I do not care under which type of economic system I live under, be it communism, or capitalism, or resource based such as the venus project as long as Stefan says no force is used. But I just cannot put my head around one concept regarding using force. I am open minded as one can tell by my first sentence so someone please explain to me how one can have property rights in a world without property rights, such as a venus project world, without using force. I am only asking. Thank you!
I purchased most of his books. They are well worth the read, and you get a hard-copy which you can pass on to other people who are ready to grow intellectually.
@MrDorkusMaximus In a previous comment I said "Yep. Laughable video". I should have quoted the comment to which I was replying. I meant "Laughable video..." in reply to the video at /watch?v=0HfWRKP4d-4". Sorry for the confusion.
Love all your ideas and points. You made me a volunteerist but I wish you would stop talking about global warming. There are voluntary ways to deal with it should it be a real threat (which it surely is). I don't know if virtue is enough without well established knowledge, and the logic/reasoning in your approach to global warming is so starkly in contrast with the clarity and simplicity that you achieve with true logic/reason in every other area of thought that you are far from knowledge.
The "deregulation" that happened was not the removal of all regulations, but the removal of specific regulations that reduced corporate profits that where then replaced by regulations that insulated the corporations from loss and competition ie. "to big to fail" It was the removal of consumer protection regulations combined with added corporate protection regulations that caused the problem.
@RationalBullets It is not two different possibilities. It is two different forces (among others) both working within the state that will either or both together ultimately destroy the state. The state is not sustainable, it will self destruct. Exactly how it does so, is almost immaterial. The debt cannot increase infinitely, something the state does not understand, and that is just one of the things that can cause it's collapse.
@RationalBullets There is no contradiction. Stefan believes that the way a free society to arise is for the state to destroy itself though it's own ignorant machinations. Then the people, witness to the failure of the state, will be ready for the message of freedom from the state. Stefan might be right, if there are enough people aware of the philosophy of freedom prior to that point. That is why he has devoted his life to promulgating this philosophy.
You are a stupid man if you keep denying the reality of global warming and of men's causal role in a very substantial part of it. You are being willfully ignorant. YOU have been informed of credible sources to the SCIENCE, like skepticalscience . If you keep bashing on this, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot, and go from a credible authority to an ideologist/propagandist which is willing to build a philosophy over lies. Needless to say, that will not be a solid philosophy.
@dakshinamurti So far the world has done virtually nothing to actually combat CO2 emissions. Why? Because it will cost a lot of money. In a world devoid of the parasite of government, society would be vastly wealthier, and individuals would be much more able to invest in those things which make them feel better about their environmental impact. In fact it was government which stopped the development of nuclear power which if they hadn't, would have preempted any human influence.
@Panpiper Totally agree with you! We don't need the state to combat greenhouse gas emissions... It's actually been one of the prime contributors through the defense sector. It just pisses me off that Molyneux is denying established scientific knowledge for ideology... It's not hard to figure out that recognizing the reality of man made global warming is not incompatible with anti-statism, on the contrary, they totally support eachother.
@dakshinamurti The only effective solution to man made global warming (to the extent that it is there), is for energy systems that do not emit carbon to become cheaper than those systems that do emit carbon. No amount of government force will change the reality for most of the world, that simply cannot afford more expensive systems. A stateless society, being vastly richer, could afford to make the investments necessary to reduce the costs of alternate energy systems.
@Anonymous247n I just checked it out and left comments. It is a fantasy, motivated by an incorrect prognostication, and relying on a 'magic wand' of infinite wealth to be able to afford to build a supposedly 'perfect' centrally planned society. I was masturbating to very similar fantasies when I was 16. I have learned a bit more about reality since then.
@Panpiper Well we can stick to the reality we have or change it. I do think it would be nearly impossible to find enough people to change the world into a society like in the venus project but it would be much better society. Never give up your dreams, but maybe we have to get to them step by step? Still, all the venus project stands for could become reality, if only the people would want it. I see you are commenting a lot here, what's your opinion on what should happen in the world then?
@Anonymous247n You don't create a world like the Venus Project by getting enough people to 'believe' in it. It is an infinite wealth fantasy. All sorts of fantasies can be imagined given infinite wealth. Why not ring worlds and star travel? The fundamental problems of the world are lack of freedom and lack of wealth. And the best way to solve the lack of wealth problem, is to create greater freedom, not greater control. Socialist utopias have been tried in the past to truly dystopic results.
@LJPpro There was some hyperbole there. The US special forces were shipped several billion dollars 'cash' (actual printed US dollars) with which to purchase compliance from various factions within Iraq. 90% of 'that' is unaccounted for.
Stef says he is against freedom of using fraud against people. Should fraud be opposed by violence or by ostracism? Is lying or non-truthing or truth speculating fraud? I truth speculate a lot. I just start defending speculative statements, to find out how far I get, just to find out what their truth value is. This is what the Internet is all about and therefor it is full of crackpot nonsense. Some people oppose anonymity for this reason.. Personally I just let my schizofrenic self run free...
Yeah, and the worst thing that can happen is that everybody will ostracise 'me'. Actually I don't think it is insane to have inconsistent idea's in you head, both competing for the truth status. It is just like the free market. Is the market insane? Anyway, in the real world (outside of the anonymity of the Internet) people want consistent people, so you have to present only one view.
@alalelalex No, more can happen. The alternative to voluntaryism is tyranny, statism, the system we have now where individuals really don't matter. If there's a demand for a solution to a social problem, there would be answers in the free market. In the current system, politicians let the lobbyists write the laws. Hey, that can happen in a voluntary society, but it doesn't mean we can't just opt out of the system. A state is a monopoly over a geographical area.
@alalelalex I am not a legal scholar, but fraud in this sense would likely require non-truth telling to lead to the deprivation of another person's liberty or property. If it does not, it would not be fraud. For it to be a crime, it would require intent on the part of the person committing the crime. Otherwise there might be the possibility of restitution for damages in a civil suit.
A few weeks ago I think I heart Stef say that he fiercely opposes the zeitgeist movement during some radio interview. Isn't the zeitgeist movement more or less the same as the venus project. Well, these anarcho-socialists, usually endorse some objective value theory, like the labor theory of value. The intent is to enforce you to accept some 'objective' price for certain goods. They advocate democracy in matters of who controls what. They will enforce it on you if you happen to live near them..,
@alalelalex I am sure there are individuals who subscribe to both the Zeitgeist and the Venus Project nonsense. But both are nonsense born out of a lack of understanding about economics. Zeitgeist is particularly egregious to me, as it actually gets about half of it's information quite right, and then veers massively off course into 'la la' land. People wanting to understand the truth of money and banking should go to mises(dot)org, not Zeitgeist.
Albert Pikes Morals and Dogma ! 3 world wars ... the first 2 are complete and the third is in the making, There are more than just one or two reasons for war.
@waksibra Yes, I often have to go to great pains to explain how libertarians are 'not' automatically conspiracy theorists. Radicals of all stripes do tend to be attracted to other radical movements. It is a sad statement about our world, that liberty should be a radical concept.
Initiation of force can not be negotiated, because, if I will have to choose between starvation or violence, I will choose violence. If violence can give me more power, I will initiate force. I can not see the reason, why not? Ethics? Morale? Not sure if I need them.
@Nomels Enlightened self interest. If I see my neighbor initiating violence at every opportunity, to his own benefit and to the detriment of others, I will recognize him as a threat. And if I do so, I am just as capable of violence when my security is threatened. Opportunistically initiating violence is 'not' a viable survival strategy in a free society. "An armed society is a polite society."
@Nomels I disagree. But only the future will prove either of us right.
I am capable of extreme violence (many years of martial arts), but I have never assaulted anyone. I also do not feel any fear of my neighbors, even though they may have guns. I am free, and so are they, except for the tyranny of the state. Absence of state does not mean people run amok. Just because 'you' are capable of violence does not mean others will be passive in the face of it.
@Panpiper This what I am saying - since there will always be willing to use violence and concentrate power (become state), the free society is not possible. It is a dillusionary concept... I happen to love here like everyone else... but it is daydreaming.
Most anarcho-(insert rejection of capitalism token word here) are just plain socialists/communists pushing the same crap as they were prior to the event that proved them wrong, 1991 (Soviet Union collapse). By the way, anyone knows who bailed out the USSR back then ?
The whole bribery 'scandal' (we're gonna need a new type of ' ' symbol to cover triple entendre) is reminiscent of the LLFF/Monte Kwinter/Privacy Commisioner BS. The LLFF is Longitudinal Labour Force File- a project that collected over 2000 discreet bits of info regarding every Canadian appearing near the end of the Federal Liberals in the early 2000s. As a result of public outrage at the Gestapo Dossiers compiled on Canucks by CSIS, Monte Kwinter was appointed Privacy Commissioner! Howdthatgo?
Nuclear war wont occur because of nuclear deterrence. If one country launches a nuke the other will launch one back, so they are basically attacking themselves.
I think my favorite "deregulation" myth regards the repeal of the Glass-Steagall. This figurative edifice to the halcyon days of the Great Depression "reformers" and its subsequent repeal is frequently quoted by bloggers as the point where everything began going to shit and invariably conclude more "regulation" is needed, because hey---let's face it: the people driving misallocation of capital should not be the same ones that pay you absolute DICK on your savings account.
Stef - You mentioned romans. I think the romans put their most experienced soldiers in the front line. This means high casualties amongst those due to retire to their 5 acre plot. Saved the state having to give too much land away to their retirees.
Today's empire is unlikely to tolerate the growing numbers of old (useless eaters) either.
Well, I'd guess as a general rule, the USA gov will not attack a gov who has nukes - so korea is out. They won't attack Iran cos iran hasn't a weak enough army. (something like that anyway) It's also not worth worrying about cos if USA gov wants to have a war, they'll find enough mad statists to go and kill unarmed brown people. There aint much you can do about it as an individual. (When the general market has had enough, it will say so).
@Marino6993 What idea? The one that has been proven by market mechanisms over and over again? Not really "debunk-able". When lamp oil became too expensive entrepeneurs came up with a more economical solution. When the market is strained by resources it reacts. Markets do not strip resources clean. Never in history have free market principles destroyed an ecosystem or completely stripped non-renewable resources. I challenge you to find one example.
@Marino6993 The idea that profit motive seeks infinite growth is a common fallacy perpetuated by socialists. Since I understand you're a socialist I'll make it simple. Profit motive has it's disadvantages as well. When you seek a profit you have to have a market to sell to. When the market deminishes because supply has driven price up you search for a more profitable product. We've seen this cycle innumerable times in the past. Something more profitable and sustainable will pop up.
Anarcho-socialism (or socialism itself) is an economic fantasy debunked by Ludwig von Mises with the exposition of the Socialist Calculation Problem. No socialist can answer that one. Basically anarchy is not a fantasy because political power concentration -- violence -- is a choice, and we can choose not to use violence. Property, on the other cannot be forgone any more than you can decide to stop eating, breathing or drinking and expect to keep living. Socialism is reality evasion.
@deepfriedsammich I agree in general, but small communes could theoretically operate on a socialistic basis, as long as it was voluntary, and they were surrounded by market forces. And families, of course, are socialistic in many ways. :)
@stefbot Are they really socialistic or communistic, Stephan? Even in the most "benevolently democratic" commune instances that I've hear about, from people who lived in them, even liked them, the decisions about material goods and services and production were made, not by general democracy "spontaneously" but by one or two people, or a small comittee of the most motivated. Real socialism it isn't, simply because the real root of production is the INDIVIDUAL mind and you can't socialize that.
@stefbot Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. By extending the hand of kindness to neighbors with the knowledge that they'd return the favor, correct?
If property rights include the right of exclusion, and we're willing to extend those rights equally to 6.5 billion or so potential landowners in a world of unequal resource distribution, then we have simply created a new arena for conflict. Don't you think it's time to stop building these alters to sacrifice our children? Certainly you haven't forgotten that a "scheme is not a vision"?
@stefbot Interesting. You say you're okay with people setting up "anarcho-socialist" systems as long as they don't initiate force against you and let you have your system.
And what would keep them from doing that?
What would keep the socialists from saying "our economy doesn't work because of those capitalists over there who are ruining it with their competition, so let's go get their factories by force"?
There won't be any rules which all people are subject to right?
@Sam26100 I suggest you listen to Stef's podcasts on Dispute Resolution Organizations, which would be free market entities that exist to protect its clients against such actions as you described.
@Sam26100 Stef also covers this. Gang warfare is very expensive, and would necessitate a large rate increase for the DRO customers. This would make the aggressive DRO far less competitive, and it will lose customers. This and other potential problems are addressed in "Practical Anarchy" which is available for free on the freedomain radio website.
@StatelessRich Sure it's expensive, but people aren't only motivated by money. What if DRO A is a Christian DRO and is 10 times bigger than the Atheist DRO B, so DRO A wants to throw a woman in jail because she had an abortion and DRO B tries to defend her and DRO A gets tired of debating (as christians do easily because they're not big on thinking about ideas), and decides to just use force against DRO B since it is much smaller. Sure DRO A might have some casualties but so did the crusades..
@StatelessRich Your answer pre-supposes that all people have the general worldview that you or Stefan Molyneux do. Maybe you need to take some time and go around talk to people who aren't part of your freedomain radio group and see just how irrational and self-destructive people can be. People will risk their lives in knife fights over a slur or if somebody "looked at me funny" as one thug once said when he was asked why he killed a guy in my neighbourhood.
@Sam26100 Again, please read through the section in Stefan's book Practical Anarchy. He covers everything you've mentioned here. You can read the pdf at freedomainradio (dot) com.
@Sam26100 Because "those capitalists over there" would have security contracts with people able to stop that kind of aggression. Being free does not mean being passive and unable to defend one's self. I expect most neighborhoods would probably have the equivalent of a neighborhood militia club house, with mutual defense contracts with other nearby neighborhoods, just as one possible example.
@Panpiper I don't see the difference between this system and a government. I wouldn't be able to live as a capitalist in the midst of anarcho-socialists would I? I would be overwhelmed by them and would have to either leave or suffer their tyranny. Just as you have the right to leave a country if you dont' like it's laws
I'm for the objectivist voluntarily funded government, and if Chomsky and his group of morons come to me and say "we don't agree" I'll say: go start your own country
@Sam26100 They would have no authority to force anything on you. The only way they could have their society is if they were to legitimately purchase their own land and then create their society there. 'You' would have no authority to impede them on their land. But it is 'their' land, not yours. On 'your' land, they have no authority over you.
@Panpiper Now you're committing the mistake that anarchists are far too prone to do:
I understand that in a DRO system people will tend to move toward the areas where the laws which dominate reflect their own values and hence eventually you might have different "camps" morally and legally speaking... however if you are trying to tel me that I can live say as a capitalist in an area where socialists are 90% of the population, what defence do I have? They have no "authority" according to WHOM?
@Panpiper .... I.E if 90% of the people in my local area believe in egalitarianism and "income distribution" and I believe in strict individual rights (which logically lead to a free market) what's to stop them from initiating force against me and forcing me to obey their laws and tax me? my DRO will be much smaller so as soon as they become zealous enough to start violence (especially if I have a lot of wealth to plunder) it becomes an issue of "who's gang is larger and more intimidating"
@Sam26100 I think what you are failing to grasp is that laws are not 'geographic' in an anarchist society. There are private property rights and contracts. No one has the right to use 'force' to impose anything on you, period. In short 'you' are responsible for your own defense, and you contract for insurance. But I am not the right person to defend this concept, as I am a minarchist (libertarian socialist actually), not an anarchist. Others are more competent to debate this side of things.
@Panpiper "nobody has the right to use 'force' to impose anything on you, period"
Again, according to WHOM? maybe you don't think this way but let's say a DRO ran by and patronized by egalitarians who believe it is moral to seize wealth by force from those who have more of it, outnumber by far the number of free-marketeers in an area which is in their local reach. WHO is going to tell them they can't use force? their morals aren't yours. Their only concern is: "can we get away with it"
@Panpiper I am not saying that there will be a "geographic territory" that is drawn on a map and specified, but in the town I currently live I'd say about 95% of people are Christians and maybe 5% myself included are Atheists.
I don't think jailing a woman for having an abortion in her first trimester is justice, but 95% of the people around here would agree if such a law was proposed.... so if a woman did have an abortion the only thing that would protect her is if she ran away from town
@Sam26100 The law would not affect her unless she had consented to it. If a gang of statists attempted to impose a state upon a free society, people near and far would recognize them for the threat they are and cooperate to nip them in the bud. Their imposition of force, their theft and willingness to murder in their pursuit, would be very naked and obvious. In an existing state, people do not resist because they are powerless. In rational anarchy, I dare say the nipping would be rather severe.
@Panpiper "the law would not affect her unless she had consented to it"
Umm... what if the 95% of the town's population say "screw this, we know what she did was murder and her tiny secular DRO is just a small percentage of annoying people who disagree with our morals, so let's get our pitchforks and such and eliminate this atheist infestation"
WHO is going to say "wait, you can't do this"?
Remember, statism doesn't happen in one big move, it works by very gradual intrusions on freedom
@Sam26100 "statism doesn't happen in one big move, it works by very gradual intrusions on freedom"
And that is why it would be opposed. Not just the 5% of people around her, but neighboring communities and organizations would recognize the cancer in their midst and respond appropriately. What that community should and likely would do is to buy her out, such that she could move to a more congenial community. If the community 'as a whole' agreed, that would be their prerogative.
@Panpiper "the neighboring communities and organizations would recognize the cancer in their midst"
If you believe that then you should have no problem with the Objectivist, constitutionally limited government which doesn't tax people and is funded voluntarily. I mean the main objection we get from anarchists is: "eventually the government will find a way to begin using force"
Well according to you people are so wise that they'd stop it in it's tracks so what are you worried about?
@Sam26100 Actually there is a massive difference between a minarchist state that takes an infinitesimal nibble at a time out of fundamental liberty, and an absolutely stateless society. Any imposition upon liberty, any at all, is likely to be quite glaring given an absolute lack of government. But where a government already exists, constraints by a constitution are always slightly vague, and within that vagary lies the peril.
@Panpiper Whoa whoa, who said I'm a miniarchist? I'm not for a "smaller government" I am for re-defining what government's role is completely from every other government that's existed in history...
Secondly, you seem stuck on this idea that only governments initiate force against people. This is very foolish.
Look I share your hatred of the state, I know all of the reasons you're against it trust me but it is NOT true that people who aren't a "government" never initiate force
@Panpiper ...Besides, the lies which the government uses in order to seize power (mandatory taxation and welfare is good for getting rid of poverty is one of those) can just as easily be initiated and enforced by groups such as socialistic worker's groups, unions and other such gangs.
Collectivized pressure groups and gangs can just as easily demand that everybody pay a certain small portion of their income in order to "help the poor" and so their power will grow a little bit at a time
@deepfriedsammich that's rediculous, every animal aside for humans eats, drinks, and breathes, and none of them own property. and just as it is possible for you not to own a boat, it is also possible not to own anything at all. people do choose to own property just as they choose to use violence.
@MrJosephMarzullo well we ARE animals. and your thinking is the same as slave owners who justified thier use of force against another human on the grounds that africans are inferior.
@samlevla ha ha ha. Actually, it was the STATES that enslaved the africans, who institutionalized slavery. Without the laws backing it up, there wouldn't have been slavery in 'The South'... so you can blame the big government you love so much. Animals aren't sentient. Can they hold a conversation? Are you a vegan? If not, you're a hypocrite. If you haven't always been a vegan, you might as well be a cannibal! What about plants? Don't they have feelings? You murderer
1.yes the state enabled slavery, but without people willingly participating in the slave trade it wouldn't have existed either
2.i don't love the state i am an anarchist
3.i undestand sentience to be the ability to feel or percieve which would make animals sentient beings. if you define it as being able to hold a conversation then they would not be sentient as they cannot hold a conversation
@samlevla It may be an argument too large to have on a YouTube page, but it is not ridiculous. First, unlike animals, human beings must use reason to produce and acquire sustenance. Second, animals are limited to the physical strengths of their bodies when competing for resources; human beings are limited only by imagination, knowledge, and access to the capital base and the division of labor network. Property is inherent to our nature as reasoning, sapient creatures.
@deepfriedsammich property is really only inherent to the economic systems we've established. reason is required not because it is our nature but because using physical strengths to attain resources is more dificult in most situations. taking the position that economic systems should remain because it is within our nature to have them is like saying we should keep having wars as it is part of our nature ragardless of the destruction it causes.
@Marino6993 Okay, so you're all for abolishing the state and letting people live free....but what if someone in your ideal world wants to use money of some kind? Are you going to use force to stop him?
@lordthawkeye Real money is silver and gold and other things we give value in our life, and it is an equal exchange between agreeing parties. I'll take that if I can use it and give you a fair exchange of goods or services for it. The Fiat money is just me giving you a debt note that has no value whatsoever unless you can make the person who created it pay. It's a promise to pay without any real value backing it up and that is the problem with our economy.
Great video Stef! American's will to race to the polls in November & throw all those PRETEND moderates out. Of course we'll promptly replace them with PRETEND conservatives. With every election I hear people talking about "taking their country back" & now they're talking that trash again. This government is CORPORATE OWNED, CONTROLLED & CORRUPT. The problems simply CAN'T be solved by voting, it's much too late for that. If the average American had any idea as to how ENSLAVED they really are.....
I agree with you about letting anarcho-commies do their own thing, but, in almost any discussion I've personally had with them, when pressed about whether or not they would be willing to use violence to enforce their social norms, they generally will worm their way out of the question and begin a tirade against the evils of property.
@Marino6993 I don't believe I have seen PJs response. I will have to search it out. But I disagree with Stef on a few things, and I don't think he minds. That's what I like about Stef. And his videos usually get you thinking, whether you agree or not. I am a ZM member and fully support the VP. I think what Stef is advocating is basically the step we need to take before we can move on to something like the VP for the majority of the people. No government, at least as it is now, would be great.
A good vid Stef. As always. And this is coming from a "hippy dewy communist". I wonder if you fully understand the VP, because out side of money and the concept of property, its basically what you espouse. I think I will have to go watch your Addendum review again. Peace my friend.
It's something I really did not want to be right about, but I said this when the war in Iraq started - that it will go on for years and years and years and have terrible effects on several generations, like all wars do. No one who gets the flow of tax money wants it to end, and those are some powerful and violent people. The general population gets traumatized and pass their war traumas on to their kids. Thanks for some interesting and important videos as always.
"The illusion of freedom will continue for as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, then they will pull back the curtains and you will see the brick w...all at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa
@waksibra its not when you connect the dots. if you actually believe Co2 is a toxic poison then you need to take a good look at your belief system. al 'cash whore' gore who never answers questions because he can't is a fraud . so if you want to pay your 'carbon taxes' to him then there is something wrong with you! its about control. based on your response you have a lot of 'de-programming' to do. i will email you a thread of at least 100 different articles ... believe me i understand. unplug
@waksibra i do understand at 21 you haven't done much except wipe ur own ass and I am no exception. just use your brain and look at the majority of us that take the same path in the beginning ... you have spent most of your life in an 'institution' telling you what to do, behave, and think. i only began to wake up in my late 20's LOL i actually thought i was a leftist / statist Liberal...WTF! who do you think 'controls' the indoctrination centers and 'university's?
@waksibra It is not a deliberate conspiracy of individuals. It is an idea that serves the interest of the organization of government. Both ideas and organizations have their own impetus and where there is synergy, there will be alliance.
Thumbs up again. I'd like to hear your comments on subject like "anatomy of a revolution". What does it take for people to revolt, what will ignite it, who will survive, and who will benefit the most and how?
And would it be fair to assume/postulate/speculate/render, that Bankrupting the US is not just a by-product, of a failed policy of aggression and interventionism; but indeed one of the main purposes, inclusive to the litany of ulterior intents?
There is an unwritten Law which governs the physics of economics; wherein, money, in whatever form, bubbles to the top and ceases to move very far from its' point of origin.
From the deep pockets of the wealthy...it boomerangs back.
Wait. Deregulation was not the driving factor but you absolutely have to admit that the elimination of the Glassed-Steagall (the law that kept community and investment banks separate) was a driving factor of the financial crisis.
You sure are optimistic about the possibility of a war, i do not agree with you but i hope you'r right. Right now all their (USA/Europe/Israel) foreign policy goes towards a new war in the middle east and were they not INSANE i wouldn't believe it either. We'll see, either way theres no stopping all this liberty movement!
I like that psychological insight into that madness of being so nitpicky on small infractions and making people suffer for them while they turn their guilty eyes away from the much larger sociopath agenda. Spot on.
Re deregulation: So true, there are many people that use "regulation" as a theme and they never point to any specifics. I was thinking about that the other day. I never think to call them on it, probably because I don't have that kind of mind that would grab at some idea and just accept it. This idea of "loose regulation" is exercised because it supports the thesis for so many - "to be free, we need to be more enslaved to the government!"
I agree that it is unlikely that the United States will attack Iran, but the prediction is that Israel is more likely to commit that act. and the recently introduced house resolutions 1553 and 5741 lead me to believe that contingencies are being prepared for something. The US can't afford it, but in the end it is not countries that win wars, it is the international bankers. And the bankers want control more than money what better way for disaster capitalism than while a country is in a war?
@grandmasterqz Capitalism has nothing to do with world banking. World banking has much more to do with the governments. does each country not have a central bank? is the world bank not a global state creation?
@MrJosephMarzullo What I have been trying to say is that it is commonly said that this country or that country will not go to war for X, Y or Z reason because they will lose, but in history, have not the ultimate victors of war been the financiers of war because they finance both sides and collect on the debt of the victor and the loser. These same organizations have bought the leaders (the leaders don't care about winning), control guarantees future profits.
Hey StefieBot - Here is a great idea for a new video - like you need help, right? lol
Where would you advise people, especially younger people, to focus their efforts over the next 10 to 15 years. Career wise I mean, and possibly socially. What 'markets' or 'industries' do you see actually prospering or should we all just go on strike like John Galt until it is over?
Should we prepare to slave for the beast anyhow, or fight somehow? Stay radical? How to survive 2012 and beyond. Great video.
Not to wear out a welcome here but, might I suggest:
Look for a decoupling of the cozy relationship between the US and Great Britain as tensions mount over political, economic, and resource requirements, in favor of the sustainability interests of each.
Australia and New Zealand look very strong as allies; very nice places to live and work. Both are rich in natural resources. There will be a common frequency within the Capital of China and the interests of the US, Great Britain and some of the other major powers, in favor of the partnership between New Zealand and Australia.
Engineering (Electrical/Mechanical/Structural/Architectural, etc...), Geological, Oceanographic, Atmospheric, etc...disciplines will be in high-demand within 20 years. Most of these disciplines will continue to be supplied by Asia and India, in the near term (20-25 years), but by then, India will have reached a peak in average incomes and competition for these disciplines will create a greater balance.
I do not care under which type of economic system I live under, be it communism, or capitalism, or resource based such as the venus project as long as Stefan says no force is used. But I just cannot put my head around one concept regarding using force. I am open minded as one can tell by my first sentence so someone please explain to me how one can have property rights in a world without property rights, such as a venus project world, without using force. I am only asking. Thank you!
JulesManson 1 year ago
Stef is one of my few heroes.
I purchased most of his books. They are well worth the read, and you get a hard-copy which you can pass on to other people who are ready to grow intellectually.
Long live Stef.
MrDorkusMaximus 1 year ago
@MrDorkusMaximus thank you my friend
stefbot 1 year ago
Just for the lulz, I recommend the following: /watch?v=0HfWRKP4d-4
f0b0m 1 year ago
@f0b0m Yep. Laughable video.
MrDorkusMaximus 1 year ago
@MrDorkusMaximus In a previous comment I said "Yep. Laughable video". I should have quoted the comment to which I was replying. I meant "Laughable video..." in reply to the video at /watch?v=0HfWRKP4d-4". Sorry for the confusion.
MrDorkusMaximus 1 year ago
Yay Lovecraft reference!!! Government is now an elder god!!!
pinkbunnygirlmoo 1 year ago
They did everything a British corp could do...........lol
ManFaded 1 year ago
Love all your ideas and points. You made me a volunteerist but I wish you would stop talking about global warming. There are voluntary ways to deal with it should it be a real threat (which it surely is). I don't know if virtue is enough without well established knowledge, and the logic/reasoning in your approach to global warming is so starkly in contrast with the clarity and simplicity that you achieve with true logic/reason in every other area of thought that you are far from knowledge.
Avocada99 1 year ago
excellent vid. loved it!!!
lindabebe835 1 year ago
Columbia -> Venezuela. Five new US bases in Columbia within the last 5 years. Arms build up.
Individualism101 1 year ago
The "deregulation" that happened was not the removal of all regulations, but the removal of specific regulations that reduced corporate profits that where then replaced by regulations that insulated the corporations from loss and competition ie. "to big to fail" It was the removal of consumer protection regulations combined with added corporate protection regulations that caused the problem.
SpamSpamNEggs 1 year ago
hahah, A six pack and a hand job :)
mmagar5754 1 year ago
If there is such a thing as re-incarnation. I want to come back as Stephans son or daughter.
Spencerianism 1 year ago
Stef, looks like you lost weight. Congratulations.
qkholster 1 year ago
I applaud your stance towards the Venus Project. :)
Darthtails 1 year ago
Anarchism: I have my preferences and you have yours. Live and let live.
Statism: I have my preferences and I'm going to use state apperatus to enforce them on everybody, regardless of consent.
crazypants88 1 year ago 23
@RationalBullets It is not two different possibilities. It is two different forces (among others) both working within the state that will either or both together ultimately destroy the state. The state is not sustainable, it will self destruct. Exactly how it does so, is almost immaterial. The debt cannot increase infinitely, something the state does not understand, and that is just one of the things that can cause it's collapse.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@RationalBullets There is no contradiction. Stefan believes that the way a free society to arise is for the state to destroy itself though it's own ignorant machinations. Then the people, witness to the failure of the state, will be ready for the message of freedom from the state. Stefan might be right, if there are enough people aware of the philosophy of freedom prior to that point. That is why he has devoted his life to promulgating this philosophy.
Panpiper 1 year ago
good stuff
JoeyPencils 1 year ago
You are a stupid man if you keep denying the reality of global warming and of men's causal role in a very substantial part of it. You are being willfully ignorant. YOU have been informed of credible sources to the SCIENCE, like skepticalscience . If you keep bashing on this, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot, and go from a credible authority to an ideologist/propagandist which is willing to build a philosophy over lies. Needless to say, that will not be a solid philosophy.
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
that said... props on your position on the venus project.
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
@dakshinamurti So far the world has done virtually nothing to actually combat CO2 emissions. Why? Because it will cost a lot of money. In a world devoid of the parasite of government, society would be vastly wealthier, and individuals would be much more able to invest in those things which make them feel better about their environmental impact. In fact it was government which stopped the development of nuclear power which if they hadn't, would have preempted any human influence.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Totally agree with you! We don't need the state to combat greenhouse gas emissions... It's actually been one of the prime contributors through the defense sector. It just pisses me off that Molyneux is denying established scientific knowledge for ideology... It's not hard to figure out that recognizing the reality of man made global warming is not incompatible with anti-statism, on the contrary, they totally support eachother.
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
@dakshinamurti The only effective solution to man made global warming (to the extent that it is there), is for energy systems that do not emit carbon to become cheaper than those systems that do emit carbon. No amount of government force will change the reality for most of the world, that simply cannot afford more expensive systems. A stateless society, being vastly richer, could afford to make the investments necessary to reduce the costs of alternate energy systems.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper yes, that is my belief as well.
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
Heck yeah, maybe NOW more people will look into the Venus Project! Cause that's one great idea, hope people listen to it without prejudice and think!
Anonymous247n 1 year ago
@Anonymous247n I just checked it out and left comments. It is a fantasy, motivated by an incorrect prognostication, and relying on a 'magic wand' of infinite wealth to be able to afford to build a supposedly 'perfect' centrally planned society. I was masturbating to very similar fantasies when I was 16. I have learned a bit more about reality since then.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Well we can stick to the reality we have or change it. I do think it would be nearly impossible to find enough people to change the world into a society like in the venus project but it would be much better society. Never give up your dreams, but maybe we have to get to them step by step? Still, all the venus project stands for could become reality, if only the people would want it. I see you are commenting a lot here, what's your opinion on what should happen in the world then?
Anonymous247n 1 year ago
@Anonymous247n You don't create a world like the Venus Project by getting enough people to 'believe' in it. It is an infinite wealth fantasy. All sorts of fantasies can be imagined given infinite wealth. Why not ring worlds and star travel? The fundamental problems of the world are lack of freedom and lack of wealth. And the best way to solve the lack of wealth problem, is to create greater freedom, not greater control. Socialist utopias have been tried in the past to truly dystopic results.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Marino6993 Well, you sure sound like a socialist. If it walks like a pino... talks like a pinko...well, then, probably is a pinko..eh?
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@MrJosephMarzullo pinko*
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@RationalBullets Both.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
90% of the money spent in Iraq is unaccounted for? was that hyperbole or real....source.?
LJPpro 1 year ago
@LJPpro There was some hyperbole there. The US special forces were shipped several billion dollars 'cash' (actual printed US dollars) with which to purchase compliance from various factions within Iraq. 90% of 'that' is unaccounted for.
Panpiper 1 year ago
Fascinating. I love the Bow tie theory.
KenjiSmashMassMola 1 year ago
Stef says he is against freedom of using fraud against people. Should fraud be opposed by violence or by ostracism? Is lying or non-truthing or truth speculating fraud? I truth speculate a lot. I just start defending speculative statements, to find out how far I get, just to find out what their truth value is. This is what the Internet is all about and therefor it is full of crackpot nonsense. Some people oppose anonymity for this reason.. Personally I just let my schizofrenic self run free...
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex It's not fraud to be insane.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@MrJosephMarzullo
Yeah, and the worst thing that can happen is that everybody will ostracise 'me'. Actually I don't think it is insane to have inconsistent idea's in you head, both competing for the truth status. It is just like the free market. Is the market insane? Anyway, in the real world (outside of the anonymity of the Internet) people want consistent people, so you have to present only one view.
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex No, more can happen. The alternative to voluntaryism is tyranny, statism, the system we have now where individuals really don't matter. If there's a demand for a solution to a social problem, there would be answers in the free market. In the current system, politicians let the lobbyists write the laws. Hey, that can happen in a voluntary society, but it doesn't mean we can't just opt out of the system. A state is a monopoly over a geographical area.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@alalelalex I am not a legal scholar, but fraud in this sense would likely require non-truth telling to lead to the deprivation of another person's liberty or property. If it does not, it would not be fraud. For it to be a crime, it would require intent on the part of the person committing the crime. Otherwise there might be the possibility of restitution for damages in a civil suit.
Panpiper 1 year ago
A few weeks ago I think I heart Stef say that he fiercely opposes the zeitgeist movement during some radio interview. Isn't the zeitgeist movement more or less the same as the venus project. Well, these anarcho-socialists, usually endorse some objective value theory, like the labor theory of value. The intent is to enforce you to accept some 'objective' price for certain goods. They advocate democracy in matters of who controls what. They will enforce it on you if you happen to live near them..,
alalelalex 1 year ago
@alalelalex I am sure there are individuals who subscribe to both the Zeitgeist and the Venus Project nonsense. But both are nonsense born out of a lack of understanding about economics. Zeitgeist is particularly egregious to me, as it actually gets about half of it's information quite right, and then veers massively off course into 'la la' land. People wanting to understand the truth of money and banking should go to mises(dot)org, not Zeitgeist.
Panpiper 1 year ago
Albert Pikes Morals and Dogma ! 3 world wars ... the first 2 are complete and the third is in the making, There are more than just one or two reasons for war.
slimmerskimmer 1 year ago
Stef, geat vid, as usual. Could you please do a review of The Matrix?
tavi16 1 year ago
Grow a beard. I dare you =p
RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
Comment removed
fergus247 1 year ago
This is why I'm ashamed to be a libertarian. - There's so fucking many conspiracy theorists.
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra Yes, I often have to go to great pains to explain how libertarians are 'not' automatically conspiracy theorists. Radicals of all stripes do tend to be attracted to other radical movements. It is a sad statement about our world, that liberty should be a radical concept.
Panpiper 1 year ago
Initiation of force can not be negotiated, because, if I will have to choose between starvation or violence, I will choose violence. If violence can give me more power, I will initiate force. I can not see the reason, why not? Ethics? Morale? Not sure if I need them.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels Enlightened self interest. If I see my neighbor initiating violence at every opportunity, to his own benefit and to the detriment of others, I will recognize him as a threat. And if I do so, I am just as capable of violence when my security is threatened. Opportunistically initiating violence is 'not' a viable survival strategy in a free society. "An armed society is a polite society."
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper The only propblem is that free society is not possible in between spieces capable of violence (psychological or physical).
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels I disagree. But only the future will prove either of us right.
I am capable of extreme violence (many years of martial arts), but I have never assaulted anyone. I also do not feel any fear of my neighbors, even though they may have guns. I am free, and so are they, except for the tyranny of the state. Absence of state does not mean people run amok. Just because 'you' are capable of violence does not mean others will be passive in the face of it.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper This what I am saying - since there will always be willing to use violence and concentrate power (become state), the free society is not possible. It is a dillusionary concept... I happen to love here like everyone else... but it is daydreaming.
Nomels 1 year ago
Most anarcho-(insert rejection of capitalism token word here) are just plain socialists/communists pushing the same crap as they were prior to the event that proved them wrong, 1991 (Soviet Union collapse). By the way, anyone knows who bailed out the USSR back then ?
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
wow...............
your jawline looks very superheroish on this vid....(random)
blackflower75 1 year ago
@blackflower75 What's wrong with his camera? Or is it my eyes? The whole picture goes in and out, freaky.
menderfire9 1 year ago
The whole bribery 'scandal' (we're gonna need a new type of ' ' symbol to cover triple entendre) is reminiscent of the LLFF/Monte Kwinter/Privacy Commisioner BS. The LLFF is Longitudinal Labour Force File- a project that collected over 2000 discreet bits of info regarding every Canadian appearing near the end of the Federal Liberals in the early 2000s. As a result of public outrage at the Gestapo Dossiers compiled on Canucks by CSIS, Monte Kwinter was appointed Privacy Commissioner! Howdthatgo?
ToYouWhoHaveEars1 1 year ago
@AugustusOctavianus 3 actually
kevin77v 1 year ago
Nuclear war wont occur because of nuclear deterrence. If one country launches a nuke the other will launch one back, so they are basically attacking themselves.
ps3fan420 1 year ago
I think my favorite "deregulation" myth regards the repeal of the Glass-Steagall. This figurative edifice to the halcyon days of the Great Depression "reformers" and its subsequent repeal is frequently quoted by bloggers as the point where everything began going to shit and invariably conclude more "regulation" is needed, because hey---let's face it: the people driving misallocation of capital should not be the same ones that pay you absolute DICK on your savings account.
golefevre 1 year ago
@AugustusOctavianus, 9/11was another nail in the coffin of freedom.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@Marino6993 You said something about profit being a basis for war.
Could you explain how you envision this war taking place in a stateless society?
I guess i'm missing something, but, how do you motivate a bunch of voluntarists to go and kill and be killed?
(I'd guess it would be a bit like herding cats)
Cheers
zalida100 1 year ago
Stef - You mentioned romans. I think the romans put their most experienced soldiers in the front line. This means high casualties amongst those due to retire to their 5 acre plot. Saved the state having to give too much land away to their retirees.
Today's empire is unlikely to tolerate the growing numbers of old (useless eaters) either.
Just the way it is i suppose.
Thanks for the vid - very enjoyable.
zalida100 1 year ago
Well, I'd guess as a general rule, the USA gov will not attack a gov who has nukes - so korea is out. They won't attack Iran cos iran hasn't a weak enough army. (something like that anyway) It's also not worth worrying about cos if USA gov wants to have a war, they'll find enough mad statists to go and kill unarmed brown people. There aint much you can do about it as an individual. (When the general market has had enough, it will say so).
zalida100 1 year ago
You've made me feel much better! Thanks!
thalonelygirl 1 year ago
when i dream the good dream, i'm your alcibiades
cheers to philosophy
galikazoid 1 year ago
@Marino6993 What idea? The one that has been proven by market mechanisms over and over again? Not really "debunk-able". When lamp oil became too expensive entrepeneurs came up with a more economical solution. When the market is strained by resources it reacts. Markets do not strip resources clean. Never in history have free market principles destroyed an ecosystem or completely stripped non-renewable resources. I challenge you to find one example.
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
@Marino6993
How would you prevent a free market without the organized use of force(a state)?
FlailingJunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
FlailingJunk 1 year ago
@Marino6993 The idea that profit motive seeks infinite growth is a common fallacy perpetuated by socialists. Since I understand you're a socialist I'll make it simple. Profit motive has it's disadvantages as well. When you seek a profit you have to have a market to sell to. When the market deminishes because supply has driven price up you search for a more profitable product. We've seen this cycle innumerable times in the past. Something more profitable and sustainable will pop up.
sedatedlife18 1 year ago 3
@Stefbot what are your thoughts on Social Credit?
WoollyNZ 1 year ago
@WoollyNZ elaborate
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
Anarcho-socialism (or socialism itself) is an economic fantasy debunked by Ludwig von Mises with the exposition of the Socialist Calculation Problem. No socialist can answer that one. Basically anarchy is not a fantasy because political power concentration -- violence -- is a choice, and we can choose not to use violence. Property, on the other cannot be forgone any more than you can decide to stop eating, breathing or drinking and expect to keep living. Socialism is reality evasion.
deepfriedsammich 1 year ago 16
@deepfriedsammich I agree in general, but small communes could theoretically operate on a socialistic basis, as long as it was voluntary, and they were surrounded by market forces. And families, of course, are socialistic in many ways. :)
stefbot 1 year ago 16
@stefbot another good reason to sue for emancipation.
Xtro2005 1 year ago
@stefbot Are they really socialistic or communistic, Stephan? Even in the most "benevolently democratic" commune instances that I've hear about, from people who lived in them, even liked them, the decisions about material goods and services and production were made, not by general democracy "spontaneously" but by one or two people, or a small comittee of the most motivated. Real socialism it isn't, simply because the real root of production is the INDIVIDUAL mind and you can't socialize that.
deepfriedsammich 1 year ago
@stefbot Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. By extending the hand of kindness to neighbors with the knowledge that they'd return the favor, correct?
Zeriador 1 year ago
@stefbot
If property rights include the right of exclusion, and we're willing to extend those rights equally to 6.5 billion or so potential landowners in a world of unequal resource distribution, then we have simply created a new arena for conflict. Don't you think it's time to stop building these alters to sacrifice our children? Certainly you haven't forgotten that a "scheme is not a vision"?
kokopelli314 1 year ago
@stefbot Interesting. You say you're okay with people setting up "anarcho-socialist" systems as long as they don't initiate force against you and let you have your system.
And what would keep them from doing that?
What would keep the socialists from saying "our economy doesn't work because of those capitalists over there who are ruining it with their competition, so let's go get their factories by force"?
There won't be any rules which all people are subject to right?
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 I suggest you listen to Stef's podcasts on Dispute Resolution Organizations, which would be free market entities that exist to protect its clients against such actions as you described.
StatelessRich 1 year ago
@StatelessRich Yeah I have already...
So what if DRO A decides to initiate force against DRO B? gang warfare?
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Stef also covers this. Gang warfare is very expensive, and would necessitate a large rate increase for the DRO customers. This would make the aggressive DRO far less competitive, and it will lose customers. This and other potential problems are addressed in "Practical Anarchy" which is available for free on the freedomain radio website.
StatelessRich 1 year ago
@StatelessRich Sure it's expensive, but people aren't only motivated by money. What if DRO A is a Christian DRO and is 10 times bigger than the Atheist DRO B, so DRO A wants to throw a woman in jail because she had an abortion and DRO B tries to defend her and DRO A gets tired of debating (as christians do easily because they're not big on thinking about ideas), and decides to just use force against DRO B since it is much smaller. Sure DRO A might have some casualties but so did the crusades..
Sam26100 1 year ago
@StatelessRich Your answer pre-supposes that all people have the general worldview that you or Stefan Molyneux do. Maybe you need to take some time and go around talk to people who aren't part of your freedomain radio group and see just how irrational and self-destructive people can be. People will risk their lives in knife fights over a slur or if somebody "looked at me funny" as one thug once said when he was asked why he killed a guy in my neighbourhood.
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Again, please read through the section in Stefan's book Practical Anarchy. He covers everything you've mentioned here. You can read the pdf at freedomainradio (dot) com.
StatelessRich 1 year ago
@Sam26100
What if Austria decides to intiate force against Serbia? gang warfare?
utubehayter 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Because "those capitalists over there" would have security contracts with people able to stop that kind of aggression. Being free does not mean being passive and unable to defend one's self. I expect most neighborhoods would probably have the equivalent of a neighborhood militia club house, with mutual defense contracts with other nearby neighborhoods, just as one possible example.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Doh. Sorry. I did not notice before I posted that others had already adequately responded to this.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper I don't see the difference between this system and a government. I wouldn't be able to live as a capitalist in the midst of anarcho-socialists would I? I would be overwhelmed by them and would have to either leave or suffer their tyranny. Just as you have the right to leave a country if you dont' like it's laws
I'm for the objectivist voluntarily funded government, and if Chomsky and his group of morons come to me and say "we don't agree" I'll say: go start your own country
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 They would have no authority to force anything on you. The only way they could have their society is if they were to legitimately purchase their own land and then create their society there. 'You' would have no authority to impede them on their land. But it is 'their' land, not yours. On 'your' land, they have no authority over you.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Now you're committing the mistake that anarchists are far too prone to do:
I understand that in a DRO system people will tend to move toward the areas where the laws which dominate reflect their own values and hence eventually you might have different "camps" morally and legally speaking... however if you are trying to tel me that I can live say as a capitalist in an area where socialists are 90% of the population, what defence do I have? They have no "authority" according to WHOM?
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Panpiper .... I.E if 90% of the people in my local area believe in egalitarianism and "income distribution" and I believe in strict individual rights (which logically lead to a free market) what's to stop them from initiating force against me and forcing me to obey their laws and tax me? my DRO will be much smaller so as soon as they become zealous enough to start violence (especially if I have a lot of wealth to plunder) it becomes an issue of "who's gang is larger and more intimidating"
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 I think what you are failing to grasp is that laws are not 'geographic' in an anarchist society. There are private property rights and contracts. No one has the right to use 'force' to impose anything on you, period. In short 'you' are responsible for your own defense, and you contract for insurance. But I am not the right person to defend this concept, as I am a minarchist (libertarian socialist actually), not an anarchist. Others are more competent to debate this side of things.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper "nobody has the right to use 'force' to impose anything on you, period"
Again, according to WHOM? maybe you don't think this way but let's say a DRO ran by and patronized by egalitarians who believe it is moral to seize wealth by force from those who have more of it, outnumber by far the number of free-marketeers in an area which is in their local reach. WHO is going to tell them they can't use force? their morals aren't yours. Their only concern is: "can we get away with it"
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Panpiper I am not saying that there will be a "geographic territory" that is drawn on a map and specified, but in the town I currently live I'd say about 95% of people are Christians and maybe 5% myself included are Atheists.
I don't think jailing a woman for having an abortion in her first trimester is justice, but 95% of the people around here would agree if such a law was proposed.... so if a woman did have an abortion the only thing that would protect her is if she ran away from town
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 The law would not affect her unless she had consented to it. If a gang of statists attempted to impose a state upon a free society, people near and far would recognize them for the threat they are and cooperate to nip them in the bud. Their imposition of force, their theft and willingness to murder in their pursuit, would be very naked and obvious. In an existing state, people do not resist because they are powerless. In rational anarchy, I dare say the nipping would be rather severe.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper "the law would not affect her unless she had consented to it"
Umm... what if the 95% of the town's population say "screw this, we know what she did was murder and her tiny secular DRO is just a small percentage of annoying people who disagree with our morals, so let's get our pitchforks and such and eliminate this atheist infestation"
WHO is going to say "wait, you can't do this"?
Remember, statism doesn't happen in one big move, it works by very gradual intrusions on freedom
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 "statism doesn't happen in one big move, it works by very gradual intrusions on freedom"
And that is why it would be opposed. Not just the 5% of people around her, but neighboring communities and organizations would recognize the cancer in their midst and respond appropriately. What that community should and likely would do is to buy her out, such that she could move to a more congenial community. If the community 'as a whole' agreed, that would be their prerogative.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper "the neighboring communities and organizations would recognize the cancer in their midst"
If you believe that then you should have no problem with the Objectivist, constitutionally limited government which doesn't tax people and is funded voluntarily. I mean the main objection we get from anarchists is: "eventually the government will find a way to begin using force"
Well according to you people are so wise that they'd stop it in it's tracks so what are you worried about?
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Sam26100 Actually there is a massive difference between a minarchist state that takes an infinitesimal nibble at a time out of fundamental liberty, and an absolutely stateless society. Any imposition upon liberty, any at all, is likely to be quite glaring given an absolute lack of government. But where a government already exists, constraints by a constitution are always slightly vague, and within that vagary lies the peril.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Whoa whoa, who said I'm a miniarchist? I'm not for a "smaller government" I am for re-defining what government's role is completely from every other government that's existed in history...
Secondly, you seem stuck on this idea that only governments initiate force against people. This is very foolish.
Look I share your hatred of the state, I know all of the reasons you're against it trust me but it is NOT true that people who aren't a "government" never initiate force
Sam26100 1 year ago
@Panpiper ...Besides, the lies which the government uses in order to seize power (mandatory taxation and welfare is good for getting rid of poverty is one of those) can just as easily be initiated and enforced by groups such as socialistic worker's groups, unions and other such gangs.
Collectivized pressure groups and gangs can just as easily demand that everybody pay a certain small portion of their income in order to "help the poor" and so their power will grow a little bit at a time
Sam26100 1 year ago
@stefbot Hah! Come and see my family, ask my wife, she'll tell you our family is a command economy!
bogesk 1 year ago
@deepfriedsammich that's rediculous, every animal aside for humans eats, drinks, and breathes, and none of them own property. and just as it is possible for you not to own a boat, it is also possible not to own anything at all. people do choose to own property just as they choose to use violence.
samlevla 1 year ago
@samlevla we are sentient beings. animals are just a flash in the pan every generation
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@MrJosephMarzullo well we ARE animals. and your thinking is the same as slave owners who justified thier use of force against another human on the grounds that africans are inferior.
samlevla 1 year ago
@samlevla ha ha ha. Actually, it was the STATES that enslaved the africans, who institutionalized slavery. Without the laws backing it up, there wouldn't have been slavery in 'The South'... so you can blame the big government you love so much. Animals aren't sentient. Can they hold a conversation? Are you a vegan? If not, you're a hypocrite. If you haven't always been a vegan, you might as well be a cannibal! What about plants? Don't they have feelings? You murderer
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@MrJosephMarzullo
1.yes the state enabled slavery, but without people willingly participating in the slave trade it wouldn't have existed either
2.i don't love the state i am an anarchist
3.i undestand sentience to be the ability to feel or percieve which would make animals sentient beings. if you define it as being able to hold a conversation then they would not be sentient as they cannot hold a conversation
4.yes i am a vegan so i am not a hypocrite
5. as far as i know plants do not feel
samlevla 1 year ago
@samlevla It may be an argument too large to have on a YouTube page, but it is not ridiculous. First, unlike animals, human beings must use reason to produce and acquire sustenance. Second, animals are limited to the physical strengths of their bodies when competing for resources; human beings are limited only by imagination, knowledge, and access to the capital base and the division of labor network. Property is inherent to our nature as reasoning, sapient creatures.
deepfriedsammich 1 year ago
@deepfriedsammich property is really only inherent to the economic systems we've established. reason is required not because it is our nature but because using physical strengths to attain resources is more dificult in most situations. taking the position that economic systems should remain because it is within our nature to have them is like saying we should keep having wars as it is part of our nature ragardless of the destruction it causes.
samlevla 1 year ago
20 Million? Damn, that's good.
christopher81818 1 year ago
90% of the money can't be accounted for in Afghanistan.
renaissance21wiseguy 1 year ago
@Marino6993 Okay, so you're all for abolishing the state and letting people live free....but what if someone in your ideal world wants to use money of some kind? Are you going to use force to stop him?
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye Real money is silver and gold and other things we give value in our life, and it is an equal exchange between agreeing parties. I'll take that if I can use it and give you a fair exchange of goods or services for it. The Fiat money is just me giving you a debt note that has no value whatsoever unless you can make the person who created it pay. It's a promise to pay without any real value backing it up and that is the problem with our economy.
Snowblindinfinity 1 year ago
Great video Stef! American's will to race to the polls in November & throw all those PRETEND moderates out. Of course we'll promptly replace them with PRETEND conservatives. With every election I hear people talking about "taking their country back" & now they're talking that trash again. This government is CORPORATE OWNED, CONTROLLED & CORRUPT. The problems simply CAN'T be solved by voting, it's much too late for that. If the average American had any idea as to how ENSLAVED they really are.....
SCLARK2112 1 year ago
I agree with you about letting anarcho-commies do their own thing, but, in almost any discussion I've personally had with them, when pressed about whether or not they would be willing to use violence to enforce their social norms, they generally will worm their way out of the question and begin a tirade against the evils of property.
I am, at least, suspicious of them.
Cailwyn 1 year ago
@Marino6993 I don't believe I have seen PJs response. I will have to search it out. But I disagree with Stef on a few things, and I don't think he minds. That's what I like about Stef. And his videos usually get you thinking, whether you agree or not. I am a ZM member and fully support the VP. I think what Stef is advocating is basically the step we need to take before we can move on to something like the VP for the majority of the people. No government, at least as it is now, would be great.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
couldn't have said it better myself
hamblin31 1 year ago
@Marino6993
Have you read Practical Anarchy?
FlailingJunk 1 year ago
under raegan the government grew by 2/3 ?
wow such a slow expansion rate would be unimaginable today.
1schwererziehbar1 1 year ago
As always, thought provoking.
ellorybockting 1 year ago
"...a six pack and a hand job"
ahahahahahah!
niceee video
MainTightSqueeze 1 year ago
A good vid Stef. As always. And this is coming from a "hippy dewy communist". I wonder if you fully understand the VP, because out side of money and the concept of property, its basically what you espouse. I think I will have to go watch your Addendum review again. Peace my friend.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
It's something I really did not want to be right about, but I said this when the war in Iraq started - that it will go on for years and years and years and have terrible effects on several generations, like all wars do. No one who gets the flow of tax money wants it to end, and those are some powerful and violent people. The general population gets traumatized and pass their war traumas on to their kids. Thanks for some interesting and important videos as always.
Zerafinel 1 year ago
One of your better videos lately, keep it up!!
SpykerSpeed 1 year ago
@AugustusOctavianus life is a 'staged event'
"The illusion of freedom will continue for as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, then they will pull back the curtains and you will see the brick w...all at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa
Livefreerevolution 1 year ago
Let me get this straight: are the governments deliberately scaring us with global warming in order to control us?
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra yup
Livefreerevolution 1 year ago
@Livefreerevolution well that's pretty hard for me to believe.
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra its not when you connect the dots. if you actually believe Co2 is a toxic poison then you need to take a good look at your belief system. al 'cash whore' gore who never answers questions because he can't is a fraud . so if you want to pay your 'carbon taxes' to him then there is something wrong with you! its about control. based on your response you have a lot of 'de-programming' to do. i will email you a thread of at least 100 different articles ... believe me i understand. unplug
Livefreerevolution 1 year ago
@waksibra i do understand at 21 you haven't done much except wipe ur own ass and I am no exception. just use your brain and look at the majority of us that take the same path in the beginning ... you have spent most of your life in an 'institution' telling you what to do, behave, and think. i only began to wake up in my late 20's LOL i actually thought i was a leftist / statist Liberal...WTF! who do you think 'controls' the indoctrination centers and 'university's?
Livefreerevolution 1 year ago
@Livefreerevolution The illumenati? Jesusraptor? I don't know. I thought we elected politicians who control the schools.
waksibra 1 year ago
@waksibra yup you got it jesusraptor! now run along and play ....
Livefreerevolution 1 year ago
@waksibra, its another government sponsored scam to bring 1trillion annually in increased taxes (that figure from UN leaked document).
0urGaia 1 year ago
@waksibra It is not a deliberate conspiracy of individuals. It is an idea that serves the interest of the organization of government. Both ideas and organizations have their own impetus and where there is synergy, there will be alliance.
Panpiper 1 year ago
ridiculous numbers of people in jail that are there by consent and making 26 cents an hour to make textles, furniture etc. for the rich.
its exactly what hey intend for everyone.
artsychic2000 1 year ago
Thumbs up again. I'd like to hear your comments on subject like "anatomy of a revolution". What does it take for people to revolt, what will ignite it, who will survive, and who will benefit the most and how?
Veludeus 1 year ago
If I close my eyes, I hear an intonation of "Eddy Izzard".
If I squint, I see "Jason Statham" with a proper shave.
If I open my eyes wide, I hear a Truth that makes me want to close my ears.
Quote of the Day: "People who are genuinely Evil, have a strange fetish for tiny little virtues." Oh my, I believe I'm getting that special feeling.
NumberThreeEight 1 year ago
@NumberThreeEight
And would it be fair to assume/postulate/speculate/render, that Bankrupting the US is not just a by-product, of a failed policy of aggression and interventionism; but indeed one of the main purposes, inclusive to the litany of ulterior intents?
There is an unwritten Law which governs the physics of economics; wherein, money, in whatever form, bubbles to the top and ceases to move very far from its' point of origin.
From the deep pockets of the wealthy...it boomerangs back.
NumberThreeEight 1 year ago
Wait. Deregulation was not the driving factor but you absolutely have to admit that the elimination of the Glassed-Steagall (the law that kept community and investment banks separate) was a driving factor of the financial crisis.
RamandoDMag 1 year ago
@RamandoDMag What about the community reinvestment act?
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
You sure are optimistic about the possibility of a war, i do not agree with you but i hope you'r right. Right now all their (USA/Europe/Israel) foreign policy goes towards a new war in the middle east and were they not INSANE i wouldn't believe it either. We'll see, either way theres no stopping all this liberty movement!
Keep up the good speech Stefan.
NunoSav 1 year ago
Comment removed
NunoSav 1 year ago
I like that psychological insight into that madness of being so nitpicky on small infractions and making people suffer for them while they turn their guilty eyes away from the much larger sociopath agenda. Spot on.
AlterEgoTrip 1 year ago
Re deregulation: So true, there are many people that use "regulation" as a theme and they never point to any specifics. I was thinking about that the other day. I never think to call them on it, probably because I don't have that kind of mind that would grab at some idea and just accept it. This idea of "loose regulation" is exercised because it supports the thesis for so many - "to be free, we need to be more enslaved to the government!"
qncsc 1 year ago
I agree that it is unlikely that the United States will attack Iran, but the prediction is that Israel is more likely to commit that act. and the recently introduced house resolutions 1553 and 5741 lead me to believe that contingencies are being prepared for something. The US can't afford it, but in the end it is not countries that win wars, it is the international bankers. And the bankers want control more than money what better way for disaster capitalism than while a country is in a war?
grandmasterqz 1 year ago
@grandmasterqz You sound confused.
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago
@MrJosephMarzullo confused in what sense?
grandmasterqz 1 year ago
@grandmasterqz Capitalism has nothing to do with world banking. World banking has much more to do with the governments. does each country not have a central bank? is the world bank not a global state creation?
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago 8
@MrJosephMarzullo What I have been trying to say is that it is commonly said that this country or that country will not go to war for X, Y or Z reason because they will lose, but in history, have not the ultimate victors of war been the financiers of war because they finance both sides and collect on the debt of the victor and the loser. These same organizations have bought the leaders (the leaders don't care about winning), control guarantees future profits.
grandmasterqz 1 year ago
Yep I have the same concerns about anarcho-socialists they seem to h8 the idea of property rights
joshv89 1 year ago
Hey StefieBot - Here is a great idea for a new video - like you need help, right? lol
Where would you advise people, especially younger people, to focus their efforts over the next 10 to 15 years. Career wise I mean, and possibly socially. What 'markets' or 'industries' do you see actually prospering or should we all just go on strike like John Galt until it is over?
Should we prepare to slave for the beast anyhow, or fight somehow? Stay radical? How to survive 2012 and beyond. Great video.
Nexus2Eden 1 year ago 12
@Nexus2Eden
Not to wear out a welcome here but, might I suggest:
Look for a decoupling of the cozy relationship between the US and Great Britain as tensions mount over political, economic, and resource requirements, in favor of the sustainability interests of each.
NumberThreeEight 1 year ago
@NumberThreeEight
Australia and New Zealand look very strong as allies; very nice places to live and work. Both are rich in natural resources. There will be a common frequency within the Capital of China and the interests of the US, Great Britain and some of the other major powers, in favor of the partnership between New Zealand and Australia.
NumberThreeEight 1 year ago
@NumberThreeEight
Engineering (Electrical/Mechanical/Structural/Architectural, etc...), Geological, Oceanographic, Atmospheric, etc...disciplines will be in high-demand within 20 years. Most of these disciplines will continue to be supplied by Asia and India, in the near term (20-25 years), but by then, India will have reached a peak in average incomes and competition for these disciplines will create a greater balance.
High Growth: Power Generation
NumberThreeEight 1 year ago
Great thinking Stefan....impressed again!
marypoppins2009 1 year ago
Wow that new HD Camera really shows off your forehead! lol I can see your freckles now - time for some 'shine control'? :P
Love you...;)
And yes... you did make that prediction years ago - I remember.
Nexus2Eden 1 year ago
@Nexus2Eden ha. a new camera? Cool, thought he was aging before my eyes! lol
MrJosephMarzullo 1 year ago