anti-anarchistic. Anarcho-socialists can't seem to grasp that.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't a power structure that you point to any more than quid pro quo trade is a power structure. Intrusion of society against an individual is.
DoublePlusHuman 2 years ago
Capitalism also assumes that private coercion would not occur in the market. However that is disregarding human nature. The only way to prevent this coercion would be to enact laws and therefore a strong central body to enforce these laws. The invisible hand is a myth....
trehansen 2 years ago
Comment removed
libervisco 2 years ago
Actually state isn't dependent on land ownership at all. What do you think "public property" is? It is essentially land that is unowned and it's un-ownership is enforced by the state, yet they act as IF they own it by regulating and policing it.
Furthermore, state itself infringes regularly on property rights through taxation and regulation of private property itself. It's anti-property then, except of course for the elites described in the video.
DoublePlusHuman 2 years ago
The only major part I would change in this video would be replacing violence with aggressive violence.
overmind25 2 years ago
how do u feel about violent revolution or violent means to resist statism?
dumb14wanker 2 years ago
I am certain that they will never work, the answer comes from reason and passion and freedom in our personal lives...
stefbot 2 years ago 15
But what if the answer is well known but others try to oppress you with violence. Surely you could not stand idly by.
BioThoughts 2 years ago
I am sure that I can be accused of many things, but standing idly by is not one of them...
stefbot 2 years ago 8
So then you could support using violence. Of course I am saying desperate times, desperate measures.
BioThoughts 2 years ago
@stefbot how about defending yourself.
or If you know somody who is going to do something bad. Are you going to call the police.
sorry I come from a family of millitary men and women. I myself am a black belt jiu jitsu. and I agree walking away is often the better choice. and I try never to provoke. but you can't always walk away. my crooked nose is evidence of that. how about protecting your kids. I know how it should look like in utopia, but how about the transition period. just wondering
landloper1986 3 months ago
The maker of this vid sure takes a lot for granted
I don't get the human shield idea, the share holders put in $5 for shares, the share goes up to $7, they gain $2, if the company becomes insolvent, they lose $5
Which is what they put in. So I don't get the limited liability thing
Unless, hes talking about, like, the company does something that harms someone, you can only sue the company, not the individual behind it
Like Enron, oh wait, those individuals, WERE put in jail, thats right.
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
yeah the majority of em got off i beleive, and the "jails", 4 star resorts and the ones footing the bill are the ones that got fucked in the first place
dumb14wanker 2 years ago
One of the best video's I've ever watched!
mrcool011 2 years ago
Thanks! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Isnt it amazing folks ?
All your thoughts put into words, by 1 man, who is educated, literate, and articulate enough to just spout it all out, as it really is.
NO politician can ever tell the truth, because the truth is, they are laughing at us. Gordon Brown and the like, are "alloed" into politics to givw the impression that they are running it.
They make NO decisions, and their only difficulty is wording the truth, as though it were acceptable, in any way.
We NEED change FAST !!!
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago 22
Thanks you! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
a most excellent statement of the reality that we live under a MASSIVE ILLUSION
dttnwo 2 years ago 10
Hmm, interesting take on the corporation. They do certainly shift losses (if they fail) to creditors and investors, but investors and creditors willingly take the risk--at least for the most part.
RogueSwordThesco 2 years ago
This video brought to you by Google and probably Microsoft.
underbird 2 years ago
lol similarly...
"Preservatives preserve us all".
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
"It's him.. No, wait" Good one! :D
metal87power 2 years ago
What's the difference between a corporation and a company?
vidsofgargator 2 years ago
vidsofgargator: it's kind of like the difference between a union v. a non-union employees.
FriedDaisy 2 years ago
A corporation is incorporated by a government where as a company can be started by anyone in a common law country with or without government approval.
asupcb 2 years ago
The corporation that Stefbot is talking about is called a de jure corporation. There are a couple of states that allow "de facto corporations" that do not have any of the statist privelieges the typical corporation has but these a virtually non-existent.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Stef, would you be able to tell me the name of the painting at 4:30 in this video?
Genowulf 2 years ago
You slipped in the beginning - "Corporations first EXISTED..." ;)
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
(not that im suggesting you take that to heart.Rathe rit should fill you with hope, and internal freedom). There really is NO way from here, but up !
And if you arent religious, you have nothign to lose, but your temporary life, and nothign matters, anyway.
You may like some more luxury now, but when your gas and elec. stop, and wolves walk the streets, you may grow to like the woods.
Anyway, the one thing i can honestly say about the bible is:
IT TELLS YOU EXACTLY HOW TO BEAT THE MASONS !!
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
cont'd.....
My point being... Isn't this planet a lot more interesting with some stinking devils, to fight ?
Seriously, as a lpase, bored christian, i can see nothign but glory ahead. We will win, and it doesnt mater if we get toasted, or roasted, or what.
If your read your bible, it seems ot tell you that the devil ruels in hell. But, in teh beggining, wasnt he cast down to earth ?
If we die, where do we go ?
And how are we born sinners ?
THIS my friend, is HELL !!!!!
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
I like Stef's big forehead; it reminds me of Captain Picard, one of my favorite childhood heroes.
tmursch 2 years ago
thanks!
stefbot 2 years ago
I think it's great what you say stef, and I don't care about your big forehead or your jelly like looks, keep up the fight, I direct as many as I can, in freedom:-)
clthinkingman 2 years ago
Thanks, though you might want to work on your compliments...
stefbot 2 years ago
Embrace the chatty forehead, stef!
Love the show and podcast series!
tirephus 2 years ago
thanks! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Stef, your forehaed is beautiful and so is the jelly like body, I just said it in reaction to what I have been reduced to lately, I guess my brain is rebeling in all directions, I know now I will never have my free society, I will die enslaved by statists no matter what I do. Sure I'm working on personal life, but this truth is making me very sad, I will die A SLAVE, even freestateproject.... now I know the real truth... the statist will harvest me for my yield, no free society.... crying:-(
clthinkingman 2 years ago
Christianity is boring and useless, and outdated. If there ever was a devil, he is dead, and we are bored to death, in the tedium of Christianity.
However, jesus "promised" that "ALL these things will come true, in your life time" (speaking of his prophecies).
So, the devil has surfaced, form his slimy pit, eh ?
Fan - bloody - tastic !
Ive been a quiet little bah sheep, for far toolong. Pushed around by stinking wolves. I have fought a hundred fights, and i know how to win, and lose.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Actually, i was thinking whether we could cal stefbot "the shining light" or the "bringer of the truth" or somethgn like that.
But i suppose "flat head jelly features, might do for now".
lololol
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
"jelly like looks".
very good
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
newgtguy:
At last, ther eis osmeone else who understands the "Priest" classses in our society.
ALL freemaosn are occult priests (jewsih).
Everyone with a university degree is "ALUMNI" (Enlightened).
ALL priests must wear black capes, when they become a priest.
So when they get tehir degree, they wear a black cape. Theblack hat is to show that they they wil keep everyone else in the dark, on a TILTED chess board (tilted in their favour).
And judges and lawyers wear capes, too !
EVIL !
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Hi Stephan
I love your videos and think that there is a lot truth in them. However, what can people like me (the "average Joe") do about it? We are all somehow stuck in this reality. We all have to pay our taxes and unwinllingly contribute to this system, however faulty it is. If we do not pay our taxes, what happens? We go to jail...
Somehow I think we cannot fight the State. It would be mad doing so. It is a battle we cannot win. At least not my generation.
Do you have practical steps?
Itsik2 2 years ago
Not speaking for Stef but dropping my 2 cents off. It would seem that this is a long term issue. By informing fresh minds and allowing them to bloom perhaps eventually the idea of governing with violence will be seen as "What the hell was in the water during those times?" The weapons may be in state hands but the whole concept requires the "average Joe's" to believe in the lie for it to function.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Are you a citizen? Which country were you born in?
newgtguy 2 years ago
You have a way of getting to the heart of matters Stefan. I have learnt a good deal from your works. Thank you for producing them.
Textra1 2 years ago
I hope I remember this when I wake up ...cause I cant wait to tell my mom about this dream...I mean nightmare.
Ipluckithard 2 years ago
The City of London is also a corporation, and so is The Crown. These date back more than a thousand years.
Not only is the 'corporation' a legal-fiction or legal-entity, but so to is the 'person'.
In law, by definition, a man is not a 'person', but HAS a 'person'. With this 'person' he/she may interact with 'corporations' and their laws under its jurisdiction or on the same level as them.
kuriokazuki 2 years ago
Stop it with the thumbs down as he is completely correct.
newgtguy 2 years ago 2
Any organisation made up of many people and in which membership requires true consideration (in the legel sense of the term) requires some sort of rules, structure, and the means to enforce those rules and discipline those members who contravene them. That's true whether it's a corporation, a company (with or without limited liability), a cooperative, a commune, an association, or even a criminal gang. All except the criminal gangs depend on the state for ultimate discipline.
Ape65 2 years ago
What is true consideration?
lnd3005 2 years ago
From Wikipedia: "Consideration is a concept of legal value in contract law. It is a promised action, or omission of action, that the promisee did not already have a pre-existing duty to abide by. It can take the form of money, physical objects, services, or a forbearance of action. Both parties to a contract must pass consideration to the other party for there to be a valid contract." In other words, any organization that does not ask anything of its members has no need for discipline.
Ape65 2 years ago
How do you get the time to write & produce these videos? Just curious....
Gromitdog1 2 years ago 2
Thank you for the video. They're always good and insightful.
mrcool011 2 years ago
well done stefan.. thanks.
navtel 2 years ago
Wow -- one of the most powerful and moving videos I've seen on YouTube. 5 stars!
dakatesr 2 years ago
Merger of state and corporate power is fascism.
slipcurve 2 years ago
Fascism is one word, but let's break it down to simpler terms. A corporation exists for one goal only...to maximize profits for the people who own the corporation. This can produce many innovations and product improvements in a competitive environment, which is the primary argument in favor of capitalism. The state, on the other hand, is supposed to be the representatives of the citizenry, all the citizenry. The citizenry places these people into a position of power in order to ensure (cont.)
1140Cecile 2 years ago
(cont.) that we have a mechanism to protect ourselves from external attack and also to ensure that our internal systems are formulated in such a way as to offer fairness and equal opportunity to, at least, the average citizen. Given that people who own corporations seek to maximize their own welfare, they are in direct conflict with state interests which attempt to maximize the welfare of all the citizenry. When corporations take control of the state, who cares what it's called. Totalitarianism?
1140Cecile 2 years ago
That's a big leap you're making saying the primary concern of the state is the welfare of the people. Governments seek self-interest like any human organization. Businesses make money by providing goods and services desired by people. Governments make money through violent force, and justify that force with problems in society. Thus, governments profit more when problems in society are greater. It is therefore hardly in the best interest of a government to eliminate these problems.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
I'm not sure that I said that the primary concern of the state is the welfare of the people, and that certainly is quite the opposite of my belief... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I was responding to 1140Cecile, not to the video, sorry Stef, somehow my reply wasn't placed in the right place!
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
I'm not saying that governments actually operate for the welfare of the people. I'm saying they have a raison d'etre such as organizing a defense from external invasion and to enact and enforce laws that protect one citizen from attack, theft or fraud by another citizen. In addition, they are also useful institutions for organizing projects that are useful to all the people such as bridges, roads, dams, monetary systems, etc. So yes, to organize projects that are for the welfare of the people.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
So, you need to threaten a population with violence to protect a population from violence? You need to steal from a population to protect them from theft? You need lie to citizens to protect them from fraud? You wish to have an organization in charge of infrastructure that profits best when infrastructure is collapsing? I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is for the welfare of the people, am I missing something?
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
Yes, your missing an opponent with whom to have your argument unless you are arguing that there are never useful purposes in a group of people organizing to accomplish collective goals. Is this what you are saying, in basic terms? That all such organizations will eventually become corrupt? There would certainly be much evidence to support such a position, however I still feel that it behooves us to attempt to develop a system of collective action that minimizes the potential for corruption.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
I'm not saying that all such organizations will eventually become corrupt. I'm saying that if these organizations are governments, they are corrupt the moment they are created. A government accomplishes everything it does through the use of violence. If you want to avoid corruption, the solution is obvious - simply have a society in which no one has the right to use violence against anyone else. That means no governments :-) Collective projects can be accomplished without guns.
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
Okay, so we have "a society in which no one has the right to use violence against anyone else" and then someone breaks that rule and commits violence against someone else. What happens then? Is it then strictly up to the family or friends of the victim to deal with the matter with return violence? Or should they just let the matter drop? How would you enforce the rule of non-violence if someone chose to defy the rule? And if three people choose a leader, that leader is the government.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
A government is a group of individuals that hold a COERCIVE MONOPOLY of the legitamite use of force wtihin a geographic region. Government and police are two totally different things. Anytime you hear stef say "violence" think "the initiation of force".
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
What are you, Stef's interpreter? Violence is the initiation of force because that's the definition of violence, idiot.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
Jesus christ, you were asking some questions and now you bitch when someone gives you some answers. God, you're a troll.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
A leader is a not a government. A government is made up of rulers, not leaders. Leaders gain authority over individuals by consent awhile rulers gain authority through violence.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Go back to school.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
There are many ways a stateless society can deal with violent crime. I'd encourage you to check out Stef's other videos, and his book on Practical Anarchy. He discusses this issue in great detail :-)
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
One of your best videos yet, Stefan.
citnaj 2 years ago
Sobering.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
Could corporations still work to societal benefit if we removed corporate personhood? The mitigation of risk to individual investors is good for starting large and difficult projects. At the same time those running the company shouldn't feel free to externalize the cost of their business on society. Maybe variable levels of liability instead? If someone is on the board of directors they could lose their limited liability status. encouraging responsible behavior.
cspinney 2 years ago
I would suggest Yaron Brook's series on the Corporation for all those that agree with STef on this one.
RyanPig 2 years ago
Good shit,stefbot!
THAWK3 2 years ago
nice ,,, thank you steph
wcarlpdrysdale 2 years ago
I always assumed in a stateless society corporatism would simply run rampant. For they would ultimately control the use of force while the majority suffers. Maybe my views are a bit marxist in the end but I dont particularly believe in a utopian society. But now I am curious to how you think a stateless society would function?
immortal117 2 years ago
The state is just a territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence. W/o this monopoly in place, how could a minority cow the majority? W/o a state to which to outsource violent actions, minorities would not themselves perform violence, for two reasons. First, violence is extremely expensive. Second, there's no telling who might do the same to you in return.
lnd3005 2 years ago
With the state in place, a minority who wishes to do violence to the majority can convince the state to do it. Then the taxpayer covers the costs (taking care of reason #1), and there's no fear of violent repercussions, since the state has a monopoly on violence (taking care of reason #2).
lnd3005 2 years ago 2
The concept of the state is only in place because of mass agreement. Would it then require the same cooperative agreement to dissolve the state? Let's say the next generation awakens to the violence of having a government and doesn't agree with it. Does the momentum of government fade?
DCLugi 2 years ago 2
The idea of the state as the "protector of 'our' values, 'our' way of living, 'our' this or that" exists b/c of mass delusion, which exists b/c of mass indoctrination and the general inability to break such indoctrination on one's own. The state is in a good position to fund and administer such indoctrination, and even to imprison or kill those who would break it for others, should such naysayers actually pose a threat.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Sure, if everyone suddenly saw the light, as it were, the state would dissolve. That's not likely to occur, as far as I can see. Statist apologists are too influential, and they're paid too well. Most of them are very intelligent, and surely more than a few of them know what they're doing.
Historically, states collapse b/c of natural and economic disasters, and that's it.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Only to rise again. So the delusion never really collapses. It's like trying to protect a precious artifact by setting it on fire only to realize it only burns it away and then saying next time we'll use more fuel for the fire. If it's primarily a psychological "disease" how do we cut it out of our minds? What mental surgical too is required?
DCLugi 2 years ago 2
* too = "tool"
DCLugi 2 years ago
how can you agree with something you don't understand ? Many people don't understand what state, government means at all. Mass delusion.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Yes the "agreement" is based on this delusion so only clarity and understanding will break the agreement.
It's like donating sperm for years and then realizing it was a Suntrust.
DCLugi 2 years ago 2
Generally people commit to their mistakes, even more so than their successes. The bigger and more long lived the mistake, the harder they hold on to it, despite the evidence, despite the arguments. They find a way to rationalize, to justify, even if it's absurd.
The state is a BIG mistake, on the part of those deluded into believing it is a protector or caregiver for the people, as opposed to itself. For most people, I'd say there's no surgical tool big enough or sharp enough.
lnd3005 2 years ago
That doesn't even speak to the fact that the apologists are waiting in the wings, w/ all of your information and more. What many libertarians and anarchists fail to appreciate, I believe, is that there must be thousands of statists who know exactly what they're up to. They've got all the information their would-be opponents have, and more. It's not as though they're operating under a delusion, like most. They've got a profit motive to brainwash others, and coerce those that resist.
lnd3005 2 years ago
With all the intellectual muscle they hire to indoctrinate their enforcers and the people at large, you'd figure at least some 'fancy suits' long ago figured out who they were and what they were doing. Morally these men are the same as 'bandits,' only they've taken up the state machinery to protect themselves. Individually they might be less dangerous, in that they are not ethical robots, and be open to reason. Their apparent apathy to the enormity of their misdeeds speaks volumes, though.
lnd3005 2 years ago
In regards to your last sentence, what's the sense in even talking about it then? What is the aim here?
DCLugi 2 years ago
Well, when I'm bored, I watch videos on Youtube, and often I can't help but comment. I feel obligated to a conversation once it starts, so I continue it.
Take from my opinion what you will. I'm sure you realize it's not the Gospel. You'll do what you want, and, if that's rail against the moral bankruptcy of government to your buddies, go for it.
lnd3005 2 years ago
As for me, I haven't decided. More and more often though, I find myself thinking: if I see things this way, what am I waiting for? The basket of goodies is right there for the taking.
The state is a coercion-run machine left over from past generations of the rich and clever, so that the rich and clever of the future could use it to tax the poverty and stupidity of others. If I think I'm so damn clever, what's holding me back?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Inded the whole mess seems overwhelming at times but it seems important enough to fan the flame. Ultimately all we have is our own integrity and genuine curiousity. Perhaps the best thing one can do for the sick is to not be one of them. (As I brush off my halo and turn up my nose:)
DCLugi 2 years ago
Hope the bubble we create around us bursts soon..
minteko 2 years ago
I wouldn't wait up.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Very interesting!
You omitted mentioning that the Church also acts like a corporation to maximize profit and power and minimize loses and responsibility.
Jesus admonished believers against individual riches, but said nothing about corporations, so corps like the Knights Templar were strictly prohibited from owning anything as individuals, but as a corporation they were except from any vow of poverty. And so they became wealthy beyond imagining.
Adipatus 2 years ago
Individuals who murder individuals could be stoned or burned to death, but their corporate murderers would never be tried for murder.
I find that the religious often preach or commit violence with no remorse by shielding themselves behind their religious corporation: "I'm not the one saying you should die, it's the Lord of the Bible who commandeth me to kill you".
We are herd animals, so it's natural for people to justify any outrage saying, "the Bible says so, and all agree with the Bible".
Adipatus 2 years ago
Also, this is true of lynch mob mentality, even devoid of any religious or governmental context.
Perfectly decent and circumspect individuals who wouldn't think of killing a person, may feel compelled, entitled, and safe to do so when they feel surrounded by a crowd intent on murdering a targeted individual.
The same goes for wars: few people will take up arms against others, but feel justified in doing so if their not alone in doing so.
Adipatus 2 years ago
If "perfectly decent" individuals are compelled by a mob then I would have to revisit the definition of "decent".
If we are only herd animals then this whole debate is irrelevant.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Ah, yes, but i was talking about the BOOK, not the church.
The book says you pray in your own time (so youdont even have to, really, as long as you pretend like th ohters).
But u cud create a "code" of actions, which would result with eveyrone standing in 1 place.
Thats how th eohters od it.
PS - just out of interest, check out "Leonard Cohen - Manhatten Berlin" and the search "Cohen".
(I hope you arent a new yorker - lol)
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Yep, the ogvts basically work FOR the corporations. But the govt has osme powers becasue the peopel may resist or revolt. If thats the case, the corporations may give in, over some small issue.
In the UK, its called the "House of Lords".
Or, at least, all its memebrs woudl eb form the house of lords.
Theyve got t WELL wrapped up.
but they always have had. A Labout govt should get teh peopel more,and they will if you pressure them.
If not they wont. thats why cops march and protest,it works
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
excellent
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
That's kind of the exact opposite you preached not a long time ago, but anyways... good decision to leave the trail of constantly advocating corporations.
/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y
gnu11111 2 years ago
I think out of all the videos I've see, this is the one rather disagree with.
Corporations themselves are not necessarily violent, no do they necessarily require violence to maintain their existence. It's the interactions some have with governments that bring about the violence. They 'donate' to politicians who will increase their power beyond what exists for the majority of companies. See Disney's copyright BS, or Haliburton/KBR's business in Iraq for example.
JeffreyRodriguez 2 years ago
It's a symbiotic relationship. Law enforcement is the muscle for the corporations. The courts lean towards their desires. The military clears competitors out of the way. So yes, the corporations are not violent - they outsource that job to the government.
ONQproductions 2 years ago
Who exactly carries out the violence? The ones that actually use force. Aren't they the ones that a reasonable, ethical society would want to reduce?
DCLugi 2 years ago
Is the mob boss not responsible for the work of the hit man?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Not as much as the hit man.
DCLugi 2 years ago
He's still responsible. And he's the one who incentivizes the violence, not the hit man.
A reasonable, ethical society wouldn't ignore this.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Not ignore it but would see that the real threat is the physical injury from the people who carry out the violence. The mob boss already knows he's encouraging violence but the hit man is usually made to think that it's for some greater good.
DCLugi 2 years ago
I don't think hit men generally believe they're serving a greater good, but I think police and soldiers generally do... and they're the ones we're actually talking about.
Anyway, it's the mob boss' money and desire which together enable the hit man's violent action. W/o the mob boss, the hit man could not possibly exist.
Maybe the hit man DOES have some twisted ideology to justify his actions, but this ideology is not the driving force of his actions, but a rationalization for them.
lnd3005 2 years ago
See Cuba.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
I can guess at what you mean by this, but I'd rather not make a mistake in so doing. So, could you explain?
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yes. The Cuban independence movement was fuelled by the general populace feeling that they were being taken advantage of by large corporate interests including mafia operated organizations. In order to get a fairer share of their production, they confiscated properties they felt had been awarded to current owners through corrupt practices of the Batista government. Of course, many of these properties were owned by both American corporations and mobsters. Pressure was therefore exerted on (cont.)
1140Cecile 2 years ago
(cont.) the American government to impose embargoes on trade with this revolutionary government in the short term and work on methods to depose the new leader, Fidel Castro, and his government in the longer term in order to re-institute American financial control of the island country. Communism had already been established as a much feared financial system in the U.S. and, therefore, corporations would have no problem convincing the government to take whatever actions necessary against Cuba.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
Actually, i take it all back. They do give us history books, so we cant complain too much.
And everyne was fighting back in the day. Its how we survived. And a one world ogvt isnt os bad, as long as they arent bad.
Which makes me flip, right round, because i KNOW a lot of them are bad. Then again, they always have been. Then again, so what ?
Oh dear, im going orund and round again.
Gottta stop watching these vids, and fins some gardeinging ones.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
And they really are NOT your friends.
They are gangs of peopel with money, whos success depends on making more.
There are 100 of them and we have £99.
Not one of them wants ot eb the one who has NO money tomaorrw, so they fight like dogs.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
In one of the examples of corporations having exclusive rights he mentions patents and copyrights.
This is just not true. Any individual can obtain either of those. Copyrights being especially easy.
That being said I do agree that corporations socializing losses while privatizing profits is a massive distortion on the market. This practice is essentially punishing good companies. This can lead the evolution of companies in the wrong direction.
lambedan 2 years ago
They do get rights to most military things, whne they ocme avaible ot the cities.
For instance, internet, mobiles.
See how thats more important than say, your broom handle (whihc i agree, would be easy for you to copyright if you made a new type).
But we pay the govt to invent things, then they SELL them ot thier freemasonic families and friends, and we NEVER get ANY of the pie.
They get it ALL.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
They do get special treatment in local monopolies.
As far as inventions go, very few come from the government. The vast majority come from individuals either working on their own or for an R & D department.
In the US most government funding goes through a bid process and the government doesn't retain any rights on the IP unless its classified. Sometimes no bid contracts come up and those are just wrong!
Most IP surrounding internet and mobiles are owned by a large variety of corporations.
lambedan 2 years ago
ALL freemasonic.
But im not gonna argue, i gove up. There are more peopel who are happy in la la land, than there are living in hell (and occupying the same space), so im not gonna knock the system, any more.
It all works better than i could control it, and they have been doing it for centuries.
So im not gonna argue any more. Just accept that, if you do your best, MOST of you will be ok in the end.
It wont be great, but its better then fighting them.
Thats about the sum of my knowledge.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
I think you know they are not ALL part of any group, except humans (maybe, lol).
I don't really care to argue either.
I am engineer. I have invented methodologies, software, and devices. I have worked for companies designing state of the art technology. I know even more people who have invented stuff. There is no inventor conspiracy.
The freemasons is pretty much just a theistic fraternity. In case you haven't noticed many inventors are not very religious and sometimes even atheist.
lambedan 2 years ago
And there is no "goats head" on the European passport ?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
I dont know what this comment is about but it reeks of lazy eyed, drooling conspiracy theorists.
garvess 2 years ago
Whats worse than a conspiracy theroist? A drunk conspiracy theorist.
fucksatanism 2 years ago
It seems to me that the state doesn't produce violence but people who are violent produce the state. Gov/Corp/Religion are only the synthetic sugary icing on an otherwise poisoned cake. The violence actually comes from the people who carry it out, yes? If I start screaming "Go kill people and bring me their money" off of my balcony and some folks obey, who is the real threat?
DCLugi 2 years ago
No, the whole problem is that peopel who run the state, have the power to make decisions against the peopel who pay the state, for their own benefit.
After a little spiraling out of control, they try to enslave the populus, the populus kills them.
Then a fair form of rule is installed, but it still alows the govt power ot deceive and steal form the peopel. So they DO. Then they feel so powerful, thta they try to enslave the peopel. The peopel kill them.
A new govt is intslled, with power...
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago 2
Yes but what do you mean by "People who run the state have power" If no one enforced their decisions what power would they have?
DCLugi 2 years ago
If you want the shortest possible answer, it is thta the country is controlled through the freemasons network, and so ALL decisions are ultimately made by the heads of that OCCULT society.
The head in the UK is the duke of westminster, and its made him the RICHEST man in britain - £11Billion)
Its infiltration of the populus leaves us working til we are 70, and them retiring at 45 yrs.
And they wil get MUCH more pension and FREE healthcare.
At the end of it, they are free and we are SLAVES.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
You're still missing my point. In order for anyone to "control" someone else by force there must be some use of violence. Does the Duke of Westminster hold a gun to someones head and say work til you're 70?
DCLugi 2 years ago
No, but his enforcers do. For that, they receive a share of the goods.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yes, his enforcers. They are the scary ones. Any madman can say "Chop up those babies becasue I have a fancy suit" but it's the people that follow that who are the threat.
DCLugi 2 years ago
His enforcers are scary, but not as much as the man in the fancy suit, whose actions provide incentive for violence, incentive which would otherwise be absent. See the other thread.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Yes but the enforcer who will use violence for an incentive is the real threat. The man in the fancy suit is evil for providing it but he is not an actual threat. In fact some religious enforcers follow an imaginary man in a fancy suit.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Deprived of the fancy suit, the enforcers would disperse to other lines of work. Deprived of his enforcers, the fancy suit would buy new ones.
lnd3005 2 years ago
Okay, I think I see where you're going.
If no one in the world were willing to be an enforcer, the fancy suit could not buy any.
However, in such a world I do not think it likely anyone would be willing to be a "fancy suit," or a violence-incentivizer.
lnd3005 2 years ago