It seems to me that the majority of people want someone else to help the poor. Hence the current system where people "help" the poor by robbing the rich and the unborn.
around 20:10 "So we have to assume that in a democracy the vast majority of people are willing to expend time, money, and effort to help the poor (that's how these poverty programs begin). Therefore, we know exactly the same thing is going to occur in a free society, expect...that the vast majority of the activities...will actually be directed towards really, genuinely, completely, and totally helping the poor."
Leap of faith! You really need to substantiate your "therefore" statement.
For example, you could do this by providing statistics on charity that shows that charities substantially step in while the government steps out and the marginalization of the poor in fact decreases.
This would eliminate poverty & since 4 production 2 be at its greatest possible everyone has to work there will be an incentive 4 workers 2 come together and cooperate 2 help unemployed ppl get jobs eliminating unemployment. This doesnt happen w/ capitalism bcause full employment in capitalism goes against the interests of the capitalist class. Without unemployed ppl workers have more bargaining power & capitalist bosses have 2 take cuts in their own personal earnings 2 meet them.
Your laissez-faire capitalist plutocracy that you mislabeled "anarchism" would be a disaster and poverty would explode.
Real anarchism which opposes all coercive hierarchy including capitalist hierarchy would put all production in the hands of those who work it, no more bosses except the workers themselves democratically.
@Tabanese There is a video on YouTube by Kirk Camron and Ray Comfort called "Atheist's Nightmare". They claim the banana refutes all of atheism because of how it is shaped. Search for it. It is really funny and dumb.
This is such an important video about such an important topic. You articulated it beautifully and made a very compelling argument. This is a must see for all statists.
This is such an important video about such an important topic. You articulated it beautifully and made a very compelling argument. This is a must see for all statists.
Got the mathmatical logic, but I will take issue with your definitions.
I doubt that democracy is solely defined by "majority rules". There are elements of priciple. That's why we have a supreme court, whos function is to reign-in the lawmakers when "majority-rules" thinking gets a bit out of control.
Sorry, I don't have a better definition handy. But I get your point.
iv never thought of that this way wow :D awesome point. as long as most of the people agree on soothing then politicians rnt necessary to do this thing that people agree on. I think thats what ur trying to say.
First of all you act as though a democratic state is an alien being that is separate from the population. A true democracy isn't just a vote up or down it's the formulation and execution of policy made by its citizens. People don't just decide whether to help the poor but how to.
What you are doing is making it impossible for people with like minded ideas to work together. You can either try to accomplish something yourself, or you can form an alliance. Democracy is just a large scale alliance.
Genius! Just been on an "easyjet" flight from Amsterdam to Liverpool In which this Video was instantly analogus.! Ps I escaped with my freedom!!Love love love!!
I completely agree with you. The concept of a welfare state is totally irrational. The only reason it has been allowed to exist is the fact that the poor are indeed allowed to vote despite the fact that they don't contribute society, thereby obliging politicians to concieve said welfare state in order to chase the support of such parasites.
Yes... but there's a reason you stopped listing statistics at 1967. After those first initial 4 years the poverty rate pretty well stagnated until about 1978 when it began to rise once more. If The Great Society was such a fantastic program, why did poverty not continue to decline?
The very analysis to support the finest aspests of anarchism assumes and suggests uniform and potent reaction to the problem. If 70% of people, wish good circumstances for the poor it does not follow that anywhere near that amount of public resource will reach the problem.
To me this is why we need represention of that will by government so that it becomes potent.
The present form of representation does not represent the will of the people.
The reason we have all these government wealth distribution programs owes much more to the fact that there are a lot more poor and working class people than well off people who can vote. It also has a lot to do with the fact that once these programs are in place the political pressure is mostly in the direction of expanding the program. Also liberals even if they would not give money themselves are easily shamed into giving. Right now I think most people would not give freely to help the poor.
Out of all the people that vote for socialist governement measures, I'm fairly certain that very few of them will actually be willing to pay to help the needy in an anarchist system.
You seem to jump to the conclusion that because people interested in anarchism ask you how does the ideology deals with poor people, everybody is willing to share themselves.
Somebody that is interested in politics enough to consider embracing a philosophical current will have more concern about the welfare of humanity as a whole as opposed to some uneducated capitalist opportunist that had the luck to be born in a bourgeois environment.
Self Defense is the exception. There'll always be a threat to national security, always a bully on the playground. An effective national defense is vital, thus strong military is needed. But strong military if not controlled by the people could be used against the people, so it must be controlled by the people. But majority of people are emotional, & not capable of carrying out a military campaign to the end. So we need a buffer between the majority & the military. Thus the Democratic Republic.
I know that this seems true, but it's not. Especially since the development of nuclear weapons, a standing army is totally unneccesary. Europe, formerly at war for millenia, suddenly stopped when everyone got nukes. They are the ultimate deterrent... You can look at my vid "Myths of World Wars" if you like... :)
That is right they have no standing army so now they muslims have freedom to invade and conquer. Europe is nothing more than one big police state with few countries having a viable army for self defense. you dont want to nuke your own land.
I watched the vid. When it takes 40 minutes to blame the U.S. for indirectly leading to the rise of the Nazi's, chances are the connection is a bit weak. I agree we are much less free today. But that's a never-ending struggle we will have to continue fighting whether military campaigns occur or not. It is immoral to allow genocide to occur, & it is foolish to not be prepared to stop such a crime. How could you stop a dictator of another country from committing genocide without using a military?
Self Defense is just as needed today as it ever was, but the nature of what you need to be protected from is different. A standing army, and nukes, wont protect you from Covert/PsyOps, Biological and Economic warfare, a group of people could be under attack and never know about it.
Actually, you're advocating it be used against its own people right away by advocating taxation to fund the military. If the government has the power to steal its citizens money, then the people have already lost much power to control the military. That also makes it likely to be used aggressively for conquest of other countries, because taxation externalizes the costs so waste is not discouraged nearly as much. The best strategy is to set up a strong private polycentric defense
Politicians are willing to push social programs to gain specific groups of voters even if they do not make up a majority. As long as they can gain votes of that group when their rival cannot, they'll do it. Then they lie their asses off to the majority about how much it will cost them.
The argument that if less than half want to be charitable then govt programs to help hard luck cases won't appear isn't quite airtight: People can think quite differently about money in their own hands vs money that is irrevocably in the govt's hands. Consider the case of support for war if it were based on voluntary subscription vs how it goes now, where no matter how stupid most come to see, it gets eternal life like most govt programs. And it can get started frivolously too: "Oh yeah (cont)
(cont) let's kick some towel-head butt on the other side of the world!" After all, it's not really your money anymore, but the govt's, so why would people think about it in the same way? The same who would think this way might give no money if they could keep it for personal use.
So I think your final points are the more decisive ones, that since govt funding doesn't depend on good performance, it has little incentive to perform well.
Yet, private charity is done in great amount even with the government charity existing. However, no such private funding for war exists. This suggests that charity is a priority for people's private expenditures and war is not
Socialist's viewpoint is that the middle class and low class people are the ones who want to help the poor, but not the rich people. And since a very tiny percentage of people have most of the riches, it does make sense that 90% will want to force the other 10% into helping the poor.
Banana Republics dont give a crap about the poor and living conditions are dismal for the majority, where as in Western Europe social policies help make it a place among the highest living standards, working in the US and then working in Western Europe is an eye opener, the North American conditions are Banana repulic like in comparison. FDR planted the seeds for the middleclass to grow, neo-liberal policies seeded after JFK and increased with Reagan/Tatcher are destroying the Middle Class.
John Rawls kicks major ass! I had to read, 'A Theory Of Justice' for class, and was convinced he was on the right track far and away above the fascists and dinks who run things now. Excellent vid, and I'll be looking for your pod cast that speaks of him. Thank-you.
"This country is going to move so far to the right, you won't even recognize it." Spiro Agnew, 1972
Point made, but you overlook a few twists in the desires of the majority:
Although a majority supports govt charity, a subset (perhaps still the majority) wants to help without direct personal involvement, they don't want to see or touch the needy.
Another overlapping subset wants to help but not pay. They expect to force others to pay the cost.
A smaller subset supports govt charity expecting to gain employment or contracts.
Still others vote expecting to collect the charity.
At first I thought you were going to argue Rawls theory of justice. Just one observation. You didn't mention family. Not only does the welfare state supplant and institutionalize poverty, it replaces family values with state values. The source of motivation for most individuals is family connections. By institutionalizing poverty, state programs require families to meet certain social standards. State welfare agents are sent into the home to enforce compliance. All in the name of doing good.
That depends on what kind of anarchist is "running" the society. If its the brainless bike punks than more people would die because those people dont know how to do any except ask their parents for money and hold a sign trashing george bush.
but if its anarchists like the guy who made this video probably nobody would die.
I might agree that anarchist society is the ultimate solution for us, because i defend freedom as primary goal of humanity. But really hard question that people don't talk about is HOW to achieve that. What will the transition be? It is easy to say what's good compared to the problem of how to get there in real world without making people suffer.
Changes cannot be consciously provoked, we can only speculate how it is the more realistic to happen, if it happen. We may not change thing cousciously but we can promote the "good news of anarchy" or apply strategic actions in our life, like starting a anti-state business (Lysander Spooner's post services), anti-state institution (Ludwig Von Mises Institute), or a podcast ...
I don't expect the whole world to turn to an anarchy. I expect that with the increase of statist and global governement faillures, the increase of internationalism and the decrease of nationalism, some society could try to find alternatives to States, to global governemnt and to nation-State ... without an anarchistic background they could elaborate stateless organizations based on law, free-association and free-trade more adapted to a internationalist paradigma.
I found this video very rational, illuminating, consistent and well spoken. It is also a subject that is rarely dealt with so that makes this video all the more important. Thanks again for sharing.
The problem with minority is the same as always: that it leads to the theft of land from the poor by a wealthy majority. It is the endless circle of horsedung that while so simple and obvious, still seems to be ingrained into many minds.
"robshred66 said: Just because 80% of the public agrees that poor people should be helped does not mean by any means that 80% would actually go out of their way to help the situation. People just agree, in large part, because it's expected of them--just like paying taxes"
- You just proved Stef's point again. You would have to abandon democracy. Say people are selfish; why trust a system within the hands of a few "people" craving power?
I think robshred66 meant that nobody is againts vertu but not everyone apply what they say, and I agree with robshred66. BUT even if no State mean less money for wellfare, too many wellfare mean more dependancy which is harmfull for society. Voluntary charity should be the maximum level of ressources spent in wellfare. The best way to avoid poverty is free-association, peace law and order, sound money and free-trade, not redistribution of wealth.
No, I did not prove Stef's point: that comment was pointing out a flaw in the particular statement it was commenting on, not his idea as a whole. He said that because people say they support the poor, or feel for the poor, they'll go out of their way to canvass and donate and all that stuff to take care of the poor. I highly doubt this is the case.
I am aware of studies that show that with the absence of a tax, etc., people would be more willing to donate. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions you draw in this video. Just because 80% of the public agrees that poor people should be helped does not mean by any means that 80% would actually go out of their way to help the situation. People just agree, in large part, because it's expected of them--just like paying taxes. (continued . . .)
If all people were rational, they would of course see that helping the poor contributes to a better life for everyone, including themselves. However, many people (I would argue a majority) are too narrow-minded and focused on short term gain to realize this fact. Granted, many companies would give out scholarships, many fraternities, etc. would raise funds for the poor, but on the whole, I'm still not convinced beyond a doubt that the poor would mainly be cared for in the absence of coercion.
This is of course not to say that coercion works either--but still, I want to be convinced beyond a doubt that the poor would be helped, and I'm not there yet. By the way--I am for all intents and purposes a market anarchist--it's the most sensible idea to me at the moment--I'm just in the incipient stages of my research into the subject and I still have questions.
there is no guarantee. it is preaty much guaranteed that poor people will be able to get cheap things, like basic food. poor people will not starve, at least not where food is abundent. however, there is no guarantee for expansive things like housing or health care, and it make some sense - just think about how non poor people are not allways getting things they realy need, because it is too expansive (liver transplant, for example).
Even if no State mean less money for wellfare, too many wellfare mean more dependancy which is harmfull for society. Voluntary charity should be the maximum level of ressources spent in wellfare. The best way to avoid poverty is free-association, peace law and order, sound money and free-trade, not redistribution of wealth.
If society was structured in the way Stef is talking, people would be educated to be aware of what is thought to be best for that structure of society. You would have been raised with the understanding that many people think helping the poor does help the whole of society, therefore you would feel inclined to give, but without the gun in your face.
I'm not saying that it would raise as much money, but given the conditions of people having more control of their own money, they would feel more inclined to give to a charity of their choice. The condition of society would have a small number of people who would really care about the poor making arguments in a completely different context. They would be saying in TV ads that "The government's role isn't to help these people, but we know you care, so please contribute if you can to our charity."
hmmmm. mmmhmmm. its a lot to think about. and its hard to imagine in such a healthy and caring society that there would even be poor people after a few generations or so.
interesting argument. I think it applies in the case of charity, because there is noting barring anyone from giving money to another person. However, I wonder if this argument breaks down in terms of say, "law-making". If 85% of a nation believes rape is bad, does that mean we don't need laws against rape. Even though that other 15% of the nation would probably commit those crimes on the other 85%? Does this argument break down for objective law and protection of individual rights?
You might like to check out some other of stefbots' videos for answers to these questions (try 'stateless dictatorships' for example). He addresses these things many times. You don't need to government to have rules and order.
Less than 1% of the world controls over 95% of the world. People's belief in the delusion of money has made money more valuable than life, itself. You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion.
"Story of Stuff" and "Century of the Self" on Google Video.
I understand, but if it were initiated because of 'fish and trees', would that make 'fish and trees' wrong or the violence itself? Money has no intrinsic immorality. It is simply a symbolic item or medium of exchange. It is the violence which I oppose, not the money or weaponry with which it is or is not enforced. Money can be used for good and ill.
A slave is not condoning his slavery by accepting a meal from his masters to stave off hunger. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail, possibly raped, or even shot. So I am forced to pay taxes through threats and coercion. Do you think slaves supported the beatings and captivity that they received by not choosing to die? The dollar is not violent, violent people are. Perhaps you are thinking of the corruption of the international bankers ad federal reserve etc?
1% of world population cannot have 95% of the wealth : no country has a Gini Coeficient low enough to indicate such inequality, and no country has a upper 10% rich class wealthy enough to indicate such inequality. I don't know where you took your statistic (you probably pull it from your ass like that dumb guy who was telling me that jews have all the wealth)
A list of a few rich familly is not a statistical demonstration that 1% of people own 95% of the wealth. Moreover you mix a lots of things at the same time; environmental issues, poverty, money, a list of rich famillies ; I don't know where you think you're going with that.
dnHooligan: Just because existing monetary systems are totally corrupt doesn't mean that money (trade) is inherently corrupt. As it were, Stef does not support existing monetary systems and so your accusation against him his fallacious. He is not perpetuating a delusion, he is proposing the solution.
dnHooligan: You're comment was not left as a response to any other comment. As such, we can only assume that your comment was a response to this video (in general) and thus directed at Stef (stefbot).
so... when you say, "You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion.", we can only assume that the statement is directed at stefbot. If you're talking to someone else, you should indicate to whom you're speaking to.
Maybe it was for anyone who ever read these comments...now and in the future. Perhaps I am collecting rebels. Not everyone believes we MUST continue destroying the planet.
I wish you would stop being defensive, and think.
If you don't want to be corrected, then don't make false (or ignorant) statements about Stefbot on a Stefbot video. If you want to keep talking, then be prepared to be corrected when you are wrong. It's really not that big of a deal, and it helps you in the long run. Peace out!
Um... do you need to reread the first comment I left you (the one that started this whole conversation)?
Your only counter-argument so far has been that you weren't talking to Stefbot (as it appeared); you were actually talking to "who ever read these comments".
Am I really supposed to believe that when you said, "You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion", you were speaking to "anyone who ever read these comments"?
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I have this intuition that you are of those who think there's too many people on the planet and who think we should eleminate a few people (about 6 billions) ? Or at least forbid most to have kids.
Why y'all be giving LoveCraken a zillion thumbs down? I say he's a cool guy (which makes it true), and I'm glad he came by to check out some stefbot. Let's try to make him feel just a LITTLE bit welcome so we can subsequently brainwash him and enslave him to our evil mind-control cult that's secretly controlled by space aliens. Thanks.
So there's no helping the poor in a welfare society?
M3t4lManiac 6 months ago
@DanteMcSparda By far the best comment on you tube in years. well done.
gssg9 9 months ago
Wow. It's like I just woke up from the Matrix.
TheNeoAristotelean 11 months ago
I like how he was like, "If you get this..!" and then waves a Bannana with marker scribbled all over it.
To the naive eye it is a bannana with marker. To the informed eye it is a beautiful concept of how the poor would be aided in a free society.
TheKarakoran 1 year ago
It seems to me that the majority of people want someone else to help the poor. Hence the current system where people "help" the poor by robbing the rich and the unborn.
thegillotine09 1 year ago
Brilliant video, you completely changed my view of democracy!
jiveturkey86 1 year ago 3
@jiveturkey86 thank you so much for your very kind words!
stefbot 1 year ago 3
around 20:10 "So we have to assume that in a democracy the vast majority of people are willing to expend time, money, and effort to help the poor (that's how these poverty programs begin). Therefore, we know exactly the same thing is going to occur in a free society, expect...that the vast majority of the activities...will actually be directed towards really, genuinely, completely, and totally helping the poor."
Leap of faith! You really need to substantiate your "therefore" statement.
Mostusmaximus 1 year ago
For example, you could do this by providing statistics on charity that shows that charities substantially step in while the government steps out and the marginalization of the poor in fact decreases.
Mostusmaximus 1 year ago
This would eliminate poverty & since 4 production 2 be at its greatest possible everyone has to work there will be an incentive 4 workers 2 come together and cooperate 2 help unemployed ppl get jobs eliminating unemployment. This doesnt happen w/ capitalism bcause full employment in capitalism goes against the interests of the capitalist class. Without unemployed ppl workers have more bargaining power & capitalist bosses have 2 take cuts in their own personal earnings 2 meet them.
sicktoaster 1 year ago
Your laissez-faire capitalist plutocracy that you mislabeled "anarchism" would be a disaster and poverty would explode.
Real anarchism which opposes all coercive hierarchy including capitalist hierarchy would put all production in the hands of those who work it, no more bosses except the workers themselves democratically.
(continued)
sicktoaster 1 year ago
anyone care to share the cliff notes version of this?
optionism 1 year ago
Oh no! It is the atheist's worst nightmare! I will not be able to sleep for days now. Why did you have to show that, Stef?
ArtinEmil 1 year ago
@ArtinEmil I hate to be that guy but....
I don't get it. Why is what he said an atheist nightmare? :/
Be gentle; I'm only a noob. :P
Tabanese 1 year ago
@Tabanese There is a video on YouTube by Kirk Camron and Ray Comfort called "Atheist's Nightmare". They claim the banana refutes all of atheism because of how it is shaped. Search for it. It is really funny and dumb.
ArtinEmil 1 year ago
Thank you Stefan for sharing your thoughts!
/M
STAB1L 1 year ago
LoL "this is not anarchist banana, this is statist banana" :DDDD very funny.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
Banana has been abused by Ray Comfort :D Now whenever I see banana it makes me smile, lol
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is such an important video about such an important topic. You articulated it beautifully and made a very compelling argument. This is a must see for all statists.
GNAA9000 1 year ago
This is such an important video about such an important topic. You articulated it beautifully and made a very compelling argument. This is a must see for all statists.
GNAA9000 1 year ago
We should all move to an iland and start our own free-markt society.. God damn it would be awesome ;P
lucaswhitemetal 2 years ago
Holy crap... Amazing!
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Got the mathmatical logic, but I will take issue with your definitions.
I doubt that democracy is solely defined by "majority rules". There are elements of priciple. That's why we have a supreme court, whos function is to reign-in the lawmakers when "majority-rules" thinking gets a bit out of control.
Sorry, I don't have a better definition handy. But I get your point.
andharvey8 2 years ago
Aww man, I wish I hadn't watched this, now I'm gonna have nightmares from seeing that banana!
spamsponge 2 years ago
wonderful fuuuuuuuuuck its nice
greyced 2 years ago
iv never thought of that this way wow :D awesome point. as long as most of the people agree on soothing then politicians rnt necessary to do this thing that people agree on. I think thats what ur trying to say.
robertdog0 2 years ago
This actually made sense. Well done.
freedom3001 2 years ago
First of all you act as though a democratic state is an alien being that is separate from the population. A true democracy isn't just a vote up or down it's the formulation and execution of policy made by its citizens. People don't just decide whether to help the poor but how to.
What you are doing is making it impossible for people with like minded ideas to work together. You can either try to accomplish something yourself, or you can form an alliance. Democracy is just a large scale alliance.
fathead8489 2 years ago
Genius! Just been on an "easyjet" flight from Amsterdam to Liverpool In which this Video was instantly analogus.! Ps I escaped with my freedom!!Love love love!!
jakster72 3 years ago
yeeeeeees
greyced 2 years ago
I completely agree with you. The concept of a welfare state is totally irrational. The only reason it has been allowed to exist is the fact that the poor are indeed allowed to vote despite the fact that they don't contribute society, thereby obliging politicians to concieve said welfare state in order to chase the support of such parasites.
laballer824 3 years ago
All wrong.
US Poverty level:
1964 19.0 -- Johnsons Great Society begins
1965 17.3
1966 14.7
1967 14.2
Bellator656 3 years ago
Yes... but there's a reason you stopped listing statistics at 1967. After those first initial 4 years the poverty rate pretty well stagnated until about 1978 when it began to rise once more. If The Great Society was such a fantastic program, why did poverty not continue to decline?
Stargazer5781 3 years ago
75% of women don't want to go out with me Stef, what's your secret? I mean I've lost all the hair I could, but still I can only get 2 out of 3!
:>
newperve 3 years ago 9
The very analysis to support the finest aspests of anarchism assumes and suggests uniform and potent reaction to the problem. If 70% of people, wish good circumstances for the poor it does not follow that anywhere near that amount of public resource will reach the problem.
To me this is why we need represention of that will by government so that it becomes potent.
The present form of representation does not represent the will of the people.
ezranpee 3 years ago
Do you know how much the govt bureaucracy takes in overhead? Would you like to guess? :)
stefbot 3 years ago 7
Thats a good one do you have a percentage in mind?
ezranpee 3 years ago
The reason we have all these government wealth distribution programs owes much more to the fact that there are a lot more poor and working class people than well off people who can vote. It also has a lot to do with the fact that once these programs are in place the political pressure is mostly in the direction of expanding the program. Also liberals even if they would not give money themselves are easily shamed into giving. Right now I think most people would not give freely to help the poor.
jackson32 3 years ago
Out of all the people that vote for socialist governement measures, I'm fairly certain that very few of them will actually be willing to pay to help the needy in an anarchist system.
athropos 3 years ago
You may not know this, but my educational site survives entirely on donations.
stefbot 3 years ago 7
I think that he was saying the socialists only care about the poor when it's at your loss.
DotPaulish 3 years ago
Or that socialists want everyone to contribute to a problem based on their economic ability to contribute; ie, a graduated (progressive) tax scale.
directedchaos 3 years ago
You seem to jump to the conclusion that because people interested in anarchism ask you how does the ideology deals with poor people, everybody is willing to share themselves.
Somebody that is interested in politics enough to consider embracing a philosophical current will have more concern about the welfare of humanity as a whole as opposed to some uneducated capitalist opportunist that had the luck to be born in a bourgeois environment.
athropos 3 years ago
phauk yeh boi!
GetterRoboG 3 years ago
Self Defense is the exception. There'll always be a threat to national security, always a bully on the playground. An effective national defense is vital, thus strong military is needed. But strong military if not controlled by the people could be used against the people, so it must be controlled by the people. But majority of people are emotional, & not capable of carrying out a military campaign to the end. So we need a buffer between the majority & the military. Thus the Democratic Republic.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
I know that this seems true, but it's not. Especially since the development of nuclear weapons, a standing army is totally unneccesary. Europe, formerly at war for millenia, suddenly stopped when everyone got nukes. They are the ultimate deterrent... You can look at my vid "Myths of World Wars" if you like... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
That is right they have no standing army so now they muslims have freedom to invade and conquer. Europe is nothing more than one big police state with few countries having a viable army for self defense. you dont want to nuke your own land.
freemarketmind 3 years ago
I watched the vid. When it takes 40 minutes to blame the U.S. for indirectly leading to the rise of the Nazi's, chances are the connection is a bit weak. I agree we are much less free today. But that's a never-ending struggle we will have to continue fighting whether military campaigns occur or not. It is immoral to allow genocide to occur, & it is foolish to not be prepared to stop such a crime. How could you stop a dictator of another country from committing genocide without using a military?
truthadvocate 3 years ago
Self Defense is just as needed today as it ever was, but the nature of what you need to be protected from is different. A standing army, and nukes, wont protect you from Covert/PsyOps, Biological and Economic warfare, a group of people could be under attack and never know about it.
Rickdeckard2020 3 years ago
Actually, you're advocating it be used against its own people right away by advocating taxation to fund the military. If the government has the power to steal its citizens money, then the people have already lost much power to control the military. That also makes it likely to be used aggressively for conquest of other countries, because taxation externalizes the costs so waste is not discouraged nearly as much. The best strategy is to set up a strong private polycentric defense
fourtechniques 3 years ago
Politicians are willing to push social programs to gain specific groups of voters even if they do not make up a majority. As long as they can gain votes of that group when their rival cannot, they'll do it. Then they lie their asses off to the majority about how much it will cost them.
truthadvocate 3 years ago
The argument that if less than half want to be charitable then govt programs to help hard luck cases won't appear isn't quite airtight: People can think quite differently about money in their own hands vs money that is irrevocably in the govt's hands. Consider the case of support for war if it were based on voluntary subscription vs how it goes now, where no matter how stupid most come to see, it gets eternal life like most govt programs. And it can get started frivolously too: "Oh yeah (cont)
bobtassoni 3 years ago
(cont) let's kick some towel-head butt on the other side of the world!" After all, it's not really your money anymore, but the govt's, so why would people think about it in the same way? The same who would think this way might give no money if they could keep it for personal use.
So I think your final points are the more decisive ones, that since govt funding doesn't depend on good performance, it has little incentive to perform well.
bobtassoni 3 years ago
Yet, private charity is done in great amount even with the government charity existing. However, no such private funding for war exists. This suggests that charity is a priority for people's private expenditures and war is not
fourtechniques 3 years ago
Socialist's viewpoint is that the middle class and low class people are the ones who want to help the poor, but not the rich people. And since a very tiny percentage of people have most of the riches, it does make sense that 90% will want to force the other 10% into helping the poor.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
Yet this does not happen in reality... :(
stefbot 3 years ago
Banana Republics dont give a crap about the poor and living conditions are dismal for the majority, where as in Western Europe social policies help make it a place among the highest living standards, working in the US and then working in Western Europe is an eye opener, the North American conditions are Banana repulic like in comparison. FDR planted the seeds for the middleclass to grow, neo-liberal policies seeded after JFK and increased with Reagan/Tatcher are destroying the Middle Class.
Rickdeckard2020 3 years ago
I was eating a banana while watching this. It was delicious.
EntertainedWatcher 3 years ago
John Rawls kicks major ass! I had to read, 'A Theory Of Justice' for class, and was convinced he was on the right track far and away above the fascists and dinks who run things now. Excellent vid, and I'll be looking for your pod cast that speaks of him. Thank-you.
"This country is going to move so far to the right, you won't even recognize it." Spiro Agnew, 1972
peeklip 4 years ago
Point made, but you overlook a few twists in the desires of the majority:
Although a majority supports govt charity, a subset (perhaps still the majority) wants to help without direct personal involvement, they don't want to see or touch the needy.
Another overlapping subset wants to help but not pay. They expect to force others to pay the cost.
A smaller subset supports govt charity expecting to gain employment or contracts.
Still others vote expecting to collect the charity.
WonjuEnglishSchool 4 years ago
I just made a response video making this exact point. Only difference is it took me 7 minutes to say what you said in a few sentences.
ithinkronpaulissmart 4 years ago
At first I thought you were going to argue Rawls theory of justice. Just one observation. You didn't mention family. Not only does the welfare state supplant and institutionalize poverty, it replaces family values with state values. The source of motivation for most individuals is family connections. By institutionalizing poverty, state programs require families to meet certain social standards. State welfare agents are sent into the home to enforce compliance. All in the name of doing good.
bbburton 4 years ago 2
That is a most excellent point, I quite agree!
stefbot 4 years ago
Ha-ha-ha, "... and therefore, we need a government program for assigning brides." Is that the moral justification employed in Bangladesh?
qtronman 4 years ago
Do you think more or less people would die and suffer in anarchist society?
marjan15 4 years ago
Less less less for sure! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
Hehe, dude, did you miss his whole video?
qtronman 4 years ago
That depends on what kind of anarchist is "running" the society. If its the brainless bike punks than more people would die because those people dont know how to do any except ask their parents for money and hold a sign trashing george bush.
but if its anarchists like the guy who made this video probably nobody would die.
blastingcaps 4 years ago
Why that question? What do you expect of an anarchist society?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I might agree that anarchist society is the ultimate solution for us, because i defend freedom as primary goal of humanity. But really hard question that people don't talk about is HOW to achieve that. What will the transition be? It is easy to say what's good compared to the problem of how to get there in real world without making people suffer.
marjan15 4 years ago
Changes cannot be consciously provoked, we can only speculate how it is the more realistic to happen, if it happen. We may not change thing cousciously but we can promote the "good news of anarchy" or apply strategic actions in our life, like starting a anti-state business (Lysander Spooner's post services), anti-state institution (Ludwig Von Mises Institute), or a podcast ...
anarkoFred 4 years ago
I don't expect the whole world to turn to an anarchy. I expect that with the increase of statist and global governement faillures, the increase of internationalism and the decrease of nationalism, some society could try to find alternatives to States, to global governemnt and to nation-State ... without an anarchistic background they could elaborate stateless organizations based on law, free-association and free-trade more adapted to a internationalist paradigma.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Mr. Molyneux,
I found this video very rational, illuminating, consistent and well spoken. It is also a subject that is rarely dealt with so that makes this video all the more important. Thanks again for sharing.
Robert
RobertPFreeman 4 years ago 7
The problem with minority is the same as always: that it leads to the theft of land from the poor by a wealthy majority. It is the endless circle of horsedung that while so simple and obvious, still seems to be ingrained into many minds.
TruthHidden 4 years ago
"robshred66 said: Just because 80% of the public agrees that poor people should be helped does not mean by any means that 80% would actually go out of their way to help the situation. People just agree, in large part, because it's expected of them--just like paying taxes"
- You just proved Stef's point again. You would have to abandon democracy. Say people are selfish; why trust a system within the hands of a few "people" craving power?
TruthHidden 4 years ago
I think robshred66 meant that nobody is againts vertu but not everyone apply what they say, and I agree with robshred66. BUT even if no State mean less money for wellfare, too many wellfare mean more dependancy which is harmfull for society. Voluntary charity should be the maximum level of ressources spent in wellfare. The best way to avoid poverty is free-association, peace law and order, sound money and free-trade, not redistribution of wealth.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
No, I did not prove Stef's point: that comment was pointing out a flaw in the particular statement it was commenting on, not his idea as a whole. He said that because people say they support the poor, or feel for the poor, they'll go out of their way to canvass and donate and all that stuff to take care of the poor. I highly doubt this is the case.
robshred66 4 years ago
I am aware of studies that show that with the absence of a tax, etc., people would be more willing to donate. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions you draw in this video. Just because 80% of the public agrees that poor people should be helped does not mean by any means that 80% would actually go out of their way to help the situation. People just agree, in large part, because it's expected of them--just like paying taxes. (continued . . .)
robshred66 4 years ago
If all people were rational, they would of course see that helping the poor contributes to a better life for everyone, including themselves. However, many people (I would argue a majority) are too narrow-minded and focused on short term gain to realize this fact. Granted, many companies would give out scholarships, many fraternities, etc. would raise funds for the poor, but on the whole, I'm still not convinced beyond a doubt that the poor would mainly be cared for in the absence of coercion.
robshred66 4 years ago
This is of course not to say that coercion works either--but still, I want to be convinced beyond a doubt that the poor would be helped, and I'm not there yet. By the way--I am for all intents and purposes a market anarchist--it's the most sensible idea to me at the moment--I'm just in the incipient stages of my research into the subject and I still have questions.
robshred66 4 years ago
there is no guarantee. it is preaty much guaranteed that poor people will be able to get cheap things, like basic food. poor people will not starve, at least not where food is abundent. however, there is no guarantee for expansive things like housing or health care, and it make some sense - just think about how non poor people are not allways getting things they realy need, because it is too expansive (liver transplant, for example).
ran266 4 years ago
Even if no State mean less money for wellfare, too many wellfare mean more dependancy which is harmfull for society. Voluntary charity should be the maximum level of ressources spent in wellfare. The best way to avoid poverty is free-association, peace law and order, sound money and free-trade, not redistribution of wealth.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
If society was structured in the way Stef is talking, people would be educated to be aware of what is thought to be best for that structure of society. You would have been raised with the understanding that many people think helping the poor does help the whole of society, therefore you would feel inclined to give, but without the gun in your face.
mmortal03 4 years ago
Well that's a great utopian thought.
robshred66 4 years ago
I'm not saying that it would raise as much money, but given the conditions of people having more control of their own money, they would feel more inclined to give to a charity of their choice. The condition of society would have a small number of people who would really care about the poor making arguments in a completely different context. They would be saying in TV ads that "The government's role isn't to help these people, but we know you care, so please contribute if you can to our charity."
mmortal03 4 years ago
hmmmm. mmmhmmm. its a lot to think about. and its hard to imagine in such a healthy and caring society that there would even be poor people after a few generations or so.
Shandalaybgood 4 years ago
u look so proper with your pinky in the air.
Shandalaybgood 4 years ago
interesting argument. I think it applies in the case of charity, because there is noting barring anyone from giving money to another person. However, I wonder if this argument breaks down in terms of say, "law-making". If 85% of a nation believes rape is bad, does that mean we don't need laws against rape. Even though that other 15% of the nation would probably commit those crimes on the other 85%? Does this argument break down for objective law and protection of individual rights?
ashunbuggie 4 years ago
You might like to check out some other of stefbots' videos for answers to these questions (try 'stateless dictatorships' for example). He addresses these things many times. You don't need to government to have rules and order.
lukeev 4 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Less than 1% of the world controls over 95% of the world. People's belief in the delusion of money has made money more valuable than life, itself. You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion.
"Story of Stuff" and "Century of the Self" on Google Video.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
What delusion?
lukeev 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paper, plastic, and metal have more value than fish, trees, air, and water.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
From this comment alone you truly show you have no idea what value means.
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Explaining "delusion" Einstein.
You girls better hurry up, and thumbs down my comment.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
Assuming that statistic has some truth to it: did money do that or did initiating violence do that?
WSMinarai 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Was money the reason violence was initiated?
dnHooligan 4 years ago
I understand, but if it were initiated because of 'fish and trees', would that make 'fish and trees' wrong or the violence itself? Money has no intrinsic immorality. It is simply a symbolic item or medium of exchange. It is the violence which I oppose, not the money or weaponry with which it is or is not enforced. Money can be used for good and ill.
lukeev 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You support the violence with every dollar you spend.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
If that is true and you spend any money what so ever, then you are also supporting violence, and you are in no position to criticize.
undefinedego 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've created 5 gardens, and my mountain bike has more miles on it, than my car. I am in a perfect position to criticize MANY.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
You're feeding a troll.
Moragauth 4 years ago 2
I always fall for it, too...
lukeev 4 years ago
Stay stupid. Your TV will tell you that you're right.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
A slave is not condoning his slavery by accepting a meal from his masters to stave off hunger. If I don't pay my taxes I go to jail, possibly raped, or even shot. So I am forced to pay taxes through threats and coercion. Do you think slaves supported the beatings and captivity that they received by not choosing to die? The dollar is not violent, violent people are. Perhaps you are thinking of the corruption of the international bankers ad federal reserve etc?
lukeev 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Continue playing their game, and you will experience slavery, like you never imagined.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
Right. Sure. Thanks for the heads up.
lukeev 4 years ago
Humans have used different type of money since neolithics, longtime before J-C ... does a primitivist like you have any idea why?
anarkoFred 4 years ago
Right now, less than 1% of the world has over 95% of the world's 'wealth.' Therein lies the problem.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
1% of world population cannot have 95% of the wealth : no country has a Gini Coeficient low enough to indicate such inequality, and no country has a upper 10% rich class wealthy enough to indicate such inequality. I don't know where you took your statistic (you probably pull it from your ass like that dumb guy who was telling me that jews have all the wealth)
anarkoFred 4 years ago 2
When you look at the recent list of 'world's richest people,' where are the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, and Morgans?
Please think about this. Don't just spout off, defensively.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
A list of a few rich familly is not a statistical demonstration that 1% of people own 95% of the wealth. Moreover you mix a lots of things at the same time; environmental issues, poverty, money, a list of rich famillies ; I don't know where you think you're going with that.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
dnHooligan: Just because existing monetary systems are totally corrupt doesn't mean that money (trade) is inherently corrupt. As it were, Stef does not support existing monetary systems and so your accusation against him his fallacious. He is not perpetuating a delusion, he is proposing the solution.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Who's steff, and who's accusing people. I think I got a lot of 'thumbs downs' from people who are actually on the same side I am.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
dnHooligan: You're comment was not left as a response to any other comment. As such, we can only assume that your comment was a response to this video (in general) and thus directed at Stef (stefbot).
so... when you say, "You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion.", we can only assume that the statement is directed at stefbot. If you're talking to someone else, you should indicate to whom you're speaking to.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Maybe it was for anyone who ever read these comments...now and in the future. Perhaps I am collecting rebels. Not everyone believes we MUST continue destroying the planet.
I wish you would stop being defensive, and think.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
"I wish you would stop being defensive"
If you don't want to be corrected, then don't make false (or ignorant) statements about Stefbot on a Stefbot video. If you want to keep talking, then be prepared to be corrected when you are wrong. It's really not that big of a deal, and it helps you in the long run. Peace out!
D4Shawn 4 years ago
What did I say that was incorrect?
F*ck this. Don't even make up a bullsh*t comeback. I'm done promoting this garbage.
dnHooligan 4 years ago
Um... do you need to reread the first comment I left you (the one that started this whole conversation)?
Your only counter-argument so far has been that you weren't talking to Stefbot (as it appeared); you were actually talking to "who ever read these comments".
Am I really supposed to believe that when you said, "You're really not helping, when you perpetuate this delusion", you were speaking to "anyone who ever read these comments"?
That's a really lame and dishonest excuse.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I have this intuition that you are of those who think there's too many people on the planet and who think we should eleminate a few people (about 6 billions) ? Or at least forbid most to have kids.
anarkoFred 4 years ago
You're a video machine! Keep 'em coming!
lukeev 4 years ago 2
great video
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago 2
Watch where you're pointing that thing, Stef! Occam's razor can put brains out.
Nasikabatrachus 4 years ago 3
Would you say that those with disabling psychological ailments are malingering?
cosmanthony21 4 years ago
I could not say for sure in every case - some yes, some no...
stefbot 4 years ago
so good, soo good... i need to catch up... i've been without the internet for a while, now... thanks for the great video stef!!
marklethanarkle 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FIRST
LoveCraken 4 years ago
Why y'all be giving LoveCraken a zillion thumbs down? I say he's a cool guy (which makes it true), and I'm glad he came by to check out some stefbot. Let's try to make him feel just a LITTLE bit welcome so we can subsequently brainwash him and enslave him to our evil mind-control cult that's secretly controlled by space aliens. Thanks.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
I always post first when I get the chance- I just thought it would be funny to do it on an anarchocapitalist's podcast...
LoveCraken 4 years ago