Stefan's videos are interesting, but I just wish he wouldn't put his face in them. I have to listen to audio only. His bald head and strange mouth distract me.
Re: "I believe that it's false because it's funded through violence."
So when I studied math at a state university, everything I learned was false because of state support?
Re: "Things which have innate value are not funded at the point of a gun."
So math & science, being supported by the university systems, have no innate value. OK. What of medicine? I live down the stret from NIH. Is all their cancer research, "funded at the point of a gun", devoid of innate value?
the reason we dont let people undercut other workers because this practice will force wages down , i dont know any employer that would pay people less if they could, there is a finite amount of money in the economy at any one time and if you spread this thinner that will mean people will be unable to pay their mortgage or buy food . what you should be advocating is the reduction of rediculous corperate wages and bonuses that the executives of this world are paid. this will give all people jobs.
@producersunnyshadows: You have to be kidding. Show me the percentage of employers who pay at minimum wage. They could easily drop wages or hire new people at min wage if they wanted, but we don't see that.
Also do you think that reducing a ceo's salary, even by a million or two would be able to finance the jobs of the millions of un/underemployed?
Ensuring that "artists" get "paid" is not, and should not be, the basis for or against the concept of intellectual property.
I was a bit startled to hear this sort of pragmatism from someone who otherwise frames arguments in very strict rational principles.
There are strong liberty- and morality-based arguments both for and against intellectual property, which is why it remains one of the trickier topics for freedom advocates. "How artists get paid" is not one of them.
There is no such thing like intrinsic value. All value is subjective - I may say ferrari is worth its price, you may say that even f you were able to afford it mercedes has more value to you even when their price is similiar.
Do not confuse value with price. Value is not necessarily expressed in money. Situations of kill or be killed (lifeboat) are excellent examples of subjectivity of value of life. Oxygen under normal conditions is not scarce and not rivalrous therefore people do not economize it. Morality just like any valuation necessarily exists but it is subjective. Objectivity != intersubjective consensus. I think subjectivity of valuation is one of greatest arguments for voluntaryism.
I was trying to establish a meta(beyond)-price argument saying: we cannot properly establish the intrinsic value of those things which make our lives possible in the first place, because they are the things which allow us to think in terms of value, if we so desire. thus, if anything has intrinsic worth, it must be life, and prerequisites thereof.
your argument about cars works because they are 'luxury' goods, if you look deeper...
In my understanding intrinsic value is subjective concept. Is a car a luxury good to a very sick person that needs to be transported to hospital fast? What is luxury and what is not depends on our own subjective valuations in given context. Survival is matter of choice and thus subjective valuation. You may choose to sacrifice yourself for your beloved one in time of need thus valuing subjectively your life lower than that of other human being. Suicide is another example.
@zbigniewzapora ok, can you explain what makes it a subjective concept, in detail?
otherwise we're both just kind of stating our assumptions without actual reasoning.
re: luxury, i think maslow's pyramid covers this pretty well: if certain needs are not met, things higher on the pyramid will have little to no meaning.
and, you shifted the goalposts with saying car, and is transportation a luxury good, from, is a luxury car a luxury (your analogy was: mercedes vs. porsche; prefference).
@zbigniewzapora re: self sacrifice, yes, but, didn't i say that-don't we agree?
in which way does your reply respond to my objections, maybe i'm missing something here.
again, hopefully more clearly stated: life, existence, has intrinsic value, because it is that which can even formulate conceptions about value.., without it, there would be no-thing and no-thing is worth-less, hmmm. I'm not really clear about what I'm saying myself, but my feelings tell me there's something true in what i say.
@zbigniewzapora however, you cannot construct such an argument about human life or the necessities for continuing it, as they are not matters of taste but survival: all organisms wish to continue their own existence, as long as possible, as long as certain parameters are met ('quality of life': see cells giving up or rebelling against unsuitable environments).
Moreover, morality is only subjective to the extent that it is a work-in-progress system, which each individual must attempt to perfect.
@zbigniewzapora in more detail, using your point about oxygen as an example: people would not economize it at all, they would do whatever was necessary to get the minimum of it which they needed, as long as it did not violate their own morality/code of ethics to the extent that they did not believe their life was worth continuing any longer.
does that make sense?
voluntaryism sounds like a good idea... cool, thanks.
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.
I have a theory about how to reduce unemployment, though you won't like it because it involves "the gun" so to speak. The government needs (IMO) to set up a duel economy (or at least do a feasibility study) If they had a Communist and capitalist economy working side by side I suspect there might be greater stability. The Government could then employ the unemployed in menial labour within the state businesses. I know my idea needs work but I'm interested t hear what people think about it.
Also it might be a good idea to copy the ancient greeks and pass laws allowing for poloticians to be charged with "gross incompitence" or similar. This should see a sharp decline in promises that cannot be kept and poloticians' willingness to disregard the will of the people.
you are kookoo when it comes to how science works and is funded.
Besides, the real world doesn't reveal itself any differently based on imaginary guns. Science is focused on eliminating bias -- it is paramount. Your gun theory is not relevant.
No.... I'm not so sure I believe all this incredibly metaphorical thinking. Firstly, if someone points a gun at your head and says "donate money! We have proved the ice caps are melting, your just refusing to believe this!!!" Your going to donate money. Without the gun, the icecaps are still sinking, but no donations.
And btw -why don't you talk about the BILLIONS/TRILLIONS of TONS of garbage we put in landfills A DAY. Talk yourself out of that.
Okay, assuming that the icecaps WERE 'sinking' (as you put it), what is the need for the gun? If there was a real threat from rising sea levels, then people would surely do whatever they could to prevent themselves or their property being harmed. In a free market any companies that aim to reduce the rate of 'skinking' would profit. Real supply and demand doesn't need any guns.
You're saying that you would only spend money to prevent global warming if you (yourself) had a gun to your head.
landfills are not a problem, recycling is another scam by govt. I do "reduce and reuse", but the only recycling that makes sense is already being done. You see people collecting cans because they have value. No one collects cardboard and paper because they have no value via recycling. Another waste of taxpayer dollars...
I love the video stef. After the E Harmony reference I couldn't help imagining that the remainder of the vid as your E Harmony intro, and who might respond. Great stuff
Stef, the self-described philosopher, says that global warming research is invalidated because of its source of funding. That is an example of the genetic fallacy.
So what if the business plan goes against the strongest corporations that influence the the US government. Would you say that they would volunteer funding for it regardless because it is a good cause? Making that assumption would be quite naive.
I enjoy your philosophy videos, but I've always been supremely puzzled at anarchist tendencies to deny global warming because research funding is from the state. What collectivist action should be taken about it is an issue of debate, but global warming denial is a silly crock of shit.
as far as the government's pushing things down people's throats, Obama is the winner of doing the most damage, in this regard. at the rate of spending of the current adminisration, the government will be destroyed, in short order.
It absolutely matters!! It takes "seeds" to reap the harvest of justice. These hackers did a great justice that the 'castrated' minions of so-called investigative journalist refused to do. Don't allow your philisophical stance divert this "black&white" issue, my friend. Start fighting the good fight...think of our children if you're lacking the 'will' to fight for yourself.
People negotiating the details of their own lives without being forced to do what everyone around them wants? That's insane. The government is supposed to figure all that hard stuff out. That's why they get elected right?
That's true to a point. But are you saying there's no such thing as negligence? Or at least that it's never a matter of morality to not be negligent? Are you saying that if our actions indirectly effect others then that's too bad, adapt?
I guess, that I am one of the few people who actually downloaded and read the IPCC report about the climate change (the 'Nobel Prize' version). I found no valid science there.
However, the statement "everything that was funded using violence has no value" is wrong.
I think he just said that because, "The value of any pursuit which is funded through violence is automatically suspect," doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
I like stefbot's shows because he tries to make clear philosophical statements. Saying one thing and meaning another is not consistent with the style. It is more like politics, not philosophy. That is why I commented on that.
Research conducted through universities tends to favor statist solutions because they are statist institutions. If they produce something true or valuable it is despite this.
If they produce something "true or valuable", then under your (& stefan's) same reasoning it would still bear the same statist bias. If you're so against any sort of statist influence, then turn off your internet, don't use the public roads, don't use anything with any sorts of technology, etc.
I can't believe how hard you people try to spin everything into a political issue.
I don't know what color the trees are on your world, but I'm done with whiffing the second hand smoke of whatever crap you're on. If you're too stupid to do the environmental math, you're too stupid for me to bother listening to, any more. I might as well listen to Alex Jones. And I won't do that. Un-subbed.
One thing I would like to ask to those who believe in the climate change fairy-tale is simply, what do I have to gain from denying the coming end of the world? According to Al Gore and the UN If I am wrong my life and the lives of my family could be in peril. On the contrary what could the promoters of global warming have to Gain? In other words what can ANYONE gain from convicing people, that their lives will be destroyed unless they do X Y and Z?
So you think pascal's wager is sound and valid. That or you are getting a high of the empowerment you feel from 'knowing' something others do not. (conspiracy theorist).
Actually, you have it backwards. Pascals wager is precisely what the global warming people propose. The "precautionary principle" is nothing more than Pascal's wager dressed in new clothes.
No. Pascal's wager does not have to conclude the affirmation, it can conclude the negation. Either way it's still invalid and irrelevant as far as the actual state of affairs.
Even if a climate scientist used pascal's wager, it'd be invalid. But they don't rely on it. There's enough evidence (much more than enough) that AGW is a fact.
Global warming 'science" is nothing more than politics though. Thats the whole point. its an entire "scientific" field invented to justify the expansion of state violence. The leaked emails make this abundantly clear. No point arguing any further though. If you have an emotional reason to believe in global warming, then I can't talk you out of it with facts and reson. Just like I can't talk someone out of Christianity with facts and reson.
When you say 'it was invented to justify the expansion of state violence' do you realize that that implies that 'there exists a hypothetical state of affairs that if ever it were to actualize then the expansion of state violence would be justified' ?
I know you don't agree with the implication... maybe you should argue that 'even if global warming were the case, state violence would not be justified'. It's a far more honest and valid argument for a change, which would be nice.
I don't really understand your fist paragraph. Maybe you could rephrase. As to your second point, state violence is illegitimate regardless of the truth or falsehood of global warming "science", and global warming science is junk science regardless of whether or not it expands the state. However, in reality we have the case where we have junk science that is funded by government violence and further justifies an expansion of government violence, which is exactly what you would expect.
OK, on second reading I guess I see your point. "Attempts to justify" or "makes arguments in favor of" would be more precise language for the meaning I was going for. Good point to call me out on sloppy language, even though I think you got my meaning.
even if there wasn't a soul on earth who believed in AGW, there'd still be climate scientists. It's not clear what you think climate science is, but there's a lot to study, observe, and predict with or without global warming. You are ignoring an entire science because of one theory you don't see evidence for. The science field wouldn't be any smaller without AGW.
Does evolution increase the need for (Gov't)biologists too and is therefor a sham 'theory'?
wow good point. It really does seem that they don't care how sound and valid their arguments are, as long as the conclusion are what they want. Very dogmatic of them.
There's evidence that shows that climate change is cyclical. For example, during the late medieval period and the renaissance, temperatures were higher then what we have now. I would recommend watching The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can Find it on Youtube.
Regarding Molyneux's argument, My problem with it is that I think it's insufficient to just say "The State is behind so it must be bullshit". BTW I'm an anarchist just like him although I'm not an Anarcho-capitalist.
I agree his fundamental premise is flawed. History shows a lot of completely valid science that was carried out as a result of violent conflict, vast amounts a basic research carried out in connection to WW2 and the Cold War. Still, science can be manipulated by powerful agendas. The problem of climate changes predictions is simply that it is a nearly incomprehensibly complex system that has at times recovered from extremely disruptive events.
You can find clear debunking of this on youtube aswell. I suggest you watch this video as well as the rest on that channel and check the sources before you respond.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is anything but a credible source. For one thing they use data collected by the government. And for another thing they data mine. It's well documented in this video
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
There are a great many other good videos from that user I suggest you watch. Including ones debunking the cyclical argument. The climate is cyclic but predictably so and that's been factored in already.
watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8
After you watched all those please bring new questions.
The arguement he makes i thnk is correct, if you look behind the curtain then you see who is really pulling the strings within society. If the mass media are pushing for something in concert like a well tuned orchestra, then chances are things are 'orchestrated'.
It is a complex problem. THAT IS WHY there are "so many solutions" to it.
"Those things would not exist, if there was not" a problem. "Now we have all these creative wonderful ways" for this problem. Like solar, clean tech, a CO2 market stock exchange, a global going green eco trend.
If there is a global warming problem, that is the reason why "they would come up with creative and wonderful solutions, because this is what always happens" "a thousand flowers bloom." Nobody was forced to believe
Yes he is. You haven't gotten that point from his vids? lol. I made the switch from minarchist to anarchist recently. Not cus of stefbot, or at least not soleley because of him, but he did influence my decision.
Anyways, in anarchy there is no state. The only "government" would be one that is totally different from what we think of as government. It would be more like self-governance, and violence would still be addressed because people could defend themselves or pay others to defend them.
I think mostly everyone who agrees to the opinion of the video has not worked as an scientist. It is like understanding the motivation of drug addicts, without ever taking drugs.
@DreadLaw2 No, all people have the same motivation. Some are murders and some are normal. Some are lovers and some are haters.
Scientist are smart not stupid. But it seems to be that you have to love art to understand art. Love music to understand music. Love science to understand science.
this is not the oil, chemical, nuclear or weapons industry that is funding research to state that they do good stuff
it's research money for research, they found out there is going to be a problem, so they raised the attention about this issue, not the other way around
researcher are researcher, because they love science and research, not cold cash business big houses large cars and hookers, they have an different mind concept
moremost: Where does government get that money from? Research worked without a government. Government got involved to "help" the results see their point of view, scientists are massive fans of the state now and suck it off worse than their ancestors did the church. Also, your finla comment is childish gibberish, all people are identical, and all people have the same motivation, to trade something they value less for something they value more, labelling it generically is mass ignorance.
Ok, badly worded. All people are not identical, but giving a group of people a job-specific label doesn't make them entirely different from the rest humanity. Better? My point being that a researcher is still human, not that all humans are researchers.
The same as politicians - calling them government does not make them suddenly moral, or capable of using violence in a moral manner. It's gibberish. I no longer even see Government as a special cateogry, it's purely a Company like any other.
@TheHotVidsCollection Because one studies climate and the other evolution... I don't see why you make a distinction between the words "Sure" and "evolutionary"... I mean? What does that even mean.
My final comment to all you guys, and you can hate me all you want, is you're every bit as dogmatic as fundamentalist christians or muslims. You refuse to see facts, you believe what you believe because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Isn't that nice?
History shows that human nature is not nice. We can see by looking at history all that will happen without regulation, and what will happen with it. But you don't want to see that, and so just march blithely onward.
"human nature is not nice". Ok, so you give a small group of guys all the weapons they need and sanction them to initiate violence for any reason they see fit. The worst of the humans are going to gravitate to this group, this is the govt mafia.
... who theoretically has control over everyone and everything around them. But I've lived in a place where the small group in Washington had no say what so ever. Several, in fact. Until you've lived in those places, of course, you'd never believe they exist. Nobody does.
If they're such tyrants, why can't they control the landless peasant fucks in a village with two traffic lights? Why can't they control the landless peasant fuck communities that are even smaller?
"If it's a good business plan, investors would be lining up to pay for it." vs "If it's such a good idea, how come it hasn't been done before?" Ummmm ... Science vs Human Nature. The railroads are full of history that shows what happens when you have too little - and too much! - regulation. Don't believe it? Take a look. Airlines, trucking, and bussing services are all built on government regulation. Without government, they could not exist.
? without someone with a lot of guns stealing peoples money, people wouldnt voluntarily pay for bussing, trucking and airlines? I would think that if people had more money because a large portion of it wasnt being taken at gunpoint they would spend more of it on services.
It's not that people wouldn't voluntarily pay for busses, trucking and airplanes. It's that the railroad {singular - monopoly} would have squashed them before they even got off the ground. You see, it's called "predatory business practices," something done by large monopolistic corporations. Without regulations {that ultimately squashed the railroads}, the railroad monopoly would have made certain nothing else was profitable.
I see so the reasoning is that in order to prevent monopolies we must support a monopoly, a monopoly soo strong it can start wars and has nukes? A monopoly soo strong it can start corporations?
What you're proposing will not necessarily prevent anything. That is the whole point.
The software market is pretty wide open, isn't it? Create the new killer Operating System and launch it. Make money on it. We all know Windows is bad, but let's see you do it.
Make a bicycle shop in a small town with a Wal Mart and make it last. I'm sure you can do it.
That's the crux of your whole argument. "Do it better and succeed." The real world doesn't work like that, little boys.
No. Airlines, trucking, and bussing services are not build on regulation. They emerged from a free market and THEN they became regulated by the government.
WRONG, MigDanskeren. The railroads were heavily regulated during the rise of airlines, trucks, and busses. The railroads were literally crippled by government regulation, and couldn't compete. If the railroads had had free reign, the only trucks you'd see today would be local delivery. Planes might still exist, but could well be owned by the monopoly railroad that would exist without regulation. And busses would only serve small towns over short distances.
In point of fact, the regulations that prevented the railroads from competing effectively against trucks, planes and busses ultimate lead to the destruction of several railroads simultaneously in the northeast United States. This lead to the creation of Conrail by the government, which was quickly followed by railroad deregulation. The railroads have still not fully recovered, but they're well on their way, and the trucking industry is not happy about it at all.
You are right on only one point: Government regulation is crippling.
If railroads are more efficient they will naturally be used more. Trains can not run on the ocean though. They can't go as fast as a plane and they can't place tracks all over. Trucks and planes would still be very much used, because they are better in many circumstances.
And, as I said before: They ALL emerged from private initiative, not government.
You should also try changing your narrow view based on only American history.
You're right. When a train requires five crewmen BY LAW, they're "being inefficient." When a railroad is UNABLE TO CHANGE IT'S PRICE STRUCTURE BY LAW, it's "being inefficient." When a railroad can't get permission to teminate unprofitable services, it's "inefficient."
You're a damned fool, you realize that? I recommend you learn a little about railroad regulation. I also recommend you learn a thing or two about how and why they were regulated. You might actually learn something.
I'm not going to waste my time debating with you as you clearly is not wiling to learn or participate in a sober discussion. That's why you are so uninformed.
I say you are uninformed. Since you do not know the history of the railroads. During the 1930s and 1940s, during the rise of the diesels, there was a LAW that said the railroads had to have a full crew for every locomotive in their consist. Remember one diesel can drive a whole consist and you'll see how stupid that is.
I am not the ill informed person, Mig. You are. And you don't know human nature, either. None of you do who think life will be sweet and rosey without a government.
You see, Mig, the railroads were heavily regulated in the 1930s and beyond. The regulations only began to come off in the 1970s. So you tell me: How is it trucks and busses and planes arose in a "free market" when the railroads were so constrained by regulation? Answer: IT WASN'T A FREE MARKET!
Im having a hard time following you. You seem to be both pro and anti government? And what is you fascination with railroads? What could possibly be soo grand and awesome about railroads that neccitates governments? Anyway supporting theft is immoral. And the government is based on theft. So supporting the government is evil and immoral. lol :)
Yeah, that's kinda the point, when govt gets involved it creates artificial monopolies. Please give one example of a monopoly that didn't get there without govt help.
That's the rub: value. Truth has value regardless of how it was funded. In the end, most research at least has some connection to government spending .... its like saying that libraries or the internet which Steph loves has no value because they were inherently funded by the government.
Good video, i think you misphrased but i think i got the jest of it. Not all statistics done through violent means are false, but when a subject is being discussed and only one side obtains the protection of the gun while the other is being aimed at, you can clearly see that one side fears the truth. Perhaps it should actually give some credibility leverage to the victims of the gun, rather than drive people away from them. Aren't we supposed to be curious anyway? People have become wusses.
Same here. Lacuna Coil, HIM, Rush, and many other artists have made good money off me because I downloaded all their music illegally before I started buying their tshirts and concert tickets.
Crap, hit enter too soon. Anyway, awesome video. Love the passion towards the end. I always find your arguments refreshing. Good for getting my mind back on track when I start getting distracted by bullshit.
I know what you mean when you talk about how boring it is to hear "solutions" by people who want to use the gun in the room. I can't stand talking to my conservative family for this reason, I have to just talk about other stuff.
Today people turn to the government for solutions to ANY problem they might find. The willingness to develop your own solutions have dissipatedly completely. At least where I am living.
How do you think that downloading study that you accepted with much glee was funded? Seems like selective evidence selection to me. Evidence is evidence regardless of the source...even if climate change science came from the nazis it still wouldnt change its truth value.
This is correct, but I don't think anybody was worried about using that data to effective ends while the Nazis were collecting it. The problem of the research funding needs to be solved first. Then, whatever useful data was taken out of it can be put to useful ends.
Even the police are against the new filesharing laws because the believe people will just make encryption the norm (I know I will) and it will make their entire job harder.
After the first Global Warming Hack you had me at the point of wanting to unsubscribe. If scientists are funded by the wrong people, then their research is worthless? Please! Are you an advocate for the scientific method? Reason and evidence? You disappoint me!
Also, you make promises-of-heaven when saying that "people will find solutions we can't even imagine and they will be intelligent and inspiring". How about you start trying to combine voluntarisme with research for 50 years to come.
What's this comment about? Just because someone decides to call someone/something else "scientist" does not make that person a practitioner of the scientific method, honest. Don't pull out the incense yet for the worship of "scientists".
Often people of the "progressive" attitude assume that titles meant action - If that were so, I would have everyone call me 'God'!
You sir have completely missed the point. If you don't understand the concept of transparancy and the reason behind violence against opposition, i don't know what to tell you.
Stephan, I don't understand your claim that research, paid for with tax dollars, can have no validity or value.
I think I understand your point that the source of funding may cause research to focus on particular questions and perhaps even sway some research groups to present their results in a biased fashion or cease study in an area that's 'unfavorable' for their financier. (cont.)
That truly was, science at the point of a gun, but are the results made "false" because of that?
Is the data collected by the Hubble telescope "false" because the space program is funded by tax payers? Will any data collected, any advances made due to the experiments at the LHC be invalid, be "false" because the project has government funding?
I am not being intentionally obtuse and am honestly puzzled by your claim. I hope you may find time to help enlighten me. (cont.)
Here is how I would answer. Its not so much that science funded by violence is necessarily wrong because of the funding source, but that its valueless. If it had value to people, it would be funded voluntarily. So climate research, accurate or not, has no value. State funded astronomy has no value from the point of view of the public. I personally think there would be ample opportunity for profitable astronomy on the free market if the state did not monopolize and crowd out the possibility.
Even more stupid than what geekaykaygee argued perfectly against.. By this logic roads are valueless because if they had value they would be funded voluntarily. Same with power plants and aids research!
They would be funded voluntarily as they are in amusement parks and malls and parkinglots. The government has a monopoly on most roads though. Same with aids research and powerplants.
If your proposition is true, then it's a contradiction to what mikepeino said. And that is my point. Government involvement doesn't necessarily imply that it has no value. <-- negation of mike's proposition.
Now, I do not reject global warming or climate change. I agree with scientists. I also agree with scientists that cap and tradew would do next to nothing to curb climate change. There would be no global warming debate if government didn't fund science. The global warming deniers would have no basis to be skeptical of scientist's credibilty if government didn't fund science.
DaveDoggOwns, I think I must take issue with your claim that only government sponsored science is of questionable validity.
Surely there are many examples today of scientific studies sponsored or directly conducted by corporations and industries that publish demonstrably false conclusions. For example tobacco industry studies stating there is no link between smoking & cancer & related health problems.
Isn't scientific credibility solely a product of experimental repeatability?
What a load of bullocks.
daizawadude 5 months ago
Stef's reptilian eyes , heheh
Iseeyoursoul 1 year ago
Stefan's videos are interesting, but I just wish he wouldn't put his face in them. I have to listen to audio only. His bald head and strange mouth distract me.
MrDarkbloom 1 year ago
Comment removed
daviddevall 1 year ago
Re: "I believe that it's false because it's funded through violence."
So when I studied math at a state university, everything I learned was false because of state support?
Re: "Things which have innate value are not funded at the point of a gun."
So math & science, being supported by the university systems, have no innate value. OK. What of medicine? I live down the stret from NIH. Is all their cancer research, "funded at the point of a gun", devoid of innate value?
Your ideology is silly.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
the reason we dont let people undercut other workers because this practice will force wages down , i dont know any employer that would pay people less if they could, there is a finite amount of money in the economy at any one time and if you spread this thinner that will mean people will be unable to pay their mortgage or buy food . what you should be advocating is the reduction of rediculous corperate wages and bonuses that the executives of this world are paid. this will give all people jobs.
producersunnyshadows 1 year ago
@producersunnyshadows: You have to be kidding. Show me the percentage of employers who pay at minimum wage. They could easily drop wages or hire new people at min wage if they wanted, but we don't see that.
Also do you think that reducing a ceo's salary, even by a million or two would be able to finance the jobs of the millions of un/underemployed?
andyissemicool 1 year ago
yeah absolutely.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
Ensuring that "artists" get "paid" is not, and should not be, the basis for or against the concept of intellectual property.
I was a bit startled to hear this sort of pragmatism from someone who otherwise frames arguments in very strict rational principles.
There are strong liberty- and morality-based arguments both for and against intellectual property, which is why it remains one of the trickier topics for freedom advocates. "How artists get paid" is not one of them.
TomMichaels101 1 year ago
Great video. Thanks for all you do...
cat322 1 year ago
i hate it when people put on an english accent....
chillercm 1 year ago
global warming- i disagree, it's really happening
illegal downloading- I'm all for it
unemployment- bump up welfare, take it off the top (of the hierarchy)!
country aint got no money anyway
china's got it
bye byes
natmanprime 1 year ago
I have a better drinking game, drink any time he makes an analogy...
TANSD 1 year ago
There is no such thing like intrinsic value. All value is subjective - I may say ferrari is worth its price, you may say that even f you were able to afford it mercedes has more value to you even when their price is similiar.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora what about life or oxygen? or do things which you cannot put a price on anymore, not have an intrinsic value?
screw commerce, let's live.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@Samuelthemule
Do not confuse value with price. Value is not necessarily expressed in money. Situations of kill or be killed (lifeboat) are excellent examples of subjectivity of value of life. Oxygen under normal conditions is not scarce and not rivalrous therefore people do not economize it. Morality just like any valuation necessarily exists but it is subjective. Objectivity != intersubjective consensus. I think subjectivity of valuation is one of greatest arguments for voluntaryism.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora i wasn't confusing value with price ; )
I was trying to establish a meta(beyond)-price argument saying: we cannot properly establish the intrinsic value of those things which make our lives possible in the first place, because they are the things which allow us to think in terms of value, if we so desire. thus, if anything has intrinsic worth, it must be life, and prerequisites thereof.
your argument about cars works because they are 'luxury' goods, if you look deeper...
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@Samuelthemule
In my understanding intrinsic value is subjective concept. Is a car a luxury good to a very sick person that needs to be transported to hospital fast? What is luxury and what is not depends on our own subjective valuations in given context. Survival is matter of choice and thus subjective valuation. You may choose to sacrifice yourself for your beloved one in time of need thus valuing subjectively your life lower than that of other human being. Suicide is another example.
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora ok, can you explain what makes it a subjective concept, in detail?
otherwise we're both just kind of stating our assumptions without actual reasoning.
re: luxury, i think maslow's pyramid covers this pretty well: if certain needs are not met, things higher on the pyramid will have little to no meaning.
and, you shifted the goalposts with saying car, and is transportation a luxury good, from, is a luxury car a luxury (your analogy was: mercedes vs. porsche; prefference).
cheers
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora re: self sacrifice, yes, but, didn't i say that-don't we agree?
in which way does your reply respond to my objections, maybe i'm missing something here.
again, hopefully more clearly stated: life, existence, has intrinsic value, because it is that which can even formulate conceptions about value.., without it, there would be no-thing and no-thing is worth-less, hmmm. I'm not really clear about what I'm saying myself, but my feelings tell me there's something true in what i say.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora however, you cannot construct such an argument about human life or the necessities for continuing it, as they are not matters of taste but survival: all organisms wish to continue their own existence, as long as possible, as long as certain parameters are met ('quality of life': see cells giving up or rebelling against unsuitable environments).
Moreover, morality is only subjective to the extent that it is a work-in-progress system, which each individual must attempt to perfect.
Samuelthemule 1 year ago
@zbigniewzapora in more detail, using your point about oxygen as an example: people would not economize it at all, they would do whatever was necessary to get the minimum of it which they needed, as long as it did not violate their own morality/code of ethics to the extent that they did not believe their life was worth continuing any longer.
does that make sense?
voluntaryism sounds like a good idea... cool, thanks.
Samuelthemule 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
Stef, are you suggesting that anything funded "at the point of a gun" has no intrinsic value?
Hmmm. I think maybe you backed up a little to far. You might want to look a little closer.
kokopelli314 2 years ago
I have a theory about how to reduce unemployment, though you won't like it because it involves "the gun" so to speak. The government needs (IMO) to set up a duel economy (or at least do a feasibility study) If they had a Communist and capitalist economy working side by side I suspect there might be greater stability. The Government could then employ the unemployed in menial labour within the state businesses. I know my idea needs work but I'm interested t hear what people think about it.
BlueGlowingLight4 2 years ago
Also it might be a good idea to copy the ancient greeks and pass laws allowing for poloticians to be charged with "gross incompitence" or similar. This should see a sharp decline in promises that cannot be kept and poloticians' willingness to disregard the will of the people.
Again I'd like to hear oppinions on this.
BlueGlowingLight4 2 years ago
Stef Dude,
you are kookoo when it comes to how science works and is funded.
Besides, the real world doesn't reveal itself any differently based on imaginary guns. Science is focused on eliminating bias -- it is paramount. Your gun theory is not relevant.
SatoBrooks 2 years ago
Actually the Antarctica is according to all current data cooling down and seas are freezing wider.
Sorry. What are the temperatures around the globe right now? Its fucking freezing like crazy, morons!! Its all about the TAXES, wake up!!!
konshoff 2 years ago
No.... I'm not so sure I believe all this incredibly metaphorical thinking. Firstly, if someone points a gun at your head and says "donate money! We have proved the ice caps are melting, your just refusing to believe this!!!" Your going to donate money. Without the gun, the icecaps are still sinking, but no donations.
And btw -why don't you talk about the BILLIONS/TRILLIONS of TONS of garbage we put in landfills A DAY. Talk yourself out of that.
TheTrueSong 2 years ago
Okay, assuming that the icecaps WERE 'sinking' (as you put it), what is the need for the gun? If there was a real threat from rising sea levels, then people would surely do whatever they could to prevent themselves or their property being harmed. In a free market any companies that aim to reduce the rate of 'skinking' would profit. Real supply and demand doesn't need any guns.
You're saying that you would only spend money to prevent global warming if you (yourself) had a gun to your head.
chitchcott 2 years ago
So you think thievery is morally right?
masonkiller666 2 years ago
landfills are not a problem, recycling is another scam by govt. I do "reduce and reuse", but the only recycling that makes sense is already being done. You see people collecting cans because they have value. No one collects cardboard and paper because they have no value via recycling. Another waste of taxpayer dollars...
viehe69 2 years ago
PREVENT GLOBAL FREEZING
onetwopussies 2 years ago
what's an ice age?
should man control the climate to stop ice ages?
onetwopussies 2 years ago
I love the video stef. After the E Harmony reference I couldn't help imagining that the remainder of the vid as your E Harmony intro, and who might respond. Great stuff
rjjflash 2 years ago
Thanks for the true words stef :)
benhorinfreedom 2 years ago
im not sure....if someone points a gun at you and tell you 1 + 1 = 2...
dashedude2 2 years ago
Wow a free thinker!!! I salute you. :)
philwarinsky 2 years ago
Science defeated!
dannyvsscience 2 years ago
Stef, the self-described philosopher, says that global warming research is invalidated because of its source of funding. That is an example of the genetic fallacy.
drakulva 2 years ago
DRINKING GAME!!! Everyone drinks when he says "funded at the point of a gun".
We're all gonna get hammered :-)
SamNoble89 2 years ago 24
@SamNoble89 Funded at the point of a fucking gun...
MrDarkbloom 1 year ago
not so zen though :)
but totally agree!
Ensietaen 2 years ago
So what if the business plan goes against the strongest corporations that influence the the US government. Would you say that they would volunteer funding for it regardless because it is a good cause? Making that assumption would be quite naive.
theone1308 2 years ago
Run for President!
ZorrisPorris 2 years ago
Zoom out...
The ultimate 'gun-in-the-room' is...Crisis Engineering.
Because all debate, all criticism, must be suspended when a 'crisis' is declared.
SeekerNLife 2 years ago 6
There is global warming research that isn't state funded. At universities and private energy companies, for example.
saxmanmax 2 years ago 4
Most universities are state funded or heavily subsidized...
stefbot 2 years ago 8
@stefbot
I enjoy your philosophy videos, but I've always been supremely puzzled at anarchist tendencies to deny global warming because research funding is from the state. What collectivist action should be taken about it is an issue of debate, but global warming denial is a silly crock of shit.
QuantumMaths 1 year ago
Comment removed
daviddevall 1 year ago
as far as the government's pushing things down people's throats, Obama is the winner of doing the most damage, in this regard. at the rate of spending of the current adminisration, the government will be destroyed, in short order.
throwntomato 2 years ago
Stef, some soundproofing would help the sound quality immensely.
Barring that, a good quality "stage" mic, like a Shure sm-58 (unidirectional) would not pick up the background echo.
mcduffiesteven 2 years ago
The free market works fine and can solve all problems: YES.
The state is nothing more than violence: YES
Anarchy is preferable because violence never solves anything it only creates problems: YES
Those a monopoly on violence and certain information can lie about the actual state of affairs in order to retain and grow their power: YES
Stefan Molyneux is a source of decent clarity and decent rational thought for any and all philosophical topics: NO
newexperiment 2 years ago
Fucking GOLD>
this guy has it
it really is that simple
the Culture of Compliance is for gutless man-children
a Culture of Co-operation is the only way now
or war (compliance)
TruthCommando 2 years ago
It absolutely matters!! It takes "seeds" to reap the harvest of justice. These hackers did a great justice that the 'castrated' minions of so-called investigative journalist refused to do. Don't allow your philisophical stance divert this "black&white" issue, my friend. Start fighting the good fight...think of our children if you're lacking the 'will' to fight for yourself.
mgatchel 2 years ago 2
People negotiating the details of their own lives without being forced to do what everyone around them wants? That's insane. The government is supposed to figure all that hard stuff out. That's why they get elected right?
FearsEdge 2 years ago
That's true to a point. But are you saying there's no such thing as negligence? Or at least that it's never a matter of morality to not be negligent? Are you saying that if our actions indirectly effect others then that's too bad, adapt?
TheHotVidsCollection 2 years ago
Nope. Didn't say that.
FearsEdge 2 years ago
the mouse allways wins. look at tomy jerry. thank you great work!
webmacho 2 years ago
I guess, that I am one of the few people who actually downloaded and read the IPCC report about the climate change (the 'Nobel Prize' version). I found no valid science there.
However, the statement "everything that was funded using violence has no value" is wrong.
CosmicBoss2 2 years ago
I think he just said that because, "The value of any pursuit which is funded through violence is automatically suspect," doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
RussellsParadox 2 years ago
I like stefbot's shows because he tries to make clear philosophical statements. Saying one thing and meaning another is not consistent with the style. It is more like politics, not philosophy. That is why I commented on that.
CosmicBoss2 2 years ago
Great video Stef. What you said about being SO bored listening to "solutions" was like you were speaking out of my own brain.
Keep talking about the gun in the room...its obviously the most important thing for people to see.
Thanks for doing what you do.
thechonan1980 2 years ago
Universities are funded through the state. I guess that makes their research void too, huh?
What a load of shit.
metainfinity 2 years ago 4
Research conducted through universities tends to favor statist solutions because they are statist institutions. If they produce something true or valuable it is despite this.
beautifulheadache 2 years ago 3
If they produce something "true or valuable", then under your (& stefan's) same reasoning it would still bear the same statist bias. If you're so against any sort of statist influence, then turn off your internet, don't use the public roads, don't use anything with any sorts of technology, etc.
I can't believe how hard you people try to spin everything into a political issue.
metainfinity 2 years ago 2
We're not talking about solutions yet.
newexperiment 2 years ago
All right?
metainfinity 2 years ago
I don't know what color the trees are on your world, but I'm done with whiffing the second hand smoke of whatever crap you're on. If you're too stupid to do the environmental math, you're too stupid for me to bother listening to, any more. I might as well listen to Alex Jones. And I won't do that. Un-subbed.
DonQuixotedeKaw 2 years ago 5
I think that is very wise of you, best wishes! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
One thing I would like to ask to those who believe in the climate change fairy-tale is simply, what do I have to gain from denying the coming end of the world? According to Al Gore and the UN If I am wrong my life and the lives of my family could be in peril. On the contrary what could the promoters of global warming have to Gain? In other words what can ANYONE gain from convicing people, that their lives will be destroyed unless they do X Y and Z?
CalvinJGreen 2 years ago
Carbon Tax
VCADD 2 years ago
So you think pascal's wager is sound and valid. That or you are getting a high of the empowerment you feel from 'knowing' something others do not. (conspiracy theorist).
newexperiment 2 years ago
Actually, you have it backwards. Pascals wager is precisely what the global warming people propose. The "precautionary principle" is nothing more than Pascal's wager dressed in new clothes.
mikepeino 2 years ago
No. Pascal's wager does not have to conclude the affirmation, it can conclude the negation. Either way it's still invalid and irrelevant as far as the actual state of affairs.
Even if a climate scientist used pascal's wager, it'd be invalid. But they don't rely on it. There's enough evidence (much more than enough) that AGW is a fact.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Wait.. I'm sorry I must change that slightly.
If ever you herd someone using pascal's wager, then that was politics, not science and nothing to do with what the case actually is but what to do.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Global warming 'science" is nothing more than politics though. Thats the whole point. its an entire "scientific" field invented to justify the expansion of state violence. The leaked emails make this abundantly clear. No point arguing any further though. If you have an emotional reason to believe in global warming, then I can't talk you out of it with facts and reson. Just like I can't talk someone out of Christianity with facts and reson.
mikepeino 2 years ago
When you say 'it was invented to justify the expansion of state violence' do you realize that that implies that 'there exists a hypothetical state of affairs that if ever it were to actualize then the expansion of state violence would be justified' ?
I know you don't agree with the implication... maybe you should argue that 'even if global warming were the case, state violence would not be justified'. It's a far more honest and valid argument for a change, which would be nice.
GL /w ur dogma.
newexperiment 2 years ago
I don't really understand your fist paragraph. Maybe you could rephrase. As to your second point, state violence is illegitimate regardless of the truth or falsehood of global warming "science", and global warming science is junk science regardless of whether or not it expands the state. However, in reality we have the case where we have junk science that is funded by government violence and further justifies an expansion of government violence, which is exactly what you would expect.
mikepeino 2 years ago
OK, on second reading I guess I see your point. "Attempts to justify" or "makes arguments in favor of" would be more precise language for the meaning I was going for. Good point to call me out on sloppy language, even though I think you got my meaning.
mikepeino 2 years ago
Ok.. so you see my point. Now,
even if there wasn't a soul on earth who believed in AGW, there'd still be climate scientists. It's not clear what you think climate science is, but there's a lot to study, observe, and predict with or without global warming. You are ignoring an entire science because of one theory you don't see evidence for. The science field wouldn't be any smaller without AGW.
Does evolution increase the need for (Gov't)biologists too and is therefor a sham 'theory'?
newexperiment 2 years ago 2
wow good point. It really does seem that they don't care how sound and valid their arguments are, as long as the conclusion are what they want. Very dogmatic of them.
TheHotVidsCollection 2 years ago
thank you :)
CalvinJGreen 2 years ago
Sticks and stones may break my bones but ad-hominem fallacies; just give me a tickle :)
CalvinJGreen 2 years ago
There are not other possibilities. You used pascal's wager as your first argument.
Either you thin it is valid (cause you used it).
or you don't care if it's valid as long as you get the conclusion you want.
Nothing ad-hominem about reality.
newexperiment 2 years ago
The question is not 'should there be no government?' The question is, is violence a suitable solution for all social problems?
bunabayashi 2 years ago
@bunabayashi
maybe some?
wildreams 2 years ago
Man made global warming is indeed bullshit. But the argument that Molyneux uses to justify this claim is very weak.
Rugob 2 years ago 3
@Rugob I totally agree that his argument is weak. Do you have a better one?
waksibra 2 years ago
There's evidence that shows that climate change is cyclical. For example, during the late medieval period and the renaissance, temperatures were higher then what we have now. I would recommend watching The Great Global Warming Swindle. You can Find it on Youtube.
Rugob 2 years ago
Regarding Molyneux's argument, My problem with it is that I think it's insufficient to just say "The State is behind so it must be bullshit". BTW I'm an anarchist just like him although I'm not an Anarcho-capitalist.
Rugob 2 years ago 3
I agree his fundamental premise is flawed. History shows a lot of completely valid science that was carried out as a result of violent conflict, vast amounts a basic research carried out in connection to WW2 and the Cold War. Still, science can be manipulated by powerful agendas. The problem of climate changes predictions is simply that it is a nearly incomprehensibly complex system that has at times recovered from extremely disruptive events.
TheNewRenaissance 2 years ago
You can find clear debunking of this on youtube aswell. I suggest you watch this video as well as the rest on that channel and check the sources before you respond.
watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
newexperiment 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll check them out for sure. Thanks
Rugob 2 years ago 4
The Great Global Warming Swindle is anything but a credible source. For one thing they use data collected by the government. And for another thing they data mine. It's well documented in this video
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
There are a great many other good videos from that user I suggest you watch. Including ones debunking the cyclical argument. The climate is cyclic but predictably so and that's been factored in already.
watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8
After you watched all those please bring new questions.
newexperiment 2 years ago
I've since watched some of his vids and I have to say that they've certainly challenged some of my beliefs.
Rugob 2 years ago
The arguement he makes i thnk is correct, if you look behind the curtain then you see who is really pulling the strings within society. If the mass media are pushing for something in concert like a well tuned orchestra, then chances are things are 'orchestrated'.
Gromitdog1 2 years ago
I agree. I just don't think that It's suficient. Specially for people that do not share our disdain for The State.
Rugob 2 years ago
This is a simple fallacy, it is also a contradiction to a free market ideology which I don't think you want.
newexperiment 2 years ago
@Vlog
Really enjoyed it steph.
You must read mises org?
Anyways, what you say about unemployment and tax cuts is spot on.
Do you think the reason they have the minimum wage set at a certain level is so they can get a certain amount of tax revenue?
MRSketch09 2 years ago
It is a complex problem. THAT IS WHY there are "so many solutions" to it.
"Those things would not exist, if there was not" a problem. "Now we have all these creative wonderful ways" for this problem. Like solar, clean tech, a CO2 market stock exchange, a global going green eco trend.
If there is a global warming problem, that is the reason why "they would come up with creative and wonderful solutions, because this is what always happens" "a thousand flowers bloom." Nobody was forced to believe
moremost 2 years ago
Hi, everybody
this is santa clause
Qnostiqs 2 years ago
Everythinq explained by santa clause
BTW Ron Paul is bad, Stef, you know that; he has a larger crowd, sorry for that.
Pssss Your project failed; your hypnotic eyes fail the test
Qnostiqs 2 years ago
@stefbot
"funded through violence"
government = violence ?
no government = no violence ?
no government = people are free
people are free = anarchy
Are you an anarchist stefbot? Should there be no government?
moremost 2 years ago 2
Yes he is. You haven't gotten that point from his vids? lol. I made the switch from minarchist to anarchist recently. Not cus of stefbot, or at least not soleley because of him, but he did influence my decision.
Anyways, in anarchy there is no state. The only "government" would be one that is totally different from what we think of as government. It would be more like self-governance, and violence would still be addressed because people could defend themselves or pay others to defend them.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
hehe... what an abvious question
ronpaulspanish 2 years ago
Comment removed
moremost 2 years ago
I think mostly everyone who agrees to the opinion of the video has not worked as an scientist. It is like understanding the motivation of drug addicts, without ever taking drugs.
@DreadLaw2 No, all people have the same motivation. Some are murders and some are normal. Some are lovers and some are haters.
Scientist are smart not stupid. But it seems to be that you have to love art to understand art. Love music to understand music. Love science to understand science.
You don't love science!
moremost 2 years ago
? what gun is he talking about ?
this is not the oil, chemical, nuclear or weapons industry that is funding research to state that they do good stuff
it's research money for research, they found out there is going to be a problem, so they raised the attention about this issue, not the other way around
researcher are researcher, because they love science and research, not cold cash business big houses large cars and hookers, they have an different mind concept
moremost 2 years ago
moremost: Where does government get that money from? Research worked without a government. Government got involved to "help" the results see their point of view, scientists are massive fans of the state now and suck it off worse than their ancestors did the church. Also, your finla comment is childish gibberish, all people are identical, and all people have the same motivation, to trade something they value less for something they value more, labelling it generically is mass ignorance.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
All people are identical huh?
newexperiment 2 years ago
Ok, badly worded. All people are not identical, but giving a group of people a job-specific label doesn't make them entirely different from the rest humanity. Better? My point being that a researcher is still human, not that all humans are researchers.
The same as politicians - calling them government does not make them suddenly moral, or capable of using violence in a moral manner. It's gibberish. I no longer even see Government as a special cateogry, it's purely a Company like any other.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
Sure. I don't see why you make a distinction between climate scientists and evolutionary biologists.
TheHotVidsCollection 2 years ago
@TheHotVidsCollection Because one studies climate and the other evolution... I don't see why you make a distinction between the words "Sure" and "evolutionary"... I mean? What does that even mean.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
I don't see why you make a distinction in terms of honesty/trustworthyness between one science funded through violence and another.
Is what, I think, he means.
newexperiment 2 years ago
@newexperiment I didn't. Not once did I make such a distinction.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
My final comment to all you guys, and you can hate me all you want, is you're every bit as dogmatic as fundamentalist christians or muslims. You refuse to see facts, you believe what you believe because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Isn't that nice?
History shows that human nature is not nice. We can see by looking at history all that will happen without regulation, and what will happen with it. But you don't want to see that, and so just march blithely onward.
LeksServices 2 years ago
"human nature is not nice". Ok, so you give a small group of guys all the weapons they need and sanction them to initiate violence for any reason they see fit. The worst of the humans are going to gravitate to this group, this is the govt mafia.
viehe69 2 years ago
... who theoretically has control over everyone and everything around them. But I've lived in a place where the small group in Washington had no say what so ever. Several, in fact. Until you've lived in those places, of course, you'd never believe they exist. Nobody does.
If they're such tyrants, why can't they control the landless peasant fucks in a village with two traffic lights? Why can't they control the landless peasant fuck communities that are even smaller?
LeksServices 2 years ago
This is how I argue against taxation, but people come back with the astonishingly ignorant, "But we need taxation or xyz can't be done!"
woodsofodin 2 years ago 2
i wonder how many times he says the word gun in this video lol
dmak646 2 years ago
so so wrong
dlix 2 years ago
Great video! Important points.
5 stars and shared
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
Great job :-)
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
"If it's a good business plan, investors would be lining up to pay for it." vs "If it's such a good idea, how come it hasn't been done before?" Ummmm ... Science vs Human Nature. The railroads are full of history that shows what happens when you have too little - and too much! - regulation. Don't believe it? Take a look. Airlines, trucking, and bussing services are all built on government regulation. Without government, they could not exist.
LeksServices 2 years ago
Maybe you need to do more studies on the subject. . It been done before.
NeutrinoideReturns 2 years ago 2
? without someone with a lot of guns stealing peoples money, people wouldnt voluntarily pay for bussing, trucking and airlines? I would think that if people had more money because a large portion of it wasnt being taken at gunpoint they would spend more of it on services.
gosmokesome 2 years ago 2
It's not that people wouldn't voluntarily pay for busses, trucking and airplanes. It's that the railroad {singular - monopoly} would have squashed them before they even got off the ground. You see, it's called "predatory business practices," something done by large monopolistic corporations. Without regulations {that ultimately squashed the railroads}, the railroad monopoly would have made certain nothing else was profitable.
LeksServices 2 years ago
I see so the reasoning is that in order to prevent monopolies we must support a monopoly, a monopoly soo strong it can start wars and has nukes? A monopoly soo strong it can start corporations?
gosmokesome 2 years ago 2
What you're proposing will not necessarily prevent anything. That is the whole point.
The software market is pretty wide open, isn't it? Create the new killer Operating System and launch it. Make money on it. We all know Windows is bad, but let's see you do it.
Make a bicycle shop in a small town with a Wal Mart and make it last. I'm sure you can do it.
That's the crux of your whole argument. "Do it better and succeed." The real world doesn't work like that, little boys.
LeksServices 2 years ago
If you can't compete with walmart, that just isn't your field. It's just bad luck. Make a university and succeed.
newexperiment 2 years ago 2
No. Airlines, trucking, and bussing services are not build on regulation. They emerged from a free market and THEN they became regulated by the government.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
WRONG, MigDanskeren. The railroads were heavily regulated during the rise of airlines, trucks, and busses. The railroads were literally crippled by government regulation, and couldn't compete. If the railroads had had free reign, the only trucks you'd see today would be local delivery. Planes might still exist, but could well be owned by the monopoly railroad that would exist without regulation. And busses would only serve small towns over short distances.
LeksServices 2 years ago
In point of fact, the regulations that prevented the railroads from competing effectively against trucks, planes and busses ultimate lead to the destruction of several railroads simultaneously in the northeast United States. This lead to the creation of Conrail by the government, which was quickly followed by railroad deregulation. The railroads have still not fully recovered, but they're well on their way, and the trucking industry is not happy about it at all.
LeksServices 2 years ago
You are right on only one point: Government regulation is crippling.
If railroads are more efficient they will naturally be used more. Trains can not run on the ocean though. They can't go as fast as a plane and they can't place tracks all over. Trucks and planes would still be very much used, because they are better in many circumstances.
And, as I said before: They ALL emerged from private initiative, not government.
You should also try changing your narrow view based on only American history.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
You're right. When a train requires five crewmen BY LAW, they're "being inefficient." When a railroad is UNABLE TO CHANGE IT'S PRICE STRUCTURE BY LAW, it's "being inefficient." When a railroad can't get permission to teminate unprofitable services, it's "inefficient."
You're a damned fool, you realize that? I recommend you learn a little about railroad regulation. I also recommend you learn a thing or two about how and why they were regulated. You might actually learn something.
LeksServices 2 years ago
I'm not going to waste my time debating with you as you clearly is not wiling to learn or participate in a sober discussion. That's why you are so uninformed.
I rarely say this, but fuck you, pathetic loser.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
I say you are uninformed. Since you do not know the history of the railroads. During the 1930s and 1940s, during the rise of the diesels, there was a LAW that said the railroads had to have a full crew for every locomotive in their consist. Remember one diesel can drive a whole consist and you'll see how stupid that is.
I am not the ill informed person, Mig. You are. And you don't know human nature, either. None of you do who think life will be sweet and rosey without a government.
LeksServices 2 years ago
You see, Mig, the railroads were heavily regulated in the 1930s and beyond. The regulations only began to come off in the 1970s. So you tell me: How is it trucks and busses and planes arose in a "free market" when the railroads were so constrained by regulation? Answer: IT WASN'T A FREE MARKET!
LeksServices 2 years ago
Im having a hard time following you. You seem to be both pro and anti government? And what is you fascination with railroads? What could possibly be soo grand and awesome about railroads that neccitates governments? Anyway supporting theft is immoral. And the government is based on theft. So supporting the government is evil and immoral. lol :)
gosmokesome 2 years ago 2
@gosmo--
Leks has clearly been indoctrinated very well.
"Answer: IT WASN'T A FREE MARKET! "
Yeah, that's kinda the point, when govt gets involved it creates artificial monopolies. Please give one example of a monopoly that didn't get there without govt help.
viehe69 2 years ago
That's the rub: value. Truth has value regardless of how it was funded. In the end, most research at least has some connection to government spending .... its like saying that libraries or the internet which Steph loves has no value because they were inherently funded by the government.
FreudsCigar 2 years ago
Excellent as usual.
ashane77 2 years ago
Good video, i think you misphrased but i think i got the jest of it. Not all statistics done through violent means are false, but when a subject is being discussed and only one side obtains the protection of the gun while the other is being aimed at, you can clearly see that one side fears the truth. Perhaps it should actually give some credibility leverage to the victims of the gun, rather than drive people away from them. Aren't we supposed to be curious anyway? People have become wusses.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Same here. Lacuna Coil, HIM, Rush, and many other artists have made good money off me because I downloaded all their music illegally before I started buying their tshirts and concert tickets.
1983Bantam 2 years ago
Crap, hit enter too soon. Anyway, awesome video. Love the passion towards the end. I always find your arguments refreshing. Good for getting my mind back on track when I start getting distracted by bullshit.
mikepeino 2 years ago
Awesome video.
mikepeino 2 years ago
I know what you mean when you talk about how boring it is to hear "solutions" by people who want to use the gun in the room. I can't stand talking to my conservative family for this reason, I have to just talk about other stuff.
1983Bantam 2 years ago
Today people turn to the government for solutions to ANY problem they might find. The willingness to develop your own solutions have dissipatedly completely. At least where I am living.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Very well done, Stef!
Right to the heart of the issue!
Its the gun in the room! Not the flowers on the wall paper!
This video is why I listen to your posts and read your books.
Thanks Stef.
You Rock!
harryogre 2 years ago
How do you think that downloading study that you accepted with much glee was funded? Seems like selective evidence selection to me. Evidence is evidence regardless of the source...even if climate change science came from the nazis it still wouldnt change its truth value.
FreudsCigar 2 years ago 2
This is correct, but I don't think anybody was worried about using that data to effective ends while the Nazis were collecting it. The problem of the research funding needs to be solved first. Then, whatever useful data was taken out of it can be put to useful ends.
1983Bantam 2 years ago
So you aren't against the data. You are against the proposed solutions (regardless of the data).
Than you and stef are not in agreement.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Funded by violence to justify more violence.
Guncriminal 2 years ago
Even the police are against the new filesharing laws because the believe people will just make encryption the norm (I know I will) and it will make their entire job harder.
sharperguy 2 years ago
After the first Global Warming Hack you had me at the point of wanting to unsubscribe. If scientists are funded by the wrong people, then their research is worthless? Please! Are you an advocate for the scientific method? Reason and evidence? You disappoint me!
Also, you make promises-of-heaven when saying that "people will find solutions we can't even imagine and they will be intelligent and inspiring". How about you start trying to combine voluntarisme with research for 50 years to come.
RoyvanKeulen 2 years ago 3
What's this comment about? Just because someone decides to call someone/something else "scientist" does not make that person a practitioner of the scientific method, honest. Don't pull out the incense yet for the worship of "scientists".
Often people of the "progressive" attitude assume that titles meant action - If that were so, I would have everyone call me 'God'!
utubehayter 2 years ago
You sir have completely missed the point. If you don't understand the concept of transparancy and the reason behind violence against opposition, i don't know what to tell you.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
One of your best sir
Prometheusforliberty 2 years ago
Real powerful use of brilliant metaphors!!!
RichardDeziel 2 years ago
I like your take on this Stef. Really puts it into perspective and trims all the fat and BS surrounding it.
boosuff 2 years ago
(1 of 4)
Stephan, I don't understand your claim that research, paid for with tax dollars, can have no validity or value.
I think I understand your point that the source of funding may cause research to focus on particular questions and perhaps even sway some research groups to present their results in a biased fashion or cease study in an area that's 'unfavorable' for their financier. (cont.)
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 4
(2 of 4)
However; you say, regarding climate change research, "I simply believe that it's false because it's funded by violence.".
I do not understand how violence can inherently, of necessity, invalidate research.
There was some controversy as I recall about the ethics of using data from hypothermia studies that were conducted by scientists in Nazi Germany.
Those studies included experiments in which people were intentionally, experimentally, killed to collect data. (cont.)
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 4
(3 of 4)
That truly was, science at the point of a gun, but are the results made "false" because of that?
Is the data collected by the Hubble telescope "false" because the space program is funded by tax payers? Will any data collected, any advances made due to the experiments at the LHC be invalid, be "false" because the project has government funding?
I am not being intentionally obtuse and am honestly puzzled by your claim. I hope you may find time to help enlighten me. (cont.)
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 4
(4 of 4)
A separate but somewhat related question; the Nazi experiments were abhorrent but is it wrong to use that data to help save lives today?
Regards,
GK
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 4
@GeeKayKayGee I think you missed the point:
For example about the Hubble telescope:
Without the state there wouldn't be a Hubble telescope, there would be spaceships that could travel to what the Hubble telescope can see.
Obviously, the gun doesn't necessarily always make the data false. If that is what the gun wants.
chardoc89 2 years ago
Here is how I would answer. Its not so much that science funded by violence is necessarily wrong because of the funding source, but that its valueless. If it had value to people, it would be funded voluntarily. So climate research, accurate or not, has no value. State funded astronomy has no value from the point of view of the public. I personally think there would be ample opportunity for profitable astronomy on the free market if the state did not monopolize and crowd out the possibility.
mikepeino 2 years ago
Even more stupid than what geekaykaygee argued perfectly against.. By this logic roads are valueless because if they had value they would be funded voluntarily. Same with power plants and aids research!
newexperiment 2 years ago
They would be funded voluntarily as they are in amusement parks and malls and parkinglots. The government has a monopoly on most roads though. Same with aids research and powerplants.
gosmokesome 2 years ago
If your proposition is true, then it's a contradiction to what mikepeino said. And that is my point. Government involvement doesn't necessarily imply that it has no value. <-- negation of mike's proposition.
newexperiment 2 years ago
GeeKayKayGee, violence ruins your credibility.
Now, I do not reject global warming or climate change. I agree with scientists. I also agree with scientists that cap and tradew would do next to nothing to curb climate change. There would be no global warming debate if government didn't fund science. The global warming deniers would have no basis to be skeptical of scientist's credibilty if government didn't fund science.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
DaveDoggOwns, I think I must take issue with your claim that only government sponsored science is of questionable validity.
Surely there are many examples today of scientific studies sponsored or directly conducted by corporations and industries that publish demonstrably false conclusions. For example tobacco industry studies stating there is no link between smoking & cancer & related health problems.
Isn't scientific credibility solely a product of experimental repeatability?
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 2