As a newcomer to economics, I find it confusing to hear that seemingly all the most powerful nations are in debt. It begs the question: Who are they all in debt to? Are they in debt to each other? Are they in debt to private banks? Is this where the "Fed", the Bank of England and the IMF etc come in?
This is a good example of valid ad hominem arguments. When it comes to the state you can be sure that they will try to mislead you and say one thing while doing something else, hence the valid suspicion towards the real motives behind the arguments for dealing with climate change.
For me, this is by far the biggest reason I could never be a progressive. How can progressives claim to be humanists when they see humans as basically the worst thing to happen to the earth. Go onto any global warming or progressive blog and you will find support for a huge reduction of the human population. Perhaps that's why they have less children. Way to go... replace God with state and/or the Earth. Have a convo with GW follower and count the times you hear, "The poor Earth."
And if people are so worried about pollution, co2 and the ozone layer: how come no one talks about the thousands of nuclear devices that were tested in the upper atmosphere and underground during the cold war???
It wouldnt surprise me if our percieved environmental mallaise was due in large part to that.
honestly i would take the mafia over the government because at least the mafia provides something for the consumer. They are more sensitive to the invisible hand.
So the government is committed to the 90 million tons of waste gas a day, produced as result of human activities. The government is evil. So 90 millions tons of waste gas is no problem? I care more for the atmosphere than the government. If one putting millions of years storage of sun energy in a few decades into the air, in the form of dead dinosaurs, this wouldn’t have any effect? The question if not global warming, the question is: how come these waste gases wouldn’t have any effect?
2/2 Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute. With Obama demanding the cessation of offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
1/2 Leading Climate Scientist John R. Christy researched two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. He found from this information gathered from the bulk of the atmosphere that climate change was neither catastrophic nor anthropogenic. He also stated that increase in surface temperatures in the cities were because of pavement, concrete and structures. It’s not the result of greenhouse gases.
It's clear how sad the state of things in the world are if the raving lunatics on the corner of the street or on a youtube channel are actually making sense.
@DCLugi, The questions you put forth can be answered by reading the constitution of the US. I may also ask you if you drove a car on a public road lately. You may want to get more specific, perhaps discuss what is meant by "the commons". As a democracy, we do secede the right of the collective "us" to tax each other. I don't agree with everything we spend money on, and that is why I stay in touch with my elected officials and let them know what I think. You should try it.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesize, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to countries in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
So if we care about our children and the future, we should do nothing about global warming. So why does it take 11 minutes to say this?
The reason is that such a discursive sophist house of cards takes time to construct. Every fallacy has to be masked with lashings of bullshit & rhetoric.
Here's the reality Stef. We may or may not be able to mitigate the magnitude of climate change. So we can TRY working to minimize the damage, or we can backbite & nitpick as the icecap disappears.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stefbot is wrong and not funny. He keeps talking about "the government" as if it is the big bad boogie man. In the US at least, the government is "we the people". Your logic is fallacious and sad. I this is going on now is the reason that we should do nothing for now or the future. Smart. Also, using economics to reason away our need for action is equally stupid. He obviously has no clue as to what is really going on. What a moron.
So the simple question is: Do I have the right to take your money if I say I know best what to do with it? Do I have the right to "elect" someone else to take your money?
@tombeardman Democracy is not freedom. It is at best the use of violence by the majority against a minority. He didn't suggest doing nothing, he just pointed out that searching for help from the govt. is ridiculous. Plus if you want to get an insight into his point on skepticism towards catastrophic climate change check out his video "Global Warming Skepticism: The Freedomain Radio Interview with Warren Meyer"
@tombeardman The government isn't we the people, if the government consisted of all the people there would be no government. The government is a small number of people controlling the rest. There are a few people in government who are elected, but they are not legally liable to do what they said to get elected, so no we the people there.
If the government was we the people there would be no reason for compulsory taxation, or at least we would have control over what the money was spent on.
It is of course "entirely ridiculous" that nation-states can/will do anything about anthropogenic global warming. Plenty of anti-statists, like myself, believe that, in fact, the only way humanity can put a stop to anthropogenic global warming is by getting rid of the State/capitalism (to speak of these 2 entities as if they're different presupposes that they exist independent of each other, which they do not). There's not, per se, a dichotomy here between anti-statists and statists.
It seems you targeted the right audience with this one. Any sensible comment not being a shake of the various MSM's regurgitates are being thumbed down. Good job!
Geez, I think every point he made in the vid was made ten times. Is his target audience alzheimer's patients? This 11min vid would have been more effective if it was condensed to 3-4min.
I don't study stuff like this. Most of this is over my head. I just think there should be an answer. Why is everyone always arguing? It's all pointless if we can't work together. I don't even watch the news anymore. It's too depressing. I just try to do my part. I volunteer at my church. I think if people helped eachother more, then we wouldn't need the government. No one seems to care. Why does everyone get so excited about this global warming stuff? I think it's real, but I don't know.
What I find amusing is lots of people are immediately delving into the "science" and "facts" knee-jerk into the propaganda. The point is not the science...the point is the rush to a Government solution is completely insane. They've done nothing but screw us - but with this we expect different? Ha!
Agree: Climate change enthusiasts are not pushing their political solution because of ther love and concern for fellow human beings. In fact, they believe the human race is the scourge of the earth. It's no coincidence that they are the ones advocating for increased taxpayer funding for abortion, birth control, and sterilization. One Canadian journalist (Diane Francis) advocates all countries institute the China one-child policy, which is a disaster.
Here's a good lecture series outlining the legal structure of a long lived, successful anarchist society that was only defeated after hundreds of years of continuous oppression. The ancient Irish, as an island society were able to avoid many of the problems we now face, like statism, environmental destruction and inequity. Well worth viewing!
Yes. But they were an isolated tribal society probably with a smaller population density. And once their isolation ended they couldn't compete with other societies. Modern civilization is the complete opposite of that. Modern civilization with it's large concentrated populations necessitates complex massive infrastructure & so a government becomes necessary (whether state or capitalist government). The only way we could return to tribal anarchism way is for modern civilization to collapse.
I noticed that there are a lot of thumbs up/down on this particular subject. Hmmm...
Anyway, I agree that our globalized society, is too large and complex ant that we can't, and probably shouldn't go back, but there are valuable lessons to be learned. I'm not sure if we need to "head to woods with our Kalashnikov's", as Derrik Jensen suggested. It may be possible to rebuild from the inside/out.
I don't know if can't or shouldn't go back. My point is merely that to do so would require the ending of all civilization. Despite the negatives, I find myself quite attached to civilization.
But I don't have any grand opinion on the matter. If civilization did collapse, there might be positive benefits as Derrick Jensen posits.
Where did you see Jensen say that about Kalishnikovs? He has become more extremist as his frustration has increased.
A few years ago, listening to "The Other Side of Darkness", Derrick suggested this as a reasonable reaction to the dismantling of our life-support infrastructure.
"A serious resistance movement also means a commitment to winning, which means figuring out what winning means to you. For me, winning means living in a world... not being ravaged by the industrial economy. And Ill do whatever it takes to get there (and if, by the way, you believe that whatever it takes is code language for violence, youre revealing nothing more than your own belief that nonviolence is ineffective)."
"PEOPLE WHO READ MY WORK often say, Okay, so its clear you dont like this culture, but what do you want to replace it? The answer is that I dont want any one culture to replace this culture. I want ten thousand cultures to replace this culture, each one arising organically from its own place. Thats how humans inhabited the planet (or, more precisely, their landbases, since each group inhabited a place... which is... the point), before this culture set about reducing all cultures to one."
Thats exactly why we need to study other ways of living together. Particularly, robust, long-lived societies that can teach us a thing-or-two. It's like learning how to can food in sealed jars so we can eat when the power goes out, or emphasizing conservation and efficiency, or having a legal system that begins and ends with trust and mutual respect between individuals.
Are you arguing for big government or for the collapse of civilization? I think people need to be more active in their communities. I don't care about the government. Everyone wants to complain. I wish sometimes that I lived in a simpler time, but I don't want civilization to collapse.
I don't care if the state is lying about caring about future children, as long as what they do has a positive effect. I don't think the government actually cared about me when they banned Thalidamide, yet the reason I have all my limbs might be because they did. They 'cared' because voters cared. Whatever.
What's important to me is that people choose to be informed and thereby able to call the state to account when it fails/lies. WE need to care, WE need to act, and the state will follow.
Quality video, my friend. It seems to be really hard to find this particular viewpoint amongst people in the climate debate. On one side, you have the super statist climate interventionists, while the other side is populated with anti-science (and often religious) morons. Kudos to you.
I can understand you're taking issue with the "doing it for future generations" justification. That's always been a load of B.S., but I think you skirt dangerously close to a false dichotomy by comparing global climate change to a suntan a hundred years from now. I believe that by stopping the forces that actively dismantle our environmental support structures we will free ourselves and our children of the tyranny of states and mega-corporations.
The statement "the government runs up the national debt and, thus, enslaves the children" raises an obvious question: "Who owns the debt?" (i.e. who is the future master of the children?) I would answer: "They who own treasury bonds." But in the case of Japan, many many Japanese citizens own the bonds! (sorry, cannot provide a source of this fact. Perhaps will find it later.) Similarly, the government of the UK borrowed 250% of the GDP in the 1940ties mostly from its own citizens.
It is hard to operate with the terms "government wants" or "government cares". Government might as well be a bunch of people with no (moral or ethical) principles. Special interest groups make them "want" something or "care" about something. So, now there is a relatively new special interest group that pushes the "climate change" agenda through the government while brainwashing the masses through the mass media. What else is new?
A very emotional, but not a strong logical point. Most people, who argue with me about the climate change say that they personally care about the environment. They are concerned, that the government does not care enough about the environment and that it does too little to stop the climate change. Thus, the argument presented in the video is of little use to me.
Actually, the government funds and promotes all this catastrophic global warming nonsense - but not because of any desire to save the children of the future, but further control citizens in the present...
Perhaps, the government funds and promotes the climate change doctrine (I have no proof of that, but I trust you for now). I just disagree about the reason. I think, that the reason comes from the special interest groups like ethanol producers, wind turbine manufacturers, and similar lobbies.
One school I went to was great, due to a school shooting in 1974. Then they got an all new administration, and they decided to ignore what the previous administration learned from 1974. Now the school is just like any other.
Awesome video is very awesome. Seriously, you made a great point. I had never realized what you pointed out. When you mention it, it seems pretty obvious.
Government has never nor will ever work in big scale.
The only way the situation is gonna get better is if people start helping each other without expecting to be paid. The currency shouldn't be a worthless pieces of paper, it should be love. To work for only the pleasure to be able to service others does indeed take a leap of faith, but I have experienced that it pays off in the end.
How are you gonna buy groceries when the dollar crashes?
Would it not be smart to have some influence in your community, if that happens? And isn't acts of kindness through self-sacrifice the best means of gaining some of that?
Well either you put your trust in the government or you do something yourself about the different things that we face today in this world.
I believe that we need to individually take initiative and some risk and have faith that people come around for support.
People are selfish. People respond to incentives. People want to be happy. To tell everyone that they should just work for free and hope everyone else provides goods and services for free out of the goodness of their hearts is like trying to prevent plane crashes by begging gravity not to pull the planes down. Self-interest is not evil. It just is what it is, and it can result in great prosperity and happiness if we are vigilant enough not to succumb to the arbitrary power claims of one group.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stefan, your arguments suck. The person who makes the argument has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the argument. I know the government suck, but is that the reason the should not care for future generations? No it's not!
What about the obesity, diabetes & cancer caused by corporation produced chemicals that aren't being well regulated?
If the state was overthrown, would corporations all of sudden start acting morally on their own? Why would a transnational act morally when immoral actions increase their profits? Why would corporations act in the best interests of children now or children in the future?
Complaining about the government is easy. I do all of the time. But Stef's argument doesn't convince me.
That is true in a legalistic sense, but in a more general sense it isn't true. A legalistic entity called a 'corporation' couldn't exist without the govt upholding such a legalistic definition. Could a powerful organization of a capitalistic nature exist without government? Yes. Could such an organization create a government or government agency that could then give them legalistic justification? Yes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think for a government to stay alive the people have to buy into it's "you need us" policy. Unfortunately that's the mindset currently. When people can look back and think, "man what were we smoking" the whole notion will seen silly. Capitalistic organizations need customers.
Democracies have customers. You can buy the Democratic or the Republican politician. Or you can buy a the third party politician. Free Choice!
Voting is a symbol of power as money is a symbol of power. We have all kinds of choices in both capitalism & democracy, but most are narrowly limited choices.
You can always choose to leave the system. No one will stop you from wandering off into the wilderness & living free. Anyone can create a 'stateless society' by stepping outside of the system.
wow in the issue of government you have me convinced governments need to worry about they're actions here and now. Alas I do not believe we can not as a whole turn away from the future and not consider the future. As a race humans must look to our continued existance and until we can travel to other stars we must exist here on this planet!
I watched the video again. What stood out to me this time was his belief that government is ruining the present generation of children. That is a logical argument & its merit depends on looking at the data. The government does some things badly (as Stef points out) & it does some things well. It depends on what you're comparing to. Compared to children in the 3rd world, US govt is doing good by its children. Compared to before the child labor laws, children are now better off.
I wouldn't necessarily credit the government as the lone cause, but neither would I necessarily discredit the government as never having had contributed positively. Would slavery and racism have ended without government intervention? Maybe and maybe not.
I actually agree in a general sense. However, even if you want to call our present system 'slavery', we slaves are better off than slaves in the past. If you don't want to be a slave, then learn some survival skills and live in the wilderness. We all choose to be slaves because of the benefits of society. The only shackles are in our minds. As for a stateless society, the historical examples of mining towns show that slavery is even possible without state oppression.
Indeed freedom is in the mind first so why should I accept that the current "benefits of society" are the only way? If I came to your home with a gun and said give me your pants, it's for the benefit of society would you comply? Now if you say I'm just some loony then I could dress up like a policeman or senator and demand your pants. Either way it's one human being coercing another.
Or you could dress up as a corporate security guard or a corporate hired goon. You don't haveto accept anything. I'm simply saying slavery only exists in market systems (including free markets) b/c slavery is the buying & selling of product that can be owned. The benefits of society are merely that which keeps people happy w/ limited choices. I was simply saying that no one is forcing you to remain w/n the forced choices of the present society. Many people have left society to live off the grid.
Slavery is not a concept that can exist in a free-market
"Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at." - Rothbard
No forms of Coercion, Fraud or Violence used to conduct business & trade would be viewed as legitimate, in a free-market
The state is entirely based upon force. It's financed by extortion under a different label, known as tax
The ideal of free markets is that there is no force, but that is just an ideal. In all human interactions, there is the potential of force which is implied in any political system.
I'm not forced to choose either Democrat or Republican, but the choice is forced b/c all other choices are impotent. False choices are forced choices, & such a model of control can be applied to free markets as well. The probem isn't in any particular system but within human nature itself.
You are not forced to choose either democrat or republican, but you are forced to give your money to and obey the rule of whoever wins
You are not forced to choose either wal-mart or a convenience store, & you are also not forced to do business and obey whoever wins more money
See the difference?
To me, the initiation of Force has no legitimate purpose in society or the marketplace and it should be condemned. Taxation and extortion are the same thing, done by different groups of people.
You're not force to choose, but you are forced to either make a meaningless choice or not make a choice at all. Choosing not to choose isn't much of a choice because you're options are still controlled.
When the oppressors give me two choices, I always take the third.
-Meir Berliner (died fighting the SS at Treblinka), as quoted in A Language Older Than Words by Derrick Jensen
But what third choice do we actually have? If we don't follow the laws, we'll either end up dead or in prison.
1. Markets dont force choices, they provide options. If you want a meaningless or meaningful service or product, there are multiple options for you to choose from, in a free-market. Need milk? Wal-mart, convenience store, grocery etc. No force applied
2. How does government differ from a Mafia? If you don't follow their laws and pay your extortion money, you get beat up or killed. How does this differ from how govts behave, and collect their money?
"Markets dont force choices, they provide options."
Some choices are narrowed/eliminated in capitalism & modern civilization in general. Capitalism helped to create a globalized market which has decreased cultural differences including entirely destroying some cultures. Corporations have paid militias to kill indigenous people which decreased the options of those people. Advertising & front groups are used effectively by corporations to alter the perception of choice & helps control choice.
Mafias & transnationals operate markets not limited by single state governments. Mafias & transnationals lobby/bribe politicians. Mafias & transnationals hire goons to eliminate problem people (competition, unions, indigenous people). If Mafias or transnationals want something, they either lobby/bribe politicians or in 3rd world countries simply kill, terrorize, & threaten. How do they differ?
The quote is fine. However, if you think it applies to me, you're mistaken. I'm not a defender of the state, but neither am I a defender of corporations or capitalism or 'free markets' or whatever.
I'm an equal opportunity critic. I think all centralized power is corrupt by definition no matter what name it is given and no matter what ideology justifies it (be it nationalism, capitalism, or corpoatism).
Different names for the essentially the same corruption of power.
Derrick Jensen writes a lot about false choices & forced choices. One example he uses is from Nazi death camps. The Nazis would form two lines in order to give the illusion of choice. The people would be so distracted by the 'choice' that they wouldn't revolt. What the people didn't know is that often both lines went to the death chamber.
Republican or Democrat? Coke or Pepsi? The left line or the right line? There are always choices in every system, but that isn't the same thing as freedom.
Yes. Be it mafia henchman corporate goon or politician it's still a bully using force. However in our minds the henchman and goon are bad where the politician is just doing his job. I suppose I'm more interested in the gradual voluntary change than choosing to live off the grid. I know it's a long generational endeavor.
I'm not interested in living off the grid either. I did think about it in the distant past, but I've managed to find some contentment in my wage slavery.
If a more fair society can be created which seems like a possibility (no matter it's probability), I think it will probably happen gradually. Violent revolutions seem always to lead to new oppressive governments. I'm a pessimist about the improvement of civilization b/c the very idea of civilization seems faulty in the first place.
In the past, slaves were products bought and sold in markets. Some of those were state regulated markets, but others were black markets & free markets.
Even today, slaves are sold around the world in black markets that operate outside of state power.
Also, a new form of slavery has arisen with wage slavery. By destroying traditional cultures & displacing the indigenous, you create an impoverished & dependent class of people who work for less money than it costs to buy & maintain slaves.
I always have a problem when people speak in terms of "we" when mentioning the government. "We don't have 700 bases around the world...". Huh? Is Stef apart of the government? I know most of you wont see this as a big deal and that's cool.
I'm afraid global warming is a little more than just bad weather and sunburns. It's billions of dollars of damage and millions of lives lost: desertification (drought), flooding, mass migrations (increased disease transference), and lots of other bad stuff that we would rather deal with now with more regulations than with pricier solutions down the road. Example: renewable energies are a lot less expensive than giant levees to hold the rising oceans back.
Stef's argument is that it won't be catastrophic which is the central issue. Many informed critics accept the scientific consensus about AGW being a factor. But how big of a factor? Going by my own studies, I suspect that it's a larger facter than Stef thinks, but I couldn't absolutely prove it. The problem is we can't absolutely know until the future. By then if it turns out to be a large factor it will too late. See the video "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" by wonderingmind42.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm afraid involving government in people's daily life is a little more than just a bit of taxation and regulation. It's billions of dollars of damage and millions of lives lost: desertification (drought), flooding, mass migrations (increased disease transference).
So, what is your exact argument? How big of a factor do you consider AGW to be? What do you think is the appropriate response?
As I see it, no govt intervention isn't an option. Our society couldn't function without any regulation and protection. But I understand the criticisms of too much government.
I'm not sure what Stef is proposing either. Besides AGW, does Stef thinks govt shouldn't regulate pollution and environmental destruction, shouldn't protect the poor & indigenous people?
There are many kinds of regulation and protection. My argument is based on the evidence that history shows corporations lack ability to regulate themselves and to protect the public from abuse of power.
Without external regulation, corporations will act only in their own benefit. If the regulatory agency isn't as powerful as the corporation, regulation can't be enforced. But then who regulates the regulators? The only option I see is to get rid of both big government and big business.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now if only what you claimed has actually been true in the past, you might have a point. You're just assuming big business can extract money from helpless consumers but with a good level of economic understanding you'd see clearly where the limits of a corporation are. Money doesn't corrupt , violence does. And what exactly is wrong about corporations acting in their own benefit exactly? Can you describe to me how in a stateless society could this be immoral? And if so, how sustainable is it?
I don't know of any largescale stateless societies. I suppose small hunter-gatherer tribes can be considered stateless, but that probably isn't what you mean.
We must go by what we know in terms of realworld examples & data. I don't have the space here to present a full argument. My arguments are informed by the writings of people such as Derrick Jensen & Noam Chomsky.
Personally, I don't think modern civilization is sustainable without oppression. Could it be otherwise? I don't know.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(cont2) One more thing, state government implies centralized violence. Cartelizing violence, monopolizing it. Just like any dangerous product; when the industry takes control of a dangerous product to manufacture goods out of it, it usually turns out less and less dangerous as a shepard does not over-harvest his own cattle; what's the point? There are examples of this; countless of them such as security, healthcare, safety services, even energy services. Until the government regulated it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(cont3) I got carried away on part 2 and forgot to mention my most important point. Just like any dangerous product, violence , if not monopolized works in the exact same fashion, simply because, well, in the end, you really ought not to use it.
I disagree with your premises. I don't observe any absolute distinction between state governments & non-state governments such as corporations. The reason corporations often act destructively is the same reason governments often act destructively. Most people in power are looking at short-term profits and short-term positioning of power. Most people aren't worried about the negative effect they might have on future generations or even people in the present generation in other parts of the world.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Corporations earn their resources from production, government earn theirs from taxation(or to my eyes, theft). I see a very clear difference there. One is fundamentally based on violence and propaganda to begin with, while the other has to help more people before (if it were to turn rogue on the population for no appearant reason) it can even destroy the resources it has claimed from earnings.
We have different premises and so obviously come to different conclusions. All I can do is offer you one of the sources of the evidence upon which I base my premises. If you want to understand my perspective (not that I'm assuming you do), then you'd have to read Derrick Jensen's book The Culture of Make Believe. Jensen details the connection b/t business & govt in a very long book, & so I have no hope of explaining his argument within the limitations of the word count in these comments.
LOL...wow...government are the biggest polluters and environmental destructors. What do you think consumerism is? It's the raping of natural resources, manufacturing those resources by slave labor in third world countries, or china (all that carbon smog) then those products gets shipped or flown all the way to Amerika, so we Americans can have all our nice shiny toys...that only last about a year.
Yeah government needs to regulate, itself, because they really care..
You misunderstood my argument. I'm not promoting big government.
I think big government and big business collude to create the corpotocracy that we now have. Just getting rid of big government without getting rid of big business would just lead to even greater fascism. Big business would just create another government.
The problem is concentrated power which will always corrupt those who wield it... no matter whether you call that power political or capitalist. Power is power.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didn't really take time to craft an argument as most people (incudling you) who seem to disagree with Stef's point in this video are answering a question he is not even asking.
Pretense of debate, it's so common, we live in a society of pretention after all.
Not dealing with global warming now will mean a *lot* more government intervention in the future. Like I said in my original comment, it takes more tax dollars to build a levee to hold rising oceans back than it does to invest in renewable energies; and some of that research can even be done in the private sector (though not all of it).
I agree that issue of government intervention is using as little of it as possible. So, if the evidence and the argument is correct, then it would make more sense to use a little government intervention now to prevent the necessity of greater government intervention in the future.
Stef, however, is using different evidence to make a different argument. The problem is that people go around & around in debating what is acceptable evidence and how to interpret it. How to go beyond this impasse?
What stimulants are stefbot referring to? I don't know of any drugs given to children that cause school shootings. If anyone knows please reply to this comment.
Was he directly referring to stimulants? All that I know is that some people argue that when people (in particular kids) come off certain anti-depressants that they're more likely to commit violence. I've heard this argument many times, but I don't know if there is any strong evidence supporting it.
Politicians need to please the voters, which is the green party. Also, everyone agrees the school systems are screwed up, but we are all rapped in government bureaucracy so there's nothing to do about it. Snaps for politicians.
@econ... That's almost like an inventor blaming the people who are not buying his invention for not being able to sell his invention. Of course, your teacher had no economic incentive to satisfy students or their parents, so I can understand why she would complain like that.
Social evolution. There is selection for power going on. Weak die off - the powerful exercise psychological violence - called propaganda, physical violence, called police, army and crime - so no one is able to even wake up. The ones that are awake are still powerless anyway and are allowed to be slaves regardless of their views and understandings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ah Stef - You're applying logic here. Don't you know that logic is so,,,, yesterday?
It really shouldn't be that hard to find someone to make this proposal to. I mean there are plenty of people still buying into this (anti-scientific) AGW nonsense.
Present your argument. It won't be heard. Lots of people are not capable of hearing it. May be many reasons, drugs, brainwashing, dishonesty, whatever.
It's tragic of course & we gotta try, but it's incredible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Indoctrination and social conditioning are hard to avoid :( But once you differentiate a real empiric experience vs indoctrination, then it is possible to "cure" ourselves :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hi S1L3nCe - I think you mean that once a person can see the logic, then they are on the way to recovery etc,.
I was kind of referring to the scale and depth of the social conditioning that exists today. It is so entrenched that lots of people are almost incapable or unwilling or whatever, to even consider the logical argument. I mean they don't even hear it or recognise it, in order that they can consider it.
I wonder how it would be possible for people to wake up a little.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, I can only be grateful for being awake, at least to a certain level hahaha :_D
"Preaching" through practice can bring us joy and peace. Some people around you will eventually question where does the source of your peaceful state of mind come from. But those who are "completely asleep" are most likely to be afraid of those who are awake and will not question you but attack you. The freethinker usually becomes the martyr of his own freedom.
I like logic & I like most of Stef's logical arguments about other issues, but I disagree with the logic of this particular argument.
AGW anti-scientific? 97% climatologist experts who are active researchers support AGW (even Stef supports it in this video w/ reservations about itt being catastrophic). These climatologists work in various countries in public & private institutions, funded by public & private money. Climatology research is practiced no different than the rest of science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
u do realice that u missed the point of the whole arguments, ...right? u see, even if the weather thing is true in the far or not far future, is irrelevant in the face of the current social, psychological and economical trauma, torture and manslaughter of the minds of children not only in the near future, but today!. thats what those 10 minutes on the video were about.
I wasn't responding to the point of Stef's whole argument. I was responding to what I perceived as an incorrect claim of one of the commenters.
As for Stef's argument, I didn't miss anything. I disagree with parts of his logic or rather his premises, but I don't dismiss the entire argument. I was broadening the premises to include pollution & environmental destruction. Traditional cultures are being destroyed & people are being sickened by pollution... right now as we speak.
For example, I've looked at comparisons of various causes of diseases. That which we control such as the ingestion of alcohol & tobacco (including secondhand smoke) causes less disease than pollution.
We need to worry both about immediate threats of illness & future threats of climate change. I'm not saying that any particular thing is the answer. I'm certainly not supporting big government. I'm just trying broaden the discussion to include all relevant facts & issues.
Hi marmaladelNFP - Anti-scientific - When computer models' software is not open to peer review. When raw data is claimed to have been lost or destroyed. Deliberate distortion & interference with the peer review process. This is hardly applying the scientific method.
The appeal of the AGW is an appeal to authority. This is anti-scientific. "Consensus?"
97% isn't right, but even if it was, it's not a measure of probability.
My comment about pollution wasn't referring to CO2. I was talking about pollution in general. This past year, I've been looking into the health effects of pollution. There is a lot of research about this. I think it's related to the issue of AGW especially considering the connection b/t pollution & environmental degradation. There was a recent incident in the news about a corporation polluting the Amazon where indigenous people live, but that kind of thing has been going on for a long time.
Hi zalida100 - Your criticisms are fair. I'm all for peer review & info being available to the public. I've looked at the whole debate from all sides. It's not clear to me that there was or wasn't distortion & interference. Even if there was, this was just one of many institutions. Scientific consensus is based on the expertise of all climatologists from around the world working in many different institutions. All of science is an appeal to authority. We need experts who know more than us.
HI Maramaladenfp - I think in UK 3 or 4 of the "scientists" @ Univ East Anglia are to be prosecuted for witholding FOI (Freedom of info) requests and conspiring to destroy data etc. (They are not to be crimninal charges of course)
Anyway, I think there is a fair amnt of evidence to show they were "at it".
We can disagree on whether there is a conspiracy. I think it's fairly obvious - you don't. That's ok.
Science is not "appeal to authority" It is an appeal to reason.
Yes, pollution is a huge thing and it has been destroying lots of things for years. e.g. Rockafeller apparently used to dump gasoline in the river as waste in 1900's before it was used to fuel cars (alcohol was used before that).
The mercury in Amazon from mining operations has been poisoning fish for yrs.
Pollution is huge.
I have to go now, but hopefully i will have a chance to read more of your comments on this page here, later.
I'm still trying to understand the concept of how a stateless society can operate without abuse of power. I understand that it can be implemented on the smallscale as many indigenous cultures are examples of stateless societies, but our culture exists on the largescale and is dependent on largescale infrastructure (whether political or capitalist infrastructure). Pollution is a problem that is caused on the largescale and so I can't see how it can be solved on the largescale (by govt or markets)
What are those examples? How do you determine that a society is stateless? Were those societies more free and moral than other societies at the time? Less destructive and abusive?
So, were these smallscale stateless societies? Are all stateless societies smallscale as I suspected? W/o large infrastructure, how much of the population will die in wars and famines before the stateless society is established? Or can a large concentrated population be supported in a stateless society? If so, how?
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check out "Anarchic Ireland Rough Draft".
"If people want to live peacefully then pop density is irrelevant." Yes, but that is a big IF.
There has always been violence in the history of civilization. In order to find examples of less violent societies, you have to go back to less densely populated and more isolated tribal societies. Derrick Jensen discusses this in his book Culture of Make Believe.
It fits in w/ Jensen's view. That society was tribal & smallscale. No national govt existed probably b/c the society was fairly isolated from other societies & so maybe was safer from regular attack. I'm not sure what the important distinctions might be b/t tribal Ireland & other tribal societies who functioned similarly.
The question is whether such stateless tribalism would work within modern civilization. And if so how?
Hi marmaladeINFP - I don't know how it would work in modern times. I just know that what we are forced to live with right now isn't working all that well.
I agree. My complaint is that many people have extreme opinions about everything. For example, Stef sees the government as practically the manifestation of the the Devil & his vision of a capitalist society is a perfect utopia. I mean, get real. There are good & bad things about every system. People with black & white thinking tend to lack insight. Stef is insightful on other subjects such as child abuse, but he goes over the top with his zealous proselylizing of anarcho-capitalism.
You might find interesting the theory of Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ). Some 18th c pirate communities were smallscale & isolated. They were ruled democratically. Slaves taken from slave ships were freed & given the vote.
Many have theorized about permanent autonomous zones (PAZ) such as stateless societies. I don't know if Stef's corporate-owned society would fit the ge
And yes, school sucks ass, home-school is the best.
Another thought provoking show Stefbot
spystyle 4 weeks ago
NOOO - the drugs are actually toxic. See the movie "marketing of madness"
spystyle 4 weeks ago
As a newcomer to economics, I find it confusing to hear that seemingly all the most powerful nations are in debt. It begs the question: Who are they all in debt to? Are they in debt to each other? Are they in debt to private banks? Is this where the "Fed", the Bank of England and the IMF etc come in?
Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this!
DeeZeveel 1 month ago
This is a good example of valid ad hominem arguments. When it comes to the state you can be sure that they will try to mislead you and say one thing while doing something else, hence the valid suspicion towards the real motives behind the arguments for dealing with climate change.
GJ
onaqui 1 month ago
For me, this is by far the biggest reason I could never be a progressive. How can progressives claim to be humanists when they see humans as basically the worst thing to happen to the earth. Go onto any global warming or progressive blog and you will find support for a huge reduction of the human population. Perhaps that's why they have less children. Way to go... replace God with state and/or the Earth. Have a convo with GW follower and count the times you hear, "The poor Earth."
johnejaker 2 months ago
And if people are so worried about pollution, co2 and the ozone layer: how come no one talks about the thousands of nuclear devices that were tested in the upper atmosphere and underground during the cold war???
It wouldnt surprise me if our percieved environmental mallaise was due in large part to that.
Equity213 9 months ago
honestly i would take the mafia over the government because at least the mafia provides something for the consumer. They are more sensitive to the invisible hand.
Equity213 9 months ago
So the government is committed to the 90 million tons of waste gas a day, produced as result of human activities. The government is evil. So 90 millions tons of waste gas is no problem? I care more for the atmosphere than the government. If one putting millions of years storage of sun energy in a few decades into the air, in the form of dead dinosaurs, this wouldn’t have any effect? The question if not global warming, the question is: how come these waste gases wouldn’t have any effect?
TerrierBram 9 months ago
Excellent!
TheMiyaMusashi 11 months ago
2/2 Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute. With Obama demanding the cessation of offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
TheModelification 1 year ago
1/2 Leading Climate Scientist John R. Christy researched two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. He found from this information gathered from the bulk of the atmosphere that climate change was neither catastrophic nor anthropogenic. He also stated that increase in surface temperatures in the cities were because of pavement, concrete and structures. It’s not the result of greenhouse gases.
.
watch?v=6mLtGLG3MDg
.
begin at 3:37 watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro
.
TheModelification 1 year ago
It's clear how sad the state of things in the world are if the raving lunatics on the corner of the street or on a youtube channel are actually making sense.
runningsizzor 1 year ago
The effects of climate change will go FAR BEYOND, "getting our feet wet..." unless sufficiently mitigated
jiveturkey86 1 year ago
lol... banana peel
rescuemay 1 year ago
A childhood friend - turned communist needs to have you over for tea.
gina7177 1 year ago
@DCLugi, The questions you put forth can be answered by reading the constitution of the US. I may also ask you if you drove a car on a public road lately. You may want to get more specific, perhaps discuss what is meant by "the commons". As a democracy, we do secede the right of the collective "us" to tax each other. I don't agree with everything we spend money on, and that is why I stay in touch with my elected officials and let them know what I think. You should try it.
tombeardman 1 year ago
I'll take that as a "yes" then. People doing stuff my friend. That's all it is.
DCLugi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesize, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to countries in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
So if we care about our children and the future, we should do nothing about global warming. So why does it take 11 minutes to say this?
The reason is that such a discursive sophist house of cards takes time to construct. Every fallacy has to be masked with lashings of bullshit & rhetoric.
Here's the reality Stef. We may or may not be able to mitigate the magnitude of climate change. So we can TRY working to minimize the damage, or we can backbite & nitpick as the icecap disappears.
cristop5 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stefbot is wrong and not funny. He keeps talking about "the government" as if it is the big bad boogie man. In the US at least, the government is "we the people". Your logic is fallacious and sad. I this is going on now is the reason that we should do nothing for now or the future. Smart. Also, using economics to reason away our need for action is equally stupid. He obviously has no clue as to what is really going on. What a moron.
tombeardman 1 year ago
So the simple question is: Do I have the right to take your money if I say I know best what to do with it? Do I have the right to "elect" someone else to take your money?
DCLugi 1 year ago
@tombeardman Democracy is not freedom. It is at best the use of violence by the majority against a minority. He didn't suggest doing nothing, he just pointed out that searching for help from the govt. is ridiculous. Plus if you want to get an insight into his point on skepticism towards catastrophic climate change check out his video "Global Warming Skepticism: The Freedomain Radio Interview with Warren Meyer"
StephHuegi 1 year ago
@tombeardman The government isn't we the people, if the government consisted of all the people there would be no government. The government is a small number of people controlling the rest. There are a few people in government who are elected, but they are not legally liable to do what they said to get elected, so no we the people there.
If the government was we the people there would be no reason for compulsory taxation, or at least we would have control over what the money was spent on.
TreachMarkets 10 months ago
You're a genius Stef.
VyseLegend 1 year ago
It is of course "entirely ridiculous" that nation-states can/will do anything about anthropogenic global warming. Plenty of anti-statists, like myself, believe that, in fact, the only way humanity can put a stop to anthropogenic global warming is by getting rid of the State/capitalism (to speak of these 2 entities as if they're different presupposes that they exist independent of each other, which they do not). There's not, per se, a dichotomy here between anti-statists and statists.
comradshaw 1 year ago
It seems you targeted the right audience with this one. Any sensible comment not being a shake of the various MSM's regurgitates are being thumbed down. Good job!
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
Geez, I think every point he made in the vid was made ten times. Is his target audience alzheimer's patients? This 11min vid would have been more effective if it was condensed to 3-4min.
rockondon9 1 year ago
But then he wouldn't be the great chatty forehead!
sirscutter 1 year ago 2
Coming from 1 sub and 2 friends. You're awesome.
creamrising 1 year ago
I don't study stuff like this. Most of this is over my head. I just think there should be an answer. Why is everyone always arguing? It's all pointless if we can't work together. I don't even watch the news anymore. It's too depressing. I just try to do my part. I volunteer at my church. I think if people helped eachother more, then we wouldn't need the government. No one seems to care. Why does everyone get so excited about this global warming stuff? I think it's real, but I don't know.
DarkEyedDonna 1 year ago
What I find amusing is lots of people are immediately delving into the "science" and "facts" knee-jerk into the propaganda. The point is not the science...the point is the rush to a Government solution is completely insane. They've done nothing but screw us - but with this we expect different? Ha!
vegaswolf 1 year ago
Awesome video. I'd rather a different background though, I think the maroon makes you look a little pale.
tinosnit 1 year ago
haha thanks, but I don't think it's just the background, it is Canada in February... :o
stefbot 1 year ago
Agree: Climate change enthusiasts are not pushing their political solution because of ther love and concern for fellow human beings. In fact, they believe the human race is the scourge of the earth. It's no coincidence that they are the ones advocating for increased taxpayer funding for abortion, birth control, and sterilization. One Canadian journalist (Diane Francis) advocates all countries institute the China one-child policy, which is a disaster.
janets9179 1 year ago
The problem with global warming is that the study is economically unsound.
Even if the science is completely true, people and governments can't and won't fix it.
caltrop69 1 year ago
Totally Right On.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
Morons do not do credible research and spout off just because they like to be heard.
Mouthing off when you obviously know nothing, when you obviously haven't done an ounce of credible research, makes you a moronic ape.
emeralds222 1 year ago 2
Here's a good lecture series outlining the legal structure of a long lived, successful anarchist society that was only defeated after hundreds of years of continuous oppression. The ancient Irish, as an island society were able to avoid many of the problems we now face, like statism, environmental destruction and inequity. Well worth viewing!
Irish history with Pat Flannery - Brehon Law
watch?v=cN52LnC020g&feature=player_embedded
kokopelli314 1 year ago
Yes. But they were an isolated tribal society probably with a smaller population density. And once their isolation ended they couldn't compete with other societies. Modern civilization is the complete opposite of that. Modern civilization with it's large concentrated populations necessitates complex massive infrastructure & so a government becomes necessary (whether state or capitalist government). The only way we could return to tribal anarchism way is for modern civilization to collapse.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I noticed that there are a lot of thumbs up/down on this particular subject. Hmmm...
Anyway, I agree that our globalized society, is too large and complex ant that we can't, and probably shouldn't go back, but there are valuable lessons to be learned. I'm not sure if we need to "head to woods with our Kalashnikov's", as Derrik Jensen suggested. It may be possible to rebuild from the inside/out.
kokopelli314 1 year ago 2
We're probably in agreement on this issue.
I don't know if can't or shouldn't go back. My point is merely that to do so would require the ending of all civilization. Despite the negatives, I find myself quite attached to civilization.
But I don't have any grand opinion on the matter. If civilization did collapse, there might be positive benefits as Derrick Jensen posits.
Where did you see Jensen say that about Kalishnikovs? He has become more extremist as his frustration has increased.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
A few years ago, listening to "The Other Side of Darkness", Derrick suggested this as a reasonable reaction to the dismantling of our life-support infrastructure.
kokopelli314 1 year ago
orionmagazineDOTorg/indexDOTphp/articles/article/5240/
"A serious resistance movement also means a commitment to winning, which means figuring out what winning means to you. For me, winning means living in a world... not being ravaged by the industrial economy. And Ill do whatever it takes to get there (and if, by the way, you believe that whatever it takes is code language for violence, youre revealing nothing more than your own belief that nonviolence is ineffective)."
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
"PEOPLE WHO READ MY WORK often say, Okay, so its clear you dont like this culture, but what do you want to replace it? The answer is that I dont want any one culture to replace this culture. I want ten thousand cultures to replace this culture, each one arising organically from its own place. Thats how humans inhabited the planet (or, more precisely, their landbases, since each group inhabited a place... which is... the point), before this culture set about reducing all cultures to one."
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Thats exactly why we need to study other ways of living together. Particularly, robust, long-lived societies that can teach us a thing-or-two. It's like learning how to can food in sealed jars so we can eat when the power goes out, or emphasizing conservation and efficiency, or having a legal system that begins and ends with trust and mutual respect between individuals.
kokopelli314 1 year ago 2
Are you arguing for big government or for the collapse of civilization? I think people need to be more active in their communities. I don't care about the government. Everyone wants to complain. I wish sometimes that I lived in a simpler time, but I don't want civilization to collapse.
DarkEyedDonna 1 year ago
I wasn't arguing for anything in particular. People being more active in their communities is fine by me.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Brilliant.
emmazedbend 1 year ago
Indeed.
w00taz 1 year ago
I don't care if the state is lying about caring about future children, as long as what they do has a positive effect. I don't think the government actually cared about me when they banned Thalidamide, yet the reason I have all my limbs might be because they did. They 'cared' because voters cared. Whatever.
What's important to me is that people choose to be informed and thereby able to call the state to account when it fails/lies. WE need to care, WE need to act, and the state will follow.
rivenrock 1 year ago 2
"Thumb down" with no argument against it = ignorance.
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
It's not easy to talk about Government and reality at the same time, but it would seem that this gentleman is attempting to do so. Interesting.
redkeithh 1 year ago
Quality video, my friend. It seems to be really hard to find this particular viewpoint amongst people in the climate debate. On one side, you have the super statist climate interventionists, while the other side is populated with anti-science (and often religious) morons. Kudos to you.
andyissemicool 1 year ago
I can understand you're taking issue with the "doing it for future generations" justification. That's always been a load of B.S., but I think you skirt dangerously close to a false dichotomy by comparing global climate change to a suntan a hundred years from now. I believe that by stopping the forces that actively dismantle our environmental support structures we will free ourselves and our children of the tyranny of states and mega-corporations.
We don't have to agree, but we do need to act.
kokopelli314 1 year ago 8
The pro-mmgw/govt-needs-to-do-something crowd will just say:
"If there is no livable planet Earth in the future all the rest is moot."
These cretin are beyond reason.
ashane77 1 year ago
The statement "the government runs up the national debt and, thus, enslaves the children" raises an obvious question: "Who owns the debt?" (i.e. who is the future master of the children?) I would answer: "They who own treasury bonds." But in the case of Japan, many many Japanese citizens own the bonds! (sorry, cannot provide a source of this fact. Perhaps will find it later.) Similarly, the government of the UK borrowed 250% of the GDP in the 1940ties mostly from its own citizens.
CosmicBoss2 1 year ago
It is hard to operate with the terms "government wants" or "government cares". Government might as well be a bunch of people with no (moral or ethical) principles. Special interest groups make them "want" something or "care" about something. So, now there is a relatively new special interest group that pushes the "climate change" agenda through the government while brainwashing the masses through the mass media. What else is new?
CosmicBoss2 1 year ago
A very emotional, but not a strong logical point. Most people, who argue with me about the climate change say that they personally care about the environment. They are concerned, that the government does not care enough about the environment and that it does too little to stop the climate change. Thus, the argument presented in the video is of little use to me.
CosmicBoss2 1 year ago 5
Actually, the government funds and promotes all this catastrophic global warming nonsense - but not because of any desire to save the children of the future, but further control citizens in the present...
stefbot 1 year ago
Perhaps, the government funds and promotes the climate change doctrine (I have no proof of that, but I trust you for now). I just disagree about the reason. I think, that the reason comes from the special interest groups like ethanol producers, wind turbine manufacturers, and similar lobbies.
CosmicBoss2 1 year ago
One school I went to was great, due to a school shooting in 1974. Then they got an all new administration, and they decided to ignore what the previous administration learned from 1974. Now the school is just like any other.
LeksServices 1 year ago
@Video
Awesome video is very awesome. Seriously, you made a great point. I had never realized what you pointed out. When you mention it, it seems pretty obvious.
Thanks for giving us your time.
MRSketch09 1 year ago
thank you for your very kind words
stefbot 1 year ago
00:35, finally a more reasoned position on climate change that I can support.
TheEfkk 1 year ago
Government has never nor will ever work in big scale.
The only way the situation is gonna get better is if people start helping each other without expecting to be paid. The currency shouldn't be a worthless pieces of paper, it should be love. To work for only the pleasure to be able to service others does indeed take a leap of faith, but I have experienced that it pays off in the end.
qui3tude 1 year ago
what do I buy groceries with in the meantime?
or is the grocery clerk supposed to love everyone who comes through his door?
& whom is the food packer supposed to "love"? & the farmer? & the truck drivers?
In what way did it pay off for you?
natdavi 1 year ago
How are you gonna buy groceries when the dollar crashes?
Would it not be smart to have some influence in your community, if that happens? And isn't acts of kindness through self-sacrifice the best means of gaining some of that?
Well either you put your trust in the government or you do something yourself about the different things that we face today in this world.
I believe that we need to individually take initiative and some risk and have faith that people come around for support.
qui3tude 1 year ago
People are selfish. People respond to incentives. People want to be happy. To tell everyone that they should just work for free and hope everyone else provides goods and services for free out of the goodness of their hearts is like trying to prevent plane crashes by begging gravity not to pull the planes down. Self-interest is not evil. It just is what it is, and it can result in great prosperity and happiness if we are vigilant enough not to succumb to the arbitrary power claims of one group.
mihaiguy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stefan, your arguments suck. The person who makes the argument has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the argument. I know the government suck, but is that the reason the should not care for future generations? No it's not!
Mikannika 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mikannika "Stefan, your arguments suck." hahahaha if only you could understand how ironic this sentence is.
chris3443 1 year ago
What about the obesity, diabetes & cancer caused by corporation produced chemicals that aren't being well regulated?
If the state was overthrown, would corporations all of sudden start acting morally on their own? Why would a transnational act morally when immoral actions increase their profits? Why would corporations act in the best interests of children now or children in the future?
Complaining about the government is easy. I do all of the time. But Stef's argument doesn't convince me.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Without the state, there could be no corporations. The state permits immoral behavior on behalf of corporations and protects it with force.
gbates31 1 year ago
That is true in a legalistic sense, but in a more general sense it isn't true. A legalistic entity called a 'corporation' couldn't exist without the govt upholding such a legalistic definition. Could a powerful organization of a capitalistic nature exist without government? Yes. Could such an organization create a government or government agency that could then give them legalistic justification? Yes.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think for a government to stay alive the people have to buy into it's "you need us" policy. Unfortunately that's the mindset currently. When people can look back and think, "man what were we smoking" the whole notion will seen silly. Capitalistic organizations need customers.
DCLugi 1 year ago
Democracies have customers. You can buy the Democratic or the Republican politician. Or you can buy a the third party politician. Free Choice!
Voting is a symbol of power as money is a symbol of power. We have all kinds of choices in both capitalism & democracy, but most are narrowly limited choices.
You can always choose to leave the system. No one will stop you from wandering off into the wilderness & living free. Anyone can create a 'stateless society' by stepping outside of the system.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
wow in the issue of government you have me convinced governments need to worry about they're actions here and now. Alas I do not believe we can not as a whole turn away from the future and not consider the future. As a race humans must look to our continued existance and until we can travel to other stars we must exist here on this planet!
MykRefer 1 year ago
I watched the video again. What stood out to me this time was his belief that government is ruining the present generation of children. That is a logical argument & its merit depends on looking at the data. The government does some things badly (as Stef points out) & it does some things well. It depends on what you're comparing to. Compared to children in the 3rd world, US govt is doing good by its children. Compared to before the child labor laws, children are now better off.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
I would not necessarily credit the government with being the source of all these improvements.
stefbot 1 year ago
I wouldn't necessarily credit the government as the lone cause, but neither would I necessarily discredit the government as never having had contributed positively. Would slavery and racism have ended without government intervention? Maybe and maybe not.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It seems the conditions may have improved but slavery hasn't ended. The whole "healthier cows produce more milk" thing.
DCLugi 1 year ago
I actually agree in a general sense. However, even if you want to call our present system 'slavery', we slaves are better off than slaves in the past. If you don't want to be a slave, then learn some survival skills and live in the wilderness. We all choose to be slaves because of the benefits of society. The only shackles are in our minds. As for a stateless society, the historical examples of mining towns show that slavery is even possible without state oppression.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Indeed freedom is in the mind first so why should I accept that the current "benefits of society" are the only way? If I came to your home with a gun and said give me your pants, it's for the benefit of society would you comply? Now if you say I'm just some loony then I could dress up like a policeman or senator and demand your pants. Either way it's one human being coercing another.
DCLugi 1 year ago
Or you could dress up as a corporate security guard or a corporate hired goon. You don't haveto accept anything. I'm simply saying slavery only exists in market systems (including free markets) b/c slavery is the buying & selling of product that can be owned. The benefits of society are merely that which keeps people happy w/ limited choices. I was simply saying that no one is forcing you to remain w/n the forced choices of the present society. Many people have left society to live off the grid.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
Slavery is not a concept that can exist in a free-market
"Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at." - Rothbard
No forms of Coercion, Fraud or Violence used to conduct business & trade would be viewed as legitimate, in a free-market
The state is entirely based upon force. It's financed by extortion under a different label, known as tax
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
The ideal of free markets is that there is no force, but that is just an ideal. In all human interactions, there is the potential of force which is implied in any political system.
I'm not forced to choose either Democrat or Republican, but the choice is forced b/c all other choices are impotent. False choices are forced choices, & such a model of control can be applied to free markets as well. The probem isn't in any particular system but within human nature itself.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
You are not forced to choose either democrat or republican, but you are forced to give your money to and obey the rule of whoever wins
You are not forced to choose either wal-mart or a convenience store, & you are also not forced to do business and obey whoever wins more money
See the difference?
To me, the initiation of Force has no legitimate purpose in society or the marketplace and it should be condemned. Taxation and extortion are the same thing, done by different groups of people.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
You're not force to choose, but you are forced to either make a meaningless choice or not make a choice at all. Choosing not to choose isn't much of a choice because you're options are still controlled.
When the oppressors give me two choices, I always take the third.
-Meir Berliner (died fighting the SS at Treblinka), as quoted in A Language Older Than Words by Derrick Jensen
But what third choice do we actually have? If we don't follow the laws, we'll either end up dead or in prison.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
1. Markets dont force choices, they provide options. If you want a meaningless or meaningful service or product, there are multiple options for you to choose from, in a free-market. Need milk? Wal-mart, convenience store, grocery etc. No force applied
2. How does government differ from a Mafia? If you don't follow their laws and pay your extortion money, you get beat up or killed. How does this differ from how govts behave, and collect their money?
Force is immoral.The state is no exception
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
"Markets dont force choices, they provide options."
Some choices are narrowed/eliminated in capitalism & modern civilization in general. Capitalism helped to create a globalized market which has decreased cultural differences including entirely destroying some cultures. Corporations have paid militias to kill indigenous people which decreased the options of those people. Advertising & front groups are used effectively by corporations to alter the perception of choice & helps control choice.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
How do transnationals differ from a Mafia?
Mafias & transnationals operate markets not limited by single state governments. Mafias & transnationals lobby/bribe politicians. Mafias & transnationals hire goons to eliminate problem people (competition, unions, indigenous people). If Mafias or transnationals want something, they either lobby/bribe politicians or in 3rd world countries simply kill, terrorize, & threaten. How do they differ?
Force is immoral. Corporations are no esception.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Here's an interesting quote for ya to ponder. :-)
"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State... is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." - Rothbard
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
The quote is fine. However, if you think it applies to me, you're mistaken. I'm not a defender of the state, but neither am I a defender of corporations or capitalism or 'free markets' or whatever.
I'm an equal opportunity critic. I think all centralized power is corrupt by definition no matter what name it is given and no matter what ideology justifies it (be it nationalism, capitalism, or corpoatism).
Different names for the essentially the same corruption of power.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Derrick Jensen writes a lot about false choices & forced choices. One example he uses is from Nazi death camps. The Nazis would form two lines in order to give the illusion of choice. The people would be so distracted by the 'choice' that they wouldn't revolt. What the people didn't know is that often both lines went to the death chamber.
Republican or Democrat? Coke or Pepsi? The left line or the right line? There are always choices in every system, but that isn't the same thing as freedom.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Yes. Be it mafia henchman corporate goon or politician it's still a bully using force. However in our minds the henchman and goon are bad where the politician is just doing his job. I suppose I'm more interested in the gradual voluntary change than choosing to live off the grid. I know it's a long generational endeavor.
DCLugi 1 year ago 8
I'm not interested in living off the grid either. I did think about it in the distant past, but I've managed to find some contentment in my wage slavery.
If a more fair society can be created which seems like a possibility (no matter it's probability), I think it will probably happen gradually. Violent revolutions seem always to lead to new oppressive governments. I'm a pessimist about the improvement of civilization b/c the very idea of civilization seems faulty in the first place.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
In the past, slaves were products bought and sold in markets. Some of those were state regulated markets, but others were black markets & free markets.
Even today, slaves are sold around the world in black markets that operate outside of state power.
Also, a new form of slavery has arisen with wage slavery. By destroying traditional cultures & displacing the indigenous, you create an impoverished & dependent class of people who work for less money than it costs to buy & maintain slaves.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Well done Stephan!
tonytake2 1 year ago
thank you
stefbot 1 year ago
very well said stef
Decon21 1 year ago
thanks
stefbot 1 year ago
If all these countries owe, whom do they owe to, and what value did these lenders conjure up rather than printing paper?
Gromitdog1 1 year ago
Talk about it.
MrBankRuns 1 year ago
awesome,you da man stefbot
Leonunitas 1 year ago
My god, that was so beautifully conveyed that I actually shed a tear. Bravo to you sir!
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
I appreciate your comment, thank you so much
stefbot 1 year ago
GREAT JOB!! One of the best Iv seen you do...
cabl3guy2012 1 year ago
thank you
stefbot 1 year ago
thank you very much
stefbot 1 year ago
No thank you! :)
cabl3guy2012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I always have a problem when people speak in terms of "we" when mentioning the government. "We don't have 700 bases around the world...". Huh? Is Stef apart of the government? I know most of you wont see this as a big deal and that's cool.
alique087 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
alique087 1 year ago
HAAAAAA
chriswroads 1 year ago
Axial Precession
VCADD 1 year ago
I'm afraid global warming is a little more than just bad weather and sunburns. It's billions of dollars of damage and millions of lives lost: desertification (drought), flooding, mass migrations (increased disease transference), and lots of other bad stuff that we would rather deal with now with more regulations than with pricier solutions down the road. Example: renewable energies are a lot less expensive than giant levees to hold the rising oceans back.
seflersinsburg10 1 year ago 16
Stef's argument is that it won't be catastrophic which is the central issue. Many informed critics accept the scientific consensus about AGW being a factor. But how big of a factor? Going by my own studies, I suspect that it's a larger facter than Stef thinks, but I couldn't absolutely prove it. The problem is we can't absolutely know until the future. By then if it turns out to be a large factor it will too late. See the video "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" by wonderingmind42.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm afraid involving government in people's daily life is a little more than just a bit of taxation and regulation. It's billions of dollars of damage and millions of lives lost: desertification (drought), flooding, mass migrations (increased disease transference).
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
So, what is your exact argument? How big of a factor do you consider AGW to be? What do you think is the appropriate response?
As I see it, no govt intervention isn't an option. Our society couldn't function without any regulation and protection. But I understand the criticisms of too much government.
I'm not sure what Stef is proposing either. Besides AGW, does Stef thinks govt shouldn't regulate pollution and environmental destruction, shouldn't protect the poor & indigenous people?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you saying that regulation and protection can only be provided by governments?
VCADD 1 year ago
There are many kinds of regulation and protection. My argument is based on the evidence that history shows corporations lack ability to regulate themselves and to protect the public from abuse of power.
Without external regulation, corporations will act only in their own benefit. If the regulatory agency isn't as powerful as the corporation, regulation can't be enforced. But then who regulates the regulators? The only option I see is to get rid of both big government and big business.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now if only what you claimed has actually been true in the past, you might have a point. You're just assuming big business can extract money from helpless consumers but with a good level of economic understanding you'd see clearly where the limits of a corporation are. Money doesn't corrupt , violence does. And what exactly is wrong about corporations acting in their own benefit exactly? Can you describe to me how in a stateless society could this be immoral? And if so, how sustainable is it?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I don't know of any largescale stateless societies. I suppose small hunter-gatherer tribes can be considered stateless, but that probably isn't what you mean.
We must go by what we know in terms of realworld examples & data. I don't have the space here to present a full argument. My arguments are informed by the writings of people such as Derrick Jensen & Noam Chomsky.
Personally, I don't think modern civilization is sustainable without oppression. Could it be otherwise? I don't know.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cont2) One more thing, state government implies centralized violence. Cartelizing violence, monopolizing it. Just like any dangerous product; when the industry takes control of a dangerous product to manufacture goods out of it, it usually turns out less and less dangerous as a shepard does not over-harvest his own cattle; what's the point? There are examples of this; countless of them such as security, healthcare, safety services, even energy services. Until the government regulated it.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cont3) I got carried away on part 2 and forgot to mention my most important point. Just like any dangerous product, violence , if not monopolized works in the exact same fashion, simply because, well, in the end, you really ought not to use it.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I disagree with your premises. I don't observe any absolute distinction between state governments & non-state governments such as corporations. The reason corporations often act destructively is the same reason governments often act destructively. Most people in power are looking at short-term profits and short-term positioning of power. Most people aren't worried about the negative effect they might have on future generations or even people in the present generation in other parts of the world.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Corporations earn their resources from production, government earn theirs from taxation(or to my eyes, theft). I see a very clear difference there. One is fundamentally based on violence and propaganda to begin with, while the other has to help more people before (if it were to turn rogue on the population for no appearant reason) it can even destroy the resources it has claimed from earnings.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
We have different premises and so obviously come to different conclusions. All I can do is offer you one of the sources of the evidence upon which I base my premises. If you want to understand my perspective (not that I'm assuming you do), then you'd have to read Derrick Jensen's book The Culture of Make Believe. Jensen details the connection b/t business & govt in a very long book, & so I have no hope of explaining his argument within the limitations of the word count in these comments.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MarmaladeINFP
LOL...wow...government are the biggest polluters and environmental destructors. What do you think consumerism is? It's the raping of natural resources, manufacturing those resources by slave labor in third world countries, or china (all that carbon smog) then those products gets shipped or flown all the way to Amerika, so we Americans can have all our nice shiny toys...that only last about a year.
Yeah government needs to regulate, itself, because they really care..
subjer0 1 year ago
You misunderstood my argument. I'm not promoting big government.
I think big government and big business collude to create the corpotocracy that we now have. Just getting rid of big government without getting rid of big business would just lead to even greater fascism. Big business would just create another government.
The problem is concentrated power which will always corrupt those who wield it... no matter whether you call that power political or capitalist. Power is power.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didn't really take time to craft an argument as most people (incudling you) who seem to disagree with Stef's point in this video are answering a question he is not even asking.
Pretense of debate, it's so common, we live in a society of pretention after all.
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
@StrafingMoose
Not dealing with global warming now will mean a *lot* more government intervention in the future. Like I said in my original comment, it takes more tax dollars to build a levee to hold rising oceans back than it does to invest in renewable energies; and some of that research can even be done in the private sector (though not all of it).
seflersinsburg10 1 year ago 14
I agree that issue of government intervention is using as little of it as possible. So, if the evidence and the argument is correct, then it would make more sense to use a little government intervention now to prevent the necessity of greater government intervention in the future.
Stef, however, is using different evidence to make a different argument. The problem is that people go around & around in debating what is acceptable evidence and how to interpret it. How to go beyond this impasse?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Too true!
bogesk 1 year ago
What stimulants are stefbot referring to? I don't know of any drugs given to children that cause school shootings. If anyone knows please reply to this comment.
seflersinsburg10 1 year ago
Was he directly referring to stimulants? All that I know is that some people argue that when people (in particular kids) come off certain anti-depressants that they're more likely to commit violence. I've heard this argument many times, but I don't know if there is any strong evidence supporting it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Well......
Politicians need to please the voters, which is the green party. Also, everyone agrees the school systems are screwed up, but we are all rapped in government bureaucracy so there's nothing to do about it. Snaps for politicians.
drew335533 1 year ago
@econ... That's almost like an inventor blaming the people who are not buying his invention for not being able to sell his invention. Of course, your teacher had no economic incentive to satisfy students or their parents, so I can understand why she would complain like that.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
You're a badass.
pedantologist 1 year ago 3
I fear stef. He is far too persuasive. He's a modern day sophist.
bwelkk 1 year ago 5
My banana peel is burning.
Nice work stefan. This video cast was very enjoyable. Keep up the good work.
Zorn101 1 year ago
Social evolution. There is selection for power going on. Weak die off - the powerful exercise psychological violence - called propaganda, physical violence, called police, army and crime - so no one is able to even wake up. The ones that are awake are still powerless anyway and are allowed to be slaves regardless of their views and understandings.
Nomels 1 year ago
man. This one was almost as intense as the voting one.
Robinsonero 1 year ago
i wish this stuff could be put on tv instead of product ads.
SCARREDMIND 1 year ago
1:08 EPIC HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA xDDDDDDDDD
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah Stef - You're applying logic here. Don't you know that logic is so,,,, yesterday?
It really shouldn't be that hard to find someone to make this proposal to. I mean there are plenty of people still buying into this (anti-scientific) AGW nonsense.
Present your argument. It won't be heard. Lots of people are not capable of hearing it. May be many reasons, drugs, brainwashing, dishonesty, whatever.
It's tragic of course & we gotta try, but it's incredible.
Great vid - Thanks
zalida100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Indoctrination and social conditioning are hard to avoid :( But once you differentiate a real empiric experience vs indoctrination, then it is possible to "cure" ourselves :)
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hi S1L3nCe - I think you mean that once a person can see the logic, then they are on the way to recovery etc,.
I was kind of referring to the scale and depth of the social conditioning that exists today. It is so entrenched that lots of people are almost incapable or unwilling or whatever, to even consider the logical argument. I mean they don't even hear it or recognise it, in order that they can consider it.
I wonder how it would be possible for people to wake up a little.
Thanks4 reply
zalida100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, I can only be grateful for being awake, at least to a certain level hahaha :_D
"Preaching" through practice can bring us joy and peace. Some people around you will eventually question where does the source of your peaceful state of mind come from. But those who are "completely asleep" are most likely to be afraid of those who are awake and will not question you but attack you. The freethinker usually becomes the martyr of his own freedom.
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes. We don't know everything about what is going on and how it all works in detail etc.
I am certainly aware that some will definitely defend the matrix that enslaves them, and attack anyone who rejects it.
Methinks you're a wise and learned fellow s1L3nCe. Haha.
Cheers
zalida100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahaha :_D Take care!
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
I like logic & I like most of Stef's logical arguments about other issues, but I disagree with the logic of this particular argument.
AGW anti-scientific? 97% climatologist experts who are active researchers support AGW (even Stef supports it in this video w/ reservations about itt being catastrophic). These climatologists work in various countries in public & private institutions, funded by public & private money. Climatology research is practiced no different than the rest of science.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u do realice that u missed the point of the whole arguments, ...right? u see, even if the weather thing is true in the far or not far future, is irrelevant in the face of the current social, psychological and economical trauma, torture and manslaughter of the minds of children not only in the near future, but today!. thats what those 10 minutes on the video were about.
pelucas716 1 year ago
I wasn't responding to the point of Stef's whole argument. I was responding to what I perceived as an incorrect claim of one of the commenters.
As for Stef's argument, I didn't miss anything. I disagree with parts of his logic or rather his premises, but I don't dismiss the entire argument. I was broadening the premises to include pollution & environmental destruction. Traditional cultures are being destroyed & people are being sickened by pollution... right now as we speak.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
For example, I've looked at comparisons of various causes of diseases. That which we control such as the ingestion of alcohol & tobacco (including secondhand smoke) causes less disease than pollution.
We need to worry both about immediate threats of illness & future threats of climate change. I'm not saying that any particular thing is the answer. I'm certainly not supporting big government. I'm just trying broaden the discussion to include all relevant facts & issues.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Hi marmaladelNFP - Anti-scientific - When computer models' software is not open to peer review. When raw data is claimed to have been lost or destroyed. Deliberate distortion & interference with the peer review process. This is hardly applying the scientific method.
The appeal of the AGW is an appeal to authority. This is anti-scientific. "Consensus?"
97% isn't right, but even if it was, it's not a measure of probability.
...cont'd...
zalida100 1 year ago
..cont'd..
I'm guessing you understand how science is funded these days. If you look harder into that, you may find some evidence for the scam.
The AGW programme has a number of objectives, and they're not for our benefit.
Anyway, if we survive another 10 or 20 yrs maybe we'll know with more certainty.
You mention pollution in your comment. If you did that because you're begining to think that CO2 is a pollutant, stop and reconsider.
Thanks for reply
Cheers
zalida100 1 year ago
My comment about pollution wasn't referring to CO2. I was talking about pollution in general. This past year, I've been looking into the health effects of pollution. There is a lot of research about this. I think it's related to the issue of AGW especially considering the connection b/t pollution & environmental degradation. There was a recent incident in the news about a corporation polluting the Amazon where indigenous people live, but that kind of thing has been going on for a long time.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Hi zalida100 - Your criticisms are fair. I'm all for peer review & info being available to the public. I've looked at the whole debate from all sides. It's not clear to me that there was or wasn't distortion & interference. Even if there was, this was just one of many institutions. Scientific consensus is based on the expertise of all climatologists from around the world working in many different institutions. All of science is an appeal to authority. We need experts who know more than us.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago 2
HI Maramaladenfp - I think in UK 3 or 4 of the "scientists" @ Univ East Anglia are to be prosecuted for witholding FOI (Freedom of info) requests and conspiring to destroy data etc. (They are not to be crimninal charges of course)
Anyway, I think there is a fair amnt of evidence to show they were "at it".
We can disagree on whether there is a conspiracy. I think it's fairly obvious - you don't. That's ok.
Science is not "appeal to authority" It is an appeal to reason.
...cont'd...
zalida100 1 year ago
...cont'd...
Yes, pollution is a huge thing and it has been destroying lots of things for years. e.g. Rockafeller apparently used to dump gasoline in the river as waste in 1900's before it was used to fuel cars (alcohol was used before that).
The mercury in Amazon from mining operations has been poisoning fish for yrs.
Pollution is huge.
I have to go now, but hopefully i will have a chance to read more of your comments on this page here, later.
Looks interesting.
Cheers for now
zalida100 1 year ago
I'm still trying to understand the concept of how a stateless society can operate without abuse of power. I understand that it can be implemented on the smallscale as many indigenous cultures are examples of stateless societies, but our culture exists on the largescale and is dependent on largescale infrastructure (whether political or capitalist infrastructure). Pollution is a problem that is caused on the largescale and so I can't see how it can be solved on the largescale (by govt or markets)
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
There are a few historical eg of such societies and they lasted a few hundred yrs.
Because we have never seen one, it takes imagination to imagine it.
It is unlikely to happen overnight either - maybe a generation or 2.
Don't worry about your large infrastructure, that'll be changing fairly soon.
Stef has some audio podcasts on his site where he describes things like DRO's etc - That should describe "abuse of power"
Getting rid of gov would effectively get rid of most Pollution
zalida100 1 year ago
What are those examples? How do you determine that a society is stateless? Were those societies more free and moral than other societies at the time? Less destructive and abusive?
So, were these smallscale stateless societies? Are all stateless societies smallscale as I suspected? W/o large infrastructure, how much of the population will die in wars and famines before the stateless society is established? Or can a large concentrated population be supported in a stateless society? If so, how?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Google "Anarchic Ireland Rough Draft."
May be useful.
Since any examples i'm aware of, were a long time ago, then population prob wasn't highly concentrated.
If people want to live peacefully then pop density is irrelevant.
I'd guess any wars wouldn't be any worse than present wars. Why would there be wars? I dunno.
Having wars to establish a peaceful society seems a bit silly to me.
zalida100 1 year ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check out "Anarchic Ireland Rough Draft".
"If people want to live peacefully then pop density is irrelevant." Yes, but that is a big IF.
There has always been violence in the history of civilization. In order to find examples of less violent societies, you have to go back to less densely populated and more isolated tribal societies. Derrick Jensen discusses this in his book Culture of Make Believe.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I looked up "Anarchic Ireland Rough Draft."
Interesting.
It fits in w/ Jensen's view. That society was tribal & smallscale. No national govt existed probably b/c the society was fairly isolated from other societies & so maybe was safer from regular attack. I'm not sure what the important distinctions might be b/t tribal Ireland & other tribal societies who functioned similarly.
The question is whether such stateless tribalism would work within modern civilization. And if so how?
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Hi marmaladeINFP - I don't know how it would work in modern times. I just know that what we are forced to live with right now isn't working all that well.
zalida100 1 year ago
I agree. My complaint is that many people have extreme opinions about everything. For example, Stef sees the government as practically the manifestation of the the Devil & his vision of a capitalist society is a perfect utopia. I mean, get real. There are good & bad things about every system. People with black & white thinking tend to lack insight. Stef is insightful on other subjects such as child abuse, but he goes over the top with his zealous proselylizing of anarcho-capitalism.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
You might find interesting the theory of Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ). Some 18th c pirate communities were smallscale & isolated. They were ruled democratically. Slaves taken from slave ships were freed & given the vote.
Many have theorized about permanent autonomous zones (PAZ) such as stateless societies. I don't know if Stef's corporate-owned society would fit the ge