Well, behind your whole philosophical explanation, what I feel you are getting at, is the need for autonomy. I call that a need, that each person has. Self-determination. One of the most powerful and most important need that a human being has. The freedom of choice. This is my view on this: There is nobody, who could ever take my freedom of choice away. :-) It isn't possible.
I'm a wirter, and one thing i sometimes struggle with is... are my stories real ? I create these worlds in my head full of people.. lots of struggles and pain.. and I think, on some level of existence, are these worlds and people I create real ? Is there really someone cursing my name for his misfortune, or someone begging me to change what happened to them ? Am i their god ? It doesn't bother me when my creations don't believe in me, LOL.
If I was going to debate Stefbot on this argument, I would say
In michigan, we have a problem with alien fish destroying the natural ecosystem (well call it seasnake parasites). If you look at the problem fish by fish, you would never see the destruction it would seem like any other lake. but if you take a look at the seasnake parasite on the whole, you can measure the destruction of the ecosystem.
so all though "ecosystems" dont exist, when you take fish, plants, water, together they represent healthy consequences.. therefor we create a concept "ecosystem".
Though the premise of this video might seem obvious, many people I know of are stuck in a collectivist mindset of "the people" want this and "the Americans" want this. This video merely provides a good example to use when talking/debating with these people.
While this is a great video. I can't honestly believe people need this explaining to them. Not only is it apparent in any situation you conceive it, but I'n pretty sure i've independentally consdiered it, so it can't be the ost testing of conceptual topics.
Obviously, the government is comprise of a group of people. But, most people in our society think them as a higher, further importance of people, than us as a public. Why is that? Why should I "kiss-up" to these type of people, who are no different than I? Or look up to them as god-like statures? They have penises and vaginas, so does the public. Very blunt, direct, and offensive, but true.
nicely put. some time ago, watching the concerted onslaught on the 'ron paul revolution' in the media etc, it actually occurred to me that the constant social preference and selection of a disposition in people that make them develop a leaning towards 'power' - ie violence and control over other people,
we might be witnessing the evolution and 'birth' of a new predatory human subspecies that might in time, when alienated to a point of no return, eliminate the species that gave birth to it. if not effectively checked and counterbalanced soon. funny idea?
one of which could be incapable forever to even grasp, let alone aspire to the concept of freedom; maybe there even is, or will be, a hereditary genetical manifestation of such a mental illness or deficiency.
In this case, you won't have any reliable central authority with things like, omg LAWS and law enforcement. You'd have private yahoos who can afford to buy security and enforce their will on you anyway, but in a way much, much worse and unregulated than any liberal democracy.
In fact, the international community is yet another great example of anarchy in history. That doesn't work either. Those who benefit would be those who marshaled wealth for self-defense and power projection.
And in the absence of a government that is accountable to the people, you have factions that aren't. Are you really so dense that you can't comprehend what the fuck would happen if you suddenly eliminate the central authority? Are you really so dumb that you think everyone will just hold fucking hands and sing god damn koom-bai-ya? Absurd.
You will absolutely get the free for all playground I outlined. Government won't go away, people won't get along. You will just get shittier governments.
The best example of what anarchy would actually result in is mirrored in the schoolyard sans any authorities. Let to their own devices, you would get factions of bullies and powerful personalities. Except in real life, the bullies got guns and are often wealthy. The more wealth and power you start from, the more of an advantage you will accrue in an anarchic society until you are powerful enough to enforce your will as a de facto warlord. More money can buy bigger weapons than others.
@Technocratic "The best example of what anarchy would actually result in is mirrored in the schoolyard sans any authorities. Let to their own devices, you would get factions of bullies and powerful personalities."
In which case the children would leave the school.
Anarchy doesn't work precisely because it assumes fundamentally flawed premises about human nature. In a situation like Somalia, if you eliminate a reliable central authority, you get many more factions. Government won't magically disappear with everyone living in harmony. You just get worse local governments controlled by something akin to feudal lords and gangs. He who has the most money and power will dominate the lesser groups.
This voluntary stuff sounds nice only superficially.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nonsense. Somalia is a great example of what happens in reality. Anarchic theory is irrelevant, given it assumes unrealistic, false premises about human nature. Anarchy assumes that everyone will act responsibly and that, when the state withers away (ironically like Communism), everyone will be nice to each other and hold hands singing songs voluntarily.
In reality, in the magic disappearance of the government will absolutely lead to warlordism and feudal factions
@Technocratic Such things happen due to the ignorance of the mass, now we have a problem a rational mind will ask about a solution, or do we just follow a best fit policy interested of evolving society in possitive manner? Is this ignorant paraniod subservent greed based anti-social system the best we primative apes can come up with?
The reason why the government has the right or the ability to use force is that we don't want to live in a society that's a free for all. The government is a tool: it has utility. The right is arbitrary and artificial. There is no inherent right in the people who make up the government.
An anarchy is not a practical system, and it would devolve into a fractional, feudalistic system anyway, just as it did in Somalia. We give up some rights and freedoms to the government to preserve others.
Somalia = collapsed third-world government, not a manifestation of anarchistic theory. It didn't devolve, as it was largely like that even when there was a state.
You can have your social contract, but don't presume to speak for me. My life isn't yours to give away.
If it seems hypocritical it is simply because it is reactionary to the state of nature and not reactionary to a pure state of reason. If you remove the foundation and rest your philosophy on a state of state of nature you will find that human nature is not exclusively conformable to reason.
It is clear that in this video you are confusing the state of nature with the state of reason. We all exist within a state of nature but our ability to use reason opposes this natural state, which is both internal and external. It is a requirement that some foundation be established to set reason upon, a uniform set of principles to be established.
He is not confusing anything. Why do we need a state to do what you said (foundation of principles etc etc)? That doesn't make sense. The state doesn't stop me from going out and killing someone, I stop myself because I have a brain. What does the state have to do with moral principles? It is absolutely violent, irrational, corrupt and immoral. A foundation can be a mutual agreement between two private parties, for example.
Defining properties within the people for authorities is intriguing. I suggest this: use the method buddhists use, let the people choose, but really choose, not just narrow down the choices for two sides of the same coin "you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right"; but let the choices stem from the people themselves while splitting and dividing authorities around the country as much as possible.
Good video Stef very informative I hope the youtubers have the attention span to sit through it. The only bad part is I am now blind from your forehead.
If no one among us is capable of governing ourselves, then who among us is capable of governing someone else..?
Antilli 2 months ago
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell
OneFalseMessiah 5 months ago
Well, behind your whole philosophical explanation, what I feel you are getting at, is the need for autonomy. I call that a need, that each person has. Self-determination. One of the most powerful and most important need that a human being has. The freedom of choice. This is my view on this: There is nobody, who could ever take my freedom of choice away. :-) It isn't possible.
dietermaas 1 year ago
You put it so well, I will have to try to watch all your videos.
BrutusCass 1 year ago
Are concepts = Definitions?
jayeshchoudhari 1 year ago
I'm a wirter, and one thing i sometimes struggle with is... are my stories real ? I create these worlds in my head full of people.. lots of struggles and pain.. and I think, on some level of existence, are these worlds and people I create real ? Is there really someone cursing my name for his misfortune, or someone begging me to change what happened to them ? Am i their god ? It doesn't bother me when my creations don't believe in me, LOL.
But, just how real are mental constructs ?
nate556 2 years ago
If I was going to debate Stefbot on this argument, I would say
In michigan, we have a problem with alien fish destroying the natural ecosystem (well call it seasnake parasites). If you look at the problem fish by fish, you would never see the destruction it would seem like any other lake. but if you take a look at the seasnake parasite on the whole, you can measure the destruction of the ecosystem.
combatleague 2 years ago
@combatleague
so all though "ecosystems" dont exist, when you take fish, plants, water, together they represent healthy consequences.. therefor we create a concept "ecosystem".
combatleague 2 years ago
Though the premise of this video might seem obvious, many people I know of are stuck in a collectivist mindset of "the people" want this and "the Americans" want this. This video merely provides a good example to use when talking/debating with these people.
andrewh817 2 years ago
While this is a great video. I can't honestly believe people need this explaining to them. Not only is it apparent in any situation you conceive it, but I'n pretty sure i've independentally consdiered it, so it can't be the ost testing of conceptual topics.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
The problem is that the right CD can't say that they don't want the left CD or any other CD as government...
gustavonarez 2 years ago
I agree with you about the government, and their rights.
However, the people in the government may say "well you elected me, therefore it is my right".
drew335533 2 years ago
They said this was an internet cult but I'm not having any fun yet...
Maybe something with animals, or little baby animals...
People like animals...
9ideal 3 years ago
Obviously, the government is comprise of a group of people. But, most people in our society think them as a higher, further importance of people, than us as a public. Why is that? Why should I "kiss-up" to these type of people, who are no different than I? Or look up to them as god-like statures? They have penises and vaginas, so does the public. Very blunt, direct, and offensive, but true.
doctorofghetto 3 years ago
might either already have led to, or in time could lead to, the separation of the human species into two distinct subspecies,
cmoleon 3 years ago
nicely put. some time ago, watching the concerted onslaught on the 'ron paul revolution' in the media etc, it actually occurred to me that the constant social preference and selection of a disposition in people that make them develop a leaning towards 'power' - ie violence and control over other people,
cmoleon 3 years ago
Look for the book The Authoritarians. Analyzes the issue in detail.
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
we might be witnessing the evolution and 'birth' of a new predatory human subspecies that might in time, when alienated to a point of no return, eliminate the species that gave birth to it. if not effectively checked and counterbalanced soon. funny idea?
cmoleon 3 years ago
one of which could be incapable forever to even grasp, let alone aspire to the concept of freedom; maybe there even is, or will be, a hereditary genetical manifestation of such a mental illness or deficiency.
cmoleon 3 years ago
In this case, you won't have any reliable central authority with things like, omg LAWS and law enforcement. You'd have private yahoos who can afford to buy security and enforce their will on you anyway, but in a way much, much worse and unregulated than any liberal democracy.
In fact, the international community is yet another great example of anarchy in history. That doesn't work either. Those who benefit would be those who marshaled wealth for self-defense and power projection.
Technocratic 4 years ago
And in the absence of a government that is accountable to the people, you have factions that aren't. Are you really so dense that you can't comprehend what the fuck would happen if you suddenly eliminate the central authority? Are you really so dumb that you think everyone will just hold fucking hands and sing god damn koom-bai-ya? Absurd.
You will absolutely get the free for all playground I outlined. Government won't go away, people won't get along. You will just get shittier governments.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Just cause you say something don't make it true.
drew335533 2 years ago
The best example of what anarchy would actually result in is mirrored in the schoolyard sans any authorities. Let to their own devices, you would get factions of bullies and powerful personalities. Except in real life, the bullies got guns and are often wealthy. The more wealth and power you start from, the more of an advantage you will accrue in an anarchic society until you are powerful enough to enforce your will as a de facto warlord. More money can buy bigger weapons than others.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Indeed. And guess who's got the most money? Yes, the institutions that grab 50% of my income. They got awesome WMDs too!
StrafingMoose 4 years ago
@Technocratic "The best example of what anarchy would actually result in is mirrored in the schoolyard sans any authorities. Let to their own devices, you would get factions of bullies and powerful personalities."
In which case the children would leave the school.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 8 months ago
Anarchy doesn't work precisely because it assumes fundamentally flawed premises about human nature. In a situation like Somalia, if you eliminate a reliable central authority, you get many more factions. Government won't magically disappear with everyone living in harmony. You just get worse local governments controlled by something akin to feudal lords and gangs. He who has the most money and power will dominate the lesser groups.
This voluntary stuff sounds nice only superficially.
Technocratic 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nonsense. Somalia is a great example of what happens in reality. Anarchic theory is irrelevant, given it assumes unrealistic, false premises about human nature. Anarchy assumes that everyone will act responsibly and that, when the state withers away (ironically like Communism), everyone will be nice to each other and hold hands singing songs voluntarily.
In reality, in the magic disappearance of the government will absolutely lead to warlordism and feudal factions
Technocratic 4 years ago
a) Do you know how many governments are arming the warring factions?
b) Anarchism is an outgrowth of secular rationality - does the Somalia culture strike you as either secular or rational?
stefbot 4 years ago 15
@Technocratic Such things happen due to the ignorance of the mass, now we have a problem a rational mind will ask about a solution, or do we just follow a best fit policy interested of evolving society in possitive manner? Is this ignorant paraniod subservent greed based anti-social system the best we primative apes can come up with?
BrutusCass 1 year ago
@BrutusCass *Instead (not interested (got distracted while typing) ;-)
BrutusCass 1 year ago
@Technocratic We now have a living laboratory with the Free State Project and the Shire Society Declaration--- we will see.
luvhafiz 1 year ago
The reason why the government has the right or the ability to use force is that we don't want to live in a society that's a free for all. The government is a tool: it has utility. The right is arbitrary and artificial. There is no inherent right in the people who make up the government.
An anarchy is not a practical system, and it would devolve into a fractional, feudalistic system anyway, just as it did in Somalia. We give up some rights and freedoms to the government to preserve others.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Somalia = collapsed third-world government, not a manifestation of anarchistic theory. It didn't devolve, as it was largely like that even when there was a state.
You can have your social contract, but don't presume to speak for me. My life isn't yours to give away.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 15
If it seems hypocritical it is simply because it is reactionary to the state of nature and not reactionary to a pure state of reason. If you remove the foundation and rest your philosophy on a state of state of nature you will find that human nature is not exclusively conformable to reason.
shjelleg 4 years ago
Interesting - you might want to have a look at my intro to philosophy series, I try to tackle more there... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
It is clear that in this video you are confusing the state of nature with the state of reason. We all exist within a state of nature but our ability to use reason opposes this natural state, which is both internal and external. It is a requirement that some foundation be established to set reason upon, a uniform set of principles to be established.
shjelleg 4 years ago
He is not confusing anything. Why do we need a state to do what you said (foundation of principles etc etc)? That doesn't make sense. The state doesn't stop me from going out and killing someone, I stop myself because I have a brain. What does the state have to do with moral principles? It is absolutely violent, irrational, corrupt and immoral. A foundation can be a mutual agreement between two private parties, for example.
lukeev 4 years ago
It's great that we can find such useful stuff on youtube although they are like a nail in the haystack.
shifteh110 5 years ago
Great. Society = human network(s). This mode of thought reveals the error in collectivist assertions.
BrightAnarchist 5 years ago
Defining properties within the people for authorities is intriguing. I suggest this: use the method buddhists use, let the people choose, but really choose, not just narrow down the choices for two sides of the same coin "you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right"; but let the choices stem from the people themselves while splitting and dividing authorities around the country as much as possible.
shiftloads 5 years ago
Right, that's one of the main principles of a rational philosophy - a good day to mention it ('voting' day in the US!)
stefbot 5 years ago
great Video :)
ParadoxVampire 5 years ago
Haha, keep going, it gets even brighter! ;)
stefbot 5 years ago
Good video Stef very informative I hope the youtubers have the attention span to sit through it. The only bad part is I am now blind from your forehead.
willyswear 5 years ago
It comes pre-waxed every video!
lukeev 4 years ago