How is a the bank solution more moral than the government solution? The two institutions are both made up concepts, one having a monopoly on money, the other on force.
Force and money aren't distinct physical manifestations. Both are morally wrong, because both money and force are enslavement. Logically, If there was no money in society the government wouldn't tax you. And if there was no taxation, the government would abolish money.
@charged220 "Logically, are money and force not equally evil?"
The difference is that money in an anarchic society is voluntary exchange, whereas force is not. Moreover, entering into a voluntary contract with a DRO that stipulates that your bank may transfer your funds to the damaged party if you are found guilty also does not include force. Indeed, money and force in a free society are completely different.
Great work from both sides! I really enjoyed the debate and want to thank both men for their efforts.
At 8:57ish Stefan encouraged the conversation to get serious and was met with what may have been some apprehension or surprise; I'd submit that Stefan shot in and secured a leg early. In doing so, he managed to set the pace, and most importantly, save the conversation from turning into another painfully boring epistemic exchange that even interested people find dull or strenuous. Thanks!
6 minutes in and the man in the right corner wins by KO. I should have stopped it in the third minute but some sadistic part of me wanted to watch. Man on the right says that "government" is a construct of the mind and there is no difference other than a fictional mental construct or office between an officer of that system and a man, he is of course correct and the point cannot be contested. Yet in desperation to be "right" he argues a given with moot points, let the ego go the rest will come.
Molyneux said that trees exist because they are bound together as atomic forces and forests don't exist because they generally are not linked together physically. (If a forest is only GENERALLY not linked together physically, doesn't that mean sometimes it is linked together physically?) If a tree exists due to the fact that it is an aggregation of molecules, why wouldn't a forest exist also? Because it has oxygen molecules in between each tree? It's still an aggregation of molecules.
qtronman could have done a far better job at arguing for an objectivist society. He doesn't even know how to finance a government without taxation! Trust funds, Donations, Immigration fees, Court fees, Nationalized gambling sector are all moral ways of financing a government. I want a real debate!
The categorization is inherent to the politics issue.
What makes categorizing a group as "The State" different? Does categorizing something change its fundamental nature? Do categories imbue any special authority apart from being human?
I would say no. It's just a category. I can categorize a frog as a bird but that thing ain't gonna fly and it ain't got feathers.
And just because a penguin is categorized as a bird, it still can't fly. The category doesn't change the facts.
So categorizing a human as a "Cop" and giving him a costume doesn't give him the right to initiate violence when all the other humans not in that category, and who don't wear the costume, can not.
Rights don't exist until concentrated power grants them. Sometimes a democracy will grant certain rights to it's citizens (usually conditionally), and use a "government" to enforce/protect conflicts of interests regarding rights. Sometimes this "government" can begin to use the power it's granted or in most cases that it takes (usually through "social contract"), in an abusive manner. This is bad, but it is not irrational. It is just as "rational" as anything else in this world.
Me and my friend bob have guns, that makes us a concentrated power. Do bob and I have the right to decide what rights you do and do not have? And kill you if you dissagree with us?
fididle, no... but I actually find constitutional democracy a relatively reasonable form of government, and would immediately respect it's authority over you and your friend "bob".
I do understand though that government is in some sense "irrational", but so is everything else in the universe.
As far as I know, the constitution protects my imaginary rights, or my personal interests, better than any jungle wild west scenario plausibly could in the near future.
@Zen5012 LOL that comment is old! I've been drifting from my naive communist youth to my now matured free market anarchism. Please ignore whatever was said before.
Oh thank god. I was gonna use that as a starting point for a hell of conversation. The whole thing about concentrated power granting rights really got me - figured this would be an easier starting point though.
I've been going back through a lot of molyneux's older videos so I've been commenting on a lot of people's old comments. Fun to see what changes have happened since people made 'em.
Not all objectivist think the way this guy does. I am an objectivist and do support private police competeing against public. Ayn Rand was way too militaristic.
i think Ayn Rand would have supported the fair tax, you choose to buy things to fund the government capitalism to the rescue!!!!!! i love you guys thanks for the video i am a gun carrying objectivist that will only use force to defend myself and loved ones.
They started off looking at this the wrong way. A government's authority is not contingent upon physically manifested differences between different entities, its given authority by the volition of its subjects.
According to Objectivism the role of government is to protect citizens from the use of force. Peaceful competition by definition is voluntary. If there is force involved, it is not peaceful.
Huh? I'm not sure what you meant by that. But, I've seen your videos and qtron's and I am an Objectivist. I was a little disappointed in qtron's defence of the theory of concepts and government. I looked in the Ayn Rand Lexicon and he could have read straight from it and made a better point. Also, use of force in Ayn Rand's view is not a 'proper' function of government. The proper role of government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. -see lexicon
I was an objectivist for 20 years, I do understand Rand's position on these matters, it's just that the 'proper' role of government requires the initiation of force, to prevent peaceful competition...
I think that may have been a typo on his part. If I'm guessing correctly, he meant to say that violence is required to protect men from one another; for example, if we had competing businesses and I tried to burn your business to the ground, they would have to intervene with violence in order to stop/deter me. Thus, while the state protects us from violence, it also must inflict violence in order to do so.
Stef is brilliant, of course. The conviction and knowledge of his case is well integrated. Tronmans presentation, by contrast, is a grab bag of Objectivist slogans and snatches of Objectivist rhetoric. He goes into the debate with the piss and vinegar so typical of Objectivists his age. This could have been an excellent debate if Stef had a worthy opponent.
I know it's almost impossible not to get emotionally involved, but come on people! Socratic method, goal is not to win but to establish the truth. Here I am talking to commenters mostly.
Hey Qtron, I give you credit for opening yourself up for debate and learning but you were not following stefbot's logic. I'm not even that smart and I can easily follow him.
too painful to watch the dude on the left grope through his ideas. He looks like a child next to stefbot. I would have much rather listened to an extended lecture on sane thinking by stebot, than watch the other dude try and debate him. I could only handle about 11 minutes of this before I lost patience with the interruptions and talking over the top of stefbot. It was a very undisciplined form of debate. Maybe it gets better, but I'll never know!
I'm not very educated on the whole anarcho-capitalism movement, but I do see the need for government.
If we lived in a world where everyone played by the same rules, government would not be needed. But the sad truth is, people will break rules, and should be punished for it.
I totally understand where you're coming from, but the fact that people break the rules is the exact reason why we cannot have a government... For more on this, you might want to check out my short free audio book 'Practical Anarchy,' available on my website... :)
I have to say, self-defense is maybe your weakest point. Granted if the whole world was libertarian and enlightened then there may be no need for a standing army for the purpose of national defense. But even if we manage to create the kind of system you're advocating here in the U.S. for example, China isn't going to cease to be a dictatorship anytime soon is it? How will DROs defend themselves against MIGs and tanks and subs and naval artillery? sorry I just don't see it
@Sam26100 Who is to say this must all happen in the U.S. first? Let's suppose it did. If China is still a serious threat, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO (or multiple DROs) from stockpiling weapons and armies to defend people if people voluntarily choose that. Even if none of that were true, are you saying we should all pursue violence because other people will always be violent? What is the alternative?
"I'm at 9 minutes and I can't stand that guy on the left he's boooooring."
It's not about ~ME~; it's about the IDEAS we're discussing. But what would a fool raised on MTV know about evaluating ideas? (This is why YouTube is not really the place for philosophy.)
Wow, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree, I was raised on everything but MTV. I understood perfectly that you had problems debating at Stefan's level. I don't want to be mean, but I like my ideas to be challenged, not my attention span.
The problem is that you have no evidence to prove to me that you are capable of judging what a philosophical "level" is, let alone determining what level Stefan is at. He clearly doesn't understand Objectivist epistemology in depth, which is why he wanted to jump to GOVERNMENT.
Well, I know I'm only giving my impressions here, not judging your belief or method. To me if you're defending a violent monopoly, you must be wrong somewhere.
Nailing? I'll let him nail himself with his own vacuous positions. People like you need a shaman to cling to; it gives you a false sense of mental security.
this guy is not a very good representation of objectivism. sigh. wish this was an actual coherent debate. i agree the "objectivist" goes off topic way too much.
I know that you are used to a higher degree of philosophical detail, but I would like to ask you, do you think that the theories of what are today 'great philosophers' that were, are given more credit than they deserve? Because I feel that people derive their own theories from theories, that weren't even meant to digress into different segments of philosophical detail?
what the hell is this guy on the left talking about? his thoughts seem so disorganized, and doesn't seem to be actively participating in an conversation, as two people should be doing in a debate. this guy needs to stay on track in a debate and stop running away with tangents, only to have the guy on the right anchor him back.
Could one of you lovely anarchist's explain to me the aspect of an anarchist national defense?
I am down with the domestic non aggression principle, no taxes and whatnot, but I dunno, I think an anarchist country would quickly become part of another country within about a week.
Always open to new info and ideas tho. Always love having my beliefs tested.
Check out Stef's website or videos etc, he and the FDR/anarchist/voluntarist crowd cover this in great detail, it's a very common question but it's hard to elaborate in this tiny comment box! Take it easy.
Hey man, check out the book "Practical Anarchy" on stefbots page. Its free to download and read, and its got the mutual defence thingy covered. Now if you agree with the explanation presented there or not, thats your choice.
this debate is too much of a mismatch, it is painful to watch. He is using another person's philosophy to make his point rather than using his own philosophy, that is why he is going in circles.
a couple of things. many of our most eminent philosophers would disagree with many of your points. there is no need to do philosophy such that you establish your positions as commonsensical or evident. this idea of the 'given' has been very much contested in many fields of philosophy by some of our best. i guess my issue is with qtronman's unnecessary piling of examples which avoid dealing with the discussion directly. this, on my view, is bad philosophy -- no offense.
haha, the objectivist just kept dancing around the question..."I have to be careful with the words" yah, because you couldn't admit that the state is coercive in obtaining taxation...lmao, charity funded police force...anyone see the problem with this? HAHA
I think only one thing you said in that debate was not true...."I really enjoyed this debate" :) I think I just developed heart palpitations and I wasn't even part of it. ;-)
It is...I just don't understand the block that people have...I was a hard-headed minarchist, but immediately after listening to your arguments I understood the blatant contradictions in my ideas......how do people not see this? You don't even need this whole debate...all you need is the taxation argument for everything!
Once they agree that taxation is coercive the argument is over. Without funding government can't exist, and if it's voluntarily funded then it's not government it is a corporat
Philosophers have been wrong? Yes and we can be to. keep open mind, do not make dogmas in all subjects. A Smart person in our days(views) its a person who can define what its wrong and right.
Which its completely wrong, nobody know what its wrong and right.
We can only use our rational, logic in function of our Moral. I believe that the Human being as a Universal Moral. Universally people like things as Peace, love, prosperity, abundance, happiness, harmony, between others.
"The reason: until Ayn Rand, there had never been a fully rational, fully consistent philosophical defense of individual rights."
No she was not fully rational. Her justification for ethics is an appeal to hedonism/pleasure and in defense of individual rights...she allows policemen to use coercion against competitors. That doesn't sound very consistent if you ask me.
"yes, man's life (and the happiness that makes it worth living) is the justification of (and reason for having) ethics.
what else is there? God?"
Just because the ability to value requires one being alive doesn't means ethics should be derived from man's life. You can't get an ought by just referring to some fact from reality. Stefbot's UPB skips right past the whole "what you ought to do" thing and goes straight to testing the validity of moral theories.
stefbot has hijacked the capitalist argument against regulations. it states that it wouldnt be in a business' interest to initiate force, and thus the mere threat of retaliation is sufficient to prevent the small percent which initiates it anyways
he says it wouldnt be in a DROs interest to wield force irrationally. true, but irrationality can always exist. where is the threat which would deter it? why would the rational DRO necessarily be larger?
"but irrationality can always exist. where is the threat which would deter it? why would the rational DRO necessarily be larger?"
1)Because the less laws you make the lower the price
2)I don't even understand how this is an arguement for government. If everyone is subject to the risk of evil than so is government. You objectivists continually use all sorts of double standards. Why would you want to nationalize the risk of evil?
I'm referring to coercive laws of course. If a DRO didn't make "laws" against coercion I wouldn't subscribe myself to one. Consumers aren't stupid you know.
I think stef was a bit rude by interupting over and over but qtron failed to deliver good arguments and was just mostly giving wishful statements which doesnt really address the question.
I like the format of the video, but the speakers should get equal microphone settings, get like 30seconds each without interrupts when they request it.
He wasn't debating the topic. I failed to challenge him on the basis of individual rights, thanks much to him saying "we can just assume that..." No, you can't assume that. I'm not going to be as polite in any future debate, if such ever happens.
An honest nation or corporation will want transparency in their own and other's dealings dealings. A corrupt nation or corporation will want to hide their dealings.
I think I am willing to play with the idea as long as transparency is a major part of the standardization. But if you have the bank controlling its own police force, and it sells food, housing, health-care, internet access, phone and mail, and makes its own prison, and all its workings are hidden from the public, I think we have a problem, which is probably the way you currently see the menace of government. Government won't disappear in a free market--it will just go to someone stronger.
Stef means that if you can't ensure the distinction of government ALWAYS having the trait of virtuousness, versus the citizenry ALWAYS having the state of only part-virtuousness, then there is no distinction and the govt is indistinct from the citizenry and should not be perceived as different, as a cop is viewed as different, with different and more expanded rights than we the populace have.
If society applies the NAP than you have a free market. Saying that we need a government because your definition of a free market requires a government is circular reasoning.
Rand definined what a free market was...and then thought we needed a government in order to have one. She didn't include government in the definition of a free market and apply circular reasoning on why we need a government.
I don't agree with the non-aggression principle as you see it; I support Islamic Sharia law. What "market force" am I going to subscribe to? Certainly not one that is compatible with your way of life.
"Stefbot allready has a podcast explaining how anarchism deals with that exact scenario."
And I'm sure it's full of unjustified and fantastic assumptions and a series of deductions based thereon. Look, we have "competing defensive agencies" today; it's called the United Nations.
But believing in anarchism, as brainpolice2 and others have indicated, does not imply that you believe in one type of system of jurisprudence, one view of justice, so it ensures nothing in terms of human conflict.
To say I support pluralism means what? If we apply it to the religious realm, it means, I don't just want Christians; I want Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Sikhs, Baha'is, Jains, etc. "Pluralism" is a description of a result; it is not a primary value.
"the free market will make sure that DROs do not become gvt"
Only if a substantial number people don't want governments. Clearly if the huge majority of people want governments, there will be governments. We have all of recorded history to prove that.
"The free market. Initiating violence is not a profitable business proposition when victims defend themselves."
There is no free market until after force has been excluded. Profitability is ~not~ a sufficient precondition to ensure this. This approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.
"And who is going to enforce that rule, if not a government?"
That's special pleading. Why is the government not subject to the risk of becoming corrupt. If it doesn't follow the NAP then what are you gonna do huh? Again, do you want to nationalize the risk of evil or do you want to privatize it?
The entire political and legal framework required for a free-market to operate is not some simple application of a floating general idea called "the non-initiation of force" principle. That is so naive that it's hardly worth discussing.
"Why is the government not subject to the risk of becoming corrupt."
Am I to assume that everyone in the society knows what "force" means in any given situation or dispute? What about Muslims? Socialists? PLO-member-types? What of people who think it's "force" to make a profit?
Stefbot never advocated bringing about anarchism through force. If people the Middle East don't believe in democracy you canot have democracy. You cannot have anarchism if no one wants anarchism. No duh Qtron.
Once a capitalist economy has been established, it does not follow that rational selfishness will become automatic, and "the market" will act to resolve whatever short-lived disputes still arise.
"... if a crime is committed then monetary reparations for crimes would be given and if that couldn't be fulfilled then the DRO would have contracts with the services you use to stop them from providing until you pay either money or labour."
Sort of like the U.N. works? You know, where the Western governments "sanction" governments in Iran or North Korea with financial incentives and de-incentives (carrots and sticks)? This is a fantastic ~assumption~!
"... I believe that Stef won that part of the debate all you were left with was pragmatic problems left with discussing society without gvt ..."
In what sense did he "win" that? We disagreed; I offered some reasons for my position, and he ended saying he wasn't fully sure if his position is right. I don't follow you.
Mr Molyneux, I have not viewed any of your videos before this one, but I feel that I need to make an observation for you to hopefully aid your debate techniques. The biggest flaw I saw in this video is a habit of yours. The habit of making a declarative statement, and then moving on to another topic. This is not how you make points in a debate. To me nothing makes a red flag go up quicker. I think it discredits you. Please note this is not meant as an insult.
I simply don't understand why Stefen talked over Ryan this entire debate. It seemmed as a standard that he interrupted when he wanted to and went on for a minute, but would not let Ryan stop him to make or clarify a point.
Seems like both parties agree about the importance of transparency in dealings. If everybody knows everybody else's business, crime is very difficult. But if people can hide their crimes then it makes crime pretty easy. But how would you enforce transparency in your dealings?
It seems like stef wants to just right the wrong--returning property to its rightful owner, then mark the person somehow as a thief.
But how would private individuals deal with rape or murder?
"But how would private individuals deal with rape or murder?"
If it isn't immoral for one organization to deal with rape and murder in a certain way, it isn't immoral for any organization/individual to do the same.
The truth is, you can always find new questions about how a different system would ideally work, and there are answers.
But first you should probably ask yourself: How is a monopoly better?
25 minutes into it stefbot had the Objectivist dancing around searching for a foothold. I think Coke and Pepsi should duke it out in the thunderdome. Pepsi will win because they are all jacked up on Mountain Dew. Why does the statist assume that the 'government' ('independent system') is run by freedom loving saints?
The reason people cannot make up their own police forces is because police have to go by procedure. We can't have multiple police squads acting according to different laws.
It's to protect the rights of the citizen from lynch mobs. It's pretty basic, and the fact that ANarchists don't understand it is a testimony to their extremely bad epistemological judgments and value assessment.
And so your theory is that citizens are protected by 50% taxation, endless coercive regulation, jails for nonviolent 'crimes' and war? Almost 300,000,000 people were murdered by governments in the 20th century alone, not including wars. I think the world can survive a look at possible alternatives to this endless slaughter.
You won't see me defending coercive taxation, Stef. I think it's a shame that we live in such a system, and I think after a lot of peaceful reform we can end a government that forces it's citizens to pay for it.
Rand supported voluntary contributions to the government. She just thought that a single objective source ought to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. I don't think this violates the non-aggression principle. I think it defends it, and an anarchic society violates by it's existence
"She just thought that a single objective source ought to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. I don't think this violates the non-aggression principle."
If you propose that this monopoly should be attained by aggressing against those who wish to also provide the service of preventing violations of the NAP, then yes, it does.
We have quite a bit of voluntary contributions to the government. Is it not paid back in subsidies? Stefan's argument that "If things were transparent" could apply just as well to government as it is today as to this free-market-anarchy-utopia. If "following the money" were an option available to anybody curious... then the line between government and non-government would be a lot fainter.
You mean when the government takes everyone's billions of dollars in taxes, and then a politician gives a $50 million subsidy to a particular private group in exchange for a $3 million bribe, and they agree that this particular private group will offer it's product/service with an added discount of $15 million, thus destroying the non-subsidized producer/provider, that's "paying it back"?
If the news were required to send out a statement of all government spending, do you think there might be some improvement of the situation? Right now, both the $3 million dollar bribe and the $50 million subsidy are done behind closed doors. The news does not report it, because they say such info is worthless on the free market, and it takes tons of research to even find out about it. Better to report on police chases which will sell lots of commercials.
"If the news were required to send out a statement of all government spending, do you think there might be some improvement of the situation?"
Doubt it. There's just not much people can do about it even if they understood that they're robbing their money, which most of them don't. Just look at the trillion dollar bailout, which most people didn't agree with. So? The government does it anyway.
Actually, no, we don't understand much of anything. I don't think you do either. Frankly the only report I've heard that made the least bit of sense was on "This American Life" and that was brought by a non-profit. I neither agreed or disagreed with the bailout, because there is not enough transparency to make an informed decision. You think you have enough information to decide they have done evil. Then show me that information and convince me.
"You think you have enough information to decide they have done evil."
Of course they have. Taxation is evil. Forcing people to use your currency (which, by the by, is fake) is evil. Borrowing money and forcing others to pay for it is evil. I'm not sure which part you don't understand about this.
Taxation is not evil. Taxation without representation is evil. Agreeing to the use of a currency is not evil. The use of a common fund to do good is not evil. The problem is not that the government is taxing, but that the government is consistently ignoring the will of the people in determining what to do with that money. You have told me everything that is evil but you have not named anything which is good. You have condemned everything and left nothing to seek as "goodness."
The information is relevant, it is just monetarily worthless.
It is worthless on the free market because the people who pay to put commercials on the news do not want the information reported unless it paints their corporation in a positive light. It is valuable to the public, but worthless in generating revenue, unless most of the revenue is generated by donation or mandate instead of by commercial air-time.
"It is valuable to the public, but worthless in generating revenue"
You don't get it. Of course commercial air time is what mainly pays for media, but other than that, the media puts on whatever info people want. If people wanted truth in the media, a network that put truth on the air would have many more viewers, and thus could charge much more for it's commercial air-time.
"If "following the money" were an option available to anybody curious... then the line between government and non-government would be a lot fainter."
I'm not sure what you mean. Governments take half or more of everyone's income at the point of a gun. Organizations that are not directly linked to the government cannot achieve this.
Of course you are right; you agree with 1 Samuel 8:11-18
I can agree that government is not the perfect solution for what ails society, but criticizing flaws is not the same as offering a solution.
No one is holding a gun at my head. I am in fact collecting EIC most years, because working as a part-time college math instructor just doesn't pay much. You think my status would improve if there were no laws? Maybe I am the waste of your money you are talking about.
Somebody forgot to read wittgenstein...
HappyWithWhatsThere 4 months ago
my debate is betta
thoughtfultheo 7 months ago
RoulfYelrab is totally right these guys are all over the place
chernetgirma 11 months ago
These guys are very enthusiastic thinkers :)
TheDeclanMillar 11 months ago
Wow, straight for the throat, crushed him at the 2:00 mark. I don't even know why he bothered to go on, there is no refuting this point...
MKeyserSoze 1 year ago
How is a the bank solution more moral than the government solution? The two institutions are both made up concepts, one having a monopoly on money, the other on force.
Force and money aren't distinct physical manifestations. Both are morally wrong, because both money and force are enslavement. Logically, If there was no money in society the government wouldn't tax you. And if there was no taxation, the government would abolish money.
Logically, are money and force not equally evil?
charged220 1 year ago
@charged220 "Logically, are money and force not equally evil?"
The difference is that money in an anarchic society is voluntary exchange, whereas force is not. Moreover, entering into a voluntary contract with a DRO that stipulates that your bank may transfer your funds to the damaged party if you are found guilty also does not include force. Indeed, money and force in a free society are completely different.
passerby26 7 months ago
Man two guys talking about pretty much nothing.
40minutes of boredom from the sound of it. gawd I couldn't sit through about 5minutes I had to stop.
Sorry if that offends your passion for the subject.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
Great work from both sides! I really enjoyed the debate and want to thank both men for their efforts.
At 8:57ish Stefan encouraged the conversation to get serious and was met with what may have been some apprehension or surprise; I'd submit that Stefan shot in and secured a leg early. In doing so, he managed to set the pace, and most importantly, save the conversation from turning into another painfully boring epistemic exchange that even interested people find dull or strenuous. Thanks!
1rstbreath 1 year ago
OMG THEIR BOTH REPTILIAN ALIENS
lol
MirageScience 1 year ago
anarchy is an oxymoron.
TribeOfNirvana 1 year ago
@TribeOfNirvana Would you please explain to me what is contradictory about anarchy.
datdude212 1 year ago
qtronman you look and sound like Tito Ortiz a little.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
6 minutes in and the man in the right corner wins by KO. I should have stopped it in the third minute but some sadistic part of me wanted to watch. Man on the right says that "government" is a construct of the mind and there is no difference other than a fictional mental construct or office between an officer of that system and a man, he is of course correct and the point cannot be contested. Yet in desperation to be "right" he argues a given with moot points, let the ego go the rest will come.
bredrin1 1 year ago
Molyneux said that trees exist because they are bound together as atomic forces and forests don't exist because they generally are not linked together physically. (If a forest is only GENERALLY not linked together physically, doesn't that mean sometimes it is linked together physically?) If a tree exists due to the fact that it is an aggregation of molecules, why wouldn't a forest exist also? Because it has oxygen molecules in between each tree? It's still an aggregation of molecules.
superlaxplayer17 2 years ago
qtronman could have done a far better job at arguing for an objectivist society. He doesn't even know how to finance a government without taxation! Trust funds, Donations, Immigration fees, Court fees, Nationalized gambling sector are all moral ways of financing a government. I want a real debate!
truevoice08 2 years ago
wow, poor fellow on the left got slaughtered
sakanem1 2 years ago 7
This is awesome!
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Both these guys are very bad at rational thinking, and coherent debating.
RoulfYelrab 2 years ago
haha,
stefbot 2 years ago 4
haha, you mean compared to someone who thinks that "very bad" is some kind of rebuttal?
stefbot 2 years ago 3
you're very bad! Burn!
RoulfYelrab 2 years ago 2
but he's right. this seems like pseudo philosophy
billyg89 2 years ago
@RoulfYelrab “Rational thinking” … now take a while to think about that phrase ...
TerrierBram 11 months ago
This categorization stuff is a total waste of time, there could more time on politics.
megamanium 2 years ago
@megamanium
The categorization is inherent to the politics issue.
What makes categorizing a group as "The State" different? Does categorizing something change its fundamental nature? Do categories imbue any special authority apart from being human?
I would say no. It's just a category. I can categorize a frog as a bird but that thing ain't gonna fly and it ain't got feathers.
And just because a penguin is categorized as a bird, it still can't fly. The category doesn't change the facts.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@megamanium
So categorizing a human as a "Cop" and giving him a costume doesn't give him the right to initiate violence when all the other humans not in that category, and who don't wear the costume, can not.
Zen5012 1 year ago
fat man to the left is nonsense
billyg89 2 years ago
Rights don't exist until concentrated power grants them. Sometimes a democracy will grant certain rights to it's citizens (usually conditionally), and use a "government" to enforce/protect conflicts of interests regarding rights. Sometimes this "government" can begin to use the power it's granted or in most cases that it takes (usually through "social contract"), in an abusive manner. This is bad, but it is not irrational. It is just as "rational" as anything else in this world.
adjohnson916 2 years ago
Me and my friend bob have guns, that makes us a concentrated power. Do bob and I have the right to decide what rights you do and do not have? And kill you if you dissagree with us?
fididle 2 years ago
fididle, no... but I actually find constitutional democracy a relatively reasonable form of government, and would immediately respect it's authority over you and your friend "bob".
I do understand though that government is in some sense "irrational", but so is everything else in the universe.
As far as I know, the constitution protects my imaginary rights, or my personal interests, better than any jungle wild west scenario plausibly could in the near future.
(btw, I'm left-libertarian, fyi)
adjohnson916 2 years ago
@adjohnson916
What do you mean by "Wild West" scenario?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 LOL that comment is old! I've been drifting from my naive communist youth to my now matured free market anarchism. Please ignore whatever was said before.
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@adjohnson916
Oh thank god. I was gonna use that as a starting point for a hell of conversation. The whole thing about concentrated power granting rights really got me - figured this would be an easier starting point though.
I've been going back through a lot of molyneux's older videos so I've been commenting on a lot of people's old comments. Fun to see what changes have happened since people made 'em.
Congratulations on working through it yourself.
Zen5012 1 year ago
qtronman, get a headset mic!
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Not all objectivist think the way this guy does. I am an objectivist and do support private police competeing against public. Ayn Rand was way too militaristic.
cclodfe 2 years ago
Comment removed
cclodfe 2 years ago
i think Ayn Rand would have supported the fair tax, you choose to buy things to fund the government capitalism to the rescue!!!!!! i love you guys thanks for the video i am a gun carrying objectivist that will only use force to defend myself and loved ones.
carveawoodeneye 2 years ago
I didn't know Phil Collins was an anarchist and that Matt Damon was an objectivist !!!
Anyways ... uglier Phil Collins beats chubby Matt Damon ....
guinnessman12 2 years ago 2
They started off looking at this the wrong way. A government's authority is not contingent upon physically manifested differences between different entities, its given authority by the volition of its subjects.
laballer824 3 years ago
Winner and still champion:
Stefbot
Brassmouth 3 years ago 2
According to Objectivism the role of government is to protect citizens from the use of force. Peaceful competition by definition is voluntary. If there is force involved, it is not peaceful.
djangothecat 3 years ago
stefbot is better at debating and stating his point than qtron but stefbot is wrong.
djangothecat 3 years ago
It seems silly to debate now when all you have to do is say it! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Huh? I'm not sure what you meant by that. But, I've seen your videos and qtron's and I am an Objectivist. I was a little disappointed in qtron's defence of the theory of concepts and government. I looked in the Ayn Rand Lexicon and he could have read straight from it and made a better point. Also, use of force in Ayn Rand's view is not a 'proper' function of government. The proper role of government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. -see lexicon
djangothecat 3 years ago
I was an objectivist for 20 years, I do understand Rand's position on these matters, it's just that the 'proper' role of government requires the initiation of force, to prevent peaceful competition...
stefbot 3 years ago 4
I don't understand why the proper role is to PREVENT peaceful competition. Why is that? And how is that based on freedom?
djangothecat 3 years ago
I think that may have been a typo on his part. If I'm guessing correctly, he meant to say that violence is required to protect men from one another; for example, if we had competing businesses and I tried to burn your business to the ground, they would have to intervene with violence in order to stop/deter me. Thus, while the state protects us from violence, it also must inflict violence in order to do so.
uberjim83 3 years ago
painful to watch the guy on the left picture because it feels like he's TRYING to sound smart
Jangaboo 3 years ago
Stefan is pretty on point. The reason why the USPS operates so efficiently because they have to complete against UPS and Fed-Ex.
adrifts 3 years ago
Stef is brilliant, of course. The conviction and knowledge of his case is well integrated. Tronmans presentation, by contrast, is a grab bag of Objectivist slogans and snatches of Objectivist rhetoric. He goes into the debate with the piss and vinegar so typical of Objectivists his age. This could have been an excellent debate if Stef had a worthy opponent.
Victorprossartcom 3 years ago
Come on, Stef, you left not a crumb of the poor kid! :-)
(Worthy conversation though)
RuddODragonFear 3 years ago
At first, I listened to this debate to get an education, to learn something, but now I watch it for a laugh. (NOT at Stef's side tho).
Victorprossartcom 3 years ago
LOL tits !!
ramonefatzo 3 years ago
I know it's almost impossible not to get emotionally involved, but come on people! Socratic method, goal is not to win but to establish the truth. Here I am talking to commenters mostly.
Jacko86plus5 3 years ago
Hey Qtron, I give you credit for opening yourself up for debate and learning but you were not following stefbot's logic. I'm not even that smart and I can easily follow him.
Loveseekingmissile 3 years ago
Come on, people, it's not a competition, it's about advancing.
robzrob 3 years ago 2
qtronman, you lost the debate. Deal with it. Re-think the issue and correct your contradictions. Sure, love the Rand, but love the truth more. ;]
Victorprossartcom 3 years ago
too painful to watch the dude on the left grope through his ideas. He looks like a child next to stefbot. I would have much rather listened to an extended lecture on sane thinking by stebot, than watch the other dude try and debate him. I could only handle about 11 minutes of this before I lost patience with the interruptions and talking over the top of stefbot. It was a very undisciplined form of debate. Maybe it gets better, but I'll never know!
77GSlinger 3 years ago
I'm not very educated on the whole anarcho-capitalism movement, but I do see the need for government.
If we lived in a world where everyone played by the same rules, government would not be needed. But the sad truth is, people will break rules, and should be punished for it.
TombaFanatic 3 years ago
I totally understand where you're coming from, but the fact that people break the rules is the exact reason why we cannot have a government... For more on this, you might want to check out my short free audio book 'Practical Anarchy,' available on my website... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
I have to say, self-defense is maybe your weakest point. Granted if the whole world was libertarian and enlightened then there may be no need for a standing army for the purpose of national defense. But even if we manage to create the kind of system you're advocating here in the U.S. for example, China isn't going to cease to be a dictatorship anytime soon is it? How will DROs defend themselves against MIGs and tanks and subs and naval artillery? sorry I just don't see it
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100 Who is to say this must all happen in the U.S. first? Let's suppose it did. If China is still a serious threat, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO (or multiple DROs) from stockpiling weapons and armies to defend people if people voluntarily choose that. Even if none of that were true, are you saying we should all pursue violence because other people will always be violent? What is the alternative?
passerby26 7 months ago
lol stefbot said, "a time traveling penguin".
seriously though, great stuff.
visvasa144 3 years ago
Sorry qtronman but you were really running around in circles and dodging questions here...
Stefan definitely won this debate.
citnaj 3 years ago 2
I'm at 9 minutes and I can't stand that guy on the left he's boooooring.
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
"I'm at 9 minutes and I can't stand that guy on the left he's boooooring."
It's not about ~ME~; it's about the IDEAS we're discussing. But what would a fool raised on MTV know about evaluating ideas? (This is why YouTube is not really the place for philosophy.)
qtronman 3 years ago 3
Wow, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree, I was raised on everything but MTV. I understood perfectly that you had problems debating at Stefan's level. I don't want to be mean, but I like my ideas to be challenged, not my attention span.
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
"... debating at Stefan's level ..."
The problem is that you have no evidence to prove to me that you are capable of judging what a philosophical "level" is, let alone determining what level Stefan is at. He clearly doesn't understand Objectivist epistemology in depth, which is why he wanted to jump to GOVERNMENT.
qtronman 3 years ago
Well, I know I'm only giving my impressions here, not judging your belief or method. To me if you're defending a violent monopoly, you must be wrong somewhere.
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
"To me if you're defending a violent monopoly, you must be wrong somewhere...."
This is pure stupidity and ignorance. You're waste of time and fresh air.
qtronman 3 years ago
Well then, good luck nailing Stef on that one.
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
"Well then, good luck nailing Stef on that one."
Nailing? I'll let him nail himself with his own vacuous positions. People like you need a shaman to cling to; it gives you a false sense of mental security.
qtronman 3 years ago
You call me "boring" -- why, because I need to explain deeper concepts? Yeah, thinking is "boring" if you don't do it.
qtronman 3 years ago
Ok then "I am bored" is that better?
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
"I don't want to be mean, ..."
Trust me, you don't hurt my feelings in the way you think you do; the only thing I really feel for your ilk of person is contempt and dismissal.
qtronman 3 years ago
this guy is not a very good representation of objectivism. sigh. wish this was an actual coherent debate. i agree the "objectivist" goes off topic way too much.
davidngo4415 3 years ago
"... good representation of objectivism"
Explain to me how and why my representation of Objectivism is incorrect. Make a video response; I'd be glad to evaluate it accordingly.
qtronman 3 years ago
I know that you are used to a higher degree of philosophical detail, but I would like to ask you, do you think that the theories of what are today 'great philosophers' that were, are given more credit than they deserve? Because I feel that people derive their own theories from theories, that weren't even meant to digress into different segments of philosophical detail?
lalee33 3 years ago
qtronman, one question. Was Stefbot able to convince you that no single entity should have the monopoly of power or not?
tetraedronico 3 years ago 2
biiiiiirds!
jvittetoe 3 years ago
what the hell is this guy on the left talking about? his thoughts seem so disorganized, and doesn't seem to be actively participating in an conversation, as two people should be doing in a debate. this guy needs to stay on track in a debate and stop running away with tangents, only to have the guy on the right anchor him back.
teejay1618 3 years ago
how many other people would like to have a coffee with stefan and shake his hand?
GraphicalRabbit 3 years ago 14
Could one of you lovely anarchist's explain to me the aspect of an anarchist national defense?
I am down with the domestic non aggression principle, no taxes and whatnot, but I dunno, I think an anarchist country would quickly become part of another country within about a week.
Always open to new info and ideas tho. Always love having my beliefs tested.
Enjoyed the vid. More debates please :)
RPFS2008 3 years ago
Check out Stef's website or videos etc, he and the FDR/anarchist/voluntarist crowd cover this in great detail, it's a very common question but it's hard to elaborate in this tiny comment box! Take it easy.
lukeev 3 years ago
Hey man, check out the book "Practical Anarchy" on stefbots page. Its free to download and read, and its got the mutual defence thingy covered. Now if you agree with the explanation presented there or not, thats your choice.
PeterTheEvilBastard 3 years ago
this debate is too much of a mismatch, it is painful to watch. He is using another person's philosophy to make his point rather than using his own philosophy, that is why he is going in circles.
VgolddiggerV 3 years ago
Stephan's explainations was clearer
IWWXno 3 years ago
Stef won. Once he said "Because he's a police officer" it was over.
Crustanarchy 3 years ago
a couple of things. many of our most eminent philosophers would disagree with many of your points. there is no need to do philosophy such that you establish your positions as commonsensical or evident. this idea of the 'given' has been very much contested in many fields of philosophy by some of our best. i guess my issue is with qtronman's unnecessary piling of examples which avoid dealing with the discussion directly. this, on my view, is bad philosophy -- no offense.
aaronhemeon 3 years ago
Wow, he's avoiding answering the questions at every single turn...sad day.
jeaton89 3 years ago
If Ken Ham ever debated Richard Dawkins over the belief of Young Earth Creationism, the outcome would probably look something like this.
sagginsrbad 3 years ago
This video made me so tense watching both you for some reason.
overmind25 3 years ago
haha, the objectivist just kept dancing around the question..."I have to be careful with the words" yah, because you couldn't admit that the state is coercive in obtaining taxation...lmao, charity funded police force...anyone see the problem with this? HAHA
Zealouz1 3 years ago
Right, laugh at him. I'm sure that'll show him how wrong he is.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
I think only one thing you said in that debate was not true...."I really enjoyed this debate" :) I think I just developed heart palpitations and I wasn't even part of it. ;-)
errorspending 3 years ago
It is...I just don't understand the block that people have...I was a hard-headed minarchist, but immediately after listening to your arguments I understood the blatant contradictions in my ideas......how do people not see this? You don't even need this whole debate...all you need is the taxation argument for everything!
Once they agree that taxation is coercive the argument is over. Without funding government can't exist, and if it's voluntarily funded then it's not government it is a corporat
errorspending 3 years ago 2
This is kind of painful to watch....it's the same crap I go through with every non-anarchist...evasion evasion evasion......
errorspending 3 years ago
it is good to know that you are not alone, no? :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Philosophers have been wrong? Yes and we can be to. keep open mind, do not make dogmas in all subjects. A Smart person in our days(views) its a person who can define what its wrong and right.
Which its completely wrong, nobody know what its wrong and right.
We can only use our rational, logic in function of our Moral. I believe that the Human being as a Universal Moral. Universally people like things as Peace, love, prosperity, abundance, happiness, harmony, between others.
AzoreanProud 3 years ago
"If social institutions will not make people good, how do you get Robocop?"
The answer: Philosophy. Individual choice. Intellectual honesty. Integrity between thought and action.
He's right, there never has been an instance of a fully restrained, fully good government anywhere in history.
The reason: until Ayn Rand, there had never been a fully rational, fully consistent philosophical defense of individual rights.
Not even amongst the Founding Fathers.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
"The reason: until Ayn Rand, there had never been a fully rational, fully consistent philosophical defense of individual rights."
No she was not fully rational. Her justification for ethics is an appeal to hedonism/pleasure and in defense of individual rights...she allows policemen to use coercion against competitors. That doesn't sound very consistent if you ask me.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
yes, man's life (and the happiness that makes it worth living) is the justification of (and reason for having) ethics.
what else is there? God?
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
"yes, man's life (and the happiness that makes it worth living) is the justification of (and reason for having) ethics.
what else is there? God?"
Just because the ability to value requires one being alive doesn't means ethics should be derived from man's life. You can't get an ought by just referring to some fact from reality. Stefbot's UPB skips right past the whole "what you ought to do" thing and goes straight to testing the validity of moral theories.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
stefbot has hijacked the capitalist argument against regulations. it states that it wouldnt be in a business' interest to initiate force, and thus the mere threat of retaliation is sufficient to prevent the small percent which initiates it anyways
he says it wouldnt be in a DROs interest to wield force irrationally. true, but irrationality can always exist. where is the threat which would deter it? why would the rational DRO necessarily be larger?
Don't say preemption. thats government
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
"but irrationality can always exist. where is the threat which would deter it? why would the rational DRO necessarily be larger?"
1)Because the less laws you make the lower the price
2)I don't even understand how this is an arguement for government. If everyone is subject to the risk of evil than so is government. You objectivists continually use all sorts of double standards. Why would you want to nationalize the risk of evil?
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
and a lower price for something is necessarily indicative of a superior product, because...?
if the only laws my DRO enforced were "no doughnuts on sundays" and "red stocking on every other tuesday" my rights aren't protected.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
I'm referring to coercive laws of course. If a DRO didn't make "laws" against coercion I wouldn't subscribe myself to one. Consumers aren't stupid you know.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Someone needs to read something other than just Rand.
hagbard72 3 years ago 2
I think stef was a bit rude by interupting over and over but qtron failed to deliver good arguments and was just mostly giving wishful statements which doesnt really address the question.
I like the format of the video, but the speakers should get equal microphone settings, get like 30seconds each without interrupts when they request it.
heltok 3 years ago
He wasn't debating the topic. I failed to challenge him on the basis of individual rights, thanks much to him saying "we can just assume that..." No, you can't assume that. I'm not going to be as polite in any future debate, if such ever happens.
qtronman 3 years ago
An honest nation or corporation will want transparency in their own and other's dealings dealings. A corrupt nation or corporation will want to hide their dealings.
good4usoul 3 years ago
I think I am willing to play with the idea as long as transparency is a major part of the standardization. But if you have the bank controlling its own police force, and it sells food, housing, health-care, internet access, phone and mail, and makes its own prison, and all its workings are hidden from the public, I think we have a problem, which is probably the way you currently see the menace of government. Government won't disappear in a free market--it will just go to someone stronger.
good4usoul 3 years ago
Stef means that if you can't ensure the distinction of government ALWAYS having the trait of virtuousness, versus the citizenry ALWAYS having the state of only part-virtuousness, then there is no distinction and the govt is indistinct from the citizenry and should not be perceived as different, as a cop is viewed as different, with different and more expanded rights than we the populace have.
hughtub 3 years ago
"OK, but my point was that people do not automatically agree on political and legal issues."
Of course. That's why I said "you cannot have anarchism if people don't accept anarchism" this is equally true for the free market.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
If society applies the NAP than you have a free market. Saying that we need a government because your definition of a free market requires a government is circular reasoning.
Rand definined what a free market was...and then thought we needed a government in order to have one. She didn't include government in the definition of a free market and apply circular reasoning on why we need a government.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
I don't agree with the non-aggression principle as you see it; I support Islamic Sharia law. What "market force" am I going to subscribe to? Certainly not one that is compatible with your way of life.
qtronman 3 years ago
Stefbot allready has a podcast explaining how anarchism deals with that exact scenario.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
"Stefbot allready has a podcast explaining how anarchism deals with that exact scenario."
And I'm sure it's full of unjustified and fantastic assumptions and a series of deductions based thereon. Look, we have "competing defensive agencies" today; it's called the United Nations.
qtronman 3 years ago
Fallacy. Your assuming everyone today believes in anarchism...but they don't.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
But believing in anarchism, as brainpolice2 and others have indicated, does not imply that you believe in one type of system of jurisprudence, one view of justice, so it ensures nothing in terms of human conflict.
qtronman 3 years ago
In fact, anarchist brainpolice2 stresses the "pluralistic" nature of anarchism; to me, he is openly advocating conflict as a primary premise.
qtronman 3 years ago
To say I support pluralism means what? If we apply it to the religious realm, it means, I don't just want Christians; I want Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Sikhs, Baha'is, Jains, etc. "Pluralism" is a description of a result; it is not a primary value.
qtronman 3 years ago
Yes, and pluralism is the result of the more primary value of individual liberty.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
"Yes, and pluralism is the result of the more primary value of individual liberty."
But you have to define the context. Pluralism in what instances?
qtronman 3 years ago
qtron, have you watched this?
/watch?v=L79hwTed2EM "Qtronman's Police"
I thought it was great, but at the very least it's worth a watch.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Actually I'm advocating pluralism in the sense of conflict resolution and peaceful co-existance! You've got it backwards.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 2
"the free market will make sure that DROs do not become gvt"
Only if a substantial number people don't want governments. Clearly if the huge majority of people want governments, there will be governments. We have all of recorded history to prove that.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
"Clearly if the huge majority of people want governments, there will be governments. We have all of recorded history to prove that."
The history of government is ~not~ the history of people wanting governments; there was no choice for most of recorded history.
qtronman 3 years ago
"The history of government is ~not~ the history of people wanting governments; there was no choice for most of recorded history."
I agree there was no direct choice, but if that many people were truly opposed to governments, they easily could've overthrown them.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
"Under the model of a DRO there would basically be one rule no violence (that's the only rule)... "
And who is going to enforce that rule, if not a government?
qtronman 3 years ago
"And who is going to enforce that rule, if not a government?"
The free market. Initiating violence is not a profitable business proposition when victims defend themselves.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
"The free market. Initiating violence is not a profitable business proposition when victims defend themselves."
There is no free market until after force has been excluded. Profitability is ~not~ a sufficient precondition to ensure this. This approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.
qtronman 3 years ago
"And who is going to enforce that rule, if not a government?"
That's special pleading. Why is the government not subject to the risk of becoming corrupt. If it doesn't follow the NAP then what are you gonna do huh? Again, do you want to nationalize the risk of evil or do you want to privatize it?
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
"That's special pleading."
The entire political and legal framework required for a free-market to operate is not some simple application of a floating general idea called "the non-initiation of force" principle. That is so naive that it's hardly worth discussing.
qtronman 3 years ago
"Why is the government not subject to the risk of becoming corrupt."
Am I to assume that everyone in the society knows what "force" means in any given situation or dispute? What about Muslims? Socialists? PLO-member-types? What of people who think it's "force" to make a profit?
qtronman 3 years ago
Stefbot never advocated bringing about anarchism through force. If people the Middle East don't believe in democracy you canot have democracy. You cannot have anarchism if no one wants anarchism. No duh Qtron.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
OK, but my point was that people do not automatically agree on political and legal issues.
qtronman 3 years ago
Once a capitalist economy has been established, it does not follow that rational selfishness will become automatic, and "the market" will act to resolve whatever short-lived disputes still arise.
qtronman 3 years ago
"... if a crime is committed then monetary reparations for crimes would be given and if that couldn't be fulfilled then the DRO would have contracts with the services you use to stop them from providing until you pay either money or labour."
Sort of like the U.N. works? You know, where the Western governments "sanction" governments in Iran or North Korea with financial incentives and de-incentives (carrots and sticks)? This is a fantastic ~assumption~!
qtronman 3 years ago
"power corrupts....power corrupts...power corrupts...."
So a guy working for a "DRO" acting as a private gun-carrying, power-seeking, private officer is exempt from the idea that power corrupts?
qtronman 3 years ago
"... I believe that Stef won that part of the debate all you were left with was pragmatic problems left with discussing society without gvt ..."
In what sense did he "win" that? We disagreed; I offered some reasons for my position, and he ended saying he wasn't fully sure if his position is right. I don't follow you.
qtronman 3 years ago
Mr Molyneux, I have not viewed any of your videos before this one, but I feel that I need to make an observation for you to hopefully aid your debate techniques. The biggest flaw I saw in this video is a habit of yours. The habit of making a declarative statement, and then moving on to another topic. This is not how you make points in a debate. To me nothing makes a red flag go up quicker. I think it discredits you. Please note this is not meant as an insult.
rexer19858 3 years ago
It is meant as a constructive criticism.
rexer19858 3 years ago
I simply don't understand why Stefen talked over Ryan this entire debate. It seemmed as a standard that he interrupted when he wanted to and went on for a minute, but would not let Ryan stop him to make or clarify a point.
rexer19858 3 years ago
"It seemmed as a standard that he interrupted when he wanted to and went on for a minute"
Oh yeah, he tends to do that.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Seems like both parties agree about the importance of transparency in dealings. If everybody knows everybody else's business, crime is very difficult. But if people can hide their crimes then it makes crime pretty easy. But how would you enforce transparency in your dealings?
It seems like stef wants to just right the wrong--returning property to its rightful owner, then mark the person somehow as a thief.
But how would private individuals deal with rape or murder?
good4usoul 3 years ago
"But how would private individuals deal with rape or murder?"
If it isn't immoral for one organization to deal with rape and murder in a certain way, it isn't immoral for any organization/individual to do the same.
The truth is, you can always find new questions about how a different system would ideally work, and there are answers.
But first you should probably ask yourself: How is a monopoly better?
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
25 minutes into it stefbot had the Objectivist dancing around searching for a foothold. I think Coke and Pepsi should duke it out in the thunderdome. Pepsi will win because they are all jacked up on Mountain Dew. Why does the statist assume that the 'government' ('independent system') is run by freedom loving saints?
InfoGuerilla 3 years ago
The reason people cannot make up their own police forces is because police have to go by procedure. We can't have multiple police squads acting according to different laws.
It's to protect the rights of the citizen from lynch mobs. It's pretty basic, and the fact that ANarchists don't understand it is a testimony to their extremely bad epistemological judgments and value assessment.
RyanPig 3 years ago
And so your theory is that citizens are protected by 50% taxation, endless coercive regulation, jails for nonviolent 'crimes' and war? Almost 300,000,000 people were murdered by governments in the 20th century alone, not including wars. I think the world can survive a look at possible alternatives to this endless slaughter.
stefbot 3 years ago
You won't see me defending coercive taxation, Stef. I think it's a shame that we live in such a system, and I think after a lot of peaceful reform we can end a government that forces it's citizens to pay for it.
Rand supported voluntary contributions to the government. She just thought that a single objective source ought to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. I don't think this violates the non-aggression principle. I think it defends it, and an anarchic society violates by it's existence
RyanPig 3 years ago
"She just thought that a single objective source ought to have a monopoly on retaliatory force. I don't think this violates the non-aggression principle."
If you propose that this monopoly should be attained by aggressing against those who wish to also provide the service of preventing violations of the NAP, then yes, it does.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
We have quite a bit of voluntary contributions to the government. Is it not paid back in subsidies? Stefan's argument that "If things were transparent" could apply just as well to government as it is today as to this free-market-anarchy-utopia. If "following the money" were an option available to anybody curious... then the line between government and non-government would be a lot fainter.
good4usoul 3 years ago
"Is it not paid back in subsidies?"
You mean when the government takes everyone's billions of dollars in taxes, and then a politician gives a $50 million subsidy to a particular private group in exchange for a $3 million bribe, and they agree that this particular private group will offer it's product/service with an added discount of $15 million, thus destroying the non-subsidized producer/provider, that's "paying it back"?
I don't mean to be rude, but I strongly disagree.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
If the news were required to send out a statement of all government spending, do you think there might be some improvement of the situation? Right now, both the $3 million dollar bribe and the $50 million subsidy are done behind closed doors. The news does not report it, because they say such info is worthless on the free market, and it takes tons of research to even find out about it. Better to report on police chases which will sell lots of commercials.
good4usoul 3 years ago
"If the news were required to send out a statement of all government spending, do you think there might be some improvement of the situation?"
Doubt it. There's just not much people can do about it even if they understood that they're robbing their money, which most of them don't. Just look at the trillion dollar bailout, which most people didn't agree with. So? The government does it anyway.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Actually, no, we don't understand much of anything. I don't think you do either. Frankly the only report I've heard that made the least bit of sense was on "This American Life" and that was brought by a non-profit. I neither agreed or disagreed with the bailout, because there is not enough transparency to make an informed decision. You think you have enough information to decide they have done evil. Then show me that information and convince me.
good4usoul 3 years ago
"You think you have enough information to decide they have done evil."
Of course they have. Taxation is evil. Forcing people to use your currency (which, by the by, is fake) is evil. Borrowing money and forcing others to pay for it is evil. I'm not sure which part you don't understand about this.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Taxation is not evil. Taxation without representation is evil. Agreeing to the use of a currency is not evil. The use of a common fund to do good is not evil. The problem is not that the government is taxing, but that the government is consistently ignoring the will of the people in determining what to do with that money. You have told me everything that is evil but you have not named anything which is good. You have condemned everything and left nothing to seek as "goodness."
good4usoul 3 years ago
/watch?v=-HFZXstMiPY&feature=PlayList&p=C1647D7F937DDE7A&index=15
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
"The news does not report it, because they say such info is worthless on the free market"
If such info is irrelevant to most people, I'm not sure why you think you would accomplish anything good by shoving it down their throats.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
The information is relevant, it is just monetarily worthless.
It is worthless on the free market because the people who pay to put commercials on the news do not want the information reported unless it paints their corporation in a positive light. It is valuable to the public, but worthless in generating revenue, unless most of the revenue is generated by donation or mandate instead of by commercial air-time.
good4usoul 3 years ago
"It is valuable to the public, but worthless in generating revenue"
You don't get it. Of course commercial air time is what mainly pays for media, but other than that, the media puts on whatever info people want. If people wanted truth in the media, a network that put truth on the air would have many more viewers, and thus could charge much more for it's commercial air-time.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
"If "following the money" were an option available to anybody curious... then the line between government and non-government would be a lot fainter."
I'm not sure what you mean. Governments take half or more of everyone's income at the point of a gun. Organizations that are not directly linked to the government cannot achieve this.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Of course you are right; you agree with 1 Samuel 8:11-18
I can agree that government is not the perfect solution for what ails society, but criticizing flaws is not the same as offering a solution.
No one is holding a gun at my head. I am in fact collecting EIC most years, because working as a part-time college math instructor just doesn't pay much. You think my status would improve if there were no laws? Maybe I am the waste of your money you are talking about.
good4usoul 3 years ago
youre right it doesnt make it valid but it obviously exists so lets move on
thielenm 3 years ago