what do you do if you are faced with a private army? you dont have any way to fight organised armed forces with anarchy. at first one armed mafia group will pop up. this will trigger a development of a second and third crime group. groups will be all over the place and will battle each other. natural selection par excellence, in other words battle for resources till everything is destroyed.
Anarchism by it's very entomology means "no rule/rulers" (not simply "no state"). Capitalism is a system based upon "private control of the means of production" - ie: a ruling elite.
And since its origins in 19th century thought has consistently been opposed to capitalism as well as the state.
Only supporting the state's abolition is not sufficient to qualify as anarchism; if it was, then Marxists would qualify as they support statelessness as a long-term goal.
If you own capital and are able to use it violate another person's self-rule in a direct or systemic sense, then that violates the sovereignty of others.
My freedom ends where yours begins. So your right to utilize whatever productive property you own conflicts with my right to live in a society free of institutional subordination to an elite of owners and my right to decision-making input in all areas of my life.
@MsSexySocialist No argument here. "Freedom is meaningless if not shared by all." and "My freedom ends where yours begins". Exactly.
With a few laws to back that up we would have a working society, so would I be able to (under your logic) be able to ask "don't force me to pay for someone's anti-depressants with my tax money and I won't ask you not to"? Not stating that is my opinion, or asking for a normative response.
@MsSexySocialist I asked as your name says you are a socialist. Its like having a banner that says "i'm a socialist", its hard for people to assume you are being objective while advertising a system of society. No offense tho, just saying it was confusing O.O
I call myself a socialist in the original sense of the word as used by the likes of William Morris in the 19th century. Who was categorical in saying, ""State"-Socialism? Not only do I not agree with it, I feel the two words contradict each other. For it is the goal of to destroy the state and put free society in its place".
Anarchism is and always has been a form of anti-statist socialism.
Although these anarchast guys can't seem to get their heads around that fact.
@BrandonCopy Get on it! If you think there is a market or a niche for a translator then don't pull the statist line and say "We should", do the individualist thing and say "I will"!
REAL FREEDOM IS THSY ,IS THYS WHAT I SAY AND ITS FOR REAL ,ITS CONTROLL OF YOUR BODYY AND YOUR SOUL WHY IS THYS FREEDOM BECAS IF YOU CONTROLL YOUR BODY ACTIONS AND SOUL DISEARS YOU REALY AR YOURSELF AND DONT JSUT GO ON AUTO BUT AND YOU AR CONCIOSNES OF WAHT YOU DO AND WANT THAH IS REAL FREEDOM CONTROLL
I agree with a lot being discussed here, if not most of the stuff.
I also believe in the free market and I think that anarcho-capitalism is by far the best idea ever.
BUT
I don't think that hte idea behind Anarcho-communism or the zeitgeisters is that they want to live in comfort (sure is for some) but rather want less poverty and death world wide..
@SlipAllCityToy I think your wrong, that is only one of their goals, the most common thing I have seen in their movement is a irrational belief in the nonsensical phrase: "money is the root of all evil." They just hate money, without even looking at it to see what it is. Sometimes they think of themselves as more sophisticated and then hate greed, which again is laughable.
Stefan that was great right up until the point you said you pay your taxes! So you fund the thing you hate? How can you say voting is begging and a spectacle, yet tell us that you tow the line and do what you are told like a good little slave!? I cant imagine a more shameful thing to do! What example are you setting for your children? See kids here is the bully! Look at him, isn't he a bad bad man!? But kids, if he demands your money, give it to him! If he demands you lick his boots, you do it!
Everyone who believes AnCap is practicable but chooses to live under a capitalist system is like someone who believes in having a savings account at the bank but puts no money in there.
@AshtonPhoto Totally wrong. An extreme but valid analogy is anyone who believes in freedom but has been kidnapped is like someone who believes in having a savings account at the bank but puts no money in it.
Fundamentally, you either believe individuals never have a right to initiate force (or fraud) against another person's property, life or liberty or you don't. You either believe if an individual doesn't have such a right, then neither does any group no matter what they are called or not.
@AshtonPhoto Does not practice what he preaches? Every non-statist person I've ever read or heard, including Stef, has promoted a peaceful shift to a non-statist social order, primarily through a change in culture, and in Stef's case through a change in a key factor in the transmission of culture - parenting.
AnCap does not mean anything goes, that you give up the right to protect yourself. Again, I refer you to YT /watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU
I had a funny feeling I was watching iRobot, with the 3 laws being carefully explained.
The 3 laws are wonderful but they exist only in a fictional world. Actions cannot be boiled down to such simplistic elements but because it is just a story, the true ramifications of such simplicity are never explored.
The four laws are equally inapplicable as they fail to account for the fact that humans are not basically good, but essentially bad.
@AshtonPhoto If you watched the entire Hoppe video, you'd get a glimpse of how conflict would be resolved under the 4 rules or norms of social order he is proposing.
Ahhh yes, an old question...are we basically good or essentially bad. I don't expect any paradigm of social order to eliminate all psychopaths, murderers, thieves, shucksters, etc. But the vast majority of people have no interest in using force to get what they want. If it weren't so, our crime rates would be exponentially higher.
Er, we have 2 MILLION people in prison and the annual murder/rape/assault rates are STILL at least 5x higher than Canada, UK, France, Germany, Belgium......
May I also draw your attention to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Arthur Andersen and Mr. Bernie Madoff. What do you think those guys will do in a free system, with no FBI and no CIA and no Congressional hearings?
In our communal ocean we have laws that feel like cages, but without those cages the sharks would have a field day.
@AshtonPhoto Despite the crime rates, my point still remains that the vast majority of people are good. I don't know you, yet I don't assume you 'are essentially bad'. If the fear of the law is the only thing keeping a person from murdering, raping, or assaulting the people with whom they come in contact...we should all be living in fear :)
Anarcho Capitalism does not imply a lack of law...but a lack of a ruler...a ruler who can decide what the law is, enforce it and interpret it.
@AshtonPhoto Re: Enron & co, the irony of it all is they perpetrated their crimes right under the noses of the FBI, CIA, Congress, the law, and the SEC. Harry Markopolos, a private citizen, handed all the evidence they needed to know Madoff was a fraud directly to the SEC.
Insisting the free market won't protect crime ignores an important point Hoppe makes: the govt wants to provide as little security as possible for the money it collects...just enough to keep people marginally satisfied.
@AshtonPhoto They did it anyways, the Laws did not stop them did they ? No the laws didn't actually do anything,Infact it was loopholes in laws that allow most white collar crime, and now in situations such as Bernie Madoff you have to rely on the courts. And how much money will be spent on that case, the victims will never see justice done, all that happens is some schmuck gets put in a cage, thats not my idea of justice.
@AshtonPhoto They did it anyways, the Laws did not stop them did they ? No the laws didn't actually do anything,Infact it was loopholes in laws that allow most white collar crime, and now in situations such as Bernie Madoff you have to rely on the courts. And how much money will be spent on that case, the victims will never see justice done, all that happens is some schmuck gets put in a cage, thats not my idea of justice.
I know a 57 minute video is not super concise, but what I just wrote below is a brief summary of what Hans Hoppe discusses in the first few minutes of the video at YT /user/misesmedia#p/search/4/AQmMe2IeGPU, "Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe".
1. Every person (E.P.) is exclusive owner of his physical body.
2. E.P. is private owner of all nature-given scarce goods he puts to use before any other person.
3. E.P. who uses his body & owned goods, to produce new products, becomes legit owner thereof, providing the production doesn't physically damage goods of others.
4. Once a good is first appropriated or produced, ownership can only be acquired by voluntary, contractual transfer of its title from previous to later owner.
Nabs! lol this anarcho capitalism, im not afraid of that because in the second it gets implemented it will turn into anarchism which is a branch of socialism. Socialism is like everything that comes out of the factories are to be used by the public whereas in capitalism everything that comes out of the factories are to owned by the owner of the factory.
Without a state, the workers will have no fear of the owner of the factory, and they will take control of the factory, thus socialism you have.
@ytoht01s that's pure conjecture. Maybe people like to work and have no interest in taking over the factory? And how is anarchism a branch of socialism? lol that's how I know you have no idea of what you're talking about. Anarchism is it's own philosophy. Each Anarchist might have their own economic views, but they all agree on abolishing the state. You socialists make me laugh. Every time socialism gets implemented, people starve to death.
@ytoht01s Oh and every time state socialism gets implemented, people get lazy and dependent on the state.
"Socialism is like everything that comes out of the factories are to be used by the public whereas in capitalism everything that comes out of the factories are to owned by the owner of the factory." More evidence you're retarded. You didn't describe capitalism, you described feudalism. It's imperative you learn the difference, so that you can at least sound smart.
Freedom is also violence.... we have been deluded to the fact that everyone having freedom is a good thing....
I don't really feel a man should be free to abuse or kill me.... without state I would be subject to a greater number of that.
The thing is Anarchy is a theory and we have no way of knowing its true affects... I'd like to see it in practice then we could end this debate once and for all.
@revron77 If you feel the only reason people you interact with at home, neighborhood, work, and strangers you meet each day would KILL or ABUSE you were it not for the state and its laws/ability to retaliate with force, then you have a very poor opinion of the moral nature of others and maybe yourself even. W/ anarchy you have the right to protect yourself, hire protection for yourself, and organize w/ others for mutual protection. You can even create a 'statist'-based community if you want!
One of the comments you made was that socialism is a (perhaps necessary) phase of your life that you must grow out of. Could it then follow that a transfer to state socialism could be beneficial as this may inevitably lead to society 'outgrowing' this concept and 'maturing' into anarchism?
This video made me finally realize what set me up for my complete change in ideology and understanding of the world, from communistic to libertarian. A few years earlier I had sort of a breakdown. In therapy and after learning meditation, I realized how dependance on family and my expectations from everyone around me was making my life miserable. I managed to grow a lot, and found happyness in my own being. Later this must have allowed me to even consider actually listening to libertarians
The major difference (anarcho-communists/capitalists) is that as well as the shared belief that the state represents tyranny and violence it also wishes to review one of the instruments of the state: the ideology of private property. Is it reasonable that private hands own the water supply to a community? Should it be owned communally? Or is a new ideology of shared responsibility more suitable? It is a progressive mentality looking for a positive direction as opposed to a definitive answer.
@jeffiek well that's the stigmatic libertarian response i've come to expect. I do have respect for anarcho capitalist views but frankly some of them border on blind zealotry.
First off, I agree completely with the concept of anarchy. But with Governments and peoples refusing to become an Anarchy, anarchy is impossible to implement. Merely because these said governments would take over what was an individual country beforehand. Even if this implementation of Anarchy was possible, the Private sector would take the place of the Big Brother that we have now and become a different version of Statism. This new Statism would allow for the same problem to exist as now.
@AshtonPhoto To your first point: The current statist world can hardly be said to be successful. In the last 100+ years, we've had two world wars, constant smaller wars, a close-call with nuclear war, & govt-sponsored genocides and violations of human rights galore. Before *anything* has ever been successfully implemented in modern times, it has never been.
As to your second point, see YT /user/misesmedia#p/search/4/AQmMe2IeGPU
1. Don't deflect the point! AnCap has never been tested, has it? No, it has not.
2. The philosophy behind AnCap is sound but utterly unimplementable on the scale that you're talking about.
A commune, sure, but an entire country? No way.
I see more promise in the Venus Project, and that's not saying much.
Stef may sound intellectual, but it's more self-indulgence than sound reasoning, and he is not even practicing what he preaches, which is a dead give away.
@AshtonPhoto Somalia, from 1991 to 2006 didn't have a govt with mixed results. With the poverty of the area, it's quite amazing that Somalia went 15 years in a very violent area of the world w/o a govt. For another test of AnCap, see the Not So Wild Wild West at mises dot org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
You object that AnCap hasn't been tested (not so) and assert that AnCap is utterly unimplementable on [a large scale]. Your assertion, you prove it.
Thank you Stefan/Jeff, I enjoy your video very much – great to know the ‘A’ in anarchy stands for ‘adult’ this makes a lot of sense – and I do believe that your views are sensible and well founded, but is it not a little naive to ignore the fact that there are people – psychopaths – who will always drive to run the world; these rule makers, who strive for nothing other than complete dominance over others, without responsibility or respect for that so-called power?
Unfortunately for Europe, there is still an institutional social problem of "rich people owe me everything lets distribute wealth and loot,.. to help the druggies who have a health problem who we're not judging".
@ 3:44 How do we deal with criminals, Oh oh I know! We'll create our OWN criminals! Yes and we'll give them a monopoly on the use of force/violence against others. Yeahhhh like a set of Super Criminals but they server OUR needs... brilliant.
Nothing about this idea could ever go wrong
"No I don't know why you pulled me over today :/ "
@SaM52461 It is hard to tell whether your comment shows preference for the idea of creating a government to monopolize the use of force - or - a preference for the idea of individuals retain the right to use force only when protecting their life, person or property (and can combine together to do so in groups, or hire individuals or agencies to do it for them). Under the latter, we're not creating criminals any more than you could say private bank security providers are criminals.
@SaM52461 Check out the brilliant solution offered by Stefan Molyneux on how a stateless society would handle violent crime and criminals, search for "These Cages Are Only For Beasts".
please remember, if peaceful and responsible people are allowed to live under anarchism, then so will rapists, murderers, tyrants, racists, homophobes, paedophiles... the list could endlessly go on. Don't kid yourself, they do exist, and hide well.
@ceneezer This is why Stef talks a lot about peaceful parenting. If children aren't raised in violence, they are far less likely to grow up to be violent people. Anarchism wouldn't work if the government disappeared tomorrow, but I think if we change the way children are raised, in a few generations more people would be peaceful and responsible.
@jellojenna6 Your very right there, I was raised under "peaceful parenting" and one thing is for sure, my child *will not* be the pussy that I am - my life has been absolute hell, I will raise him/her to stand up to aggression against him/her no matter what the system sais.
@ceneezer How has the state prevented such people from existing?
How has the state prevented rape? Or murder? Or racism?
The only thing the state has done is institutionalize those things. Prison rape is endemic, war is just state sanctioned murder, the Jim Crow Laws and Equal Opportunity Laws force race to be a determining factor in order to act legally.
Your example negates your assertion, such people do exist. But with govt, they can get power too.
@CurtHowland gov cannot make people like that not exist, nothing can, except an orwellian mind controlled society, and even then probably not. The example does not negate my assertion for I never claimed goverment could, it can merely help. With rules and guidelines for those people to avoid they are at least not at your doorstep every day, knowing that they face the guidelines set in forth (hypothetically) by a majority makes it harder than having free reign.
Have you ever bothered to compare the depredations of private criminals vs. the number of dead and crippled people that govts have left in their wake? The take of freelance muggers and thieves compared to the wealth stolen by the IRS and other tax agencies?
Open your eyes. If you don't like violence, then address the very INSTITUTION OF VIOLENCE: Government.
@CurtHowland no I have not, neither have you, and contrary to what you seem to think, I *do* like violence, I disagree entirely with the "thou shalt not kill" philosophy - I believe we should have the power to end the life of a rapist, a mass-murder, or an abortionist, for easy to justify examples, among others. But where do we draw the line? this line of thinking is no higher than the muslim belief that you should kill any who disagree with you (to clarify, those who leave the muslim faith)
Look up the word "initiate", then notice that self defense and the defense of others is just fine by me. I would much rather see a dead rapist with the intended victim standing over him with a smoking gun, than the logical reverse.
Exactly the same way that the tax collector deserves to leave empty handed.
@CurtHowland Interesting questions Curt. Don't think of blue! Trying not to will only make you think of it. Don't smoke! Forces the smoker to think about smoking, the unconscious mind does not process negatives. So don't be racist is bullshit, instead it gives you the idea of being racist and at the same time makes people angry because they can't even talk about it and hides the racist but does not eradict the idea, it perpetuates it. Gov's don't want us to quit smoking, it makes too much money!
@CurtHowland wow, you sure are an extremist, either they eliminate it or they are the cause of it, no in between eh? I said help, not do it for you! I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying your government is perfect, I'm saying organization *helps* (note the helps, not do it for you) to handle the big issues
@ceneezer "I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying your government is perfect"
It's not my government. That you assert it is so shows your indoctrination, that for some unknown reason anyone who lives in a geographic area somehow "belongs" to a particular govt.
I am just as much a victim of the govt of the USA as anyone in Iraq or Pakistan, they just take my money rather than my life, but they would gladly take my life if they didn't get the money.
@ceneezer If I may also say, govt can also make it illegal to defend yourself from those very evil people you cite.
Look at the English riots, where property owners are told to let their homes and businesses burn.
Compare that to the anarchy of Los Angeles in 1992, where peaceful people brought out their own guns and asserted peace in the face of a mob so big that the police abandoned the city to it.
@ceneezer "in my first comment I noted that I believe there would be *less* killing one another in an anarchistic society"
Really? Is this it?
"if peaceful and responsible people are allowed to live under anarchism, then so will rapists, murderers, tyrants, racists, homophobes, paedophiles... the list could endlessly go on. Don't kid yourself, they do exist, and hide well."
That doesn't read to me like "there will be less" at all.
@CurtHowland no "While I agree that there would likely be a decrease in the killing of each other in an anarchistic society, true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right, which could easily include "killing each other." Any system of rules or law is control, and the root of "big parent looking over there sholder" the rule of "one must not kill another" is a form of control, and non-anarchistic in nature." is, the comment you refer to sais nothing on less or more
@ceneezer "true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right"
No. That's chaos again.
Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not no rules.
People make rules for interacting with other people all the time, voluntarily. People don't shout in church because that's the rule, not because there is any law.
Law has nothing to do with control. If it did, no one would murder, no one would speed, no one would smoke weed. People do, all law does is give an excuse for bullies to beat people up.
LAND! LAND! LAND! LAND! LAND! IF EVERYONE WHO OWNS LAND USES IT AS THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THEY'RE ALL TYRANTS, HOW DO YOU "BREAK IN TO" THE LAND MARKET? There's only so much land, you idiots! If you "respect property rights," LAND IS POWER, AND LANDLORDS ARE DICTATORS! IF YOU DON'T WANT DICTATORS, PROPERTY RIGHTS GO DOWN THE FUCKING TOILET! So which is it? Dictatorship or anarchy? You can't have it both ways. It's impossible! RETARDS! THINK!
@LeksServices Land is useless without labor...you can hardly grow and make enough food/provisions to support yourself if that's all you spend your time doing-- regardless of how much land you own. So there'll be some voluntary free-market transactions going on there. I'm sorry if a nasty landlord inspired your comment, but the more free a society you have, the more recourse and options you have, as opposed to statism where state-supported privilege supports politcally-connected landowners.
Well there's your problem. "If everyone was an asshole" defeats pretty much every single political philosophy ever made. But the fact is, not everyone is an asshole. Take for example the ownership of land in the 21th century (i.e. today).
A mass tax strike is non aggressive, and non violent. And gets the job done. Now you have a revolutionary strategy that doesn't involve violence (at least on YOUR part, the government will always come at your with violence but that's nothing new. Any physical battle against the state thugs in this case is self defense. Not aggression.)
"true anarchy is where people can kill each other" Hmmm... inconsistency there. A few examples of government caused deaths during the 20th Century: WWI -- 15 Million Armenian Genocide: 600,000 Russian Civil War: 9 Million Stalin regime: 20 Million WWII: 66 Million Mexican Revolution: 1 Million Chinese Civil War: 5 Million Rwanda: 937, 000 IndoChina: 4.2 Mil Source:necrometrics . com Anarchy, where 1 person governs themselves can't possibly match the destructiveness of government.
@RodCornholio I love your reference to government inflicted death counts found at necrometrics . com -- a website I haven't seen before, but the numbers coincide with other estimates I have seen. True anarchy is true spontaneous, peaceful organization with the attendant emergent behaviors.
@LetsTryLiberty Thanks. Necrometrics' numbers were disturbingly surprising. I knew government was bad, but THAT bad...? Those millions of people, ALL potentially had dreams, pleasures in life, people they loved...reasons to live...all robbed from them by a primitive thing called government. How many geniuses has government killed? Amongst those millions were, no doubt, an Einstein, Mozart, or John Lennon. Government hasn't just robbed humans, they've robbed humanity.
its interesting it sounds like stef is advocating the sort of society that Huxley describes in his novel Island (great book)- of course it works really well until the psychopaths end up coming in from the outside and do what they always do, murder and control for their own desire for power.
@AshtonPhoto Its seems to me that Stefs ideas are a long term plan that involve establishing a different set of values – I wonder if you can say some more about your idea that the government is sick because society is sick rather than the other way around, after all it’s a hierarchy and the psychopaths greedy, selfish values infect the rest of us, its about the only thing to trickle down unlike wealth.
@AshtonPhoto I'd modify your claim that government is a direct reflection of the culture by saying that it is often a time-lagged reflection of the culture also modified by the politicians' own self interest thrown into the mix.
@AshtonPhoto The problem with governments (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism) is that they grant themselves a license to repress and it is very difficult to do anything about it (without suffering more repression). Anarcho-capitalism does not grant anyone a license to repress, nor does it create a ruling class. Your quote by Lincoln about the philosophy of the classroom becoming the philosophy of the government is very revealing now that we've had government-provided education as the norm!
@AshtonPhoto The step just prior to achieving AnCap will not be persuading the govt to dismantle itself all in one shot - it will be a gradual shrinking of government and its scope due to a culture-wide paradigm shift much more likely than some kind of revolution/overthrow of govt.
There is more interest now in AnCap than there has ever been before. AnCap is simply the greatest degree of freedom without condoning violence/fraud against person or property.
@AshtonPhoto There is MORE interest in other social theories than AnCap (actually a branch of libertarianism). The whole YouTube view count issue is non-indicative of the moral value of statism versus a truly, completely free market system of organizing society and providing law/protection. But there is more interest now in AnCap than there has been in the past (which is what I said before).
The "public radar" is not interested in supporting anything that upsets the status quo.
I don't see why we should be argueing about if anarchocapitalism or anarchocommunism is best. I mean if we travel 1000 miles to have anarchy, does it matter wether we go 10 yards to the left or 10 yards to the right? I don't see the BIG difference between anarchocapitalism and anarchocommunism. I prefer anarchocommunism but it doesn't really matter that much. Can't we all just get along?
Come to NZ, we are a socialist (corporate fascist) testing ground for what the american people will accept in their own country before it is tried on them. Air spay is tested on us first, codex is tested on us first, et cetera, and pretty much the people here like rugby and news about kittens in trees, like bread and circuses for the masses we are lead to believe the rhetoric that we are the luckiest people on earth and that to complain about the state or manipulation is comparable to insanity..
It is quite a traditional approach to helping others that you consider their childhood trauma foremost, today the approach that is being used more and more is to look at what is happening in a persons life at the present time. Still interesting to get a full picture of a person and sometimes the traditional approach can be very helpful for the person to be able to sort out their shit.
The Family should look inward. Governments fear this and it has always been the case. As a Maltese person, I was fascinated by the way the government has succesfully divided and conquered the traditional family which were too self sufficient. The cure was the nuclear family. The nuclear family fallout was obvious. Grandparents pawned off to die. Kids are brought up by strangers. The parents in each others pockets and nerves. Kids run amok. Total degeneration.
There is no such thing as voluntary property rights. All property rights must be forced on those that do not consent to them. Ancapitalism isn't anymore voluntary than ancommunism is.
Well if there weren`t daddy internet and mommy pc you couldn`t make money by talking shit all day.
You are using David Icke type of jokes and misrepresentation to "prove" your point how the stoneage is better than the potential of the science and technology.
@5m1nutes Fuck off moron. You can't compare Stefan to Icke. We are waking up and hope to kill mommy and daddy off. Choose a side. Shit is starting to happen.
@baalisgod666 we are "waking up"... well that`s the same terminology Ickers use. You may as well be falling asleep instead. "hope to KILL mommy and daddy off"... - very good "solution" to the problem... and then what? After you kill those switching to the "wrong side" you gonna fix it?
@baalisgod666, hahahaha I`m just astonished what kind of person thinks that I am the one that believes in the Icke`s crap. (btw, Icke and Alex Jones support that freemarket idea like stefbot).
Well, I`m not surprised to find "non aggression principle" nazis here ready to kill everyone that disagrees with them. And if you respond to them "you are initiating force", hehehehhe, how pathetic you people are.
11:52 - well if there wasn`t a daddy internet and a mommy pc you couldn`t make money by talking shit all day.
You lack arguments and use David Icke type of jokes and total misrepresentation to "prove" your points how the stoneage is better than the potential of the technology and science.
I don't believe in anything, except that the sun will rise again tomorrow. But that too is a result of a series of observations. The sun has risen every day until now. I don't think it's reasonable to believe anything else.
Serious question : How can we discard a system we've never had - e.g. democracy. If its been corrupt from the getgo, and I agree it has, why do we have to say govt in all forms is a failure when we havent even had all forms? Crony democracy and capitalism is not democracy and capitalism, why cant we aspire to limited government and a vigilant population to keep them there?
All governments by their very nature are collectivist/socialist. Its interactions with others who are weaker than itself are always of those of force and coercion. To mask this reality and to justify themselves democracies will always engage in wealth redistribution from rich to poor and back.
To imagine that there can be a centralized monopoly on force that can be "limited" is utopian. Same goes for having "vigilant" population.
@utubehayter Fair enough, that makes a bit more sense to me - that was by the way the most reasonable non insulting answer Ive yet received on one of this guys vids
@utubehayter 2: So I agree with most of what you said and how a monopoly on power would always expand itself - but I dont get then who makes the laws in an anarchical (that the right word?) society? Or who enforces any laws that we collectively agree on?
@uwmbigb "..I dont get then who makes the laws in an anarchical society?.." Someone tried to answer your question earlier, but I guess you didn't notice it.
"..who enforces any laws.." Suggested possible answers to these questions probably can't be made very well in comments section. This may be useful - maybe not. pzglDS88u50
You can't learn this stuff in 10 minutes. It requires a fair bit of reading or videos etc. There's a ton of free stuff. Maybe try some free books at freedomain radio
@zalida100 And who exactly tried to answer my question per law? Whats their username? It seems like I either get a rude response or someone referring me to literature elsewhere - can you not paraphrase something yourself that is supposedly the straight forward and logical solution to our problems? I mean clearly you understand it so please share a non-condescending response to my inquiry about laws in an anarchy society.
@uwmbigb "..can you not paraphrase something yourself that is supposedly the straight forward and logical solution to our problems?.." No. I don't know the solution to anyone's problems.
I was just trying to steer you to relevant information that may have begun to answer your questions. I don't have the language skill to condense it, since I don't really know anything about your current perceptions.
@uwmbigb I think it's relevant to what you were asking. Have a bit of patience with it. (give it at least 20mins or so to see if is boring or interesting). There may be bits of it that seem a bit strange at first. This whole anarchy thing will likely seem a bit implausible at first. You have to remember, we've all been propagandised for many years, and that is why it takes a bit of time to get used to a different point of view. Hans hoppe is not a great speaker, but he's pretty smart.
"who enforces any laws that we collectively agree on? "
Do we agree on anything collectively? If you think clearly and patiently, we never do, and never can. So, Ancaps dispose of this necessity of collective agreement. Easiest way to think of it, is - you decide what goes ..in your house and I in mine, but not across. When you come over to my house, one of the conditions is to not violate by my laws, and vice versa. It sounds simple, and it is, but not trivial. I recommend reading!
@utubehayter Im not saying they do, that was in response to another user who responded to my law questions by saying the community determines its own laws collectively. yes I agree with you theirs no way thats going to happen which is my question where do the laws come from!
Hmm.. there are anarcho-communists. Be aware of those. They are different and "special". They decide laws "collectively". For anarcho-capitalists, laws are subscribed and agreed upon by individuals/voluntarily agreed upon groups. For the later you can say "collectively", but its not the same meaning of "collectively" as everyone else thinks.
Many of the old anarcho-communist and social anarchist thinkers were actually very clear about freedom.
“Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others.” - Malatesta
@Dysentery7885 'enormous amounts of killing going on'? In case you hadn't noticed, we already have a massive amount of killing going on, the majority of which is state organised and sponsored. No large scale armed forces motivated by political and financial greed = less killing.
@jwhitenstall Right but compared to anarchy thats nothing. with anarchy I think about 50% of the population in the US would die. I'm an anarchist anyways but I'm just pointing out that freedom and peace are oppositional goals in the short run.
@Dysentery7885 why do you think 50% of the population would die? In my opinion, personal freedom comes with the responsibility of allowing others to be free, and therefore would allow for a more peaceful society. I have heard the opinion that human society would revert back to a 'survival of the most violent' if anarchy became reality, but removing the state does not equate to removal of all forms of security, it simply makes their funding and application voluntary.
@Dysentery7885 With anarchy, killing someone would not be without consequences. A murderer would have a hard time getting along with anyone. He would be rejected. That would be a deterrence for anyone else willing to kill someone. There would be an equilibrium of people willing to kill others and be rejected and other who would not want to be rejected which would be similar to what we currently have. There would not be enormously more amounts of killing going on.
"true anarchy is where people can kill each other"
Nonsense. Anarchy literally means without rule of government. It says nothing about killing or violence. Your definition stems from the fear of being without government. It's a typical reaction from people who cannot imagine living life as a true adult without the Big Parent™ looking over their shoulders. It comes from people who think that life without governments is broken glass and punk-haired motor-cycle gangs.
@Textra1 And without rule by involuntary law people will be killing each other like crazy.. I already said I am an anarchist and fight for it. So you just drew a totally made up conclusion so you're a liar.
@Textra1 While I agree that there would likely be a decrease in the killing of each other in an anarchistic society, true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right, which could easily include "killing each other." Any system of rules or law is control, and the root of "big parent looking over there sholder" the rule of "one must not kill another" is a form of control, and non-anarchistic in nature.
@ceneezer Anarcho-capitalism has, as one of its most basic underpinnings, the principle of property rights/ownership, including the concept that you are the owner of your body and therefore your life. An anarcho-capitalistic society does not grant you license to infringe upon the property rights and right to life of others. This is one of the underpinning concepts of a truly free and peaceful society.
@Textra1 No Anarchy means without rulers. Anyone that tries to control your life would be considered a ruler. So include capitalist pigs and the petty bosses.
Anarchism to happen need different species that we are today. If we somehow all agree to not hurt eachother and get rid of government blah blah blah. There would be still the royal families and other elite lunatics who would fuck this peaceful anarchy up. We need some sort of organizing to protect from it, like Ron Paul is promoting this limited government idea.
The systems gone corrupt so instead of considering returning to a uncorrupt form lets just scrap the whole thing and live without any government whatsoever. Cmon.I read somewhere this dude has a cult like following and I thought it was a bit much but see what they mean. Every response Ive received to legit questions i asked bc I dont understand has been rude uninformative condescending insulting and always posturing - thats cult behavior. Turns off people looking into your ideals really does.
@uwmbigb No system was ever uncorrupted, not even in the US. They just sold you the bill of goods that it was. Your "logic" completely discounts human nature of the people that want power - they are control freaks and psychopaths mostly. Government is the monopoly of power. It's like shining a bright light of a million Watts in the middle of the night - it is VERY easy to spot and these sick people gravitate toward it. It's only natural. Remove the monopoly of power and they are lost.
@grumpone I never said it was uncorrupt dude thats my entire fucking point its been corrupted from the get go - so how can we discard something we never had. Whats wrong with aspiring to democracy and capitalism far from crony democracy and crony capitalism? Why all this do away with government entirely? Again with the my logic is subpar reasoning and all that posturing ya'll act like stuck up cult members for real. Cannot engaged in polite conversation without being condescending as fuck
@grumpone Btw I like how you put "logic" in quotes on me there thanks for marginalizing my opinion/question like that. Shit is exactly the kind of douchbaggery I run into every time I ask the smallest questions around Stefans community. (Ive been the world over and only americans, particularly white americans, get frustrated and belligerent and mostly condescending when you disgaree aka "just dont get it" and cant "reason at their level" like Im some child lol)
@uwmbigb Well, congratulations on being well travelled. At least you have some pretty photos. Well I am probably the least white "American" you'll ever going to meet.
what do you do if you are faced with a private army? you dont have any way to fight organised armed forces with anarchy. at first one armed mafia group will pop up. this will trigger a development of a second and third crime group. groups will be all over the place and will battle each other. natural selection par excellence, in other words battle for resources till everything is destroyed.
ChuckVanDamme 3 weeks ago
Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron.
kwaal 3 months ago
@kwaal: Explain?
andyissemicool 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
@andyissemicool
Anarchism by it's very entomology means "no rule/rulers" (not simply "no state"). Capitalism is a system based upon "private control of the means of production" - ie: a ruling elite.
And since its origins in 19th century thought has consistently been opposed to capitalism as well as the state.
Only supporting the state's abolition is not sufficient to qualify as anarchism; if it was, then Marxists would qualify as they support statelessness as a long-term goal.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@kwaal owning capital + individual sovereignty = opposite? I argue that owning capital is facilitated by your inherent sovereignty.
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
@xxxxAXIxxxx
If you own capital and are able to use it violate another person's self-rule in a direct or systemic sense, then that violates the sovereignty of others.
My freedom ends where yours begins. So your right to utilize whatever productive property you own conflicts with my right to live in a society free of institutional subordination to an elite of owners and my right to decision-making input in all areas of my life.
Freedom is meaningless if not shared by all.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist No argument here. "Freedom is meaningless if not shared by all." and "My freedom ends where yours begins". Exactly.
With a few laws to back that up we would have a working society, so would I be able to (under your logic) be able to ask "don't force me to pay for someone's anti-depressants with my tax money and I won't ask you not to"? Not stating that is my opinion, or asking for a normative response.
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
@xxxxAXIxxxx
"Taxes" wouldn't exist in an anarchist society. So the question doesn't apply.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I asked as your name says you are a socialist. Its like having a banner that says "i'm a socialist", its hard for people to assume you are being objective while advertising a system of society. No offense tho, just saying it was confusing O.O
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
@xxxxAXIxxxx
I call myself a socialist in the original sense of the word as used by the likes of William Morris in the 19th century. Who was categorical in saying, ""State"-Socialism? Not only do I not agree with it, I feel the two words contradict each other. For it is the goal of to destroy the state and put free society in its place".
Anarchism is and always has been a form of anti-statist socialism.
Although these anarchast guys can't seem to get their heads around that fact.
MsSexySocialist 2 months ago
@BrandonCopy Get on it! If you think there is a market or a niche for a translator then don't pull the statist line and say "We should", do the individualist thing and say "I will"!
Hashishin13 4 months ago
REAL FREEDOM IS THSY ,IS THYS WHAT I SAY AND ITS FOR REAL ,ITS CONTROLL OF YOUR BODYY AND YOUR SOUL WHY IS THYS FREEDOM BECAS IF YOU CONTROLL YOUR BODY ACTIONS AND SOUL DISEARS YOU REALY AR YOURSELF AND DONT JSUT GO ON AUTO BUT AND YOU AR CONCIOSNES OF WAHT YOU DO AND WANT THAH IS REAL FREEDOM CONTROLL
1UL1U 5 months ago
I agree with a lot being discussed here, if not most of the stuff.
I also believe in the free market and I think that anarcho-capitalism is by far the best idea ever.
BUT
I don't think that hte idea behind Anarcho-communism or the zeitgeisters is that they want to live in comfort (sure is for some) but rather want less poverty and death world wide..
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy I think your wrong, that is only one of their goals, the most common thing I have seen in their movement is a irrational belief in the nonsensical phrase: "money is the root of all evil." They just hate money, without even looking at it to see what it is. Sometimes they think of themselves as more sophisticated and then hate greed, which again is laughable.
Hashishin13 4 months ago
Stefan that was great right up until the point you said you pay your taxes! So you fund the thing you hate? How can you say voting is begging and a spectacle, yet tell us that you tow the line and do what you are told like a good little slave!? I cant imagine a more shameful thing to do! What example are you setting for your children? See kids here is the bully! Look at him, isn't he a bad bad man!? But kids, if he demands your money, give it to him! If he demands you lick his boots, you do it!
snaz27 6 months ago
Everyone who believes AnCap is practicable but chooses to live under a capitalist system is like someone who believes in having a savings account at the bank but puts no money in there.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
Comment removed
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Totally wrong. An extreme but valid analogy is anyone who believes in freedom but has been kidnapped is like someone who believes in having a savings account at the bank but puts no money in it.
Fundamentally, you either believe individuals never have a right to initiate force (or fraud) against another person's property, life or liberty or you don't. You either believe if an individual doesn't have such a right, then neither does any group no matter what they are called or not.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
My analogy is spot on and is best illustrated by this Stef guy, who posts video after video but does not practice what he preaches.
The logic he propounds is flawed and is based on an idealistic fantasy.
Listen to him for one minute. "AnComm does not allow for AnCap but AnCap allows for AnComm...."
Really? Once the fetters of government are removed you'll get what you get.
Who will stop AnComm from taking over??
Anarchy isn't so called for no reason!
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Does not practice what he preaches? Every non-statist person I've ever read or heard, including Stef, has promoted a peaceful shift to a non-statist social order, primarily through a change in culture, and in Stef's case through a change in a key factor in the transmission of culture - parenting.
AnCap does not mean anything goes, that you give up the right to protect yourself. Again, I refer you to YT /watch?v=AQmMe2IeGPU
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
The Hans-Hermann Hoppe video:
I had a funny feeling I was watching iRobot, with the 3 laws being carefully explained.
The 3 laws are wonderful but they exist only in a fictional world. Actions cannot be boiled down to such simplistic elements but because it is just a story, the true ramifications of such simplicity are never explored.
The four laws are equally inapplicable as they fail to account for the fact that humans are not basically good, but essentially bad.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto If you watched the entire Hoppe video, you'd get a glimpse of how conflict would be resolved under the 4 rules or norms of social order he is proposing.
Ahhh yes, an old question...are we basically good or essentially bad. I don't expect any paradigm of social order to eliminate all psychopaths, murderers, thieves, shucksters, etc. But the vast majority of people have no interest in using force to get what they want. If it weren't so, our crime rates would be exponentially higher.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
Er, we have 2 MILLION people in prison and the annual murder/rape/assault rates are STILL at least 5x higher than Canada, UK, France, Germany, Belgium......
May I also draw your attention to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Arthur Andersen and Mr. Bernie Madoff. What do you think those guys will do in a free system, with no FBI and no CIA and no Congressional hearings?
In our communal ocean we have laws that feel like cages, but without those cages the sharks would have a field day.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
Comment removed
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Despite the crime rates, my point still remains that the vast majority of people are good. I don't know you, yet I don't assume you 'are essentially bad'. If the fear of the law is the only thing keeping a person from murdering, raping, or assaulting the people with whom they come in contact...we should all be living in fear :)
Anarcho Capitalism does not imply a lack of law...but a lack of a ruler...a ruler who can decide what the law is, enforce it and interpret it.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Re: Enron & co, the irony of it all is they perpetrated their crimes right under the noses of the FBI, CIA, Congress, the law, and the SEC. Harry Markopolos, a private citizen, handed all the evidence they needed to know Madoff was a fraud directly to the SEC.
Insisting the free market won't protect crime ignores an important point Hoppe makes: the govt wants to provide as little security as possible for the money it collects...just enough to keep people marginally satisfied.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto They did it anyways, the Laws did not stop them did they ? No the laws didn't actually do anything,Infact it was loopholes in laws that allow most white collar crime, and now in situations such as Bernie Madoff you have to rely on the courts. And how much money will be spent on that case, the victims will never see justice done, all that happens is some schmuck gets put in a cage, thats not my idea of justice.
mariss711 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AshtonPhoto They did it anyways, the Laws did not stop them did they ? No the laws didn't actually do anything,Infact it was loopholes in laws that allow most white collar crime, and now in situations such as Bernie Madoff you have to rely on the courts. And how much money will be spent on that case, the victims will never see justice done, all that happens is some schmuck gets put in a cage, thats not my idea of justice.
mariss711 5 months ago
I know a 57 minute video is not super concise, but what I just wrote below is a brief summary of what Hans Hoppe discusses in the first few minutes of the video at YT /user/misesmedia#p/search/4/AQmMe2IeGPU, "Property and the Social Order | Hans-Hermann Hoppe".
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
Concisely:
1. Every person (E.P.) is exclusive owner of his physical body.
2. E.P. is private owner of all nature-given scarce goods he puts to use before any other person.
3. E.P. who uses his body & owned goods, to produce new products, becomes legit owner thereof, providing the production doesn't physically damage goods of others.
4. Once a good is first appropriated or produced, ownership can only be acquired by voluntary, contractual transfer of its title from previous to later owner.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
Nabs! lol this anarcho capitalism, im not afraid of that because in the second it gets implemented it will turn into anarchism which is a branch of socialism. Socialism is like everything that comes out of the factories are to be used by the public whereas in capitalism everything that comes out of the factories are to owned by the owner of the factory.
Without a state, the workers will have no fear of the owner of the factory, and they will take control of the factory, thus socialism you have.
ytoht01s 6 months ago
@ytoht01s that's pure conjecture. Maybe people like to work and have no interest in taking over the factory? And how is anarchism a branch of socialism? lol that's how I know you have no idea of what you're talking about. Anarchism is it's own philosophy. Each Anarchist might have their own economic views, but they all agree on abolishing the state. You socialists make me laugh. Every time socialism gets implemented, people starve to death.
AustereAustrian 6 months ago
@ytoht01s Oh and every time state socialism gets implemented, people get lazy and dependent on the state.
"Socialism is like everything that comes out of the factories are to be used by the public whereas in capitalism everything that comes out of the factories are to owned by the owner of the factory." More evidence you're retarded. You didn't describe capitalism, you described feudalism. It's imperative you learn the difference, so that you can at least sound smart.
AustereAustrian 6 months ago
This is funny, did anyone notice?
@ 1:35
then @ 5:26
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
Comment removed
ZeerosFate 6 months ago
i'm 100% behind stef !
frikodian 6 months ago
Freedom is also violence.... we have been deluded to the fact that everyone having freedom is a good thing....
I don't really feel a man should be free to abuse or kill me.... without state I would be subject to a greater number of that.
The thing is Anarchy is a theory and we have no way of knowing its true affects... I'd like to see it in practice then we could end this debate once and for all.
revron77 6 months ago
@revron77 If you feel the only reason people you interact with at home, neighborhood, work, and strangers you meet each day would KILL or ABUSE you were it not for the state and its laws/ability to retaliate with force, then you have a very poor opinion of the moral nature of others and maybe yourself even. W/ anarchy you have the right to protect yourself, hire protection for yourself, and organize w/ others for mutual protection. You can even create a 'statist'-based community if you want!
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
anarcho-communism doesn't allow for anarcho-capitalism, but anarcho-capitalism does allow for annarcho-communism.
ericfontainejazz 6 months ago 14
One of the comments you made was that socialism is a (perhaps necessary) phase of your life that you must grow out of. Could it then follow that a transfer to state socialism could be beneficial as this may inevitably lead to society 'outgrowing' this concept and 'maturing' into anarchism?
tarvalthalion 6 months ago
"I'll give you this, if you give me that. It's negotiation just like capitalism, free market."
I wish that was true...
Watchdawg 6 months ago
This video made me finally realize what set me up for my complete change in ideology and understanding of the world, from communistic to libertarian. A few years earlier I had sort of a breakdown. In therapy and after learning meditation, I realized how dependance on family and my expectations from everyone around me was making my life miserable. I managed to grow a lot, and found happyness in my own being. Later this must have allowed me to even consider actually listening to libertarians
mortalisk 6 months ago
There is nothing greater than to step away from using the power you have over a child, and use negotiation instead.
Zerafinel 6 months ago
The major difference (anarcho-communists/capitalists) is that as well as the shared belief that the state represents tyranny and violence it also wishes to review one of the instruments of the state: the ideology of private property. Is it reasonable that private hands own the water supply to a community? Should it be owned communally? Or is a new ideology of shared responsibility more suitable? It is a progressive mentality looking for a positive direction as opposed to a definitive answer.
MetaReaLizard 6 months ago
@MetaReaLizard "one of the instruments of the state: the ideology of private property."
Once I saw that I should have quit reading. The lights are on but nobody's home.
I don't know why, I know better. I read the rest anyway. It just got worse.
jeffiek 6 months ago
@jeffiek well that's the stigmatic libertarian response i've come to expect. I do have respect for anarcho capitalist views but frankly some of them border on blind zealotry.
MetaReaLizard 6 months ago
First off, I agree completely with the concept of anarchy. But with Governments and peoples refusing to become an Anarchy, anarchy is impossible to implement. Merely because these said governments would take over what was an individual country beforehand. Even if this implementation of Anarchy was possible, the Private sector would take the place of the Big Brother that we have now and become a different version of Statism. This new Statism would allow for the same problem to exist as now.
19CJohnson 6 months ago
@19CJohnson
All AnCap/AnComm proponents keep two secrets:
1. Their theories have never been successfully implemented in modern times.
2. Their theories cannot be concisely explained.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto To your first point: The current statist world can hardly be said to be successful. In the last 100+ years, we've had two world wars, constant smaller wars, a close-call with nuclear war, & govt-sponsored genocides and violations of human rights galore. Before *anything* has ever been successfully implemented in modern times, it has never been.
As to your second point, see YT /user/misesmedia#p/search/4/AQmMe2IeGPU
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
1. Don't deflect the point! AnCap has never been tested, has it? No, it has not.
2. The philosophy behind AnCap is sound but utterly unimplementable on the scale that you're talking about.
A commune, sure, but an entire country? No way.
I see more promise in the Venus Project, and that's not saying much.
Stef may sound intellectual, but it's more self-indulgence than sound reasoning, and he is not even practicing what he preaches, which is a dead give away.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Somalia, from 1991 to 2006 didn't have a govt with mixed results. With the poverty of the area, it's quite amazing that Somalia went 15 years in a very violent area of the world w/o a govt. For another test of AnCap, see the Not So Wild Wild West at mises dot org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
You object that AnCap hasn't been tested (not so) and assert that AnCap is utterly unimplementable on [a large scale]. Your assertion, you prove it.
Your criticism of Stef is also an assertion.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
mesmerize rising conversation! <3 I have two-and-half-year son. keep shining on guys! tnx. and greetings from finland.
711e47 6 months ago
Anarcho-communists are the people you see throwing molotox cocktails and protests. They are not anarchists,they are just violent communists.
I tried conversing with these people when I discovered anarchy but its pointless.
According to them property rights are force, and therefore wrong. Yet they have no problems using force to bring down capitalism.
Ive never seen a more self contradictory ideology.
Equity213 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Equity213 "Ive never seen a more self contradictory ideology."
Please, tell me how. I see them everywhere. I tried using a blindfold, but the bruises where too much.
jeffiek 6 months ago
Thank you Stefan/Jeff, I enjoy your video very much – great to know the ‘A’ in anarchy stands for ‘adult’ this makes a lot of sense – and I do believe that your views are sensible and well founded, but is it not a little naive to ignore the fact that there are people – psychopaths – who will always drive to run the world; these rule makers, who strive for nothing other than complete dominance over others, without responsibility or respect for that so-called power?
RichardPears 6 months ago
Unfortunately for Europe, there is still an institutional social problem of "rich people owe me everything lets distribute wealth and loot,.. to help the druggies who have a health problem who we're not judging".
VonHOG 6 months ago
05:20 it looked like the host didnt understand a word
niall23able 6 months ago
Stefan, did you take some of your time to read about "Wilhelm Reich"?
Spanking children may get into a similar perspective as yours.
Greets from Germany!
dailydols 6 months ago
@ 3:44 How do we deal with criminals, Oh oh I know! We'll create our OWN criminals! Yes and we'll give them a monopoly on the use of force/violence against others. Yeahhhh like a set of Super Criminals but they server OUR needs... brilliant.
Nothing about this idea could ever go wrong
"No I don't know why you pulled me over today :/ "
SaM52461 6 months ago 10
@SaM52461 It is hard to tell whether your comment shows preference for the idea of creating a government to monopolize the use of force - or - a preference for the idea of individuals retain the right to use force only when protecting their life, person or property (and can combine together to do so in groups, or hire individuals or agencies to do it for them). Under the latter, we're not creating criminals any more than you could say private bank security providers are criminals.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@SaM52461 Check out the brilliant solution offered by Stefan Molyneux on how a stateless society would handle violent crime and criminals, search for "These Cages Are Only For Beasts".
eyejudgeeverything 6 months ago
Is there any free market anarchist who didn't use to be a minarchist? I mean... I don't know of any, are there any?
GompCelticPL 6 months ago
please remember, if peaceful and responsible people are allowed to live under anarchism, then so will rapists, murderers, tyrants, racists, homophobes, paedophiles... the list could endlessly go on. Don't kid yourself, they do exist, and hide well.
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer This is why Stef talks a lot about peaceful parenting. If children aren't raised in violence, they are far less likely to grow up to be violent people. Anarchism wouldn't work if the government disappeared tomorrow, but I think if we change the way children are raised, in a few generations more people would be peaceful and responsible.
jellojenna6 6 months ago
@jellojenna6 Your very right there, I was raised under "peaceful parenting" and one thing is for sure, my child *will not* be the pussy that I am - my life has been absolute hell, I will raise him/her to stand up to aggression against him/her no matter what the system sais.
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer How has the state prevented such people from existing?
How has the state prevented rape? Or murder? Or racism?
The only thing the state has done is institutionalize those things. Prison rape is endemic, war is just state sanctioned murder, the Jim Crow Laws and Equal Opportunity Laws force race to be a determining factor in order to act legally.
Your example negates your assertion, such people do exist. But with govt, they can get power too.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@CurtHowland gov cannot make people like that not exist, nothing can, except an orwellian mind controlled society, and even then probably not. The example does not negate my assertion for I never claimed goverment could, it can merely help. With rules and guidelines for those people to avoid they are at least not at your doorstep every day, knowing that they face the guidelines set in forth (hypothetically) by a majority makes it harder than having free reign.
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer "it can merely help"
Does it?
Have you ever bothered to compare the depredations of private criminals vs. the number of dead and crippled people that govts have left in their wake? The take of freelance muggers and thieves compared to the wealth stolen by the IRS and other tax agencies?
Open your eyes. If you don't like violence, then address the very INSTITUTION OF VIOLENCE: Government.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@CurtHowland no I have not, neither have you, and contrary to what you seem to think, I *do* like violence, I disagree entirely with the "thou shalt not kill" philosophy - I believe we should have the power to end the life of a rapist, a mass-murder, or an abortionist, for easy to justify examples, among others. But where do we draw the line? this line of thinking is no higher than the muslim belief that you should kill any who disagree with you (to clarify, those who leave the muslim faith)
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer "neither have you"
How do you know?
"thou shalt not kill"
Where did I say such a silly thing?
Look up the word "initiate", then notice that self defense and the defense of others is just fine by me. I would much rather see a dead rapist with the intended victim standing over him with a smoking gun, than the logical reverse.
Exactly the same way that the tax collector deserves to leave empty handed.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@CurtHowland Interesting questions Curt. Don't think of blue! Trying not to will only make you think of it. Don't smoke! Forces the smoker to think about smoking, the unconscious mind does not process negatives. So don't be racist is bullshit, instead it gives you the idea of being racist and at the same time makes people angry because they can't even talk about it and hides the racist but does not eradict the idea, it perpetuates it. Gov's don't want us to quit smoking, it makes too much money!
frostyuk2007 6 months ago
@CurtHowland wow, you sure are an extremist, either they eliminate it or they are the cause of it, no in between eh? I said help, not do it for you! I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying your government is perfect, I'm saying organization *helps* (note the helps, not do it for you) to handle the big issues
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer "I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying your government is perfect"
It's not my government. That you assert it is so shows your indoctrination, that for some unknown reason anyone who lives in a geographic area somehow "belongs" to a particular govt.
I am just as much a victim of the govt of the USA as anyone in Iraq or Pakistan, they just take my money rather than my life, but they would gladly take my life if they didn't get the money.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@ceneezer If I may also say, govt can also make it illegal to defend yourself from those very evil people you cite.
Look at the English riots, where property owners are told to let their homes and businesses burn.
Compare that to the anarchy of Los Angeles in 1992, where peaceful people brought out their own guns and asserted peace in the face of a mob so big that the police abandoned the city to it.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@CurtHowland Agreed, which is why in my first comment I noted that I believe there would be *less* killing one another in an anarchistic society.
ceneezer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ceneezer "in my first comment I noted that I believe there would be *less* killing one another in an anarchistic society"
Really? Is this it?
"if peaceful and responsible people are allowed to live under anarchism, then so will rapists, murderers, tyrants, racists, homophobes, paedophiles... the list could endlessly go on. Don't kid yourself, they do exist, and hide well."
That doesn't read to me like "there will be less" at all.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
@CurtHowland no "While I agree that there would likely be a decrease in the killing of each other in an anarchistic society, true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right, which could easily include "killing each other." Any system of rules or law is control, and the root of "big parent looking over there sholder" the rule of "one must not kill another" is a form of control, and non-anarchistic in nature." is, the comment you refer to sais nothing on less or more
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer "true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right"
No. That's chaos again.
Anarchy simply means "no rulers", not no rules.
People make rules for interacting with other people all the time, voluntarily. People don't shout in church because that's the rule, not because there is any law.
Law has nothing to do with control. If it did, no one would murder, no one would speed, no one would smoke weed. People do, all law does is give an excuse for bullies to beat people up.
CurtHowland 6 months ago
LAND! LAND! LAND! LAND! LAND! IF EVERYONE WHO OWNS LAND USES IT AS THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THEY'RE ALL TYRANTS, HOW DO YOU "BREAK IN TO" THE LAND MARKET? There's only so much land, you idiots! If you "respect property rights," LAND IS POWER, AND LANDLORDS ARE DICTATORS! IF YOU DON'T WANT DICTATORS, PROPERTY RIGHTS GO DOWN THE FUCKING TOILET! So which is it? Dictatorship or anarchy? You can't have it both ways. It's impossible! RETARDS! THINK!
LeksServices 6 months ago
@LeksServices Wow when you over simplify and hurl insults it seems so clear, thanks for adding such quality insight to the discussion.
Iseeyoursoul 6 months ago
@LeksServices Land is useless without labor...you can hardly grow and make enough food/provisions to support yourself if that's all you spend your time doing-- regardless of how much land you own. So there'll be some voluntary free-market transactions going on there. I'm sorry if a nasty landlord inspired your comment, but the more free a society you have, the more recourse and options you have, as opposed to statism where state-supported privilege supports politcally-connected landowners.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LeksServices "If everyone"
Well there's your problem. "If everyone was an asshole" defeats pretty much every single political philosophy ever made. But the fact is, not everyone is an asshole. Take for example the ownership of land in the 21th century (i.e. today).
HeyItzMeDawg 6 months ago
awesome.
Carnei 6 months ago
"true anarchy is where people can kill each other". What is stopping you now? I bet it's real similar to what would stop you in a free society.
CorpseCallosum 6 months ago
non-aggression = non-revolution
Mueychacha 6 months ago
@Mueychacha
A mass tax strike is non aggressive, and non violent. And gets the job done. Now you have a revolutionary strategy that doesn't involve violence (at least on YOUR part, the government will always come at your with violence but that's nothing new. Any physical battle against the state thugs in this case is self defense. Not aggression.)
Iseeyoursoul 6 months ago
RodCornholio 6 months ago
@RodCornholio I love your reference to government inflicted death counts found at necrometrics . com -- a website I haven't seen before, but the numbers coincide with other estimates I have seen. True anarchy is true spontaneous, peaceful organization with the attendant emergent behaviors.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty Thanks. Necrometrics' numbers were disturbingly surprising. I knew government was bad, but THAT bad...? Those millions of people, ALL potentially had dreams, pleasures in life, people they loved...reasons to live...all robbed from them by a primitive thing called government. How many geniuses has government killed? Amongst those millions were, no doubt, an Einstein, Mozart, or John Lennon. Government hasn't just robbed humans, they've robbed humanity.
RodCornholio 6 months ago
its interesting it sounds like stef is advocating the sort of society that Huxley describes in his novel Island (great book)- of course it works really well until the psychopaths end up coming in from the outside and do what they always do, murder and control for their own desire for power.
ehpl 6 months ago
@ehpl
Stef and others like him assume that murderers, evil corporate cronies and power hungry politicians will somehow just vanish in their ancap paradise.
The enemy is, says Stef, government. The problem with this is that government is a direct reflection of the culture.
If government is sick it is because the society is sick, not the other way around.
Under ancap/ancomm we'll have comparative anarchy AND all the psychos.
What a lovely prospect.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto Its seems to me that Stefs ideas are a long term plan that involve establishing a different set of values – I wonder if you can say some more about your idea that the government is sick because society is sick rather than the other way around, after all it’s a hierarchy and the psychopaths greedy, selfish values infect the rest of us, its about the only thing to trickle down unlike wealth.
ehpl 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto I'd modify your claim that government is a direct reflection of the culture by saying that it is often a time-lagged reflection of the culture also modified by the politicians' own self interest thrown into the mix.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
Yes, you're right.
Abraham Lincoln said this:
“The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.”
In essence: Culturally we get what we deserve.
My point is that those who tend to repress others will find a way to continue doing so regardless of the system of government.
It is folly to think otherwise.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto The problem with governments (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism) is that they grant themselves a license to repress and it is very difficult to do anything about it (without suffering more repression). Anarcho-capitalism does not grant anyone a license to repress, nor does it create a ruling class. Your quote by Lincoln about the philosophy of the classroom becoming the philosophy of the government is very revealing now that we've had government-provided education as the norm!
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
Abe's quote is one of my favs, and since I was not educated by the American government school system it seems to ring true.
The *real* problem is twofold:
1. No AnCap proponent has yet explained how to persuade the current government to dissolve itself without force.
2. AnCap is incomprehensible and uninteresting to the vast majority of people. Stef's video view counts bare this out.
For comparison, search YT for any random word, like 'cow' or 'burp' and note the view counts.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto The step just prior to achieving AnCap will not be persuading the govt to dismantle itself all in one shot - it will be a gradual shrinking of government and its scope due to a culture-wide paradigm shift much more likely than some kind of revolution/overthrow of govt.
There is more interest now in AnCap than there has ever been before. AnCap is simply the greatest degree of freedom without condoning violence/fraud against person or property.
See Mises & Rothbard for more info.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@LetsTryLiberty
With respect, I beg to differ.
There is no more interest in this than any other social theory.
Search YouTube for 'federation of light' or 'venus project' or 'libertarianism'.
Those videos have about the same view counts as AnCap, some have considerably more.
Most of Stef's videos have less than 10k views *worldwide*.
You're all off the public radar for very good reason.
Nice in theory, impossible in practice.
AshtonPhoto 6 months ago
@AshtonPhoto There is MORE interest in other social theories than AnCap (actually a branch of libertarianism). The whole YouTube view count issue is non-indicative of the moral value of statism versus a truly, completely free market system of organizing society and providing law/protection. But there is more interest now in AnCap than there has been in the past (which is what I said before).
The "public radar" is not interested in supporting anything that upsets the status quo.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
I don't see why we should be argueing about if anarchocapitalism or anarchocommunism is best. I mean if we travel 1000 miles to have anarchy, does it matter wether we go 10 yards to the left or 10 yards to the right? I don't see the BIG difference between anarchocapitalism and anarchocommunism. I prefer anarchocommunism but it doesn't really matter that much. Can't we all just get along?
JustSolveIt 6 months ago
Come to NZ, we are a socialist (corporate fascist) testing ground for what the american people will accept in their own country before it is tried on them. Air spay is tested on us first, codex is tested on us first, et cetera, and pretty much the people here like rugby and news about kittens in trees, like bread and circuses for the masses we are lead to believe the rhetoric that we are the luckiest people on earth and that to complain about the state or manipulation is comparable to insanity..
aghoranathi 6 months ago
It is quite a traditional approach to helping others that you consider their childhood trauma foremost, today the approach that is being used more and more is to look at what is happening in a persons life at the present time. Still interesting to get a full picture of a person and sometimes the traditional approach can be very helpful for the person to be able to sort out their shit.
aghoranathi 6 months ago
The Family should look inward. Governments fear this and it has always been the case. As a Maltese person, I was fascinated by the way the government has succesfully divided and conquered the traditional family which were too self sufficient. The cure was the nuclear family. The nuclear family fallout was obvious. Grandparents pawned off to die. Kids are brought up by strangers. The parents in each others pockets and nerves. Kids run amok. Total degeneration.
baalisgod666 6 months ago
There is no such thing as voluntary property rights. All property rights must be forced on those that do not consent to them. Ancapitalism isn't anymore voluntary than ancommunism is.
DaveElectric 6 months ago
my comment didn`t show up, why am I not surprised
Psicloone 6 months ago
Well if there weren`t daddy internet and mommy pc you couldn`t make money by talking shit all day.
You are using David Icke type of jokes and misrepresentation to "prove" your point how the stoneage is better than the potential of the science and technology.
5m1nutes 6 months ago
@5m1nutes Fuck off moron. You can't compare Stefan to Icke. We are waking up and hope to kill mommy and daddy off. Choose a side. Shit is starting to happen.
baalisgod666 6 months ago
@baalisgod666 we are "waking up"... well that`s the same terminology Ickers use. You may as well be falling asleep instead. "hope to KILL mommy and daddy off"... - very good "solution" to the problem... and then what? After you kill those switching to the "wrong side" you gonna fix it?
5m1nutes 6 months ago
@5m1nutes If you believe Icke, you are a moron. My grammar is fine, typos happen, like abortions fail -YOU.
Yes, after we kill off mental retards like you, things will be better straight away. Hope you get arse fucked soon.
baalisgod666 6 months ago
@baalisgod666, hahahaha I`m just astonished what kind of person thinks that I am the one that believes in the Icke`s crap. (btw, Icke and Alex Jones support that freemarket idea like stefbot).
Well, I`m not surprised to find "non aggression principle" nazis here ready to kill everyone that disagrees with them. And if you respond to them "you are initiating force", hehehehhe, how pathetic you people are.
5m1nutes 6 months ago
11:52 - well if there wasn`t a daddy internet and a mommy pc you couldn`t make money by talking shit all day.
You lack arguments and use David Icke type of jokes and total misrepresentation to "prove" your points how the stoneage is better than the potential of the technology and science.
5m1nutes 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
18:12 Jeff - "I'd still be promiscuous." Yeah Jeff we can tell with your tan, bald head, and physically fit self.
GoogleVideoMan 6 months ago
Comment removed
GoogleVideoMan 6 months ago
Comment removed
GoogleVideoMan 6 months ago
Audio seems kind of off, but good video.
Vessol 6 months ago
I don't believe in anything, except that the sun will rise again tomorrow. But that too is a result of a series of observations. The sun has risen every day until now. I don't think it's reasonable to believe anything else.
gradiu3rox 6 months ago
This guy Jeff is not the sharpest knife in the drawer
pretorious700 6 months ago
@pretorious700
Most used and relied on knife never is :)
Anothercoilgun 6 months ago
@pretorious700
I think he's just a little nervous in front of a camera. Give him a chance to grow into it.
Textra1 6 months ago
so true, stefbot, so true
the only way is to grow out of it
thanks for showing us how to grow out of it
galikazoid 6 months ago
Serious question : How can we discard a system we've never had - e.g. democracy. If its been corrupt from the getgo, and I agree it has, why do we have to say govt in all forms is a failure when we havent even had all forms? Crony democracy and capitalism is not democracy and capitalism, why cant we aspire to limited government and a vigilant population to keep them there?
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb
All governments by their very nature are collectivist/socialist. Its interactions with others who are weaker than itself are always of those of force and coercion. To mask this reality and to justify themselves democracies will always engage in wealth redistribution from rich to poor and back.
To imagine that there can be a centralized monopoly on force that can be "limited" is utopian. Same goes for having "vigilant" population.
utubehayter 6 months ago
@utubehayter Fair enough, that makes a bit more sense to me - that was by the way the most reasonable non insulting answer Ive yet received on one of this guys vids
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb
You happened to catch me in a good mood. Otherwise I am one of them too. :)
utubehayter 6 months ago
@utubehayter 2: So I agree with most of what you said and how a monopoly on power would always expand itself - but I dont get then who makes the laws in an anarchical (that the right word?) society? Or who enforces any laws that we collectively agree on?
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb "..I dont get then who makes the laws in an anarchical society?.." Someone tried to answer your question earlier, but I guess you didn't notice it.
"..who enforces any laws.." Suggested possible answers to these questions probably can't be made very well in comments section. This may be useful - maybe not. pzglDS88u50
You can't learn this stuff in 10 minutes. It requires a fair bit of reading or videos etc. There's a ton of free stuff. Maybe try some free books at freedomain radio
zalida100 6 months ago
@zalida100 And who exactly tried to answer my question per law? Whats their username? It seems like I either get a rude response or someone referring me to literature elsewhere - can you not paraphrase something yourself that is supposedly the straight forward and logical solution to our problems? I mean clearly you understand it so please share a non-condescending response to my inquiry about laws in an anarchy society.
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb "..can you not paraphrase something yourself that is supposedly the straight forward and logical solution to our problems?.." No. I don't know the solution to anyone's problems.
I was just trying to steer you to relevant information that may have begun to answer your questions. I don't have the language skill to condense it, since I don't really know anything about your current perceptions.
zalida100 6 months ago
@zalida100 Ill check that video for sure it looks very interesting
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb I think it's relevant to what you were asking. Have a bit of patience with it. (give it at least 20mins or so to see if is boring or interesting). There may be bits of it that seem a bit strange at first. This whole anarchy thing will likely seem a bit implausible at first. You have to remember, we've all been propagandised for many years, and that is why it takes a bit of time to get used to a different point of view. Hans hoppe is not a great speaker, but he's pretty smart.
zalida100 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uwmbigb "I mean clearly you understand it so please share a non-condescending response to my inquiry about laws in an anarchy society."
/watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
HeyItzMeDawg 6 months ago
@uwmbigb
"who enforces any laws that we collectively agree on? "
Do we agree on anything collectively? If you think clearly and patiently, we never do, and never can. So, Ancaps dispose of this necessity of collective agreement. Easiest way to think of it, is - you decide what goes ..in your house and I in mine, but not across. When you come over to my house, one of the conditions is to not violate by my laws, and vice versa. It sounds simple, and it is, but not trivial. I recommend reading!
utubehayter 6 months ago
@utubehayter Im not saying they do, that was in response to another user who responded to my law questions by saying the community determines its own laws collectively. yes I agree with you theirs no way thats going to happen which is my question where do the laws come from!
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb
Hmm.. there are anarcho-communists. Be aware of those. They are different and "special". They decide laws "collectively". For anarcho-capitalists, laws are subscribed and agreed upon by individuals/voluntarily agreed upon groups. For the later you can say "collectively", but its not the same meaning of "collectively" as everyone else thinks.
utubehayter 6 months ago
Many of the old anarcho-communist and social anarchist thinkers were actually very clear about freedom.
“Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist — as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others.” - Malatesta
remdao 6 months ago
fuck off troll
nnemrenegtv 6 months ago
peace and freedom are oppositional goals.
Dysentery7885 6 months ago
anarchy is actually less peace. true anarchy is where people can kill each other and there will be enormous amounts of killing going on.
Dysentery7885 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885 'enormous amounts of killing going on'? In case you hadn't noticed, we already have a massive amount of killing going on, the majority of which is state organised and sponsored. No large scale armed forces motivated by political and financial greed = less killing.
jwhitenstall 6 months ago
@jwhitenstall Right but compared to anarchy thats nothing. with anarchy I think about 50% of the population in the US would die. I'm an anarchist anyways but I'm just pointing out that freedom and peace are oppositional goals in the short run.
Dysentery7885 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885 why do you think 50% of the population would die? In my opinion, personal freedom comes with the responsibility of allowing others to be free, and therefore would allow for a more peaceful society. I have heard the opinion that human society would revert back to a 'survival of the most violent' if anarchy became reality, but removing the state does not equate to removal of all forms of security, it simply makes their funding and application voluntary.
jwhitenstall 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885 Why do you think 50% of the population would die? There isn't peace now... that's the goal of anarchy.
hardeez1 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885 With anarchy, killing someone would not be without consequences. A murderer would have a hard time getting along with anyone. He would be rejected. That would be a deterrence for anyone else willing to kill someone. There would be an equilibrium of people willing to kill others and be rejected and other who would not want to be rejected which would be similar to what we currently have. There would not be enormously more amounts of killing going on.
remyroyster 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885
True Anarchy is a world where those who think the way you make your description would be ignored for the obvious reason of not knowing what they do.
Anothercoilgun 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885
Government has killed more people that you can imagine. Get a fucking clue.
Anothercoilgun 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885
"true anarchy is where people can kill each other"
Nonsense. Anarchy literally means without rule of government. It says nothing about killing or violence. Your definition stems from the fear of being without government. It's a typical reaction from people who cannot imagine living life as a true adult without the Big Parent™ looking over their shoulders. It comes from people who think that life without governments is broken glass and punk-haired motor-cycle gangs.
Textra1 6 months ago 41
@Textra1 And without rule by involuntary law people will be killing each other like crazy.. I already said I am an anarchist and fight for it. So you just drew a totally made up conclusion so you're a liar.
Dysentery7885 6 months ago
@Dysentery7885
"And without rule by involuntary law people will be killing each other like crazy."
And you know this how?
"So you just drew a totally made up conclusion so you're a liar."
I'm sorry, you're clearly too stupid to dialogue with. My bad.
Textra1 6 months ago
@Textra1 While I agree that there would likely be a decrease in the killing of each other in an anarchistic society, true anarchy is where anyone can do what they feel to be right, which could easily include "killing each other." Any system of rules or law is control, and the root of "big parent looking over there sholder" the rule of "one must not kill another" is a form of control, and non-anarchistic in nature.
ceneezer 6 months ago
@ceneezer Anarcho-capitalism has, as one of its most basic underpinnings, the principle of property rights/ownership, including the concept that you are the owner of your body and therefore your life. An anarcho-capitalistic society does not grant you license to infringe upon the property rights and right to life of others. This is one of the underpinning concepts of a truly free and peaceful society.
LetsTryLiberty 6 months ago
@Textra1 No Anarchy means without rulers. Anyone that tries to control your life would be considered a ruler. So include capitalist pigs and the petty bosses.
lordmetroid 6 months ago
@Textra1 And, people can kill each other under government rule. The threat of murder must always be present or you can't have a state to begin with.
Kawlinz 6 months ago
What's wrong with audio? Anyone has any clue?
qedisk 6 months ago
This is tremendous. I enjoyed it. Great stuff. Thanks.
1717jbs 6 months ago
Anarchism to happen need different species that we are today. If we somehow all agree to not hurt eachother and get rid of government blah blah blah. There would be still the royal families and other elite lunatics who would fuck this peaceful anarchy up. We need some sort of organizing to protect from it, like Ron Paul is promoting this limited government idea.
Matu1 6 months ago
He's lucky if his wife still lets him in the same bed after airing that story!
nanciqwerty 6 months ago
The systems gone corrupt so instead of considering returning to a uncorrupt form lets just scrap the whole thing and live without any government whatsoever. Cmon.I read somewhere this dude has a cult like following and I thought it was a bit much but see what they mean. Every response Ive received to legit questions i asked bc I dont understand has been rude uninformative condescending insulting and always posturing - thats cult behavior. Turns off people looking into your ideals really does.
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb No system was ever uncorrupted, not even in the US. They just sold you the bill of goods that it was. Your "logic" completely discounts human nature of the people that want power - they are control freaks and psychopaths mostly. Government is the monopoly of power. It's like shining a bright light of a million Watts in the middle of the night - it is VERY easy to spot and these sick people gravitate toward it. It's only natural. Remove the monopoly of power and they are lost.
grumpone 6 months ago
@grumpone I never said it was uncorrupt dude thats my entire fucking point its been corrupted from the get go - so how can we discard something we never had. Whats wrong with aspiring to democracy and capitalism far from crony democracy and crony capitalism? Why all this do away with government entirely? Again with the my logic is subpar reasoning and all that posturing ya'll act like stuck up cult members for real. Cannot engaged in polite conversation without being condescending as fuck
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@grumpone Btw I like how you put "logic" in quotes on me there thanks for marginalizing my opinion/question like that. Shit is exactly the kind of douchbaggery I run into every time I ask the smallest questions around Stefans community. (Ive been the world over and only americans, particularly white americans, get frustrated and belligerent and mostly condescending when you disgaree aka "just dont get it" and cant "reason at their level" like Im some child lol)
uwmbigb 6 months ago
@uwmbigb Well, congratulations on being well travelled. At least you have some pretty photos. Well I am probably the least white "American" you'll ever going to meet.
grumpone 6 months ago