Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux Talks to A College Class

[MirageScience]

look at me trying to be hip

xD

[candburd]

I find it extremely annoying when people just say we can leave a country, these people have no idea how difficult it is to just move. It is a seriously pricey thing to do, so if youre really cash strapped theres no chance, and there are so many barriers and loops you have to get through, so for example if youre uneducated or dont have a partner of the country you want to move to, moving is near impossible, and even if you do have those things like i do, its still immensely hard.

[guessone]

yes but it can be done

[Hashishin13]

@candburd All of that is irrelevant, the "just leave" arguement can be countered by a simple:

"fine, but I'm leaving with my property, how about that?".

A statist knows immediately that a government always tries to dominate as much territory as possible and thus none would ever dream of allowing secesion. 

[chrisdonahue]

good video, even though I get the feeling this isn't really a conversation with stef and a classroom. Seeing how stef is the kind of person who writes reviews for his own books.

[THAWK3]

What college?

Who is the professor?

[atrickpay11]

What college was this?

[djboony]

a foreign power could always just establish a tax system

[escapethecollapse]

how would they do that if the vast majority of people were opposed to this?

[gosmokesome]

no nukes are cheap to maintain

[FlailingJunk]

State taxation requires the voluntarily compliance of the vast majority of people or the system simply cant sustain itself. Without a population trained in such compliance it would be very hard to achieve.

[TreachMarkets]

@FlailingJunk True, that's the dirty little secret of human management. If all the cattle ran for it at exactly the right time together, when the fence was still open...

[utubehayter]

Would you pay a $10 alive fee to Jaba the Hut? The people in a free society would treat the foreign power exactly the same way as you treated Jaba the Hut, right now!

[djboony]

if you exclude a certain sector of the populace from society because of their undesirable actions is very dangerous dont you think? people with nothing to lose are extremely dangerous.

isnt the initiation of starvation (not allowing "criminals" to buy food) just the same as the initiation of force?

who decides who should be ostracised? wouldnt a state develop?

[FlailingJunk]

If you really want to know he has a free book and audio book covering these issues in detail: Practical Anarchy I would recommend reading Everyday Anarchy first though.

[utubehayter]

Starvation is a bodily process, internal to the body. It is not initiated by anyone but the body of the living being. That is in no way comparable to initiation of force.

[Weezzuul]

i think the ironic thing is that if anarchy is ever achieved, there would be nothing except initiating the use of force that could prevent a state from re-emerging, eh stef?

[gosmokesome]

search youtube for stefs proof of anarchy, it proves anarchy has already been achieved

[Weezzuul]

ok it's been achieved, but did it last? or is there a state where anarchy once was, which would support my view, in the mean time, get off stefs dick

[FlailingJunk]

Do you have an argument? Because that is not self evident at all.

[Weezzuul]

i think it's self evident, do you have any reason to doubt it? if so, what ?

[FlailingJunk]

Its clear from your response to gosmokesome that you did not listen to the video before dismissing it and from your response to me that you are not willing to support your positive claims, so i see no reason to engage you in a discussion.

It is a discussion I would like to have. Feel free to reverse your prior behaviour.

[Weezzuul]

did not listen to which video? i've watched countless stef videos but i've been starting to turn them off when i hear stef saying the same thing over and over. i know his argument, "well i can't plan everything, the free market will sort it out" but i dont see how the free market could stop a group of people in a given geographical area that decided they wanted a government

[FlailingJunk]

The proof of anarchy video.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Then they would fail.

[utubehayter]

A free market doesn't have to stop any people from doing anything. If stef decided everything plausible - that would be stefdom - not anarchy. Maybe your anatgonism is rooted in the fact that you have a very distorted idea what the term 'free market' means.

[Weezzuul]

a free market doesnt have to stop any people from doing anything is correct, what im' trying to say is i dont think anarchy would be sustainable, and the free market, which is the primary force acting in stef's desired society, cannot sustain anarchy. the only thing that could prevent a state from forming is law, reinforced by violence requiring an institution bearing remarkable resemblance to a state

[utubehayter]

Oh! So stefan - who has spent so much time and resources put into this idea - is just mistaken to believe what he does? Maybe you have figured out that why a free society cannot sustain free society. Because after all people don't know what is good for themselves and cannot look after it, pursue and achieve it. Correct?

Rather what you do is advocate for forming a monopoly of violence to prevent possible formation of monopoly of violence. Is that what you are arguing? Do U C?

[Weezzuul]

just because stef put a lot of time in it doesn't mean it's truthful, for obvious reasons,, and no, i dont think most people can really do whats good for themselves, thats why so many people eat mcdonalds. and i do agree with stefs ethical arguemtn against the state 100%, but beyond resources, i see lust for power for the sake of power as a staple human characteristic, stefs hopes of changing the essential mental apparatus of the masses is comparable to new age "awakening" bullshit

[utubehayter]

Well then you should keep following what you want. Stefan or anyone like him are not forcing you to believe in anything against your will.

To understand Stefan's view point you have to think a bit deeply than making judgements about the abilities of people - simply based on where they eat.

Moderation in temper is a virtue - Moderation in principles is a vice. And apparently you are afflicted by this vice of looking down upon other human beings. That's all - now I am off to McD's!

[Weezzuul]

the mcdonalds comment was just one small example used to illustrate the point, not support the entire argument, i eat at mcdonalds all time, even though i nkow i shouldnt, thats the point, and im' not looking down at anybody, i didnt say i didnt belong to the group i was referring to,

[utubehayter]

Stefan never has argued in my knowledge to create a world without consequences, i.e. utopia of any sort. If that is what you think he is arguing then you need to hear him again. All he is saying is that in a free society - even in the worst case - stupid decisions will have limited consequences and the price to be paid for those stupid decisions will be rationally dealt to those responsible.

[Weezzuul]

ok i understand his arguments about criminality.. those are cool, those are fine, i'm strictly speaking about the resurgence of a state

[utubehayter]

So you have a problem with voluntarism because it does not prevent resurgence of a state?

[Weezzuul]

no i dont have a problem with it, all i'm saying is that it CANT prevent the resurgence of a state, thats all iv'e said, going back to my first comment

[utubehayter]

and? That is an issue because.....?

[Weezzuul]

because it makes striving for anarchy a waste of time and energy, stef is entertaining and thought provoking, but i dont think he's being realistic, his argument that governments only grow larger is part of a larger argument that people will govern, and people will be governed in my eyes

[Weezzuul]

but i can understand why stef pursues such things , because it gives meaning to his life, after all, he does need something to fill that gap after rejecting traditional ways of acquiring meaning such as religion, you could say that it is a much more honorable way to find meaning but in the end i think it's pure vanity

[utubehayter]

Hehehe... I see. So you think Stefan is vain and all this is just talk, because he needs it to give meaning to his life, because he has rejected religion and hence his life is meaning less?

Okay! Was it his rejection of religion that bothered you the most? Seems like something about him obviously bothers you. So what is it? Can you tell?

[Weezzuul]

well i think his rejection of religion is fine, i think his "strong atheism" is unfounded, it's impossible to "know" an infinite amount of "nots" that can possibly be the case, this is because there are an infinite number of things that are the case, all of them unknowable, so until stef knows every single thing that is the case can he say that something is not the case with certainty. no, stef's certainty bothers me the most, which in more ways than the one mentioned, can be easily undermined

[utubehayter]

So because stef is certain that religion is a sham that you have a problem with it? Why? On one hand, stef is arguing for voluntary rejection of coercion in all walks of life and when he does that - you say he is feeding his vanity.

On the other, you are arguing against the certainty of one man on one issue, and that isn't "just talk"?

Why is it that one man's certainty about one thing bothers you so much? Would it bother you just as much I am 1000% sure about #1 hotness of Salma Hayek?

[Weezzuul]

no, the vain part is the fact that stef actually thinks he can make a difference, and the fact that he loves to hear his own voice, and the fact that he loves having guys like you thinking he's the shit, his certainty pisses me off because it's disgustingly arrogant, and unfounded in many ways,

[utubehayter]

Actually I have no problems with stef. He is a smart man, very passionate (sometimes a bit over the top), but he is reasoned. If that pisses you off - I am delighted. After all, its my mind, my thoughts and if you got a problem with that - well tough luck!

BTW, he is not the only one that likes to hear his voice.

[Hashishin13]

@Weezzuul Sounds like your just jealous.

[utubehayter]

Do you have any idea why folks like Stefan are arguing for a free society? It seems you don't. It is possible you joined the discussion very late, and may have missed the phase where people discussed why a free society is more desirable. I suggest you go through the older videos, check out the argumentation there.

If one does not want a free society in spite of all the arguments presented and discussed before - then there is nothing Stefan or anyone else can do for you.

[Weezzuul]

you people can't help but continue to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my mind, i would obviously prefer a "free society" , but i dont think ti's realistic, and therefore a waste of time, i've seen hundreds of stefs video so i dont think im' missing much, in the mean time, stop avoiding whats really being discussed, this is about the 4th time in this dialogue that its happened,

[utubehayter]

Its not a matter of preference for people like Stefan or me for that matter. Fine you prefer free society, and I prefer butterscotch - makes no difference whatsoever! On the other hand, there are principled arguments FOR having a free society. Until you understand and then accept/reject those there is no way you will ever understand why Stefan and many more folks advocate for a free society. And that leads to this misunderstanding of what exactly it is that Stef is trying to advocate.

[Weezzuul]

ok, it's becoming clear why you have unwavering faith in stef, you dont seem to be too bright a fella, judging by your inability to pick out from my comments what exactly i'm saying without alteration. i clearly said it's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of strong atheism, and if you recall i said that i agree with the principles, but i dont think they are practical, a parallel example is that of eugenics and population from earlier

[utubehayter]

if your principles are not practical, then there is something wrong with your principles. If you really think there is something impractical about them - then you should not agree with the principles either.

Look - you seem to think that it is a matter of preference whether to be atheist or not. But for Stef it is a matter of reason. Same thing goes for free society. Its is not that we prefer freedom, or like it - it is that for human prosperity and avoiding violence freedom is required

[FlailingJunk]

You believe the state is 100% immoral, but you support it because people are stupid?

We ended chattel slavery. We can end modern slavery.

[Weezzuul]

when did i say i supported the state? being skeptical of the success of anarchy does not equal supporting the state. there are many examples of when my moral judgement doesnt align with what is reasonable, for instance, depopulation, population control, eugenics, i all see as immoral, but rationally speaking, something must be done because at present rates of population growth, in 700 years there will be 1 square meter per person, so thats just another example,

[FlailingJunk]

I just deposited a check in my checking account. At this rate i will have all the currency in the world in a little over a month.

Therefore i am going to support eugenics.

[Weezzuul]

ok, so you've declared that you're at a point where stef hasn't told you what to say, you're the man

[TokDiYel]

It seems a challenge to get across to college students about the reality of taxation - could this be because most of them have not yet entered the workforce and have not been able to experience firsthand the injustice of seeing a big chunk of their earnings driven away in the armored car?

This is one reason I feel it is very important for any college student to have at least some experience in the workforce before learning about economics. They have real-world experience they can reflect upon.

[superhuegi]

I would simply open a shop, that sells to criminals aswell. Thus they would no longer be excluded from society, and I get wealthy......How would you stop that?

[sumadartsan]

"I would simply open a shop, that sells to criminals aswell" What will you do when your suppliers realize you are supporting known criminals and threatens to stop dealing with you?

[superhuegi]

Some people put money over morals. It would be easy to find someone to trade with me if I paid enough for their goods, take poor farmers in third world countries for example. They would'nt care who I trade with, as long as they can feed their families.

[Mathannix]

As long as you realize that people don't do business with criminals because criminals usually end up costing more. If your customers are thieves, you have to spend to lock up your merchandise. If your customers commit armed robbery you have to spend on security guards, bulletproof glass, etc. Catering to criminals could get real expensive real quick. Plus if nobody else trusts them...why should you?

[teejay1618]

I wish you are my college philosophy professor.

[stefbot]

Thanks, but if I were, I doubt I would be able to speak so freely...

[lukeev]

What a fantastic conversation and Q&A! Great questions from the students, and superb answers from the world's greatest philosopher! :)

[MaikUniversum]

from 36:00 very true thoughts

[modelmark]

I'd say there is a problem in using a nuclear weapon defensively. There is no way in avoiding initiating violence to foreign tax slaves, that have not aggressed against you and are not responsible for the actions of their governments.

It would justify Iraqis throwing nuclear weapons on american cities.

I like the argument about there being no objective to an invasion better, although the motive for an invasion could be to get taxs dollars in Haliburton pockets, no tax harvesting required.

[utubehayter]

Yes, I do not like the nuclear weapon defense strategy - although it makes a comfortable "statistics" based defense. But then you do not have to depend on that. Dr. Hans Herman Hoppe has given different ways stateless people can defend themselves - for different types of people, and they can pick and choose the way to resist an invasion.

[utubehayter]

Stef, I liked your point on beef and wheat - it has been a source of constant economic curiousity as to why meat is cheap - BUT don't forget that food stuffs are already artificially inflated in price through govt import control. IF the state is such a well wisher of the people who pay for it - why is it raising food prices in its territories?

[nathanjonessr]

I thought that was Stef's weakest point, I'm sure that the price of all foods are jacked because of gov. intervention. But across the highway where I live, there is about a hundred head of cattle, across what probably amounts to about 40-50 acres (I don't know). they have a couple ponds to water them and the rest is grazing. The owners hay a couple of fields in the area to provide for the winter, but I bet they have very little cost in those cattle, but they sell for a premium.

[utubehayter]

I suggest that you should see what vegetables and meat sells for outside the US. You will be surprised. Meat is very VERY expensive compared to vegetable stuff.

Due to labor laws and cost (factor in immigration laws as well) farmers and land owners in the USA do not and cannot utilize their land for vegetable stuff. If they did - it is a much profitable venture.

[nathanjonessr]

Its just not true that vegetables are more profitable, there is a vast amount of land that is only good for growing grass and weeds, due to rockiness and soil content, etc. but it works fine for cattle grazing, and goats and I even see horses around. Like anything else, there will be places where meat is cheaper and vegetables are higher priced, and there is places where its different. There is also a detrimental effect to develop every field to farmland, grazing is better.

[utubehayter]

Yes, but look at the proportions of land capable of profitably growing vegetable stuff and land that is restricted to grass and weeds - whereever it is that you live. Indeed there are economic forces at work. But you will quickly realize that vegetable foods need not be as expensive (neither should meat), but the ratio of meat to vegetables is distorted through govt interventions.

Try to reconcile the fact that underdeveloped overcrowded (read land shortage) nations export food to the USA.

[stratvic]

A well armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to invasion from other countries.

[immortal117]

Actually no. Small arms really serve no deterrent from invasion. Although it may make an occupation more difficult, it would not factor into the actual invasion.

I havent finished listening to the video, merely responding to your comment. :)

[stratvic]

Small arms are not an effective defence against invasion in the sense that tanks and missiles will win battles. But the point is that why would you want to occupy space where every time you get out of your tank someone may take a pot shot at you?

If you have no tax structure to commandeer - then taking farms, mines, etc. from an uncooperative citizenry requires the occupier to work those mines ... under fire from and armed populace.

[immortal117]

I think your analysis is too small in scope and are assuming a number of conditions to be in place. Not all invasions occur with the intent of occupation for one. 'Uncooperative citizenry' is not a given as there have been many historical scenarios where merely replacing a powerful central government was suitable. There are many variables to consider that will alter the success of an occupation and or resistance. Small arms themselves really offer no resistance, even to an occupation.

[stratvic]

It is that belief that gets the US in trouble in its belief that overwhelming force is sufficient to subjugate a country to its will.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for Russia, and US) all disprove this theory.

Resistance is sufficient to wear down through cost, fatigue, and failure a vastly superior force. Military action is ultimately subservient to economic and political reality.

[immortal117]

Economic and political realities can be taken into account just that advisors were mistaken in a number of their assumptions.A blank statement that small arms is a deterrence to an invasion is simply mistaken. It is not simply about overwhelming force, there are different ways to conduct an occupation of which not all invasions occur with the intent of occupation.I was not necessarily advocating overwhelming force as a means to a successful occupation.The strategy differs depending on variables.

[utubehayter]

Look at what is happening in Somalia. Extensive waste of foreign funds from the UN and African Union can still not force a government control over the Somali people. And they have used all possible dirty tricks you can imagine.

[datalorez]

Boo I'm off to work. I read the article, congrats on getting published on Lew's site.

Will check out this vid later when I have some time.

[lukeev]

Stef's been on L.R for quite some time :)

[enotdetcelfer]

!hi five!~

[fergus247]

go Stefan

[PsyogiBottoms]

You and the concept of "Brief." lol I am totally jazzed they are actually teaching Ayn Rand in college anymore - That they would allow that in a Statist School - what are they thinking!

People might actually learn something - good lord. ++Ungood. lol