I do think that peaceful parenting is a SURE way to success. But I also know that education is successful. Do you know why? BECAUSE EDUCATION *FREED MY MIND*. I am living proof that it works. The weight loss analogy is flawed, because losing weight requires physical activity. Changing your political beliefs requires MENTAL activity- thus, education.
Stefan, you keep making the argument that you cant change anything by education, and you cant change anything by activism, and that the only method is to die and hope that others at some point in the distant future start to understand and apply freedom principles. I'd argue you should do any and everything you can but not set your hopes too high. Once you get 10% of people to believe something, there is a snowball effect on the rest of the population. Calling something what it is isnt enough.
Moly rightly points out that people will turn against libertarianism if Paul gets in. This is true, but he ignores his own point that the political system isn't the way forward. It doesn't matter if the masses turn against. If Paul can reduce the size even a bit, if he can keep the internet free just a bit longer. We agorists will (are now) building a new internet (I2P) that allows free trade that can't be shuttered - and the free market spawned by it, shall change the rest. Paul is a stop-gap.
so what if the farmer protests. whats he going to do, if he wants to protest, is he going to stop putting his produce on the market? well we have a lot of that happening now where there is produce not being put on the market because there is not enough immigrants to harvest it. but when you look at the facts the immigration laws are wrong, and i have faith that the people will look at the facts and realize libertarian policies are right. like the guy said freedom/truth will always prevail
also why is it that people will fight against him, and he will be forced to fight back, just for a minute lets assume the public does fight him, he seems like the kind of person, because he believes in the constitution that he will let them protest because thats within their rights, and is intelligent enough to prevent the spoilage of his good name, and the name of libertarianism.
He also says how people who learn something dont automatically do it, and then starts talking about how we should teach parents the right way to parent, and they will do it. Well what's the difference here? both parents and obese people presumably have the motivation to acheive their goals (be a better parent, and get to a proper weight), but the difference is in the quality of their knowledge. the parents are being told the truth while the obese are lied to by vested interests.
I like stefan's ideas, but here is the only time i disagree with him. He says when Ron paul enacts his policies, it will be libertarians who are demonized, well the policies have to go through congress to get passed, so i think everybody will have some skin in the game, and he has proven that he is able to form coalitions to get bills passed.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with Libertarian-ism. Believing in God has nothing to do with Libertarian-ism. I know that God lives and I know that I did not come from an Ape, yet I also know that Man was meant to be free because that is God's plan. Stefan, in order to truly understand freedom, you have to believe in the One Being who GAVE YOU YOUR FREEDOM, and that is the One and Only Heavenly Father.
@cevansroxy so yes we have freedom because it was given to us. So by that argument why can't people take it away? i give you a christmas gift, and take it away, I'm a bad person but hey im not going to have something bad happen to me. I personally like it when people say we are given our freedoms from a creator, i shoot right back at them it was our mothers.
I have seen little evidence that Stefan understands what "the state" is in the first place. If one accepts the premise or definition which he bases the rest of his thesis on, then perhaps what he asserts might be relevant. I just don't feel that his definition of the state or government is correct from the outset. The mafia analogy, as LotRowe points out, is off base. It infers a false dichotomy. The government ARE the people, and if not, the solution isn't to rid a Demo. gov, but increase it.
Stefan, an atheist can be against evolution so being against evolution doesn't damage Dr. Paul's credibility, unless he promotes another theory that you can empirically disprove.
The title question for this debate is a no brainer. If a 'libertarian' is a person committed to NAP, then of course they should abandon electoral politics, since 'election' to 'public office' is about choosing heteronomous representatives to commit violence on one's behalf. You vote, you condone oppression. Simple as.
I listened to about 2 minutes of Stefbot's opening argument, which reeked of pragmatism, and not the clear moral stance I have outlined above.
@jeffiek Shame you couldn't even get my name right. Anyway, do you have anything to say about the point I made. The fact that - on this occasion - it is I that is making the point, is irrelevant. Countless others have made it before, and countless others will in the future. Ideas should be separated from idealists and from ideologies...however, the fact remains that all one needs to know in order to abandon it, is that 'politics' is in stark contradiction of the NAP. The rest is superfluous.
@InvincibleNumanist I encourage you to think very hard about what voting actually means, cuz when it comes down to it, voting is complicity in the heteronomous oppression of governments. If we both lived in the land known as the USA for example, and you gave your vote to a so-called 'public official', they might impose upon me certain immoral imperatives, to which you would then be an accomplice.
Furthermore, one does not merely vote against candidates. To vote against AH you would have to...
@InvincibleNumanist ...for someone else. Who? Why? So the other person could oppress me in a slightly different style. I urge you not to fall into the trap of consequentialist thinking. If Hitler didn't become Fuhrer that is not to say that Europe would have got off scott-free. There are always psychopaths ready to take the 'reigns of power' and commit atrocities. If you're still stuck in the minarchist mindset, think of it like this: in order to fight evil baddies, you and your pals create an..
@InvincibleNumanist ...institution called 'government' with a monopoly on the use of force, to combat those baddies. Q: Where do you think the first place those baddies are gonna run for cover?
I'm pretty sure RP thinks he has the best of intentions by running for POTUS. But there cannot be any freedom in those lands as long as such a position remains in existence.
So yes, whoever you vote for, you're condoning oppression. I urge you to look into voluntarism. Feel free to visit my blog :)
I am thinking of it from a consequentialist mindset, because I dont believe morality is worth anything unless it actually applies to human suffering. The government system is oppressive, but not every single leader is as oppressive as others. If you honestly think Hitler would have been just as bad as say, the social democrats then youre out of your mind. The communists perhaps, but there were plenty of other parties.
And I know what voluntarism is, I'm an anti statist myself.
@InvincibleNumanist Morality is the process of choice. I would have thought it logical that those choices be made to avoid suffering full stop, not simply pragmatically contain it. The consequences of Hitler's regime may have been worse than 'social democrats' (for some people, remember the problem of referent objects) but being a leader is not more moral just because the net level of suffering is lower. Morality cannot be measured with reference to consequences, nor can consequences be...
@InvincibleNumanist ...measured with reference to morality. Morality is concerned with choices - and therefore comes before the act. Please see the first chapter of my work on Freedom for a more in-depth explanation of what I mean.
I'm not sure what you personally mean by 'anti-statist', but there are no states, and if you are voting, then you are complicit in the oppression of the heteronomous actors you are voting for. Consequentialism is self-defeating.
@InvincibleNumanist ...measured with reference to morality. Morality is concerned with choices - and therefore comes before the act. Please see the first chapter of my work on Freedom for a more in-depth explanation of what I mean.
I'm not sure what you personally mean by 'anti-statist', but there are no states, and if you are voting, then you are complicit in the oppression of the heteronomous actors you are voting for. Consequentialism is self-defeating.
I think we'd see people would treat their children significantly better if human beings were freed of boring, monotone jobs which causes sleep deprivation, sugar addictions, stress and so forth. Eliminating child abuse is obviously the way to go, but in order for that to actually happen human life as it is right now needs to be changed. We need to remove money, remove media promoting consumerism, remove monotone jobs, eliminate sleep deprivation, addictions. Parents need TIME for their children.
libertarianism just renders one relatively less harmful by comparison, as opposed to if someone were a statist. it doesn't change work ethics, passion, the ambition to drive political discourse or any of those things that actually drive people to achieve great things--those are separately developed. hence the lazy and timid still find excuses not to influence the debate and pine away, hence the fiery and willed simply find another tool to simply enhance their ongoing work to improve the world.
Why can't we be politically active and raise children non violently? Ron Paul isn't the answer to everything, but he could be an important step in the right direction. I'm sure a lot of those occupy wall streeters (socialists) were raised without violence, but they are still too stupid to reject or at least recognize state violence. Education is an important step because it will make the solutions more obvious.
I really wish Stefan would stop using the argument "join the mafia and make them stop." It is not a valid analogy. The government does not accept that it is a criminal organization. The mafia accepts that their only reason for existence is crime. With government, the job is not to stop the criminal activity, but rather convince them that their activities are criminal - completely different circumstances than 'joining the mafia.' The more appropriate analogy was "join the teacher's union."
@LotharioRowe The mafia argument is entirely valid. A teachers union doesn't beat people w/ sticks for refusing to pay protection money or disobeying their supposed authority, and the union doesn't shoot them in the face if they resist... the mafia does. A public sector union is nothing but a political parasite feeding off t/ violent predations of the state. It makes no difference whether or not a criminal organization accepts that it is criminal... t/ reality is that it's still criminal.
@ProdigalSonofLiberty for the purposes of a philosophically valid argument, it does make a difference. One organization believes it exists for the purpose of committing crime. The other believes it exists in large part to improve society. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simply a logically invalid analogy. Comparatively, both the teachers union and government believe they exist to benefit society, and both deny the immorality/existence of force required to sustain their existence.
@LotharioRowe I'll disagree with you, but only partially, because what you said has some merit, but only for some individuals. There are a great number of people in politics who know exactly what they're doing, and that they're not improving anyones' lives but their own. We don't know the exact numbers, but because we do know there are some numbers in both situations, the mafia argument is at least somewhat valid.
@LotharioRowe You can't get around the "do what I say or I'll shoot you in the head" part of both the government and mafia that is missing from the teachers union. The mafia families aren't arrogant enough to assume that they have a right to engage in inherently criminal acts, and just because the government IS arrogant enough to do so does not make their criminal acts any less criminal. Read Lysander Spooner... the Highwayman or No Treason
@LotharioRowe No that is not true, the maffia does not se them selfs as criminal. They know though that part of their activities are seen as criminal by other entities. Just like the state.
@LotharioRowe I think the mafia just sees their actions as being might makes right. Whoever can kill their way to the top gets the respect. Not sure though, never been in the mafia - neither have you, I assume. And furthermore, the government does act like a criminal organization. Whether they realize it or not, they do. So it is a decent analogy.
@stefbot I don't think religion is as big of a deal as you think it is. With the logic you are using, agnostics can say the same thing about you and atheism. There is no scientific proof there's no god, just as there's no proof that there is a god. Additionally, theists open to anarchism might initially dismiss you for the same reason.
That being said, I think having RP in the debate is good, but If he wins, I would be concerned about your Titanic theory happening though. I'm undecided still.
small inconsistency: education to parents about child abuse is going to solve it, but education is not going to make people libertarians, because there is plenty of education on nutrition, but people are still more fat than ever.
So why does education work in one case, but not in another case? The parent's child abuse is also just an effect caused by their upbringing.
@modelmark I think almost in the end of the debate stef recognices that, but thats not the only inconsistency is stefs way of thinking. In the case againts animal abuse and againts animal products, mainly meat, he says that subsudies to animal farmers makes meat cheaper, but in another case(i dont remember what exactly) stef says subsudies make products more expensive, bacasue it make the company more inefficient.
@megatherium100 here in europe they give farmers subsidy for not growing food, that has perhaps a different effect from giving buyers subsidy. I'd have to know the context of it.
I guess I should move to Europe and not raise pigs, cows, corn, wheat, barley, as well as several types of fruit. I could even do it from a small apartment with no land at all. How much do you think I'd get paid?
@KaelinSaint lol, no guarantee how long this insanity will last though. It also tends to work better if you are well connected. Same thing happens in the USA by the way. Left over from the great depression when they thought the problem was over production. Or at least they claimed it was, so they paid people to withhold production. They destroyed several million pigs and had cotton fields ploughed over. People went hungry while food was destroyed.
I know it happens here too. Sad really. They limit how much people can water their lawns where I live despite the fact that most of the water waste, upwards of 80%, is from farmers. Most of the rest is industrial. But it is the 1% of waste they are trying to stop.
@DackIsBack No, for reasons Stefan outlines, we don't want him to actually 'win'. However Libertarians should join the Republican party and vote for Ron Paul to get the nomination, if for no other reason than our conspiracy to do that drives them to apoplexy. We want Ron Paul's voice to be loud and heard by as many as possible. We just don't want him holding the wheel when the car goes over the cliff.
@meberic, I did get that impression. But I think titling this exchange between Stef and Ernest as a *Debate* was the wrong format, since it pits the two speakers for-and-against. I think *Discussion* would have been more appropriate. Ernest does indeed conceed a lot of points to stefan, and even admits that now might be the time to abandon politics en mass. But Ernest never even started with the position that Politics is *the* means to achieve freedom, so Stefan was often attacking a straw man.
My mother was a public service employee and after I became an anarcho capitalist in 2009 I tried to convince her that this is the best choice. A year ago she quit her job as an public service architect an became an teacher at a private college because I finally convinced her to be an anar-cap. But my father still thinks anarchy would result in chaos.
@unclesamfatg That's great about your mother, too bad your father hasn't been convinced yet. I am trying to slowly convince my parents, they seem at least somewhat receptive so far.
@alalelalex I don't know that it was "white noise," but much of Hancock's contribution was hard to follow, to the point of often seeming incoherent.
That's not necessarily a knock on him: Was there an intro to this segment that was clipped from the video? He kept referencing a lot of stuff for which I had no context -- stuff about endeavors he's apparently been involved in, campaigns he's undertaken, etc. It's as if he were taking that backstory for granted, and so it was hard to follow.
Wrong again, baldy. The entire narrative about the inevitability of "aggression" destroying us is flawed, and here's why. The opponents of liberty are already planning their violence, and carrying it out in some places. They are willing to use the coercive power of the state to win. You propose a unilateral disarmament. As well, an inference of your position is that the govt will collapse, and of course, financial crack up by no means will lead to that. In fact, we're most likely to get more gov
This is a crucially important debate for libertarians. However, I think the libertarian movement is NOT big and philosophically deep enough to afford abandoning the education-via-politics strategy. Given that politics is very risky and that a Ron Paul presidency will be disastrous for liberty, I think electoral victory is very remote. Paul is the exception to Stefan's theory, it takes a rare man of high personal integrity and deep philosophical insight to wield the ring of power and destroy it.
Just so you folks know, Molyneux's first major point is called the 'inevitability' theory in political philosophy circles. Too bad Hayek actually disagrees with Stefan on this point, and says so specifically in Fatal Conceit. Since Molyneux also admits to not possessing the genius of Hayek (among others) you can dismiss this aspect of his argument completely. Shut up and sit down, baldy!
Actually, what we can dismiss is any part where you use Hayek (who was not even really a libertarian since he promoted government social safety nets) for an appeal to authority fallacy. And for obvious reasons, Stef's self-deprecating remarks are just that. They are not actually logic or evidence of Stef *not* being right.
Maybe you should learn logic if you want to convince people. And in that case, you can also drop the annoying "baldy" remarks, because it makes you a troll.
It didn't seem like much of a debate. What I got from it was that Ernest Hancock was already on the verge of agreement with Stefan Molyneux from the very beginning.
@fTn768 Ernest did what any good debater would do when forced to defend an indefensible proposition, he changed the debate to defend a 'refinement' of the other side's position. He did exactly what I would have done if going head to head versus Stefan in such a debate.
Nothing is going to "work". The human physical brain has much evolving to do. We are the only species that has developed ethics. This was LESS than 10,000 years ago. And at the start, the ethics were extremely weak. Nothing will change in our lifetimes in terms of societal ethics. Concentrate on what you can control -- your own behavior. Live FREE (as a mental state); gain personal peace. Don't worry about the rest.
@YJohannM You should also care about the influence you have on the people around you however, if for no other reason than it affects the quality of your 'own' life. That includes the sorts of conversations you have, the friends you keep, the conduct you display with friends, family and especially children (raising them non-violently), etc.. But if you do all of that, you are none the less clearly actively engaging in changing hearts and minds.
I love that there are still human beings alive on planet Earth that are still trying to debate Stefan Molyneux. (Because it's fun watching him slam dunk them)
Political solution- add a direct democracy to the senate via an online voting system where senators continue to write bills and vote publicly along side the citizens (to avoid fraud) . There is no need for two House of Representatives when we can represent ourselves.
@deshaebeasley why don't we just stop using violence? Why not enjoy the same freedoms publicly as we do privately? Why do we need guns to live in peace?
@gradiu3rox because there will always be others who have guns and want to use violence... you can lay and be a victim if you want blindly follow steph's "non-aggression principle" if you want. I'll just make sure no one takes my freedoms or tries to force me to do anything i dont want with anything i can.. even if its a gun.
Ernest is spot on about progression. It was a process for me. It was being a voting "conservative"---to voting libertarian----to voting Ron Paul-------to non voting anarcho-capitalist----this change occurred over about 3-6 years. Everyone starts from somewhere (this is where I agree with Stefan regarding parenting being key as well). I mean, you just don't go from Reagan to Spooner and Rothbard overnight.
To use Ron Paul as an example of status quo makes Stephan look weak.
Israel-first rats in gov't are killing all of us faster than ever today, even if politics never worked. Picking on Ron Paul is a diversion from the facts.
woah steph got pwnd... Evil doesnt come from child abuse! Power creates evil! children are just born into powerless situations which gets built into the next generation like most shit children learn.
@akpiano27 I've watched all of his videos on child abuse and "the non-aggression principle" and yes i agree child abuse is bad and would help... but it is NOT the primary source of the problems in the world by far. lack of critical thinking is. Even people on here cant think for themselves people gladly give away their ability to think even on here.
@deshaebeasley do you think a person's ability to critically think would be better if their parents let them choose what to do, when to go to bed, what friends to play with, where to go during the day, who to be rude to and who to be polite to, how to live, or if their parents only gave them two choices, do what I say or get hit. Which childhood is more conducive to critical thinking? Ok, now how many parents hit their children? I think it's clear why most children learn not to think.
@gradiu3rox are you a fucking retard or something??? yes treating kids better at home is good but this is not the fucking problem in the world you fucking idiot.. do you not know how long people have been beating their kids with stats varying every fucking generation. here i'll write it out simple for your dumbass since you obviously cant think for yourself... CHILD ABUSE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL THE WORLD PROBLEMS. put it like this if people have a lot of money there is LESS child abuse.
@deshaebeasley Ok, please let me hear your full argument. What gives a person critical thinking skills and why are so many people, including myself, lacking? Also, I searched for some statistics showing that there is a relation between amount of money and child abuse but can't find anything. Could you direct me to where you found this information?
@deshaebeasley I look at "Child Maltreatment 2009" and it does have reported victims categorized by race. Asians had the lowest reports of child abuse and whites the second lowest. African-American's had the highest reported child abuse. So now to look for who had the most money in 2009. I hope it's the Asians.
@deshaebeasley you're right! Asian and Pacific Islanders (although Pacific islanders were in their own group with more child abuse cases that whites in the other study) had more money in 2009 that did African Americans by a large margin according to the 2009 census! More money means less abuse!
@deshaebeasley now that that's out of the way, what does it got to do with anything? If anything it shows that less abuse is related to more critical thinking and therefore a better job. Should I see something else in it?
@gradiu3rox no fucking shit! abuse is one way of getting people to do things without thinking (non-critical thinking)... you beat a horse enough it will walk in whatever line you train it to. the point is... the more chances people have at money the less likely they are to abuse their children... now hold on this is where it gets crazy.... We need to restore economic opportunities to poor people... If you want my solutions on those issues let me know because people like steph dont have any
@deshaebeasley "are you a fucking retard or something??? yes treating kids better at home is good but this is not the fucking problem in the world you fucking idiot.."
Awww, what's the matter...Were you abused as a child? LOL
@deshaebeasley It's what you do with power that determines whether you are good or evil, not the fact that you have it. You know this is true because all parents have power over their children, and yet we don't say all parents are evil.
@cynicist My children are 2 and 3, but I don't have power over them. I treat them as equals. I think a good parent does not put their size into the equation. Last night my children refused to brush their teeth. I said ok and went to sleep. Maybe they brushed after that and maybe not. I think the oldest one did, because she always does, she just doesn't want me telling her to.
When my wife doesn't want to have sex, I don't force her too, but I could. Do I have power over anyone but me?
@gradiu3rox It's great that you treat them as equals, but the fact is that you are far larger and stronger than they are, as well as more cognitively developed. If you chose to take them somewhere, they would have no way to stop you. That is what I mean when I say all parents have power over their children, and that's why it's important that parents exercise patience and reason rather than try to take a shortcut using violence.
@cynicist yes it is a good idea to not abuse your children... that is not the source of all the problems though. its more to do with people not being able to critically think for themselves. Good and evil are just attributes and opinions though.
@deshaebeasley Well it has been proven that child abuse directly affects critical thinking skills, so it is the source of many problems in our society. Morality is not subjective btw, good and evil are not mere opinion.
@deshaebeasley Well sure, but that doesn't change the fact that child abuse reduces iq, increases aggression, and in the long run, negatively impacts our society. I'm not saying it is the source of all of our problems, how could I say that? I just mean that a lot of the violence in society originates from the violence experienced during childhood. People learn what they are taught, and when children learn from adults that violence is how to get your way it is no surprise how society ends up.
@deshaebeasley I think powerless situation = child abuse. If someone has no choice in the matter, they are shuffled around by threat of force, that is abuse. Children have no choice but to be abused until the bigger people realize that this is morally wrong. If you can't hit your wife because you are stronger, you can't hit your children. I agree. But I think they are the same thing. To have power over is a result of abuse.
yeah maybe steph is right... we should just all give up and just talk with each other and use our "non-aggressive principle"...... I wonder how Andrew Jackson would debate this guy.
Economic solution- Create a US debt-free currency (ex. the greenback). Print it at a 1:1 ratio with the current Federal Reserve notes to have a smoother transition. Cancel the debt to the Federal reserve and work out a deal with foreign creditors like China. Legalize alternative forms of money/currency like Gold, silver and Bitcoin.
Ernest Hancock: (in response to a request for his thoughts on Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of Evolution) "You're confusing me with someone who cares!" [applause and laughter]. Ernest goes on to say that focusing on this issue is merely a ploy to de-legitimise everything else Ron Paul says.
It would be unfair to dismiss Ron Paul entirely for this one issue, but certainly it says something about the rigour of his thinking when any aspect of his religion is part of the discussion.
What happens if every future ballot fails? New elections come, government is in resignation, and all voters stop voting...What if most of the people just stop voting...permanently? Of course, in countries with electronic voting, they can rig it in few seconds...but in countries which vote on paper? Hmmmmmmm...
If your simply using the electoral process as a platform for advertising freedom then I guess I would have a hard time disagreing with you. However using the violence of the state AT ALL is not only morally wrong, but will only make things worse.
Hello Stefan. I would like to know how you think anarchism would embrace the scientific method and, considering it's one of the main out-sourcers of jobs, I would like to know what you think the general perception of technology would be? Maybe you could also give some counter arguments to the view that a free market system would adopt a slow advancement of technology in order to reap the economic rewards of old technology. Thanks.
It's rather hard to conceal the weasliness of your business when every other competitor is working around the clock to prove it, when every company that has a potential liability (drugs, food, etc.) has insurers that have a vested interest in making sure that the oversight of the product is thorough.
Fine, maybe money's not prohibited.
Let's say we live in the Venus "ideal" and 64 of us want a ship that can go to Europa and terraform it. In a free market I can do it, in yours no.
I forget what videos he discusses this in, but the basic thing is, technology does kill jobs temporarily, but it creates wealth and the jobs that were lost are replaced with new jobs. Nothing rids the world of poverty more than wealth creation, restricting or preventing technological advancement or use creates poverty and that, in the end, causes jobs to be lost. Or something like that.
@NativeNewMexican I didn't clarify the fact that I see technological advancement as a good thing. I suppose it worries me that in a true free market system technological advancement would be seen as a bad thing and would result in disregard for the scientific method. I am an advocate of The Venus Project; maybe that reinforces the angle in which I am coming from. Thanks for the reply.
How in the world would technological advancement not be supported by a system that consistently rewards the "better mousetrap"? The Venus project calls for the prohibition of money, self ownership of the means of production, advertising, and more does it not? In other words, The Venus project uses violence to try to create a "scientific" solution.
The Venus project says, "a big mega computer" can do it. I prefer to have 6,775,235,700 microcomputers do it.
@NativeNewMexican I don't see how a system whereby one reaps the benefits of old technology before advancing to newer technology is beneficial to the scientific method. I could apply the same logic to medicine; why would it be beneficial to anybody to cure diseases when people are making so much money from illness? There maybe a simple answer to this but I am yet to hear anything convincing. We can debate about The Venus Project once this question has been addressed.
The system of the free market rewards the best product as determined by cost and satisfaction. If a product that would cure cancer were to be invented, it would quickly be sought out by all cancer sufferers above all other cancer treatments assuming that the cost were not prohibitive. There is no monopoly on the creation of said treatment other than that which is created by the state through regulation, patents, etc. The same goes for all other inventions.
@NativeNewMexican OK. How would bad business be weaseled out? Would some people have to be conned before word catches on that a bad business is in operation? Also, what if that business is very good at concealing the fact it is dodgy? I also want to know where you read that The Venus Project calls for the prohibition of money? My understanding of it is that money wouldn't be necessary in a system whereby all of the world's resources are declared common heritage of man. Where's the violence?
Really? I get the philosophy, but do we really want to leave all elections to be decided by the red team and the blue team with all their rhetoric and ignorance??
Voting for Ron Paul will end up killing less people if he were elected, or have more of a potential of doing so. It's not what we want, but it's better....isn't that what any sane person would aim for? Duh, Stefan is dead-wrong about that one. He's making his hairy arguments while fucking innocent kids get droned to bits that could be averted if Ron Paul was President.
I dont mean to be snarky, but I honestly dont believe that the most powerful war machine in human history is just going to pack up and go home because an old man wrote some words on a peice of paper.
I mean I like Ron Paul alot, if it wasnt for him in 08 i wouldnt be watching this video. However what happens when it doesnt work? Do we just wait around for another 20 years for the next Ron Paul to come along?
@TheBookArchive Agreed, the sad thing is that those deaths and the continued abuses of innocents in our prisons may be necessary to let the system fail without having the blame of the subsequent suffering laid at the feet of Libertarianism.
@NativeNewMexican Where Stefan get's screwy, or at least to me, is when he explains that educating people needs to be done on a personal level, then says that Ron Paul being elected would impair libertarians. Guess what, people already have their false view of libertarianism and anarchism, they will find their trolls, or mockeries, etc. to be had with, and if people still don't stick with NAP and UPB then they won't understand what happened. Which means in short, while people are learning we can
@stefbot Ernest appears to be saying that politics is a great place to advertise, not educate. Obviously spreading the word and bringing people to your site would be a benefit to the cause wouldn't it?
I am appalled at the idea that you would deny using the political process to give the imprisoned non-violent drug offenders the opportunity to be pardoned, because that's what Paul will do. We are obligated to try to end their continued rape, shame on you for advocating that we not try.
@Equity213 Competitive debating is a sport and is something else. This was not a competition, this was meant to be educational. The point of this sort of debate is not to 'win' but to present the best case you can so the audience can make their own decision. If you find yourself in complete agreement with your opponent in a debate, you still do your best to make the other case, because it helps the audience to understand.
@jsmith2144 Hey dumbass--if you are not for Liberty get the hell out of AMERICA!!! Apparently you don't know the true meaning of Liberty--so go school yourself troll.....................
I've always considered America's Founding Fathers to be true Libertarians. In my view, if anything Libertarians should be MORE involved in politics rather than abandoning them.
This has been flagged as spam show
I do think that peaceful parenting is a SURE way to success. But I also know that education is successful. Do you know why? BECAUSE EDUCATION *FREED MY MIND*. I am living proof that it works. The weight loss analogy is flawed, because losing weight requires physical activity. Changing your political beliefs requires MENTAL activity- thus, education.
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
Comment removed
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
Stefan, you keep making the argument that you cant change anything by education, and you cant change anything by activism, and that the only method is to die and hope that others at some point in the distant future start to understand and apply freedom principles. I'd argue you should do any and everything you can but not set your hopes too high. Once you get 10% of people to believe something, there is a snowball effect on the rest of the population. Calling something what it is isnt enough.
jdm43 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish Wrong Paul and the libertarian twits that follow him would answer one simple question.
Where will your Constitutional liberties apply when taxation ends and all public lands and government functions are privatized?
Xerock 3 months ago
Comment removed
Xerock 3 months ago
goog earthsociety anonymos
ostralopithicus 3 months ago
Moly rightly points out that people will turn against libertarianism if Paul gets in. This is true, but he ignores his own point that the political system isn't the way forward. It doesn't matter if the masses turn against. If Paul can reduce the size even a bit, if he can keep the internet free just a bit longer. We agorists will (are now) building a new internet (I2P) that allows free trade that can't be shuttered - and the free market spawned by it, shall change the rest. Paul is a stop-gap.
ostralopithicus 3 months ago
so what if the farmer protests. whats he going to do, if he wants to protest, is he going to stop putting his produce on the market? well we have a lot of that happening now where there is produce not being put on the market because there is not enough immigrants to harvest it. but when you look at the facts the immigration laws are wrong, and i have faith that the people will look at the facts and realize libertarian policies are right. like the guy said freedom/truth will always prevail
nbonasoro 3 months ago
also why is it that people will fight against him, and he will be forced to fight back, just for a minute lets assume the public does fight him, he seems like the kind of person, because he believes in the constitution that he will let them protest because thats within their rights, and is intelligent enough to prevent the spoilage of his good name, and the name of libertarianism.
nbonasoro 3 months ago
He also says how people who learn something dont automatically do it, and then starts talking about how we should teach parents the right way to parent, and they will do it. Well what's the difference here? both parents and obese people presumably have the motivation to acheive their goals (be a better parent, and get to a proper weight), but the difference is in the quality of their knowledge. the parents are being told the truth while the obese are lied to by vested interests.
nbonasoro 3 months ago
I like stefan's ideas, but here is the only time i disagree with him. He says when Ron paul enacts his policies, it will be libertarians who are demonized, well the policies have to go through congress to get passed, so i think everybody will have some skin in the game, and he has proven that he is able to form coalitions to get bills passed.
nbonasoro 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Without God there IS NO FREEDOM.
cevansroxy 3 months ago
Evolution has NOTHING to do with Libertarian-ism. Believing in God has nothing to do with Libertarian-ism. I know that God lives and I know that I did not come from an Ape, yet I also know that Man was meant to be free because that is God's plan. Stefan, in order to truly understand freedom, you have to believe in the One Being who GAVE YOU YOUR FREEDOM, and that is the One and Only Heavenly Father.
cevansroxy 3 months ago
@cevansroxy so yes we have freedom because it was given to us. So by that argument why can't people take it away? i give you a christmas gift, and take it away, I'm a bad person but hey im not going to have something bad happen to me. I personally like it when people say we are given our freedoms from a creator, i shoot right back at them it was our mothers.
nbonasoro 3 months ago
I have seen little evidence that Stefan understands what "the state" is in the first place. If one accepts the premise or definition which he bases the rest of his thesis on, then perhaps what he asserts might be relevant. I just don't feel that his definition of the state or government is correct from the outset. The mafia analogy, as LotRowe points out, is off base. It infers a false dichotomy. The government ARE the people, and if not, the solution isn't to rid a Demo. gov, but increase it.
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
Stefan seemed to have hired some pilots to fly airplanes every time Hancock spoke ;)
RKAddict101 3 months ago
Stefan, an atheist can be against evolution so being against evolution doesn't damage Dr. Paul's credibility, unless he promotes another theory that you can empirically disprove.
disinpho 3 months ago
The title question for this debate is a no brainer. If a 'libertarian' is a person committed to NAP, then of course they should abandon electoral politics, since 'election' to 'public office' is about choosing heteronomous representatives to commit violence on one's behalf. You vote, you condone oppression. Simple as.
I listened to about 2 minutes of Stefbot's opening argument, which reeked of pragmatism, and not the clear moral stance I have outlined above.
Ask yourself what you believe.
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@BenettFreeman I believe BennettFreeman needs to google humility.
jeffiek 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
@jeffiek Shame you couldn't even get my name right. Anyway, do you have anything to say about the point I made. The fact that - on this occasion - it is I that is making the point, is irrelevant. Countless others have made it before, and countless others will in the future. Ideas should be separated from idealists and from ideologies...however, the fact remains that all one needs to know in order to abandon it, is that 'politics' is in stark contradiction of the NAP. The rest is superfluous.
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@BenettFreeman
"You vote, you condone oppression. Simple as."
I guess voting against Adolf Hitler would also be condoning oppression aswell.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist I encourage you to think very hard about what voting actually means, cuz when it comes down to it, voting is complicity in the heteronomous oppression of governments. If we both lived in the land known as the USA for example, and you gave your vote to a so-called 'public official', they might impose upon me certain immoral imperatives, to which you would then be an accomplice.
Furthermore, one does not merely vote against candidates. To vote against AH you would have to...
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist ...for someone else. Who? Why? So the other person could oppress me in a slightly different style. I urge you not to fall into the trap of consequentialist thinking. If Hitler didn't become Fuhrer that is not to say that Europe would have got off scott-free. There are always psychopaths ready to take the 'reigns of power' and commit atrocities. If you're still stuck in the minarchist mindset, think of it like this: in order to fight evil baddies, you and your pals create an..
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist ...institution called 'government' with a monopoly on the use of force, to combat those baddies. Q: Where do you think the first place those baddies are gonna run for cover?
I'm pretty sure RP thinks he has the best of intentions by running for POTUS. But there cannot be any freedom in those lands as long as such a position remains in existence.
So yes, whoever you vote for, you're condoning oppression. I urge you to look into voluntarism. Feel free to visit my blog :)
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@BenettFreeman
I am thinking of it from a consequentialist mindset, because I dont believe morality is worth anything unless it actually applies to human suffering. The government system is oppressive, but not every single leader is as oppressive as others. If you honestly think Hitler would have been just as bad as say, the social democrats then youre out of your mind. The communists perhaps, but there were plenty of other parties.
And I know what voluntarism is, I'm an anti statist myself.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist Morality is the process of choice. I would have thought it logical that those choices be made to avoid suffering full stop, not simply pragmatically contain it. The consequences of Hitler's regime may have been worse than 'social democrats' (for some people, remember the problem of referent objects) but being a leader is not more moral just because the net level of suffering is lower. Morality cannot be measured with reference to consequences, nor can consequences be...
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InvincibleNumanist ...measured with reference to morality. Morality is concerned with choices - and therefore comes before the act. Please see the first chapter of my work on Freedom for a more in-depth explanation of what I mean.
I'm not sure what you personally mean by 'anti-statist', but there are no states, and if you are voting, then you are complicit in the oppression of the heteronomous actors you are voting for. Consequentialism is self-defeating.
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
@BenettFreeman
In which case, screw your definition of morality.
Ron Paul is an anarcho capitalist at heart, but hes being pragmatic and trying to bring the closest thing currently possible.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist ...measured with reference to morality. Morality is concerned with choices - and therefore comes before the act. Please see the first chapter of my work on Freedom for a more in-depth explanation of what I mean.
I'm not sure what you personally mean by 'anti-statist', but there are no states, and if you are voting, then you are complicit in the oppression of the heteronomous actors you are voting for. Consequentialism is self-defeating.
BenettFreeman 3 months ago
I'm with Ernest Hancock. I tried arguing this on FDR forums but evidently not as convincing as Ernie.
VonHOG 3 months ago
I think we'd see people would treat their children significantly better if human beings were freed of boring, monotone jobs which causes sleep deprivation, sugar addictions, stress and so forth. Eliminating child abuse is obviously the way to go, but in order for that to actually happen human life as it is right now needs to be changed. We need to remove money, remove media promoting consumerism, remove monotone jobs, eliminate sleep deprivation, addictions. Parents need TIME for their children.
frederikhoejgaard 3 months ago
Wow. Bit of a low blow with the weight thing, but... you're right.
chitchcott 3 months ago
libertarianism just renders one relatively less harmful by comparison, as opposed to if someone were a statist. it doesn't change work ethics, passion, the ambition to drive political discourse or any of those things that actually drive people to achieve great things--those are separately developed. hence the lazy and timid still find excuses not to influence the debate and pine away, hence the fiery and willed simply find another tool to simply enhance their ongoing work to improve the world.
spyletu 3 months ago
Why can't we be politically active and raise children non violently? Ron Paul isn't the answer to everything, but he could be an important step in the right direction. I'm sure a lot of those occupy wall streeters (socialists) were raised without violence, but they are still too stupid to reject or at least recognize state violence. Education is an important step because it will make the solutions more obvious.
ShatterNWO 3 months ago
I really wish Stefan would stop using the argument "join the mafia and make them stop." It is not a valid analogy. The government does not accept that it is a criminal organization. The mafia accepts that their only reason for existence is crime. With government, the job is not to stop the criminal activity, but rather convince them that their activities are criminal - completely different circumstances than 'joining the mafia.' The more appropriate analogy was "join the teacher's union."
LotharioRowe 3 months ago 12
@LotharioRowe The mafia argument is entirely valid. A teachers union doesn't beat people w/ sticks for refusing to pay protection money or disobeying their supposed authority, and the union doesn't shoot them in the face if they resist... the mafia does. A public sector union is nothing but a political parasite feeding off t/ violent predations of the state. It makes no difference whether or not a criminal organization accepts that it is criminal... t/ reality is that it's still criminal.
ProdigalSonofLiberty 3 months ago
@ProdigalSonofLiberty for the purposes of a philosophically valid argument, it does make a difference. One organization believes it exists for the purpose of committing crime. The other believes it exists in large part to improve society. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simply a logically invalid analogy. Comparatively, both the teachers union and government believe they exist to benefit society, and both deny the immorality/existence of force required to sustain their existence.
LotharioRowe 3 months ago
@LotharioRowe I'll disagree with you, but only partially, because what you said has some merit, but only for some individuals. There are a great number of people in politics who know exactly what they're doing, and that they're not improving anyones' lives but their own. We don't know the exact numbers, but because we do know there are some numbers in both situations, the mafia argument is at least somewhat valid.
RKAddict101 3 months ago
@LotharioRowe You can't get around the "do what I say or I'll shoot you in the head" part of both the government and mafia that is missing from the teachers union. The mafia families aren't arrogant enough to assume that they have a right to engage in inherently criminal acts, and just because the government IS arrogant enough to do so does not make their criminal acts any less criminal. Read Lysander Spooner... the Highwayman or No Treason
ProdigalSonofLiberty 3 months ago
@LotharioRowe No that is not true, the maffia does not se them selfs as criminal. They know though that part of their activities are seen as criminal by other entities. Just like the state.
SakakiDash 3 months ago 9
@SakakiDash So they are similar then?
TheStig000 3 months ago
@TheStig000 More like diffrent scales of the same thing. ;) Especialy if you look att the mechanics. Like Taxation/Protection etc
SakakiDash 3 months ago
@SakakiDash Agreed.
TheStig000 3 months ago
@LotharioRowe I think the mafia just sees their actions as being might makes right. Whoever can kill their way to the top gets the respect. Not sure though, never been in the mafia - neither have you, I assume. And furthermore, the government does act like a criminal organization. Whether they realize it or not, they do. So it is a decent analogy.
TheStig000 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stefbot I don't think religion is as big of a deal as you think it is. With the logic you are using, agnostics can say the same thing about you and atheism. There is no scientific proof there's no god, just as there's no proof that there is a god. Additionally, theists open to anarchism might initially dismiss you for the same reason.
That being said, I think having RP in the debate is good, but If he wins, I would be concerned about your Titanic theory happening though. I'm undecided still.
mmeziere 3 months ago
Comment removed
mmeziere 3 months ago
small inconsistency: education to parents about child abuse is going to solve it, but education is not going to make people libertarians, because there is plenty of education on nutrition, but people are still more fat than ever.
So why does education work in one case, but not in another case? The parent's child abuse is also just an effect caused by their upbringing.
modelmark 3 months ago
@modelmark I think almost in the end of the debate stef recognices that, but thats not the only inconsistency is stefs way of thinking. In the case againts animal abuse and againts animal products, mainly meat, he says that subsudies to animal farmers makes meat cheaper, but in another case(i dont remember what exactly) stef says subsudies make products more expensive, bacasue it make the company more inefficient.
megatherium100 3 months ago
@megatherium100 here in europe they give farmers subsidy for not growing food, that has perhaps a different effect from giving buyers subsidy. I'd have to know the context of it.
modelmark 3 months ago
@modelmark
I guess I should move to Europe and not raise pigs, cows, corn, wheat, barley, as well as several types of fruit. I could even do it from a small apartment with no land at all. How much do you think I'd get paid?
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@KaelinSaint lol, no guarantee how long this insanity will last though. It also tends to work better if you are well connected. Same thing happens in the USA by the way. Left over from the great depression when they thought the problem was over production. Or at least they claimed it was, so they paid people to withhold production. They destroyed several million pigs and had cotton fields ploughed over. People went hungry while food was destroyed.
modelmark 3 months ago
@modelmark
I know it happens here too. Sad really. They limit how much people can water their lawns where I live despite the fact that most of the water waste, upwards of 80%, is from farmers. Most of the rest is industrial. But it is the 1% of waste they are trying to stop.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
Wait are there cops there? I thought I heard barking.
AnarchicSolution 3 months ago
@AnarchicSolution nah, if there were cops there, it would have been squeeling
Helionaeic 3 months ago
@Helionaeic good point sir
AnarchicSolution 3 months ago
I think the real question is "Should Libertarians Vote For Ron Paul In 2012?".
DackIsBack 3 months ago
@DackIsBack No, for reasons Stefan outlines, we don't want him to actually 'win'. However Libertarians should join the Republican party and vote for Ron Paul to get the nomination, if for no other reason than our conspiracy to do that drives them to apoplexy. We want Ron Paul's voice to be loud and heard by as many as possible. We just don't want him holding the wheel when the car goes over the cliff.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@hullium91 HAHA!
guitardude1230 3 months ago
Did anyone get the impression that Stef was debating and Ernie apologizing?
meberic 3 months ago
@meberic, I did get that impression. But I think titling this exchange between Stef and Ernest as a *Debate* was the wrong format, since it pits the two speakers for-and-against. I think *Discussion* would have been more appropriate. Ernest does indeed conceed a lot of points to stefan, and even admits that now might be the time to abandon politics en mass. But Ernest never even started with the position that Politics is *the* means to achieve freedom, so Stefan was often attacking a straw man.
ericfontainejazz 3 months ago
My mother was a public service employee and after I became an anarcho capitalist in 2009 I tried to convince her that this is the best choice. A year ago she quit her job as an public service architect an became an teacher at a private college because I finally convinced her to be an anar-cap. But my father still thinks anarchy would result in chaos.
unclesamfatg 3 months ago
@unclesamfatg That's great about your mother, too bad your father hasn't been convinced yet. I am trying to slowly convince my parents, they seem at least somewhat receptive so far.
trentmanslow 3 months ago
I just skipped the white noise called Ernest Hancock.
alalelalex 3 months ago
Comment removed
TomMichaels101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alalelalex I don't know that it was "white noise," but much of Hancock's contribution was hard to follow, to the point of often seeming incoherent.
That's not necessarily a knock on him: Was there an intro to this segment that was clipped from the video? He kept referencing a lot of stuff for which I had no context -- stuff about endeavors he's apparently been involved in, campaigns he's undertaken, etc. It's as if he were taking that backstory for granted, and so it was hard to follow.
TomMichaels101 3 months ago
Wrong again, baldy. The entire narrative about the inevitability of "aggression" destroying us is flawed, and here's why. The opponents of liberty are already planning their violence, and carrying it out in some places. They are willing to use the coercive power of the state to win. You propose a unilateral disarmament. As well, an inference of your position is that the govt will collapse, and of course, financial crack up by no means will lead to that. In fact, we're most likely to get more gov
glennd7962 3 months ago
This is a crucially important debate for libertarians. However, I think the libertarian movement is NOT big and philosophically deep enough to afford abandoning the education-via-politics strategy. Given that politics is very risky and that a Ron Paul presidency will be disastrous for liberty, I think electoral victory is very remote. Paul is the exception to Stefan's theory, it takes a rare man of high personal integrity and deep philosophical insight to wield the ring of power and destroy it.
truevoice08 3 months ago
Just so you folks know, Molyneux's first major point is called the 'inevitability' theory in political philosophy circles. Too bad Hayek actually disagrees with Stefan on this point, and says so specifically in Fatal Conceit. Since Molyneux also admits to not possessing the genius of Hayek (among others) you can dismiss this aspect of his argument completely. Shut up and sit down, baldy!
glennd7962 3 months ago
@glennd7962
Actually, what we can dismiss is any part where you use Hayek (who was not even really a libertarian since he promoted government social safety nets) for an appeal to authority fallacy. And for obvious reasons, Stef's self-deprecating remarks are just that. They are not actually logic or evidence of Stef *not* being right.
Maybe you should learn logic if you want to convince people. And in that case, you can also drop the annoying "baldy" remarks, because it makes you a troll.
tridentmovies 3 months ago
It didn't seem like much of a debate. What I got from it was that Ernest Hancock was already on the verge of agreement with Stefan Molyneux from the very beginning.
fTn768 3 months ago
@fTn768 Ernest did what any good debater would do when forced to defend an indefensible proposition, he changed the debate to defend a 'refinement' of the other side's position. He did exactly what I would have done if going head to head versus Stefan in such a debate.
Panpiper 3 months ago
Nothing is going to "work". The human physical brain has much evolving to do. We are the only species that has developed ethics. This was LESS than 10,000 years ago. And at the start, the ethics were extremely weak. Nothing will change in our lifetimes in terms of societal ethics. Concentrate on what you can control -- your own behavior. Live FREE (as a mental state); gain personal peace. Don't worry about the rest.
YJohannM 3 months ago
@YJohannM You should also care about the influence you have on the people around you however, if for no other reason than it affects the quality of your 'own' life. That includes the sorts of conversations you have, the friends you keep, the conduct you display with friends, family and especially children (raising them non-violently), etc.. But if you do all of that, you are none the less clearly actively engaging in changing hearts and minds.
Panpiper 3 months ago
@Panpiper True...and good advice. As long as your objective isn't to "change hearts and minds". If you do it right, that may happen all on it's own.
YJohannM 3 months ago
If you grow up without knowing of spanking, the parents spanking look kinda retarded.
theworldeatswithyou 3 months ago
@stefbot can you give a quick summary of what you were going to say is an alternative to "just education", since just education doesn't work?
lukasewing 3 months ago
@lukasewing Peaceful parenting.
Panpiper 3 months ago
I love that there are still human beings alive on planet Earth that are still trying to debate Stefan Molyneux. (Because it's fun watching him slam dunk them)
TimothyADonaghue 3 months ago
@TimothyADonaghue We are willing to debate him, 'not' because we think we can win, but because the debate clarifies thinking for everyone.
Panpiper 3 months ago
Political solution- add a direct democracy to the senate via an online voting system where senators continue to write bills and vote publicly along side the citizens (to avoid fraud) . There is no need for two House of Representatives when we can represent ourselves.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley why don't we just stop using violence? Why not enjoy the same freedoms publicly as we do privately? Why do we need guns to live in peace?
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@gradiu3rox because there will always be others who have guns and want to use violence... you can lay and be a victim if you want blindly follow steph's "non-aggression principle" if you want. I'll just make sure no one takes my freedoms or tries to force me to do anything i dont want with anything i can.. even if its a gun.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
Stefan: Education alone does not work.
Questioner: How do you go about reducing child abuse?
Stefan: Educate people.
bulldogvillan 3 months ago 11
@bulldogvillan Way to take it out of context...
FUZZYisBIG 3 months ago 2
Ernest is spot on about progression. It was a process for me. It was being a voting "conservative"---to voting libertarian----to voting Ron Paul-------to non voting anarcho-capitalist----this change occurred over about 3-6 years. Everyone starts from somewhere (this is where I agree with Stefan regarding parenting being key as well). I mean, you just don't go from Reagan to Spooner and Rothbard overnight.
bulldogvillan 3 months ago
that was good
cucumbers70 3 months ago
Who brings an annoying little dog to Libertopia?!?!
guitardude1230 4 months ago 25
@guitardude1230 Hitler would, that's for sure.
PluralOfEverything 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guitardude1230 "Who brings an annoying little dog to Libertopia?!?!"
Inconsiderate and self-absorbed people...some of which are obviously libertarians. More evidence of why nothing will change.
YJohannM 3 months ago
To use Ron Paul as an example of status quo makes Stephan look weak.
Israel-first rats in gov't are killing all of us faster than ever today, even if politics never worked. Picking on Ron Paul is a diversion from the facts.
Xianman06 4 months ago
Goyim must DUMP THE JEW WORLD ORDER. It's really that simple.
Xianman06 4 months ago
different sounds we're very anoying, kept distracting me...
PhilippeMusique 4 months ago
@stefbot i dont think the fat asses really know anything about nutrition . they might read a fad diet book but not anything about real health
godseyeview 4 months ago
I used to think spanking was a good thing... My son says thank you Stefan
PeacelnValhalla 4 months ago 46
@PeacelnValhalla The Stateless Society of the future thanks you too. My kids thank you too...you have prevented another politician or policeman.
RodCornholio 4 months ago
@PeacelnValhalla how could you think spanking was a good thing?
waksibra 3 months ago
Stef...good job=)
wize11 4 months ago
im missing the thin foil hats
erdal0 4 months ago
woah steph got pwnd... Evil doesnt come from child abuse! Power creates evil! children are just born into powerless situations which gets built into the next generation like most shit children learn.
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
@deshaebeasley Watch his videos on child abuse. He references all of the evidence and scientific studies there. He makes the case quite soundly.
akpiano27 4 months ago
@akpiano27 I've watched all of his videos on child abuse and "the non-aggression principle" and yes i agree child abuse is bad and would help... but it is NOT the primary source of the problems in the world by far. lack of critical thinking is. Even people on here cant think for themselves people gladly give away their ability to think even on here.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley do you think a person's ability to critically think would be better if their parents let them choose what to do, when to go to bed, what friends to play with, where to go during the day, who to be rude to and who to be polite to, how to live, or if their parents only gave them two choices, do what I say or get hit. Which childhood is more conducive to critical thinking? Ok, now how many parents hit their children? I think it's clear why most children learn not to think.
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@gradiu3rox are you a fucking retard or something??? yes treating kids better at home is good but this is not the fucking problem in the world you fucking idiot.. do you not know how long people have been beating their kids with stats varying every fucking generation. here i'll write it out simple for your dumbass since you obviously cant think for yourself... CHILD ABUSE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL THE WORLD PROBLEMS. put it like this if people have a lot of money there is LESS child abuse.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley Ok, please let me hear your full argument. What gives a person critical thinking skills and why are so many people, including myself, lacking? Also, I searched for some statistics showing that there is a relation between amount of money and child abuse but can't find anything. Could you direct me to where you found this information?
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley I look at "Child Maltreatment 2009" and it does have reported victims categorized by race. Asians had the lowest reports of child abuse and whites the second lowest. African-American's had the highest reported child abuse. So now to look for who had the most money in 2009. I hope it's the Asians.
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley you're right! Asian and Pacific Islanders (although Pacific islanders were in their own group with more child abuse cases that whites in the other study) had more money in 2009 that did African Americans by a large margin according to the 2009 census! More money means less abuse!
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley now that that's out of the way, what does it got to do with anything? If anything it shows that less abuse is related to more critical thinking and therefore a better job. Should I see something else in it?
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@gradiu3rox no fucking shit! abuse is one way of getting people to do things without thinking (non-critical thinking)... you beat a horse enough it will walk in whatever line you train it to. the point is... the more chances people have at money the less likely they are to abuse their children... now hold on this is where it gets crazy.... We need to restore economic opportunities to poor people... If you want my solutions on those issues let me know because people like steph dont have any
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley "are you a fucking retard or something??? yes treating kids better at home is good but this is not the fucking problem in the world you fucking idiot.."
Awww, what's the matter...Were you abused as a child? LOL
YJohannM 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley It's what you do with power that determines whether you are good or evil, not the fact that you have it. You know this is true because all parents have power over their children, and yet we don't say all parents are evil.
cynicist 4 months ago
@cynicist My children are 2 and 3, but I don't have power over them. I treat them as equals. I think a good parent does not put their size into the equation. Last night my children refused to brush their teeth. I said ok and went to sleep. Maybe they brushed after that and maybe not. I think the oldest one did, because she always does, she just doesn't want me telling her to.
When my wife doesn't want to have sex, I don't force her too, but I could. Do I have power over anyone but me?
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
@gradiu3rox It's great that you treat them as equals, but the fact is that you are far larger and stronger than they are, as well as more cognitively developed. If you chose to take them somewhere, they would have no way to stop you. That is what I mean when I say all parents have power over their children, and that's why it's important that parents exercise patience and reason rather than try to take a shortcut using violence.
cynicist 3 months ago
@cynicist yes it is a good idea to not abuse your children... that is not the source of all the problems though. its more to do with people not being able to critically think for themselves. Good and evil are just attributes and opinions though.
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley Well it has been proven that child abuse directly affects critical thinking skills, so it is the source of many problems in our society. Morality is not subjective btw, good and evil are not mere opinion.
cynicist 3 months ago
@cynicist and it has been shown that happiness of the parents affect child abuse..
deshaebeasley 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley Well sure, but that doesn't change the fact that child abuse reduces iq, increases aggression, and in the long run, negatively impacts our society. I'm not saying it is the source of all of our problems, how could I say that? I just mean that a lot of the violence in society originates from the violence experienced during childhood. People learn what they are taught, and when children learn from adults that violence is how to get your way it is no surprise how society ends up.
cynicist 3 months ago
@deshaebeasley I think powerless situation = child abuse. If someone has no choice in the matter, they are shuffled around by threat of force, that is abuse. Children have no choice but to be abused until the bigger people realize that this is morally wrong. If you can't hit your wife because you are stronger, you can't hit your children. I agree. But I think they are the same thing. To have power over is a result of abuse.
gradiu3rox 3 months ago
yeah maybe steph is right... we should just all give up and just talk with each other and use our "non-aggressive principle"...... I wonder how Andrew Jackson would debate this guy.
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
@Deshaebeasley I m interrested on what deal you planing on work out with China?That is not going to be a big "FUCK YOU" to them
rodrigodet 4 months ago
Economic solution- Create a US debt-free currency (ex. the greenback). Print it at a 1:1 ratio with the current Federal Reserve notes to have a smoother transition. Cancel the debt to the Federal reserve and work out a deal with foreign creditors like China. Legalize alternative forms of money/currency like Gold, silver and Bitcoin.
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
Stefan quoted voting statisitics at the beginning.
Here are some thoughts to consider:
There are 7 billion people in the world.
The majority of them are in or have been through government controlled education.
How long would it take to convince 7 billion people that they don't need the state?
Shellshock1918 4 months ago
Ernest Hancock: (in response to a request for his thoughts on Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of Evolution) "You're confusing me with someone who cares!" [applause and laughter]. Ernest goes on to say that focusing on this issue is merely a ploy to de-legitimise everything else Ron Paul says.
It would be unfair to dismiss Ron Paul entirely for this one issue, but certainly it says something about the rigour of his thinking when any aspect of his religion is part of the discussion.
danroysanders 4 months ago 5
What happens if every future ballot fails? New elections come, government is in resignation, and all voters stop voting...What if most of the people just stop voting...permanently? Of course, in countries with electronic voting, they can rig it in few seconds...but in countries which vote on paper? Hmmmmmmm...
zachzodia 4 months ago
If your simply using the electoral process as a platform for advertising freedom then I guess I would have a hard time disagreing with you. However using the violence of the state AT ALL is not only morally wrong, but will only make things worse.
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 Using the power of the state to pardon criminals of non-violent crime is wrong?
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
Stephan is the man.
66chevyo 4 months ago
Hello Stefan. I would like to know how you think anarchism would embrace the scientific method and, considering it's one of the main out-sourcers of jobs, I would like to know what you think the general perception of technology would be? Maybe you could also give some counter arguments to the view that a free market system would adopt a slow advancement of technology in order to reap the economic rewards of old technology. Thanks.
MrZeus191 4 months ago
@MrZeus191 Sorry, I could have worded that question a bit better but hopefully you understand what I am asking.
MrZeus191 4 months ago
@MrZeus191
It's rather hard to conceal the weasliness of your business when every other competitor is working around the clock to prove it, when every company that has a potential liability (drugs, food, etc.) has insurers that have a vested interest in making sure that the oversight of the product is thorough.
Fine, maybe money's not prohibited.
Let's say we live in the Venus "ideal" and 64 of us want a ship that can go to Europa and terraform it. In a free market I can do it, in yours no.
NativeNewMexican 3 months ago
@MrZeus191
I forget what videos he discusses this in, but the basic thing is, technology does kill jobs temporarily, but it creates wealth and the jobs that were lost are replaced with new jobs. Nothing rids the world of poverty more than wealth creation, restricting or preventing technological advancement or use creates poverty and that, in the end, causes jobs to be lost. Or something like that.
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
@NativeNewMexican I didn't clarify the fact that I see technological advancement as a good thing. I suppose it worries me that in a true free market system technological advancement would be seen as a bad thing and would result in disregard for the scientific method. I am an advocate of The Venus Project; maybe that reinforces the angle in which I am coming from. Thanks for the reply.
MrZeus191 4 months ago
@MrZeus191
How in the world would technological advancement not be supported by a system that consistently rewards the "better mousetrap"? The Venus project calls for the prohibition of money, self ownership of the means of production, advertising, and more does it not? In other words, The Venus project uses violence to try to create a "scientific" solution.
The Venus project says, "a big mega computer" can do it. I prefer to have 6,775,235,700 microcomputers do it.
NativeNewMexican 3 months ago 13
@NativeNewMexican I don't see how a system whereby one reaps the benefits of old technology before advancing to newer technology is beneficial to the scientific method. I could apply the same logic to medicine; why would it be beneficial to anybody to cure diseases when people are making so much money from illness? There maybe a simple answer to this but I am yet to hear anything convincing. We can debate about The Venus Project once this question has been addressed.
MrZeus191 3 months ago
@MrZeus191
The system of the free market rewards the best product as determined by cost and satisfaction. If a product that would cure cancer were to be invented, it would quickly be sought out by all cancer sufferers above all other cancer treatments assuming that the cost were not prohibitive. There is no monopoly on the creation of said treatment other than that which is created by the state through regulation, patents, etc. The same goes for all other inventions.
NativeNewMexican 3 months ago
@NativeNewMexican OK. How would bad business be weaseled out? Would some people have to be conned before word catches on that a bad business is in operation? Also, what if that business is very good at concealing the fact it is dodgy? I also want to know where you read that The Venus Project calls for the prohibition of money? My understanding of it is that money wouldn't be necessary in a system whereby all of the world's resources are declared common heritage of man. Where's the violence?
MrZeus191 3 months ago
Really? I get the philosophy, but do we really want to leave all elections to be decided by the red team and the blue team with all their rhetoric and ignorance??
JennJenification 4 months ago
Voting for Ron Paul will end up killing less people if he were elected, or have more of a potential of doing so. It's not what we want, but it's better....isn't that what any sane person would aim for? Duh, Stefan is dead-wrong about that one. He's making his hairy arguments while fucking innocent kids get droned to bits that could be averted if Ron Paul was President.
TheBookArchive 4 months ago
@TheBookArchive
I dont mean to be snarky, but I honestly dont believe that the most powerful war machine in human history is just going to pack up and go home because an old man wrote some words on a peice of paper.
I mean I like Ron Paul alot, if it wasnt for him in 08 i wouldnt be watching this video. However what happens when it doesnt work? Do we just wait around for another 20 years for the next Ron Paul to come along?
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 no. Are you waiting right now? WHy would you wait then? what does voting take? Wtf, it takes a second.
TheBookArchive 4 months ago
@TheBookArchive Agreed, the sad thing is that those deaths and the continued abuses of innocents in our prisons may be necessary to let the system fail without having the blame of the subsequent suffering laid at the feet of Libertarianism.
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
@NativeNewMexican Where Stefan get's screwy, or at least to me, is when he explains that educating people needs to be done on a personal level, then says that Ron Paul being elected would impair libertarians. Guess what, people already have their false view of libertarianism and anarchism, they will find their trolls, or mockeries, etc. to be had with, and if people still don't stick with NAP and UPB then they won't understand what happened. Which means in short, while people are learning we can
TheBookArchive 4 months ago
@NativeNewMexican save an additional couple million.
TheBookArchive 4 months ago
@stefbot Ernest appears to be saying that politics is a great place to advertise, not educate. Obviously spreading the word and bringing people to your site would be a benefit to the cause wouldn't it?
I am appalled at the idea that you would deny using the political process to give the imprisoned non-violent drug offenders the opportunity to be pardoned, because that's what Paul will do. We are obligated to try to end their continued rape, shame on you for advocating that we not try.
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
Im sure glad I never tried to debate Stephan before listening to his podcasts.
I would have gotten halfway through the debate and said "oh my god, your totally right. you win" and walked off stage.
lol has that ever happened?
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 Competitive debating is a sport and is something else. This was not a competition, this was meant to be educational. The point of this sort of debate is not to 'win' but to present the best case you can so the audience can make their own decision. If you find yourself in complete agreement with your opponent in a debate, you still do your best to make the other case, because it helps the audience to understand.
Panpiper 3 months ago
Screw the founding fathers. I wasnt told a bunch of sentimental crap about them when I was young so its easy for me to see the glaring hypocrisy.
Equity213 4 months ago
Stefan you are right , However, WE all will have a master (Boss of the state) it is better to have a Ron paul who will let you have some freedom.
thestonemaster81 4 months ago
god damn dog.
sucktdeep 4 months ago
yeah, let's bring our dog to libertopia. great fucking idea.
irrelevanthuman 4 months ago
Libertarians are for LIBERTY--whats the big hoopla?
Aren't we all for liberty???
BigNeonGlitterGirl 4 months ago
@BigNeonGlitterGirl no
jsmith2144 4 months ago
@jsmith2144 so what are you for--enslavement?
BigNeonGlitterGirl 4 months ago
@BigNeonGlitterGirl no but your master is.
jsmith2144 3 months ago
@jsmith2144 Hey dumbass--if you are not for Liberty get the hell out of AMERICA!!! Apparently you don't know the true meaning of Liberty--so go school yourself troll.....................
BigNeonGlitterGirl 3 months ago
I've always considered America's Founding Fathers to be true Libertarians. In my view, if anything Libertarians should be MORE involved in politics rather than abandoning them.
Just sayin.
ZedAlfa273 4 months ago
@ZedAlfa273
Did you watch the full debate?
NativeNewMexican 4 months ago
lol han"cock"
InvincibleNumanist 4 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist
Is that you secular?
ProDCloud 4 months ago
@ProDCloud
yup
InvincibleNumanist 4 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist And you just watched a debate on philosophy?
WeAreChangeTelford 4 months ago
@WeAreChangeTelford
I didnt watch it. Ill watch it later
InvincibleNumanist 4 months ago