One word to piss all over this STUNNING stupidity, ready? 'SCANDANAVIA' Its like a cross to an effin vampire. Watch the INSANE libertarians scurry back under their ignorant stones.. Want another 3 worder? 'The Spirit Level' Another? Reagan liberated and 30 years on FUCKED UP EVERYTHING! Another? 'FINITE PLANET' Oh, go on one more: 'THE SINGULARITY' These effin loons need straight jackets NOT an effin soap boxes... THEIR IDEOLOGY IS BANKRUPTED! Trite characterizations of reality...
@StunnedByStupidity BTW you libertarians are more than welcome to move to Somalia and test your ideas out. A governmentless anarchy. But I would get a return ticket and a HUGE jug of cream to have with your humble pie on the return journey.
The gilded age (free market and what these scum want to FORCE us all back to) was SO bad that it gave birth to the 'progressive era' any of you want to take a run at that MASSIVE refutation of your greedy, ignorant, scumbag ideology?
@StunnedByStupidity And WHERE DID THE MIDDLE CLASS COME FROM? They are ramming their ideology down our fucking throats and low and behold they are also killing the middle class. Just a coincidence of course.
BTW you are all for opening the boarders I take it so that Chinese (who are paid around 1/10th) and Indians (paid around 1/50th your wages) can compete for your jobs? Oh but interfering in the markets is fine when it's to your advantages eh? Lets have poisoned food and air as well eh?
btw, I love your whole non-initiation of force Anarchic premise for societal systems or lack thereof, and I also agree that Libertarians "seizing" power would be a bad timing thing, putting into office and the minds of those who will say, "I told you so!" on liberty based States, which may be an oxymoronic tale, but I digress. To say that Ron Paul's Christianity is not consistent with Libertarian values is missing the point of being Libertarian or what Ron Paul speaks on all the time. Freedom
"It's really hard to invade a country that has no government..." This is nice a rhetorical "workaround" but simply isn't true. Throughout the history of colonialism, "nations" without governments were invaded and subjugated. First Nations people know ALL about this and many indigenous cultures. What you do is use violence. It's the sad truth. An organized "entrepreneurial" army won't cut. Especially if a "competing state" pays them more. It isn't hard... it just needs a little imagination.
I think the non-aggression principle is much like communism. While in theory it might work. The truth is that there are no working models (though I honestly think it isn't a large problem) but more importantly.... The gargantuan effort it will take to get societies to accept it. There is aggression everywhere! In nature, in humanity, everywhere. Everything is in some sort of conflict. Whether physical or otherwise.Also one cannot be "free" and "equal" you're either "free" OR "equal"
@JaysThoughts She was a minarchist. Like Mises and Hayek. I suppose the idea is that the government has three (and only three) functions: to protect us from foreign bad guys (raise an army), to protect us from domestic bad guys (raise a police force), and to tell us who the bad guys are (the judicial system).
I see the crisis of the childhood day school situation as being like a farm that raises boiler chickens.. they crowd them in, they have a space to food ratio.. same thing with how the schools are "producing". There has to be something better than a Production to cost ratio for the short term rather than that of a long term and the idea of functionally illiterate also means that about 80% of people can't even cook or use a kitchen or bake a cake, the curse of the "post-industrial" society.
can I rub your brain like the "Blarney Stone"?... UPB style...roflmao.. no this is what I call a "communally acceptable mutual contact/contract of mutual benefit!" . ..why do some keep saying the there is force in what Stefan says?..
I love Stefan but I think he is incorrect when he blames the institution of government schools for causing reduced literacy rates. From a media ecological perspective, it has everything to do from moving from a print-based culture into a technologically-focused one. In Neil Postman's words: moving from the Age of Exposition to the Age of Show Business.
About "government schools causing reduced literacy rates"
Here's what Einstein had to say:
"One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year."
Let me comment that you know enter in the domain of opinion. We both agree that they were both factors, but to determine which one had the most impact is hard to prove.
If you want to start a dialectic, I would like us to define our terms first. What is "print-based culture" to you?
Let me recommend this one: "Pour une nouvelle narration du monde" by Riccardo Petrella I'm sure you can find an English Edition (But I don't know the title). Although I can speak Mandarin fluently, I can't read it. But with French, English and Spanish, it allows me to read a whole lot from different cultural point of view.
My conclusion as well as most intellectual's I have great respect for (including Stef) are a perfect fit.
Actually, evolution is not the final word when it comes to the explaining of how we came to be, there is such a thing as self-determination. Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that when & where evolution takes place it's not by accident, & it's not by act of God either, there is in fact a 3rd & blatantly obvious dimension to this argument: WE EVOLVE ON PURPOSE. We know babies in the womb adapt to their environment before they are even born. Evolution is adaptation prior to conception.
About the link between the environment and criminality: I'm sorry Stefan, but Fresco has been talking about it since the 70's; so yes, it's you that agrees with them.
Besides, how are you going to prevent criminality in your “free society”, when you have a few "haves" get all the luxuries of life –because they can afford it-, while most "have-nots" are forced to work for them? Don't you think the "have-nots" would simply get pissed off at some point, and desire what they can't afford?
Wait a second... But Stephan, you don't believe "all men are created equal". You believe that those with a large inheritance have the right to exploit those that inherited nothing for the rest of their lives, and to enforce their "compulsory attendance" at the work place. I mean, you don't even believe everyone should have the same right to something as basic as healthcare or education; don't you?
Just asking, because I don't think either Chomsky or Kropotkin would share you concept of "equal"
I enjoy some of the metaphors (state as mafia, Don Corleone's basement, state as marriage arranger - who will people marry if people are free to marry?)
The health care system in the Netherlands actually makes an interesting case study, because through propaganda the govt made the people believe it's privatized nowadays (which it isn't) and the cost have gone up ever since, and waiting lists never disappeared (people actually go to Belgium for urgent surgery). Stefan, if you're interested send me a message and I'll tell you more about it.
by the way Stephan I enjoy your work but if man is the result of a very slow evolution where is the evidence of the so call precursor to man (Cro-Magnon man )or whatever the last "prehistoric man" name is where from this caracter is the evidence of that very slow evolution...we have no in between prehistoric and actual man ... but if man is the result of such slow evolution there should be planty of evidences... if you get my point
You see the same rulers try to manage science as well
@PATLARNAK212 I hear about new discoveries of skeletal remains now, and then. They are normally found in ice which works differently than soil because it flows. Soil has built up over the years so the evidence is out there it's just buried deep, and since we don't know the actual history of Pre-Humans how are we supposed to know where they were located to start the massive digs that would be needed to locate them in the soil? It's not as if you are going to trip over the missing link.
I'm not completely satisfied with the answer about why countries get invaded. It's not always just to take over the tax apparatus. It could be to rape and pillage the locals, or to take their resources. Germany invaded other countries primarily for expansion purposes and natural resources and the other governments simply had to be taken out so the people could not as easily resist.
I don't believe in government but we need a better answer to the question of how to defend a stateless society.
@flaunttnualf1 Tax apparatus = resources. If, for example, you take over an oil field in some country. You need workers to extract the oil, you need workers to refine it, you need workers to transport it. If you invade with the goal of taking over infrastructure you'll just cause everyone to run away, leaving you with an extremely expensive lesson. You can only benefit if there is a government you can replace with your own.
@cynicist Not sure I get what you're saying. Even if there were no infrastructure to remove the oil the infrastructure could and would be built by a power hungry for oil. Witness what the U.S. military has done on behalf of corporate interests in foreign countries that are ripe for resource exploitation. All I'm saying is that to say a stateless society would not be invaded because there's nothing to takeover is something I'd never bring up in a discussion because it's frankly silly.
@flaunttnualf1 Let me be more clear. Drilling and refining oil is already an expensive endeavor, invading a country on top of that is ludicrous. So what makes more sense, to purchase your resources from companies who take on that burden themselves, or to spend money not only invading but maintaining an army, workforce, equipment and to do so in an entirely different country, shipping those resources back? The very idea of invading a country for oil when there is no govt is what is silly.
Anarchy is not a radical view. The notion that government will fix your problems is the radical view. The notion that immoral men or women will not desire political office to attain power is insane
@kroovyandcal I think the notion that no government solving problems is a little naive. Don't ge tme wrong, I am not a fan of the state. However, people want power. People use violence to acquire it. Any belief that this can be undone just isn't realistic. Twenty thousands years of human history... there has been violence throughout all of it. Let me rephrase your point. "The notion that immoral men and women will never desire power is insane." No system is safe so long as the options exist.
The basic problem with people is that the educational system has stunted their imaginations. Since they were young enough to have independent thoughts, perceptions and opinions have been shoved down their throats. When the government controls the educational system, guess what historical narrative becomes "common knowledge". It's only after people extricate themselves from this groupthink are they able to question anything.
i liked the bit - about being a "language we teach our children", and the analogy that a child would never grow up speaking fluient mandarin if they had never heard it.
@bulldogger Uhh no anarchy isn't anti-capitalism. Stefan critcises state sponsored capitalism and state democracy all the time. Capitalism is fine if it's a true capitalism, where everything is negotiated peacefully and voluntarily. The same goes with democracy.
He's saying people are free to choose between getting into communes where they share everything or people pay for everything through a voluntary monetary system. All is good as long as it's peaceful.
@erelpc Capitalism isn't peaceful though, that's the problem. And even if you abolished the state, a similar structure would eventually rear it's head. Hierarchies sharpen, power concentrates. These are axioms, and a flaw in Capitalism. It's one of the main criticism of Anarchism and has been from it's early years. Even the early individualist Anarchists were anti-Capitalists. I'd rather live in a Mutualist society than a Statist society, my issue is with the historical whitewashing/revisionism.
@bulldogger I'm just trying to point out the fact that you and Stefan aren't really in disagreement when it comes down to the fundamentals, but there's a misunderstanding.
At the end of the day, everything comes down to the non-aggression principle. People should be free to share, barter, exchange, debate, etc. do anything they like as long as they don't initiate any kind of force such as using threat, physical force or environmental damage, fraud, or deception.
@erelpc I believe traditional anarchists hold the view that aquiring large amount of private property (including means of production) and withholding it from people who might need it, is intiating force.
Bulldogger is right that these early anarchist were against capitalism, and therefore I do not like to call myself an anarchist. Maybe voluntarism also doesn't cover it completely, but at least that's a different term. Unfortunately it is hard to find a dutch equivalent for it. :-)
@bulldogger Even Neom Chomsky said he agrees with Adam Smith's/Jefferson's basic idea (ignoring the hypocrisy of government initiating force for a second), that real voluntaryism compared to today's idea of hierarchical capitalism where only the few benefit, are 2 very different things. He even agreed that real voluntaryism would lead to more equality.
Hi there stefbot. I was wondering if you have already come across the theories of the "(unconditional) basic revenue" (my own translation)? Seems to be getting more and more popular here in Europe (at least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria)
@CurtHowland Agreed, but that doesn't change the fat that a private company is a not much better substitute for a government. That's in no way, shape or form an argument for taking away weapons of mass destruction from one group of wealthy and powerful people to another group of wealthy and powerful people that would now have complete control over their 'assets'.
@CurtHowland I don't realize? I don't know where you got that impression. Did I at any point argue that the government should have nuclear weapons? No, I didn't.
And what does cost have to do with anything? I'm saying that it's dangerous to give such technology to private owners and you are talking about who will bear the cost of it? What are you talking about?
@S0chan "And what does cost have to do with anything?"
Exactly. You don't realize that the costs involved are prohibitive. Like experimenting by pointing guns to one's head and pulling the trigger, it's self limiting.
So no private grenades? No private cars? What else will you prohibit?
@CurtHowland Experimenting? Do you rally think that's what I fear?
What I fear is selling to the highest bidder, I don't mind people owning a handgun or even a machinegun for 'protection', but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous.
A private company that owns both the weapons and the technology to make them will go after the profit it can make from their product. If you can buy their services to protect yourself so can anyone else but for a different purpose.
@S0chan "but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous."
That's what every tyrant says. Just different excuses for prohibiting others from having what they don't like.
I don't disagree with you that they are dangerous, but cars have killed many times the number of people that nuclear weapons, and accidents, have. Shall we ban cars?
How about fatty foods? Or carbohydrates? Let's ban anything that can hurt anyone.
@CurtHowland I'm sorry but reductio ad absurdum is not a very good argument, ever.
And I'm not talking about prohibition, for one because prohibition never works. All I said was that giving nuclear weapons to private companies to do as the please and achieve profit through them is a very, very bad idea. Nothing beyond that is included. I don't know the answer to protection from outside threats without a government, I just don't see Stefan's argument in that particular example as a good one.
@S0chan I think the non-aggression principle is a great argument. It's contradictory to be opposed to the initiation of violence (outside threats) while at the same time being in favour of the initiation of violence (government).
@Gu3rr1lla Truth be told I don't get that argument at all.
If I live in a free society, an anarchist society I am also free to reject the non-aggression principle aren't I? So I can, if I have the money, go buy myself a nice nuclear weapon or even something less dangerous like a helicopter with a mounted machine gun and start shooting at people.
"I am also free to reject the non-aggression principle aren't I?"
Yes, of course, in an anarchist society you are free to reject the non-aggression principle, but of course once you start shooting at people you'll have to deal with the consequences (including the likelihood that you will be shot and killed yourself).
The same is true in a statist society, if you start shooting you'll have to deal with the consequences.
@CurtHowland You don't have to build it, you can buy decomissioned ones from some government for example.
And how does cost included in purchasing weapons or technology and building them is stipping such an entrepreneur stop them from selling such weapon to whoever pays the price?
@CurtHowland Well, I don't really care how that company would get nuclear weapons, whether by buying them or constructing them, both would be quite expensive I assume. What I want to know is what would stop them from selling such weapons to whoever could pay the price?
@S0chan Because that company of people is going to nuke their own country, thus killing themselves in the process or at least making large portions of said country unusable, probably terminally poisoning themselves and also making themselves a clear enemy of a country of 100's of millions of people overnight Or, because that company is going nuke another and inevitably get nuked back, thus creating basically the same situation I described in the previous sentence. Do you think, at all?
@S0chan Not to mention, what is the difference from this imaginary "company" having nukes to the situation as it is now? In either case it's just a group of people who've command over nuclear weaponry. DERRR
Does anyone know what definition of "force" the presenter is using when he says that the application of it is immoral? I cannot follow anything that comes from that premise without actually understanding what he means by "force".
@anonymouse27 The force that he refers to as immoral would be the initiation of force through violence, theft or fraud. Not to be confused with self defence or retaliatory force of course. I hope that helps.
@anonymouse27 For example, no one can change a contract they have entered into with you, without your consent. You can refuse the change to the contract, and the contract is void.
But govt makes those changes all the time, and holds YOU responsible for those changes.
Why does not believing in the THEORY of evolution make RP irrational? If you feel like that's the main reason for disliking Ron Paul, then to me it seems like that's something personal you have against him.
I've grown sick of the whole "Creationism vs. Evolution" argument. It's almost as if it was designed to divide people into groups and the perfect ad hominem for atheists (BTW, I'm not an atheist or christian - REALLY!) Neither side can prove that they're 100% right; neither side wins.
@nirosive evolution has more evidence than gravity. it says alot about someone if they ignore facts for a fundamentalist world view. I know many christans that find creationist laughable. its not science vs religon its facts vs idiocy.
@Jessusslapper What was the full title of that one book? Oh yeah! "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
@nirosive are you going to provide counter evidence to refute my last post or are you going to make farfeched ad hominem attacks. and while were on the habit of assuming can I assume you lied about not being a christan since your behavior is unsual for an agnostic?
@nirosive Rob Paul is irrational because he rejects the core of biology to better suit his feelings about Christianity. 100% proof is an irrational request and can never be acquired. But one should still believe that which has the most evidence. When it comes to evolution, there are massive amounts of evidence, and no one has been able to disprove the theory. Evolution, biology and science wins, because they are supported by evidence.
this was a brilliant convo. i am someone who needs the road map cos i do have the same questions that mr Brit asked. a do so want to be an anarchist, it is appealing but there are several problems.. namely, the nukes thing, i think thats wishful thinking, the rad fem thing is way off imo, it doesnt matter who stays home to do the raising, as you prove yourself, and medicare works just fine in the UK with the NHS and that surely requires taxes?
@VonLeachim yes. well, waaay better than what they have in the US, sure the NHS has a lot of problems but it is working, and in theory it could and has worked better.
@SkidRowRadio US's healthcare system is a half socialist, half corporatized beast that only benefits politicians and politically connected special interests.
You can't defend something by comparing it to something shittier. That's like a slave owner saying "Well at least I don't rape my slaves like that guy does" Really not what I'd call a good selling point.
@SkidRowRadio So 4000 people a year dying on waiting lists is okay in your book? Personally, I think you might want to set the bar a little higher than that, especially in matters such as healthcare.
@SkidRowRadio You know what would prove your position? Show me a chart demonstrating that before the British government took over healthcare that prices were abnorally high and the cost has gone down since they socialized it. Show me that and I will bow down to you and admit my idiocy.
But no, you guys NEVER do that. You just hop right back onto that piss weak "At least it's better than the US" nonsense even though NOBODY you are debating with is supporting US's healthcare making it 100% moot
@lordthawkeye but im not here sayin its perfect! its you guys who are demanding "works compared to what? good compared to what?" i simply said it works, and this is due to trhe existence of taxes. i am interested to find an alternative, but i do believe a people should have 'free' healthcare. as in yea, socialised.
@SkidRowRadio We're not demanding perfection. "It works" is a relative statement. Without something to compare it to, it's meaningless. Rubbing two sticks together to make a fire "works" but that doesn't mean you should do it.
Socialized healthcare is not free. That is a bold faced lie and you know it.
@SkidRowRadio You did, putting quotations around it changes nothing.
And if you think a politician is more qualified to run your healthcare than you, fine and dandy. Send him a cheque. The problem is the fact that you demand others be forced to send them a cheque too regardless of their personal wishes. If you think this moral, then you really need to re-examine your sense of boundaries.
@lordthawkeye OMFG!!!! this WHOLE CONVO ive been talkin about how taxes make the NHS possible.. so HOW THE FUCK am i sayin its free?!
i simply stated that it has worked, due to taxes, this is fuckin objective fact. we can bicker over the effectiveness of it but the fact remains it would not be possible with taxes. please give me an alternative if you're so fuckin clever. jeez
@lordthawkeye Quotations are a common way to highlight a misconception or double meaning. If someone told me health care can be free, I could respond by saying: "Sure, healthcare can be "free"..." which is to say that it isn't.
The way he uses it is confusing because he's pointing out the flaw in his preferred system, yet still preferring it without irony.
@SkidRowRadio Regarding the roadmap, I can't imagine the basic ethical principles being better described than they are here. Hope it helps. watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Wow - a light has been switched on in my head! Thanks for putting out this very interesting information. Many thanks!
Chrissthepiss 8 months ago 2
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity BTW you libertarians are more than welcome to move to Somalia and test your ideas out. A governmentless anarchy. But I would get a return ticket and a HUGE jug of cream to have with your humble pie on the return journey.
The gilded age (free market and what these scum want to FORCE us all back to) was SO bad that it gave birth to the 'progressive era' any of you want to take a run at that MASSIVE refutation of your greedy, ignorant, scumbag ideology?
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And WHERE DID THE MIDDLE CLASS COME FROM? They are ramming their ideology down our fucking throats and low and behold they are also killing the middle class. Just a coincidence of course.
BTW you are all for opening the boarders I take it so that Chinese (who are paid around 1/10th) and Indians (paid around 1/50th your wages) can compete for your jobs? Oh but interfering in the markets is fine when it's to your advantages eh? Lets have poisoned food and air as well eh?
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity What?
jeffsandychelsea 1 day ago
@jeffsandychelsea Reality a little hard to grasp? Dont worry if it was easy you would reject libertarianism...
StunnedByStupidity 1 day ago
If you need a law to be free then you are not free. Laws are restrictions on the freedom you already have.
zazack79 9 months ago
Evolution is a theory.
giovanhagar 9 months ago
btw, I love your whole non-initiation of force Anarchic premise for societal systems or lack thereof, and I also agree that Libertarians "seizing" power would be a bad timing thing, putting into office and the minds of those who will say, "I told you so!" on liberty based States, which may be an oxymoronic tale, but I digress. To say that Ron Paul's Christianity is not consistent with Libertarian values is missing the point of being Libertarian or what Ron Paul speaks on all the time. Freedom
bdmenne 9 months ago
w w w . infowars . com
Salihovicable 9 months ago 3
evolution is a religion too...and far from proven !
else one of your best interviews as an introduction for beginners!!
infokriegerBerlin 9 months ago
@infokriegerBerlin Evolution is neither a religion nor far from proven
LTBL88 9 months ago
@LTBL88
there are many holes in the theory...in fact no theory i know is 100% convincing
btw i am not a christian or anything like that ;)
infokriegerBerlin 9 months ago
@infokriegerBerlin so it's just a coincidence that gorillas and humans have more than 96% identical dnA?
Sivels 9 months ago
@Sivels
as i said: there are many logical and scientific holes in the theory...it just a theory...wich many people defending it, like a religion.
if you follow the facts with logic and reason, its clear to see.
infokriegerBerlin 9 months ago
really cool man, you articulate what i feel everyday. Kudos.
eateer 9 months ago
Awesome! Bitcoin @ 40:17
kihjin 9 months ago
"It's really hard to invade a country that has no government..." This is nice a rhetorical "workaround" but simply isn't true. Throughout the history of colonialism, "nations" without governments were invaded and subjugated. First Nations people know ALL about this and many indigenous cultures. What you do is use violence. It's the sad truth. An organized "entrepreneurial" army won't cut. Especially if a "competing state" pays them more. It isn't hard... it just needs a little imagination.
ShinEmperor 9 months ago
@ShinEmperor They did not have ICBM's we do!
giovanhagar 9 months ago
I think the non-aggression principle is much like communism. While in theory it might work. The truth is that there are no working models (though I honestly think it isn't a large problem) but more importantly.... The gargantuan effort it will take to get societies to accept it. There is aggression everywhere! In nature, in humanity, everywhere. Everything is in some sort of conflict. Whether physical or otherwise.Also one cannot be "free" and "equal" you're either "free" OR "equal"
ShinEmperor 9 months ago
LOL, yes, it was absolutely driving me nuts trying to figure out what the hell kind of accent you have, Stefan. Now it all makes sense.
PublishingCult 9 months ago
Ayn Rand offered a rejection of anarchy?
That is like the pope denouncing religion. Boy....
JaysThoughts 9 months ago
Comment removed
totustuus11 9 months ago
@JaysThoughts She was a minarchist. Like Mises and Hayek. I suppose the idea is that the government has three (and only three) functions: to protect us from foreign bad guys (raise an army), to protect us from domestic bad guys (raise a police force), and to tell us who the bad guys are (the judicial system).
totustuus11 9 months ago
I see the crisis of the childhood day school situation as being like a farm that raises boiler chickens.. they crowd them in, they have a space to food ratio.. same thing with how the schools are "producing". There has to be something better than a Production to cost ratio for the short term rather than that of a long term and the idea of functionally illiterate also means that about 80% of people can't even cook or use a kitchen or bake a cake, the curse of the "post-industrial" society.
AlterEgoTrip 9 months ago
I never call myself an anarchist, I always call myself an anti-statist - solves a lot of possible misinterpretations!
cincofone 9 months ago
Moral of the story: both government and religion are both immoral.
vspqbd 9 months ago
can I rub your brain like the "Blarney Stone"?... UPB style...roflmao.. no this is what I call a "communally acceptable mutual contact/contract of mutual benefit!" . ..why do some keep saying the there is force in what Stefan says?..
MsJustanotherhuman 9 months ago
I love Stefan but I think he is incorrect when he blames the institution of government schools for causing reduced literacy rates. From a media ecological perspective, it has everything to do from moving from a print-based culture into a technologically-focused one. In Neil Postman's words: moving from the Age of Exposition to the Age of Show Business.
tranquil87 9 months ago
@tranquil87
About "government schools causing reduced literacy rates"
Here's what Einstein had to say:
"One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year."
I blame the education system too!
Peace 2 all,
ThePlot911 9 months ago
@ThePlot911 I'm quite sure it hasn't helped, and might have been a big factor, but not as big as moving away from a print-based culture.
tranquil87 9 months ago
@tranquil87
Let me comment that you know enter in the domain of opinion. We both agree that they were both factors, but to determine which one had the most impact is hard to prove.
If you want to start a dialectic, I would like us to define our terms first. What is "print-based culture" to you?
Peace, freedom and solidarity,
ThePlot911 9 months ago
@ThePlot911 I would suggest you search for "Technology and Society by Neil Postman" on YouTube. You will greatly enjoy.
tranquil87 9 months ago
@tranquil87
Thanks for the recommendation.
Let me recommend this one: "Pour une nouvelle narration du monde" by Riccardo Petrella I'm sure you can find an English Edition (But I don't know the title). Although I can speak Mandarin fluently, I can't read it. But with French, English and Spanish, it allows me to read a whole lot from different cultural point of view.
My conclusion as well as most intellectual's I have great respect for (including Stef) are a perfect fit.
Peace 2 u and yourz,
ThePlot911 9 months ago
Actually, evolution is not the final word when it comes to the explaining of how we came to be, there is such a thing as self-determination. Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that when & where evolution takes place it's not by accident, & it's not by act of God either, there is in fact a 3rd & blatantly obvious dimension to this argument: WE EVOLVE ON PURPOSE. We know babies in the womb adapt to their environment before they are even born. Evolution is adaptation prior to conception.
Galv140577 9 months ago
About the link between the environment and criminality: I'm sorry Stefan, but Fresco has been talking about it since the 70's; so yes, it's you that agrees with them.
Besides, how are you going to prevent criminality in your “free society”, when you have a few "haves" get all the luxuries of life –because they can afford it-, while most "have-nots" are forced to work for them? Don't you think the "have-nots" would simply get pissed off at some point, and desire what they can't afford?
flyermay 9 months ago in playlist day
Comment removed
flyermay 9 months ago in playlist day
Yay bitcoin mention.
sharperguy 9 months ago
Wait a second... But Stephan, you don't believe "all men are created equal". You believe that those with a large inheritance have the right to exploit those that inherited nothing for the rest of their lives, and to enforce their "compulsory attendance" at the work place. I mean, you don't even believe everyone should have the same right to something as basic as healthcare or education; don't you?
Just asking, because I don't think either Chomsky or Kropotkin would share you concept of "equal"
flyermay 9 months ago in playlist day
I enjoy some of the metaphors (state as mafia, Don Corleone's basement, state as marriage arranger - who will people marry if people are free to marry?)
qtutoringhelps 9 months ago
keeps freezing at 20:24 stef looking like bruce lee.
INEXORABLE247 9 months ago
keeps freezing at 20:24 stef looking like bruce lee
INEXORABLE247 9 months ago
Fucking knew you were Irish! haha! You are the man Stef
garrethdavis 9 months ago
nuclear weapons can not be used in self defense without violating the NAP. You can not hit an invading government without hitting their tax slaves.
modelmark 9 months ago
SKrY209.tk
deadindisguise 9 months ago
I am gonna share this just cause it's long, relatively, for utub videos.
aghoranathi 9 months ago
Drop the name "anarchy" and call it Peaceful Economics.
AnonOrange 9 months ago
@AnonOrange lol, well when people ask you what "Peaceful Economics" means , you'll have to say anarchy:D
GtheMVP 9 months ago
evolution is a bias
DrReaper 9 months ago
The health care system in the Netherlands actually makes an interesting case study, because through propaganda the govt made the people believe it's privatized nowadays (which it isn't) and the cost have gone up ever since, and waiting lists never disappeared (people actually go to Belgium for urgent surgery). Stefan, if you're interested send me a message and I'll tell you more about it.
dextr79 9 months ago
What does he say at 5:42 "... has been a right foot ??????? since day one"?
psilocyberspaceman 9 months ago
@psilocyberspaceman
"has been a right fertile ground for anarchy since day one"
TheArjan1982 9 months ago
@TheArjan1982 You have an amazing hearing or are really good at lip reading. Thank you.
psilocyberspaceman 9 months ago
If he was going for famous anarchists, I'm surprised he passed over Henry David Thoreau.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 9 months ago
Awesome!
meberic 9 months ago
Comment removed
trashflax 9 months ago
Comment removed
trashflax 9 months ago
by the way Stephan I enjoy your work but if man is the result of a very slow evolution where is the evidence of the so call precursor to man (Cro-Magnon man )or whatever the last "prehistoric man" name is where from this caracter is the evidence of that very slow evolution...we have no in between prehistoric and actual man ... but if man is the result of such slow evolution there should be planty of evidences... if you get my point
You see the same rulers try to manage science as well
PATLARNAK212 9 months ago
@PATLARNAK212 I hear about new discoveries of skeletal remains now, and then. They are normally found in ice which works differently than soil because it flows. Soil has built up over the years so the evidence is out there it's just buried deep, and since we don't know the actual history of Pre-Humans how are we supposed to know where they were located to start the massive digs that would be needed to locate them in the soil? It's not as if you are going to trip over the missing link.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
I'm not completely satisfied with the answer about why countries get invaded. It's not always just to take over the tax apparatus. It could be to rape and pillage the locals, or to take their resources. Germany invaded other countries primarily for expansion purposes and natural resources and the other governments simply had to be taken out so the people could not as easily resist.
I don't believe in government but we need a better answer to the question of how to defend a stateless society.
flaunttnualf1 9 months ago
@flaunttnualf1 Tax apparatus = resources. If, for example, you take over an oil field in some country. You need workers to extract the oil, you need workers to refine it, you need workers to transport it. If you invade with the goal of taking over infrastructure you'll just cause everyone to run away, leaving you with an extremely expensive lesson. You can only benefit if there is a government you can replace with your own.
cynicist 9 months ago
@cynicist Not sure I get what you're saying. Even if there were no infrastructure to remove the oil the infrastructure could and would be built by a power hungry for oil. Witness what the U.S. military has done on behalf of corporate interests in foreign countries that are ripe for resource exploitation. All I'm saying is that to say a stateless society would not be invaded because there's nothing to takeover is something I'd never bring up in a discussion because it's frankly silly.
flaunttnualf1 9 months ago
@flaunttnualf1 Let me be more clear. Drilling and refining oil is already an expensive endeavor, invading a country on top of that is ludicrous. So what makes more sense, to purchase your resources from companies who take on that burden themselves, or to spend money not only invading but maintaining an army, workforce, equipment and to do so in an entirely different country, shipping those resources back? The very idea of invading a country for oil when there is no govt is what is silly.
cynicist 1 month ago
One of your best videos yet. It covers lots of ground with great examples.
nocoercion 9 months ago
thank you Stefan :)
HairyCookieMunster 9 months ago
thanks Stefan, great interview
TheArjan1982 9 months ago
You're a libertarian not an anarchist, very Irish.
kensho123456 9 months ago
Anarchy is not a radical view. The notion that government will fix your problems is the radical view. The notion that immoral men or women will not desire political office to attain power is insane
kroovyandcal 9 months ago 61
@kroovyandcal I love the statement you made! Keep the knowledge flowing man!
rockoutmichigan 9 months ago
@rockoutmichigan Thanks
kroovyandcal 9 months ago
@kroovyandcal I think the notion that no government solving problems is a little naive. Don't ge tme wrong, I am not a fan of the state. However, people want power. People use violence to acquire it. Any belief that this can be undone just isn't realistic. Twenty thousands years of human history... there has been violence throughout all of it. Let me rephrase your point. "The notion that immoral men and women will never desire power is insane." No system is safe so long as the options exist.
ShinEmperor 8 months ago
@ShinEmperor The option will always "exist" I suppose. It need not be codified
kroovyandcal 8 months ago
The basic problem with people is that the educational system has stunted their imaginations. Since they were young enough to have independent thoughts, perceptions and opinions have been shoved down their throats. When the government controls the educational system, guess what historical narrative becomes "common knowledge". It's only after people extricate themselves from this groupthink are they able to question anything.
pretorious700 9 months ago
great interview!
Travinyle1 9 months ago
alarmingly true stuff. Why are so many blind to this stuff?
mannyvelo 9 months ago
Excellent questions - thought provoking answers.
bunkermunk 9 months ago
i liked the bit - about being a "language we teach our children", and the analogy that a child would never grow up speaking fluient mandarin if they had never heard it.
weeearthlings 9 months ago
Brilliant interview. Cheers.
zarquon51 9 months ago
Comment removed
erelpc 9 months ago
tis great the word is spreading....The initiation of force is immoral !!
erbeeflower 9 months ago
Stef is wasting his time with left-anarchists, they can't be converted
njedinjedi 9 months ago
I don't like the idea of defensive nukes.
What I like is Jim Bell's thesis, "Assassination Politics".
Any authoritarian attacker would find themselves the target of lots of profit-seeking assassins.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
Stefbot is a Capitalist, not an Anarchist. There's a difference.
bulldogger 9 months ago
@bulldogger Uhh no anarchy isn't anti-capitalism. Stefan critcises state sponsored capitalism and state democracy all the time. Capitalism is fine if it's a true capitalism, where everything is negotiated peacefully and voluntarily. The same goes with democracy.
erelpc 9 months ago
@erelpc That might be true in your narrow, self-serving, ahistorical, ideologically dogmatic world view.
bulldogger 9 months ago
@bulldogger That which I'm not, so it's ok :)
He's saying people are free to choose between getting into communes where they share everything or people pay for everything through a voluntary monetary system. All is good as long as it's peaceful.
erelpc 9 months ago
@erelpc Capitalism isn't peaceful though, that's the problem. And even if you abolished the state, a similar structure would eventually rear it's head. Hierarchies sharpen, power concentrates. These are axioms, and a flaw in Capitalism. It's one of the main criticism of Anarchism and has been from it's early years. Even the early individualist Anarchists were anti-Capitalists. I'd rather live in a Mutualist society than a Statist society, my issue is with the historical whitewashing/revisionism.
bulldogger 9 months ago
@bulldogger So how would you prevent individuals from sharing their house or bicycle or whatever, with whoever they want?
erelpc 9 months ago
@erelpc I reject the premise of your question.
bulldogger 9 months ago
@bulldogger I'm just trying to point out the fact that you and Stefan aren't really in disagreement when it comes down to the fundamentals, but there's a misunderstanding.
At the end of the day, everything comes down to the non-aggression principle. People should be free to share, barter, exchange, debate, etc. do anything they like as long as they don't initiate any kind of force such as using threat, physical force or environmental damage, fraud, or deception.
erelpc 9 months ago
@erelpc I believe traditional anarchists hold the view that aquiring large amount of private property (including means of production) and withholding it from people who might need it, is intiating force.
Bulldogger is right that these early anarchist were against capitalism, and therefore I do not like to call myself an anarchist. Maybe voluntarism also doesn't cover it completely, but at least that's a different term. Unfortunately it is hard to find a dutch equivalent for it. :-)
janc71 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bulldogger Even Neom Chomsky said he agrees with Adam Smith's/Jefferson's basic idea (ignoring the hypocrisy of government initiating force for a second), that real voluntaryism compared to today's idea of hierarchical capitalism where only the few benefit, are 2 very different things. He even agreed that real voluntaryism would lead to more equality.
erelpc 9 months ago
Hi there stefbot. I was wondering if you have already come across the theories of the "(unconditional) basic revenue" (my own translation)? Seems to be getting more and more popular here in Europe (at least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria)
betolimoun 9 months ago
It is possible to personally dislike abortion, and still not want any law against it.
Prohibition does not work. None of them.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
Giving nukes to some company?
There is just no way for that to go wrong isn't there? It's all good and safe.
Oh wait...
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan As if giving nukes to governments has been such a great idea.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland Agreed, but that doesn't change the fat that a private company is a not much better substitute for a government. That's in no way, shape or form an argument for taking away weapons of mass destruction from one group of wealthy and powerful people to another group of wealthy and powerful people that would now have complete control over their 'assets'.
Fucking ridiculous.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan You're not realizing that such people would have to fund themselves. That's the big difference.
A govt externalizes costs. No private individual or group can do that.
So your objection does not match reality.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland I don't realize? I don't know where you got that impression. Did I at any point argue that the government should have nuclear weapons? No, I didn't.
And what does cost have to do with anything? I'm saying that it's dangerous to give such technology to private owners and you are talking about who will bear the cost of it? What are you talking about?
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan "And what does cost have to do with anything?"
Exactly. You don't realize that the costs involved are prohibitive. Like experimenting by pointing guns to one's head and pulling the trigger, it's self limiting.
So no private grenades? No private cars? What else will you prohibit?
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland Experimenting? Do you rally think that's what I fear?
What I fear is selling to the highest bidder, I don't mind people owning a handgun or even a machinegun for 'protection', but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous.
A private company that owns both the weapons and the technology to make them will go after the profit it can make from their product. If you can buy their services to protect yourself so can anyone else but for a different purpose.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan "but nuclear weapons are just too dangerous."
That's what every tyrant says. Just different excuses for prohibiting others from having what they don't like.
I don't disagree with you that they are dangerous, but cars have killed many times the number of people that nuclear weapons, and accidents, have. Shall we ban cars?
How about fatty foods? Or carbohydrates? Let's ban anything that can hurt anyone.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland I'm sorry but reductio ad absurdum is not a very good argument, ever.
And I'm not talking about prohibition, for one because prohibition never works. All I said was that giving nuclear weapons to private companies to do as the please and achieve profit through them is a very, very bad idea. Nothing beyond that is included. I don't know the answer to protection from outside threats without a government, I just don't see Stefan's argument in that particular example as a good one.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan I think the non-aggression principle is a great argument. It's contradictory to be opposed to the initiation of violence (outside threats) while at the same time being in favour of the initiation of violence (government).
Gu3rr1lla 9 months ago 15
@Gu3rr1lla Truth be told I don't get that argument at all.
If I live in a free society, an anarchist society I am also free to reject the non-aggression principle aren't I? So I can, if I have the money, go buy myself a nice nuclear weapon or even something less dangerous like a helicopter with a mounted machine gun and start shooting at people.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan You're wrong.
Nothing stops you from being destructive under authority, or anarchy. So why aren't you killing your neighbors right now?
What stops you?
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@S0chan
"I am also free to reject the non-aggression principle aren't I?"
Yes, of course, in an anarchist society you are free to reject the non-aggression principle, but of course once you start shooting at people you'll have to deal with the consequences (including the likelihood that you will be shot and killed yourself).
The same is true in a statist society, if you start shooting you'll have to deal with the consequences.
MRSstraightA 9 months ago
@S0chan "giving nuclear weapons to private companies"
There you go again. "giving"? Who is "giving"?
Examine your assumptions. In order to get a nuclear weapon, one must first build it, and that is extraordinarily expensive. Yes, cost does matter.
Next, profit how? Extortion? "Give me money or I'll blow this up"?
Extortion is the threat of force, and a prosecutable act. How many lawsuits will they lose before someone just kills the weapon-owner in self defense?
Try not assuming.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland You don't have to build it, you can buy decomissioned ones from some government for example.
And how does cost included in purchasing weapons or technology and building them is stipping such an entrepreneur stop them from selling such weapon to whoever pays the price?
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan You say "giving", now you back away from "giving" to "buying", after govts have already built them.
Let's look at reality. Nothing stops exactly what you fear now. Nothing.
So, nothing you say is any argument against individual liberty.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland I may have chosen my word poorly in that instant, but why are you assuming I'm arguing "against individual liberty"?
You seem to assume quite a lot of things about me out of one comment about one argument I found poor.
S0chan 9 months ago
@S0chan I am answering your specific argument, no assumption at all.
If you didn't mean "give", then fine. Your argument still fails.
Or, try again please. What exactly do you mean?
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland Well, I don't really care how that company would get nuclear weapons, whether by buying them or constructing them, both would be quite expensive I assume. What I want to know is what would stop them from selling such weapons to whoever could pay the price?
S0chan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@S0chan "What I want to know is what would stop them from selling such weapons to whoever could pay the price?"
Nothing. Just like nothing stops such things now.
What's the problem? What is your objection to anarchy, that people would be able to do exactly what they can do now?
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@S0chan Because that company of people is going to nuke their own country, thus killing themselves in the process or at least making large portions of said country unusable, probably terminally poisoning themselves and also making themselves a clear enemy of a country of 100's of millions of people overnight Or, because that company is going nuke another and inevitably get nuked back, thus creating basically the same situation I described in the previous sentence. Do you think, at all?
regresseur 9 months ago
@S0chan Not to mention, what is the difference from this imaginary "company" having nukes to the situation as it is now? In either case it's just a group of people who've command over nuclear weaponry. DERRR
regresseur 9 months ago
@regresseur Thank you for making my point for me, it's exactly the same, that's why I think it's a bad idea.
S0chan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You suck! You're terrible! I can't believe you!
greg66662000 9 months ago
I tuned out at 21.55 where he could answer the how to defend a territory from an organized attacking force ?
kcirdrab 9 months ago
@kcirdrab Suggest the youtube "roderick long an informal talk on anarchism"
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@CurtHowland Appreciated
kcirdrab 9 months ago
@kcirdrab Should read 'couldn't'
kcirdrab 9 months ago
Does anyone know what definition of "force" the presenter is using when he says that the application of it is immoral? I cannot follow anything that comes from that premise without actually understanding what he means by "force".
anonymouse27 9 months ago
Comment removed
jaminunit 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anonymouse27 force to me is the use of violence to solve a problem.
jaminunit 9 months ago
@anonymouse27 The force that he refers to as immoral would be the initiation of force through violence, theft or fraud. Not to be confused with self defence or retaliatory force of course. I hope that helps.
xelenty 9 months ago
@anonymouse27 The initiation of force is coercion.
Defensive force is not the initiation, it is only in response to aggression.
Maybe "aggression" would be a simpler word to use.
Someone can be aggressive without initiating force, though.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@anonymouse27 For example, no one can change a contract they have entered into with you, without your consent. You can refuse the change to the contract, and the contract is void.
But govt makes those changes all the time, and holds YOU responsible for those changes.
That is the initiation of force.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
I love it that Stefan paces back and forth while he is talking for an hour. I do that too. :-)
MrDorkusMaximus 9 months ago 16
Why does not believing in the THEORY of evolution make RP irrational? If you feel like that's the main reason for disliking Ron Paul, then to me it seems like that's something personal you have against him.
I've grown sick of the whole "Creationism vs. Evolution" argument. It's almost as if it was designed to divide people into groups and the perfect ad hominem for atheists (BTW, I'm not an atheist or christian - REALLY!) Neither side can prove that they're 100% right; neither side wins.
nirosive 9 months ago
@nirosive evolution has more evidence than gravity. it says alot about someone if they ignore facts for a fundamentalist world view. I know many christans that find creationist laughable. its not science vs religon its facts vs idiocy.
Jessusslapper 9 months ago
@Jessusslapper What was the full title of that one book? Oh yeah! "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Can I assume you agree with eugenics as well?
nirosive 9 months ago
@nirosive Are you joking? Origin of Species is a descriptive book and a descriptive theory, telling us what happens in nature, not what we should do.
waksibra 9 months ago
@waksibra the people who nay-say natural selection believe what they are told.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
@nirosive are you going to provide counter evidence to refute my last post or are you going to make farfeched ad hominem attacks. and while were on the habit of assuming can I assume you lied about not being a christan since your behavior is unsual for an agnostic?
Jessusslapper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jessusslapper If you are implying that I don't fit the mold, then you would be right.
If there is no God, prove it.
If there is a God, can you prove it?
If evolution is real, prove it.
If intelligent design is real, then prove it.
But guess what? You can't. At least not beyond a reasonable doubt. It all comes down to what YOU BELIEVE IN. And that is the definition of faith.
Why has science become another religion?
nirosive 9 months ago
@nirosive Rob Paul is irrational because he rejects the core of biology to better suit his feelings about Christianity. 100% proof is an irrational request and can never be acquired. But one should still believe that which has the most evidence. When it comes to evolution, there are massive amounts of evidence, and no one has been able to disprove the theory. Evolution, biology and science wins, because they are supported by evidence.
waksibra 9 months ago
@waksibra @CurtHowland You both sound a bit like the religious folk. Keepin the faith!
nirosive 9 months ago
@nirosive Spare me the ad hominems please.
waksibra 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@waksibra But how else will I convince you that you should not put your all of your faith into science?
nirosive 9 months ago
Stef goes into a job interview in 5 years.
"So Mr. Molyneux, what has been your primary focus over the past 10 years of your life".
"Well, I've yelled at people about peaceful solutions to social problems over the internet for the past 10 years?"
drew335533 9 months ago 2
I agree. R. Paul says he is a Libertarian but then opposes the right to abortion.
Adipatus 9 months ago
@Adipatus Indeed, it is the one position he takes I cannot agree with.
However, finding any other politician on which I disagree in only one way is impossible.
CurtHowland 9 months ago
Cheers Stef, great video.
frostyuk2007 9 months ago 2
You should call it "Naturalism" merely recognizing the natural law and balance that exists absent of government.
labartic 9 months ago
this was a brilliant convo. i am someone who needs the road map cos i do have the same questions that mr Brit asked. a do so want to be an anarchist, it is appealing but there are several problems.. namely, the nukes thing, i think thats wishful thinking, the rad fem thing is way off imo, it doesnt matter who stays home to do the raising, as you prove yourself, and medicare works just fine in the UK with the NHS and that surely requires taxes?
but yea, great talk.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio "medicare works just fine in the UK with the NHS"
really ?!
VonLeachim 9 months ago 3
@VonLeachim yes. well, waaay better than what they have in the US, sure the NHS has a lot of problems but it is working, and in theory it could and has worked better.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio "medicare works just fine in the UK with the NHS"
Works fine compared to what?
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye compared to the US for one.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio US's healthcare system is a half socialist, half corporatized beast that only benefits politicians and politically connected special interests.
You can't defend something by comparing it to something shittier. That's like a slave owner saying "Well at least I don't rape my slaves like that guy does" Really not what I'd call a good selling point.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye you're the one that asked compared to what. i never said it was perfect, just that it works ok and that is because of taxes.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio So 4000 people a year dying on waiting lists is okay in your book? Personally, I think you might want to set the bar a little higher than that, especially in matters such as healthcare.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye oh ffs if you're gonna come out with ridic strawmans then whats the point?
"oh so its ok if people DIE is it?!?!"
grow up
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio You know what would prove your position? Show me a chart demonstrating that before the British government took over healthcare that prices were abnorally high and the cost has gone down since they socialized it. Show me that and I will bow down to you and admit my idiocy.
But no, you guys NEVER do that. You just hop right back onto that piss weak "At least it's better than the US" nonsense even though NOBODY you are debating with is supporting US's healthcare making it 100% moot
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye but im not here sayin its perfect! its you guys who are demanding "works compared to what? good compared to what?" i simply said it works, and this is due to trhe existence of taxes. i am interested to find an alternative, but i do believe a people should have 'free' healthcare. as in yea, socialised.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio We're not demanding perfection. "It works" is a relative statement. Without something to compare it to, it's meaningless. Rubbing two sticks together to make a fire "works" but that doesn't mean you should do it.
Socialized healthcare is not free. That is a bold faced lie and you know it.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye why do u think i put free in quotation marks? why do u think i keep sayin it is down to taxes? no i havnt said its free.
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio You did, putting quotations around it changes nothing.
And if you think a politician is more qualified to run your healthcare than you, fine and dandy. Send him a cheque. The problem is the fact that you demand others be forced to send them a cheque too regardless of their personal wishes. If you think this moral, then you really need to re-examine your sense of boundaries.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye OMFG!!!! this WHOLE CONVO ive been talkin about how taxes make the NHS possible.. so HOW THE FUCK am i sayin its free?!
i simply stated that it has worked, due to taxes, this is fuckin objective fact. we can bicker over the effectiveness of it but the fact remains it would not be possible with taxes. please give me an alternative if you're so fuckin clever. jeez
SkidRowRadio 9 months ago
@lordthawkeye Quotations are a common way to highlight a misconception or double meaning. If someone told me health care can be free, I could respond by saying: "Sure, healthcare can be "free"..." which is to say that it isn't.
The way he uses it is confusing because he's pointing out the flaw in his preferred system, yet still preferring it without irony.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 9 months ago
@MaxStirner4Lyfe The way he's using them, it looks more like he thinks quotation marks are a magic anti-scrutiny barrier.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
@SkidRowRadio Regarding the roadmap, I can't imagine the basic ethical principles being better described than they are here. Hope it helps. watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
fuckoverload 9 months ago
This is the most rational mode of...well non government...or self government, that there is.
labartic 9 months ago
@labartic Thus the difference between government, the institution of coercion, and governANCE, the exercise of control.
We all use governance over our lives, we each control our own lives.
That doesn't require an institution.
CurtHowland 9 months ago