A lot of this makes sense, but getting rid of the state is such a distant prospect that I can hardly see this as anything other than an interesting academic debate.
i love u stef but i still see u ignore my pleas for discussions about serge monast, alot of people dont know his story , and stories of project blue beam ??? plz talk about this man and if u hear this post please, repeat my post
i agree on almost every point, except that i feel that a government is a neccessary evil. i feel it is neccessary but should be kept as minimal as possible. this is done by the peoples interaction with their elected government which is something that has been lost in modern society
@r3aper239 So you basically said that government is necessary because government is necessary. You should say why. It's a meaningless statement like, "Rape is necessary because rape is necessary." if you don't include the why.
You hit on a great point here, Stef. Ironically, this used to be common sense in American philosophy. Thomas Jefferson (somewhat) famously said, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" When exactly this was wiped out of common American epistemology/philosophy, I'm not sure.
Visually, I think this video looks better than your newer one about feminism. Reason being is that the light makes your hair and eyebrows darker and your skin somewhat lighter. This has the subconscious effect of looking younger.
I agree with Stefan that government's are a force for evil in the world and attract bad people. However, my parents argue that without government bad people would just kill/murder their way to becoming a warlord, dictator, etc and we'd just go backwards to tribalism with the person with the biggest stick ruling. That whilst gov may be bad at least it's better than that and that we can change the person ruling within the democracy. How should I argue the case against their position?
please help me understand you're statement that fighting off oppressive governments not working when there was a thing called the revolutionary war. .the frontier men of America was the turning point in that war.it was them and there use of there guns that turned the war from Britain. thanks.
@vishee2906 - America beat England yes, but today we have a government thousands of times more taxing that what the revolutionary war started over. They simply traded one oppressor for another. It was like a long hair brunette fighting off a rapist, then hanging out with Ted Bundy.
i understand and i feel just as you we fought to get out from under a oppressor and the first thing we did was become one our self's.on the guns part unless they take our guns one at a time and no one stands and fights well that's a no brainer. but with the countless millions of guns and ammunition that the self reliant have here we would at best have a blood bath like never seen before. we are at cold war with our government so to speak...thanks for your response.
@vishee2906 - Nah man. Back in the days of the revolutionary war the rifle was the peak of technology is fighting a war; it was an even playing field. Today if we tried anything like that we'd have Apache helicopters; Abraham tanks, and F18 fighters dropping bombs like no ones business. There would be a blood bath, but it would be the blood of any resisting civilian.
@linkdead14 WE WOULD NOT FIGHT IN OPEN FIELDS JUST LIKE IN AFGHANISTAN YOU WONT KNOW WHO IS WHO UNTIL THE ATTACK IT WILL BE GORILLA WARFARE YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY PRUDENT TO KILL THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS TO KILL A COUPLE HINDERED FREEDOM FIGHTERS DO YOU LET ME TELL YOU MY ARSENAL IS NOT JUST A SQUIRREL RIFLE TRUST ME. YOU CANT CARP[ET BOMB CHICAGO ILLINOIS JUST TO STOP ME AND MY PEOPLE FREEDOM FIGHTERS. THAT WOULD MAKE THE GOVERNMENT THE ENEMY OF ALL REAL FAST
@vishee2906 - They have intelligence gathering abilities beyond your wildest dreams. They would sniff you out and SWAT team your door faster than you know.
you are basing my abilities on what your thoughts and idea and capabilities are trust me i could kill you and you not know it.your view on the situation is not mine. you need to reread my post.it is irreverent what you think.they have the same intel capabilities in Afghanistan our boys get there ass handed to them all the time. i will say it again when it happens just the countless millions of people that are prepared. you think that all these will be killed without firing a shot.
@linkdead14 its plausible did you not read the post. so you think all these people will say oh ok never mind. just because you and others like you are to cowardice to see it does not make it go away the militias in America are a small small fraction of the prepared people.
@vishee2906 - It is plausible that your grammar is so horrible that I would rather put a bullet in my head than pick my way through your broken English. You have points, fight rather than lose freedom. I get it okay. You don't need to put on the big tough guy act though; it just subtracts points from your argument.
@vishee2906 - Caps - Check. Anger - Check. Threatening to block people - Check. Fifth grade writing level - check. Looks like we've got ourselves a ten year old.
@linkdead14 you act as if your opinion on the issue will get millions of patriots to say OH OK NEVER MIND i said millions as it stands now i my self have enough guns to arm 30 people. there will be plenty of people that will see when it starts that they will want to go down fighting. if you think we all want to roll over and die like you sound like you want to do is just give up all you know as a American without a fight well we want to say to you is thanks for being a coward.
@linkdead14 YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING AS IF YOUR OPINION WILL MAKE 100 MILLION GUN OWNERS PUT DOWN THERE ARMS AND SAY OH OK NEVER MIND . IF YOU REMEMBER YOU CHALLENGED MY POST I DID NOT CHALLENGE YOU. I DON'T KNOW YOU AT ALL AS YOU ME THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO LEARN DON'T INFER IMPLY GUESS ANY ONE, ANYTHING' IT CAN EMBARRASS YOU REAL FAST . YOU HAVE BEEN CONTRIVING AT BEST.
@vishee2906 "please help me understand you're statement that fighting off oppressive governments not working when there was a thing called the revolutionary war."
That was over 200 years ago. Have you taken inventory of the US arsenal lately?
There may be places in the world were it could be successful, but not many. Regardless, look what the US revolution spawned.
WE WOULD NOT FIGHT IN OPEN FIELDS JUST LIKE IN AFGHANISTAN YOU WONT KNOW WHO IS WHO UNTIL THE ATTACK IT WILL BE GORILLA WARFARE YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY PRUDENT TO KILL THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS TO KILL A COUPLE HINDERED FREEDOM FIGHTERS DO YOU LET ME TELL YOU MY ARSENAL IS NOT JUST A SQUIRREL RIFLE TRUST ME. YOU CANT CARP[ET BOMB CHICAGO ILLINOIS JUST TO STOP ME AND MY PEOPLE FREEDOM FIGHTERS. THAT WOULD MAKE THE GOVERNMENT THE ENEMY OF ALL REAL FAST
@jeffiek ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS NO HOPE AS A AMERICAN, NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE STATING? THE POINT IS THERE IS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT ARE ARMED LIKE YOU CANT IMAGINE READY TO FIGHT . YOUR OPINION OF YOU WONT WIN WILL NOT STOP ME FROM FIGHTING AND DIEING FOR THE IDEAS OF AMERICA WIN OR LOSE FUTILE OR NOT A WAR IS COMING LIKE NONE EVER SEEN BUY MAN WAR IS COMING.IF THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS THERE OPPRESSIVE WAYS.
@jeffiek IF I WAS TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE 3000 PEOPLE COMING TO KILL YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES YOU WOULD SAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO WARRANT WAR WITH THEM. AND I WOULD TELL YOU WELL THEY ARE COMING TOO SLAUGHTER YOU IT DON'T MATTER YOUR INNOCENCE THEY FEEL FOR WHAT EVER REASON YOU ARE THE ENEMY NOW YOU MUST FIGHT WRONG OR RIGHT YOU MUST FIGHT OR STAND THERE AND BE SLAUGHTERED.YOU MAY TRY TO SURRENDER AND HOPE THEY WILL EXCEPT SURRENDER IT IS FIGHT DIE SLAVERY YOU CHOSE.
@jeffiek IF YOU THINK THAT IS FAR FETCHED I SUGGEST YOU GO TALK TO A NATIVE AMERICA OR A AFRICAN AMERICAN OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LOSING TO THE BIG FAT RICH WHITE MAN. I AM A BIG FAT POOR WHITE MAN AND I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY I AM HUMAN AND WILL DIE FREE AND PROUD REPRESENTING AS BEST I CAN WHAT AMERICA ONCE WAS.
No-one is forced to use the NHS. We have a very competitive private health-care sector. It's not about coercing people into it, it's ensuring that no-one is left to suffer or die due to ill health or accident because they can't afford help.
@Laoch111 No system can stop such problems. The question is, can any system, over the long run, beat a free market system in reducing sweatshops worldwide? Increasingly, we are discovering that the answer is no. Over the long run, free markets yield the minimum in sweatshops. The opposite, which is pure govt control, tends to maximize sweatshop conditions.
@Laoch111 lol, sweatshops are a result of the state. china, for example, manipulates the currency to artificially lower wages for their citizens.....in a free market wages naturally rise....and the richest get the best medical care in a statist society....when there is a shortfall in state medical care, the poor man gets a waiting line, the rich man has connections and can get the medical care. acess to a waiting list is not the same as health care, bro.
@Laoch111 violence: use of force on someone else. How is the voluntary exchange of medical goods and undefined other goos violence? If you are traveling in a desert, you have a limited supply of water, and you come upon a man dying of thirst, are you required to save him with your limited water? The free-market, especially in regards to healthcare, is the best system in increasing the supply of "water." Government intervention and ownership results in a shortage of "water."
@Laoch111 As for the use of sweatshops, look at what the governments of third world countries are doing there. Those states steal and steal, thus making it impossible to rise without being an agent of that oppressive system. The sweatshops in America were in decline before the implementation of "progressive" laws; otherwise, the rich men would never have allowed the congress to so heavily regulate them.
@Laoch111 It is only violence if it forces you in some way. A rich person paying for expensive stuff does not deprive you of anything, the world is not a zero sum game.
As for a free society 'stopping' sweat shops, it most emphatically would not. Sweat shops are a necessary and good thing, for seriously impoverished countries. As long as no coercion is used, people work in sweat shops because their alternatives are 'worse'. Their lot improves once they reach full employment.
Error in thinking right there. If you really are advocating for a more moral world, you won't be advocating for a system, because "system" implies that one thing is imposed on everybody.
@Cornampoo - what do you mean? The metric system is imposed on people. In the UK for example traders now have to use kg and g by government mandate. They are no longer allowed to use lbs and oz even if they want to. Or am I missing your point?
@DaveElectric no. Its an absolute statement. It has nothing to do with absolutism. To say that absolutism is bad philosophy is not to say that all absolute statements are inherently false.
@fresheyeball "To say that absolutism is bad philosophy is not to say that all absolute statements are inherently false."
Um, actually that is what you're saying. If you think there are absolute statements which are inherently true then complaining that Stefan Molyneux is being "absolutist" is completely hypocritical.
@DaveElectric you clearly do not know the difference between absolutism and an absolute. If I say 'brown is a color' is an absolute statement, but does not make me an absolutist. If this was the case, no criticism of absolutism would be possible. But is its possible, because there is a difference. But as you don't seem to be able to see the difference I will easily amend my statement to "absolutism is almost always bad philosophy'. It makes no difference to me.
@DaveElectric the word "extreme" CAN be an opinionated one, but it can also be an objective, factual one. For example if something is negative 400 degrees fahrenheit, it can absolutely be thought of as extremely cold because it cannot possibly be any colder.
Or the thinnest person of all time can be thought of as literally extremely thin because no one else is thinner.
@DaveElectric and it certainly does not excuse stefbot from his erroneous claim that the initiation of force is universally wrong. Or his contradictory statements regarding the value of results on the validity of ideas.
@fresheyeball really? I imagine that those few times you think it happens to be right is when you would use it to further your ideology. Well, such thinking is infantile.
@nurbSoldier It would be better for you to ask me my view and make a judgement, then assume my view an then decry that assumption as infantile. I could say that making such far reaching assumptions about the view points of strangers is infantile.
"Evidentialism is not self-refutting, but I do find it improper in some contexts (such as economics)." you mean when it inconveniences your worldview?
"...when you have these errors, the result is these problems you see all around the world, huge national debts.... You cannot judge a philosophy by its effects" way to contract yourself in the same minute.
I am ok with the sate using force and I do wrap it up in a social contract. However I do not use arbitrary segmentation. I would not say as a blanket rule that human being should not initiate the use of force. To say that any action is universally wrong without context, is BAD philosophy..
@fresheyeball What do you use that makes it not arbitrary? Having enough people put a check-mark on a piece of paper gives someone the right to initiate force does not hold up.
@karthadastim because those check-marks are not arbitrary. The vast majority of social systems are in-place for very well thought out reasons. This is not to say that those reasons are good or sound, but they are certainly not arbitrary.
@fresheyeball i am fucking aware of the fact that the check marks represent peoples vote...something as arbitrary as the check
the point is that just because the majority of people want something to happen that does not make it moral. People only endorse that until the majority disagree with them. The majority of people live in asia, does that mean when it comes to laws and customs we should all live by their rules? if the idea that majority rules is true then this does hold up.
@karthadastim I agree with you. Democratic action does not mean something is ethical, and I do not defend majority rule. But it is also NOT arbitrary. The only thing arbitrary is the use a check mark vs and oval or a tear off tab or putting a bean in a jar ect.
@karthadastim for that matter, I had no idea you where talking about votes. There are many processes that put one group in a position of initiating force. Many states are not democratic. However, this too does not mean the mechanisms that brought those conditions to be are arbitrary and can be written off as un-ethical.
@DaveElectric - "Free market" is an oxymoron. Just see what happens when a monopoly exists on land. There are no "free market" forces that allow you to dislodge such monopolies, unless you violate the NAP, Personal Property Rights, or usually both (forcefully taking the land from the owner, usually using violence).
@DaveElectric He is referring to property rights being a 'monopoly' upon the use of the property. So if you own some land, you have a monopoly on that land. His assertion that a free market cannot dislodge that monopoly is of course absurd, as all one needs to do is to purchase it.
@LeksServices States have a monopoly on land. If the U.S. were to become stateless today, whatever other problems exist, the land distribution would be relatively equal. Would 200,000,000 people suddenly sell their land for no place to live after having it? No. The monopoly you propose will not happen because their is no private interest for it to happen. States have a monopoly on all land today.
Before the first minute has even passed in this video it is already apparent that the man speaking has issues with arrogance. ... Even if he holds valid knowledge in his mind, his attitude appears inconsiderate and he seems to feed on being acknowledged as a source of truth. I suspect his stubbornness keeps him from many areas of contemplation in open consideration.
@theslothmonkey So, new to the non aggression principle, eh? Actually once you get to know Stefan you will find him a most considerate and empathetic person. Please go to his site and watch more videos before you come to such conclusions.
@theslothmonkey Human intuition is basically flawed when it comes to an accurate understanding of reality. Disregard emotional reaction and focus on the logic of the arguments. If you find that the logic is flawed after study and contemplation then please stifle his arrogance with a logical rebuttal. Besides, if Stefan is wrong then I want to know, because I would be wrong as well. Thanks
@000MrJwright - Stefan's been told he's wrong. He knows he's wrong. He's failed to ever make a rebuttal to the demonstrations of his wrongness. Right now, he's just lying, no better than Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort.
How is he wrong? If you have two landlords, and one owns a trillion acres of land, and the other owns one, and the trillionaire is abusing all his tenants, does the one who owns one acre break the monopoly? Of course not! Will new land mystically appear? Of course not!
@000MrJwright - This asshole knows that land is the only real wealth we can have on this planet. He knows owning land is the key to power and control over everyone. He also knows that personal property rights and the NAP guarantees that the most ruthless robber barons will own the land. Finally, he knows that land can't just mystically appear out of no where ... unless there's some big change in geology I did not know about. You know all this too. So why defend this lying asshole?
@000MrJwright - After all, Mr. Robber Baron Land Owner can charge people a fee just for being on the land if he likes. He can chase them off his personal land "in defense of his personal property," even if there is no place for the people to go. He can tell them what they can and can not do on their land. He can tell them how they can do what they can do on their land. He can demand things from those on his land. You grant the robber baron these rights. Don't deny it. You support tyranny.
@LeksServices the u.s. government can imprison or chase off people on land it claims, tell people what to do based on the laws of people voted in by less than a majority of the people in its borders. The difference is that the robber baron had to first supply society with something of value, while the government merely does what it wants. You believe the government has the right to do this. Don't deny it. You support real tyranny.
@000MrJwright - I know ... "Under a free market the robber baron can't own all the land." Look up the mining riots of the nineteenth century. Private interests owned entire towns. People who moved in to those towns could only live there under the conditions the private interest dictated. They could only buy what the private interest permitted to be sold on the land. They could only allow people in to their homes the local private interest allowed them to let in their homes.
@LeksServices If a town was built from scratch from a singular private interest then what exactly is the problem? It's not like there weren't a million other towns to go to.
@000MrJwright - Your, and Molyneux's, flawed ideas have been tried. They failed. They failed so badly THE GOVERNMENT had to step in and break up the vicious monopolies. They had to step in and FORCE THE PRIVATE INTERESTS TO REWRITE THEIR RULES.
You think what the government did is wrong. But when the private interests were shooting children "because the families wanted to spend more time together," you're okay with that since that was "a contract violation."
@LeksServices There has never been a de facto monopoly in history. The theory of natural monopoly is an expost facto justification for government ownership or monopolization of industry
"But when the private interests were shooting children "because the families wanted to spend more time together," you're okay with that since that was "a contract violation.""
@000MrJwright - BTW, I don't care if you tried giving me your apologetics. They're bullshit.
Personal story: I just bought a house. It's a nice little house. Needs a little work, but it's not bad all things considered.
We need a new power mast. The power mast costs much less than the house, and we paid the house off in two years. According to the credit agencies, though, I'm no good with money, so I can't get a loan to make the repair.
Thanks for explaining the standard narrative in your first two comments.Your right that people will still be consumed with power absent government.So, I think we are on the same page as far as understanding that we will still be living on the same planet with the same people absent governments.The only difference will be that when the non-aggression principal is violated all will recognize it.No one will wonder if the offenders are part of some club or organization with the "right" to violate.
@LeksServices No? Point? You seem to be a very aggressive person. In a free society it would be hard for you to find assistance just because your kind of a dick.
Sure, if you were able to pay off the house, then you will be able to save enough money to buy power mast (whatever that is). You can get loans with pretty much no credit, just have to provide collateral. Maybe you don't know how to seek credit from creditors?! You know.. just a thought.
@theslothmonkey again with people not being able to actually disagree....you just generalized some negative characteristics. Arrogance is irrelevant to philosophy (although stef is not arrogant, just challenges peoples ways of thinking), point out where his philosophy is wrong and how it is.
The book the Spirit Level: why equality is better for everyone shows that socialist countries have lower crime, less mental illness, less violence, high quality of living, great health, amazing education. Yes it is paid for through taxation but thats a small price to pay for a heathly society.
@noscman1 Maybe, but eventually they end up broke. Socialism is a concept that cannot sustain itself without the use of force. What a wonderful concept. Now if you can provide socialism without force, I am all for your grand experiment and wish you and your followers well.
@hooverdog1957 I like the idea of having "followers" haha and as an anarcho-socialist/communist/sydicalist depending on what i've been reading recently, I'm completely for voluntary associations rather than authoritarian and violent ones
From a philosophical standpoint, there s this question that really bothers me :
Ok, having a government is immoral. But why do you keep paying your taxes ? Why do you keep financing this modern form of slavery and let it use your money to inslave even more people ? Going to jail should' t be the issue, philosophically speaking. Socrates drank the conium to make a point. Isn' t a bit contradicting to say "slavery is wrong" and at the same time give money to the slave owners ?Any answear welcome
I believe Stefan has covered that question in previous videos. The issue is that Stefan wants to educate people about philosophy and society. It's sort of difficult to educate a wide audience while you're in prison...
@badseed86 "having a government is immoral" Yea that's true but you have to remember going to jail mean's your still a slave physically. Sorry but it's not the same as giving money to a slave owner because slave owners don't force you to give money to them and if they did they would be just another government. We are being robbed were not supporting it, theft and voluntary choice are different. He is not supporting it intellectually or finance's the majority of fools are supporting it.
@badseed86 To look at this from yet another angle: How would you fix the problem of slavery when most of the people around you think they need a master? Let's say your idea of starving the beast successfully destroys the gov't, in spite of the violence used to keep you paying. What happens next? People will have to decide what kind of society to create and most of them still think a gov't is the best way to go. So you will likely end up with another gov't. You have to change minds first.
Stef, can you provide more facts and educational videos? A lot of your videos come off as activism, in which case you reduce your arguments to what is capable of swaying minds, but what about anarcho-capitalists like me who simply want to learn?
keep up the good work though! While my mind needs no convincing, I still love yours vidz.
@JackofOneTrade567 a good resource is mises.org......also, a lot of his older videos are really long bc he goes into the manutia of the topic.......i guess he doesnt want to keep making the same 2 hour podcasts.....
Provision of health care... The last Labour government wanted to increase choice. Our current Lib Dem + Conservative government is following the same ideas, increasing patient choice by offering private health care in some cases, increasing efficiency in the NHS etc. I'm really not following your point that our government puts the public at gun point for the provision of health care and that only the state can provide this form of health care because it simply isn't the case.
@TheLolthazun You still have to pay for the NHS if you go private, so its not a real choice. so they offering people to pay for healthcare that would treat them faster, that they would get for "free" from the NHS. you cannot opt out of the system
@breakinmedia Putting people at gun point because they can't afford to get private health care which will cost you in excess of a few thousand pounds for minor operations. I still don't see how it's bad at all. I've had atleast £10k worth of treatment in my life time from removing excess teeth since I was a child had to have atleast 2 or 3 operations, removal of tonsils, and braces which the Orthodontists said cost over £4k privately.
@TheLolthazun Apart form the moral standopoint of it being coercive forced. It is not that bad at all, better than the U.S faux free market health care. I just don't think Its sustianble, getting more than payed in. The cadrinal rule to maintain the NHS was to not go into defecits to support it,
there has been annual deficit spending in the region of 7 billion per year for the past serveral, so cracks are starting to show.
A government wants its citizens to work, and will therefore try to keep its citizens as healthy as possible and research how to prevent diseases.
A corporation wants its customers to come back, and will therefore not try to make its customers not need their products. A new disease? A new source of revenue.
@TehRakblad dead customers don't come back.... and customers that don't work can't earn a salary and can't pay so a corporation wants the best for it's customers .... like new research and promoting health. how's this logic? now there is a bit of a diff - a corp hasn't the moral right in people's heads to dictate anything to anyone or incarcerate or make up laws,while a gov can do all of that. gov is not reasonable, it's born from a malicious primitive desire to dominate others.
@TehRakblad "A government" or "a corporation" doesn't want anything, it's a collection of individuals with individual goals. A government official wants what will get him reelected; what will get him reelected is the appearance of doing something positive for the country, whether or not he succeeds.
A corporate executive wants whatever will get his company a competitive edge, which may include retaining a steady income stream but also includes developing an untapped market.
To me it seems more "violent" to deny healthcare to somebody who didn't pay for it. Isn't it? I mean, is it justified to deny healthcare to somebody, simply because they didn't pay, for whatever reason? If they die as a result of that, was it still justified? Also, with private healthcare come those agents who look for reasons in your past to deny payments to you, so it becomes a profit to deny your healthcare. And that in itself isn't good, because money is nothing compared to health and lives.
If socialism is so bad why is the best countries to live in socialist? Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, all have low crime, high standard of living, high quality of life, no poverty what wrong with that?
@coopmuch56 All of those countries were already doing well but have since stagnated and have started eroding overall wealth since they expanded socialist programs. It's like what happened in the USA, almost every centralized program since inception has either gone downhill or caused stagnation in said industry; when prior to the programs there was a continual improvement nearly every year. The Department of Education and the Federal welfare programs are a prime example of this.
@coopmuch56 They aren't socialist. The all have free trade and next to no regulations on business. If their taxes weren't burdensome on business owners, you would see their economies expand more rapidly. The reason why their social safety nets work, is because A. the culture still emphasizes work and B. everyone is the same. Norway and Sweden are two of the most homogeneous societies on earth, in terms of race and wealth. The Scandinavian system wouldn't function in a more diverse country.
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene"- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now
I think you should re-upload a few videos every year so we get to hear them repeatably. Did you see Atheism 2.0 on TED? Its related to my first sentence.
Stefan, What would you tell folks that say, if you want people to have arms, so you want people to get nuclear or biological weapons. Just curious because I hear it all the time.
@NewAmericaNow Who would provide all the funding, expertise, equipment, and resources to fund and create this without government? ... There's your answer ;) I doubt anybody would voluntarily donate their money to this cause, and without government stealing half our health, this simply would be unattainable. There's my opinion at least for what it's worth!
@NewAmericaNow As a land developer, I would make it a part of the purchase contract, so as to make my other nearby property more attractive to other customers, that no one is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction on the property. I expect very few regions would not have similar proscriptions. Nor can imagine any company offering legal insurance to people that allows them to own WMDs, and someone without legal insurance would be effectively an outlaw.
@Panpiper Nicely done. Very logical. One thing though. If another nation develops WMD's and we are all penguins that have guns but no WMDs, If we allow our military to have them and we do not, we shall no longer be penguins of the same stripe. If we do not allow our military to have those items then our society of penguins run the risk of annihilation. Just stretching the logic.
What about good people? Is there no such thing in the opinion of Stef? Good people who can be trusted to deal with evil people, good people who have power, in other words. Is power and force always necessarily evil? Just because we see so much abuse of power everywhere, does that mean power itself is not worth fighting for? Evil people and good people are not the same penguins.
@not2tees Is the notion of possessing legitimate power over others a true idea? If people have a voluntary agreement to grant power, then it's not REALLY power. It's just a contract. But if it's seized power, then it's not legitimate. So can people rightfully possess power over others? Power IS Force and therefore illegitimate.
@PhillyEDC You can contract to give others power over your business, as in the power of an insurance agent, a banker, a lawyer, or power to family members to decide if you should be taken off life-support should you become senile, and so on. It's complicated with government, because of so many people being involved. What a relief that would be if you had an option whether to join society or not. Sign the "social contract" or not.
It's disrespecting the individual to not have it so.
@not2tees, how can you sort out the good people from the evil people? If I was an evil person i would pretend to be good person because that would create more opportunity for me as everyone lets down their guard.
@dothackerkiko By their actions, and the results of their actions, are good people and bad people known. Of course bad people will put up a false virtuous front, but like the saying goes, don't judge a book by its cover. It doesn't matter for long, then, what you pretend to be. But, I guess, stupid people do only look at the image or the cover or the 30-second sound bite, and go by that.
I won't own a weapon but I don't mind anyone else owning a weapon as long as they have a good level of trust with regards to that weapon I don't think it should be a human right.
@QPWimblik It is a human right to be free (which includes self ownership, property, etc.). The right of a person to be free is only limited to the extent that it would otherwise impinge upon someone else's equal right to be free. There are no other rights.
Me owning a weapon does not deprive you of your own freedom in any way. Me aggressively using that weapon upon you of course would, and that would be a crime.
That commentary on gun control was maybe the best I've seen yet. I don't agree with you 100% of the time Stephan, but that was brilliant...
8triagrammer 6 days ago
We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't let them write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!
Psyentists 1 week ago
Another dreamer
mrjeffroe6407 2 weeks ago
A lot of this makes sense, but getting rid of the state is such a distant prospect that I can hardly see this as anything other than an interesting academic debate.
MrDarkbloom 3 weeks ago
i love u stef but i still see u ignore my pleas for discussions about serge monast, alot of people dont know his story , and stories of project blue beam ??? plz talk about this man and if u hear this post please, repeat my post
twostrongtoo 3 weeks ago
i agree on almost every point, except that i feel that a government is a neccessary evil. i feel it is neccessary but should be kept as minimal as possible. this is done by the peoples interaction with their elected government which is something that has been lost in modern society
r3aper239 3 weeks ago
@r3aper239 So you basically said that government is necessary because government is necessary. You should say why. It's a meaningless statement like, "Rape is necessary because rape is necessary." if you don't include the why.
tmoallen 4 days ago
You hit on a great point here, Stef. Ironically, this used to be common sense in American philosophy. Thomas Jefferson (somewhat) famously said, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" When exactly this was wiped out of common American epistemology/philosophy, I'm not sure.
heavenlyboy34 1 month ago
Visually, I think this video looks better than your newer one about feminism. Reason being is that the light makes your hair and eyebrows darker and your skin somewhat lighter. This has the subconscious effect of looking younger.
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
04:40. Yes! Exactly what I said about all the faux-outrage.
murf69 1 month ago
Thanks for the ad absurdum demonstration of people's right to bear arms. Keep those coming please.
dumky 1 month ago
Oooooh! You look just like the 'Milk Tray' man : ) Da - da - da da da - daaaaaaah!
silverfoils 1 month ago
I agree with Stefan that government's are a force for evil in the world and attract bad people. However, my parents argue that without government bad people would just kill/murder their way to becoming a warlord, dictator, etc and we'd just go backwards to tribalism with the person with the biggest stick ruling. That whilst gov may be bad at least it's better than that and that we can change the person ruling within the democracy. How should I argue the case against their position?
JoinTheTemple 1 month ago
Man, stefan is like niles crane!
TheJamesrocket 1 month ago
Stephan Molyneux will go down in history as one of the greatest thinkers of the age
MrBeardstyle 1 month ago 26
@MrBeardstyle Only if we take history back
CO2TROL 1 month ago
please help me understand you're statement that fighting off oppressive governments not working when there was a thing called the revolutionary war. .the frontier men of America was the turning point in that war.it was them and there use of there guns that turned the war from Britain. thanks.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - America beat England yes, but today we have a government thousands of times more taxing that what the revolutionary war started over. They simply traded one oppressor for another. It was like a long hair brunette fighting off a rapist, then hanging out with Ted Bundy.
linkdead14 1 month ago
i understand and i feel just as you we fought to get out from under a oppressor and the first thing we did was become one our self's.on the guns part unless they take our guns one at a time and no one stands and fights well that's a no brainer. but with the countless millions of guns and ammunition that the self reliant have here we would at best have a blood bath like never seen before. we are at cold war with our government so to speak...thanks for your response.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - Nah man. Back in the days of the revolutionary war the rifle was the peak of technology is fighting a war; it was an even playing field. Today if we tried anything like that we'd have Apache helicopters; Abraham tanks, and F18 fighters dropping bombs like no ones business. There would be a blood bath, but it would be the blood of any resisting civilian.
linkdead14 1 month ago
@linkdead14 WE WOULD NOT FIGHT IN OPEN FIELDS JUST LIKE IN AFGHANISTAN YOU WONT KNOW WHO IS WHO UNTIL THE ATTACK IT WILL BE GORILLA WARFARE YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY PRUDENT TO KILL THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS TO KILL A COUPLE HINDERED FREEDOM FIGHTERS DO YOU LET ME TELL YOU MY ARSENAL IS NOT JUST A SQUIRREL RIFLE TRUST ME. YOU CANT CARP[ET BOMB CHICAGO ILLINOIS JUST TO STOP ME AND MY PEOPLE FREEDOM FIGHTERS. THAT WOULD MAKE THE GOVERNMENT THE ENEMY OF ALL REAL FAST
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - They have intelligence gathering abilities beyond your wildest dreams. They would sniff you out and SWAT team your door faster than you know.
linkdead14 1 month ago
you are basing my abilities on what your thoughts and idea and capabilities are trust me i could kill you and you not know it.your view on the situation is not mine. you need to reread my post.it is irreverent what you think.they have the same intel capabilities in Afghanistan our boys get there ass handed to them all the time. i will say it again when it happens just the countless millions of people that are prepared. you think that all these will be killed without firing a shot.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - Debating hypothetical situations is pointless.
linkdead14 1 month ago
@linkdead14 its plausible did you not read the post. so you think all these people will say oh ok never mind. just because you and others like you are to cowardice to see it does not make it go away the militias in America are a small small fraction of the prepared people.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - It is plausible that your grammar is so horrible that I would rather put a bullet in my head than pick my way through your broken English. You have points, fight rather than lose freedom. I get it okay. You don't need to put on the big tough guy act though; it just subtracts points from your argument.
linkdead14 1 month ago
@linkdead14 THE FACT THAT YOU FELT THE NEED TO ATTACK MY GRAMMAR SPEAKS VOLUMES YOU NEED NOT RELY YOU ARE BLOCKED
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - Caps - Check. Anger - Check. Threatening to block people - Check. Fifth grade writing level - check. Looks like we've got ourselves a ten year old.
linkdead14 1 month ago 4
@linkdead14 you act as if your opinion on the issue will get millions of patriots to say OH OK NEVER MIND i said millions as it stands now i my self have enough guns to arm 30 people. there will be plenty of people that will see when it starts that they will want to go down fighting. if you think we all want to roll over and die like you sound like you want to do is just give up all you know as a American without a fight well we want to say to you is thanks for being a coward.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 - You act as if you know me; stop it.
linkdead14 1 month ago
@linkdead14 YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING AS IF YOUR OPINION WILL MAKE 100 MILLION GUN OWNERS PUT DOWN THERE ARMS AND SAY OH OK NEVER MIND . IF YOU REMEMBER YOU CHALLENGED MY POST I DID NOT CHALLENGE YOU. I DON'T KNOW YOU AT ALL AS YOU ME THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO LEARN DON'T INFER IMPLY GUESS ANY ONE, ANYTHING' IT CAN EMBARRASS YOU REAL FAST . YOU HAVE BEEN CONTRIVING AT BEST.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 "please help me understand you're statement that fighting off oppressive governments not working when there was a thing called the revolutionary war."
That was over 200 years ago. Have you taken inventory of the US arsenal lately?
There may be places in the world were it could be successful, but not many. Regardless, look what the US revolution spawned.
Even if you win, you lose.
jeffiek 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WE WOULD NOT FIGHT IN OPEN FIELDS JUST LIKE IN AFGHANISTAN YOU WONT KNOW WHO IS WHO UNTIL THE ATTACK IT WILL BE GORILLA WARFARE YOU DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POLITICALLY PRUDENT TO KILL THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS TO KILL A COUPLE HINDERED FREEDOM FIGHTERS DO YOU LET ME TELL YOU MY ARSENAL IS NOT JUST A SQUIRREL RIFLE TRUST ME. YOU CANT CARP[ET BOMB CHICAGO ILLINOIS JUST TO STOP ME AND MY PEOPLE FREEDOM FIGHTERS. THAT WOULD MAKE THE GOVERNMENT THE ENEMY OF ALL REAL FAST
vishee2906 1 month ago
@jeffiek ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS NO HOPE AS A AMERICAN, NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE STATING? THE POINT IS THERE IS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT ARE ARMED LIKE YOU CANT IMAGINE READY TO FIGHT . YOUR OPINION OF YOU WONT WIN WILL NOT STOP ME FROM FIGHTING AND DIEING FOR THE IDEAS OF AMERICA WIN OR LOSE FUTILE OR NOT A WAR IS COMING LIKE NONE EVER SEEN BUY MAN WAR IS COMING.IF THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS THERE OPPRESSIVE WAYS.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@jeffiek IF I WAS TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE 3000 PEOPLE COMING TO KILL YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES YOU WOULD SAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO WARRANT WAR WITH THEM. AND I WOULD TELL YOU WELL THEY ARE COMING TOO SLAUGHTER YOU IT DON'T MATTER YOUR INNOCENCE THEY FEEL FOR WHAT EVER REASON YOU ARE THE ENEMY NOW YOU MUST FIGHT WRONG OR RIGHT YOU MUST FIGHT OR STAND THERE AND BE SLAUGHTERED.YOU MAY TRY TO SURRENDER AND HOPE THEY WILL EXCEPT SURRENDER IT IS FIGHT DIE SLAVERY YOU CHOSE.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@jeffiek IF YOU THINK THAT IS FAR FETCHED I SUGGEST YOU GO TALK TO A NATIVE AMERICA OR A AFRICAN AMERICAN OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LOSING TO THE BIG FAT RICH WHITE MAN. I AM A BIG FAT POOR WHITE MAN AND I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY I AM HUMAN AND WILL DIE FREE AND PROUD REPRESENTING AS BEST I CAN WHAT AMERICA ONCE WAS.
vishee2906 1 month ago
@vishee2906 new keyboards are only $10
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
but not returning the wallet if possible makes you immoral.
vishee2906 1 month ago
No-one is forced to use the NHS. We have a very competitive private health-care sector. It's not about coercing people into it, it's ensuring that no-one is left to suffer or die due to ill health or accident because they can't afford help.
killalmostwise 1 month ago
@killalmostwise If by "use" you mean "pay for" then yes, everybody is forced to use it, because it is tax financed
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 month ago
I like this guy
CamillioD 1 month ago
I guess the poor will have to get up and go to work
satinspringsarabians 1 month ago
Changing background from cardinal to black is fitting as our peace officers change from royal blue over navy blue to saturnian black.
disinpho 1 month ago
I abhor private health care -- it means the richest get the best medical treatment and that is violence!
How would your version of a free society stop western corporations from using sweatshops in 3rd world countries?
Laoch111 1 month ago
@Laoch111 No system can stop such problems. The question is, can any system, over the long run, beat a free market system in reducing sweatshops worldwide? Increasingly, we are discovering that the answer is no. Over the long run, free markets yield the minimum in sweatshops. The opposite, which is pure govt control, tends to maximize sweatshop conditions.
freesk8 1 month ago
@Laoch111 lol, sweatshops are a result of the state. china, for example, manipulates the currency to artificially lower wages for their citizens.....in a free market wages naturally rise....and the richest get the best medical care in a statist society....when there is a shortfall in state medical care, the poor man gets a waiting line, the rich man has connections and can get the medical care. acess to a waiting list is not the same as health care, bro.
lukaskoube 1 month ago
@Laoch111 violence: use of force on someone else. How is the voluntary exchange of medical goods and undefined other goos violence? If you are traveling in a desert, you have a limited supply of water, and you come upon a man dying of thirst, are you required to save him with your limited water? The free-market, especially in regards to healthcare, is the best system in increasing the supply of "water." Government intervention and ownership results in a shortage of "water."
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
@Laoch111 As for the use of sweatshops, look at what the governments of third world countries are doing there. Those states steal and steal, thus making it impossible to rise without being an agent of that oppressive system. The sweatshops in America were in decline before the implementation of "progressive" laws; otherwise, the rich men would never have allowed the congress to so heavily regulate them.
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
@Laoch111 It is only violence if it forces you in some way. A rich person paying for expensive stuff does not deprive you of anything, the world is not a zero sum game.
As for a free society 'stopping' sweat shops, it most emphatically would not. Sweat shops are a necessary and good thing, for seriously impoverished countries. As long as no coercion is used, people work in sweat shops because their alternatives are 'worse'. Their lot improves once they reach full employment.
Panpiper 1 month ago
"private healthcare system"
Error in thinking right there. If you really are advocating for a more moral world, you won't be advocating for a system, because "system" implies that one thing is imposed on everybody.
ninetales1234 1 month ago 16
@ninetales1234 how do you figure that? The metric system isn't imposed on anybody, for example.
Cornampoo 1 month ago
@Cornampoo - what do you mean? The metric system is imposed on people. In the UK for example traders now have to use kg and g by government mandate. They are no longer allowed to use lbs and oz even if they want to. Or am I missing your point?
JoinTheTemple 1 month ago
@ninetales1234
yeah, like a digestive system. It's imposing and top-down authoritarian.
intercourseman69 1 month ago
@ninetales1234 not according to any dictionary
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
yay im no longer paranoid because i have of guns and ammo im a modern philosopher
whiterchocolate 1 month ago
Absolutism is BAD philosophy. ERROR ERROR.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball As though you are not making an absolutist statement.
Don't be lazy dude.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric the statement 'Absolutism is BAD philosophy.' is not itself absolutist.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball Um, actually it is otherwise it is meaningless.
If its not absolutist its meaningless.
If it is absolutist then it is hypocritical.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric no. Its an absolute statement. It has nothing to do with absolutism. To say that absolutism is bad philosophy is not to say that all absolute statements are inherently false.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball "To say that absolutism is bad philosophy is not to say that all absolute statements are inherently false."
Um, actually that is what you're saying. If you think there are absolute statements which are inherently true then complaining that Stefan Molyneux is being "absolutist" is completely hypocritical.
An absolute statement(s) = absolutism.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric you clearly do not know the difference between absolutism and an absolute. If I say 'brown is a color' is an absolute statement, but does not make me an absolutist. If this was the case, no criticism of absolutism would be possible. But is its possible, because there is a difference. But as you don't seem to be able to see the difference I will easily amend my statement to "absolutism is almost always bad philosophy'. It makes no difference to me.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball Saying that brown is a color makes you an absolutism.
You can criticize absolutists for reasons OTHER THAN they are absolutists.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric actually, he is a person. Never heard of an absolutism, except as a philosophy. Maybe you meant "absolutist"?
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@DaveElectric no, absolutism is an ideology pushed to its extremes, it is not some collection of one or more statements
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier "Extreme" is an opinion.
And actually yes. Absolutism is a collection of absolute statements.Unless you're talking about it as a synonym for monarchy.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric the word "extreme" CAN be an opinionated one, but it can also be an objective, factual one. For example if something is negative 400 degrees fahrenheit, it can absolutely be thought of as extremely cold because it cannot possibly be any colder.
Or the thinnest person of all time can be thought of as literally extremely thin because no one else is thinner.
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier "Extreme" is relative and subjective nonsense.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier Oh, so you're admitting it is relative then?
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric no, that the word 'extreme' can be objective in the context of maximum but subjective in every other context
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier "Extreme conditions demand extreme responses" - Brutal Truth
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric well, that's an opinion and not all responses are valid to all problems. some of them are violent, evil, crazy, etc.
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier Yeah......SOME of them
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric and it certainly does not excuse stefbot from his erroneous claim that the initiation of force is universally wrong. Or his contradictory statements regarding the value of results on the validity of ideas.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball His claim that the initiation of force is universally wrong is erroneous for reasons other than it being absolutist.
Evidentialism is not self-refutting, but I do find it improper in some contexts (such as economics).
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric The initiation of force is not universally wrong, just usually wrong.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball really? I imagine that those few times you think it happens to be right is when you would use it to further your ideology. Well, such thinking is infantile.
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@nurbSoldier It would be better for you to ask me my view and make a judgement, then assume my view an then decry that assumption as infantile. I could say that making such far reaching assumptions about the view points of strangers is infantile.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveElectric what reasons might those be, Dave?
"Evidentialism is not self-refutting, but I do find it improper in some contexts (such as economics)." you mean when it inconveniences your worldview?
nurbSoldier 1 month ago
@DaveElectric do you believe Evidentialism to be self refuting?
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball you just made the absolute claim that absolutism is bad philosophy.
Logical fallacy
karthadastim 1 month ago
@karthadastim fine. absolutism is generally bad philosophy. Just like logical fallacies are not always incorrect, they just tend to be.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
"...when you have these errors, the result is these problems you see all around the world, huge national debts.... You cannot judge a philosophy by its effects" way to contract yourself in the same minute.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
Comment removed
000MrJwright 1 month ago
I am ok with the sate using force and I do wrap it up in a social contract. However I do not use arbitrary segmentation. I would not say as a blanket rule that human being should not initiate the use of force. To say that any action is universally wrong without context, is BAD philosophy..
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball What do you use that makes it not arbitrary? Having enough people put a check-mark on a piece of paper gives someone the right to initiate force does not hold up.
karthadastim 1 month ago
@karthadastim because those check-marks are not arbitrary. The vast majority of social systems are in-place for very well thought out reasons. This is not to say that those reasons are good or sound, but they are certainly not arbitrary.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@fresheyeball i am fucking aware of the fact that the check marks represent peoples vote...something as arbitrary as the check
the point is that just because the majority of people want something to happen that does not make it moral. People only endorse that until the majority disagree with them. The majority of people live in asia, does that mean when it comes to laws and customs we should all live by their rules? if the idea that majority rules is true then this does hold up.
karthadastim 1 month ago
@karthadastim I agree with you. Democratic action does not mean something is ethical, and I do not defend majority rule. But it is also NOT arbitrary. The only thing arbitrary is the use a check mark vs and oval or a tear off tab or putting a bean in a jar ect.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
@karthadastim for that matter, I had no idea you where talking about votes. There are many processes that put one group in a position of initiating force. Many states are not democratic. However, this too does not mean the mechanisms that brought those conditions to be are arbitrary and can be written off as un-ethical.
fresheyeball 1 month ago
God damn it. Stop saying the silly word 'Evil' please. I want to think you're intelligent.
Strangepete 1 month ago
Great stuff, you have an amazing ability to lay out concepts clearly and down to the basic level.
RKAddict101 1 month ago
Gun control is statist hypocrisy.
DaveElectric 1 month ago 31
@DaveElectric - "Free market" is an oxymoron. Just see what happens when a monopoly exists on land. There are no "free market" forces that allow you to dislodge such monopolies, unless you violate the NAP, Personal Property Rights, or usually both (forcefully taking the land from the owner, usually using violence).
LeksServices 1 month ago
@LeksServices I understand what you mean. No idealogy has a monopoly on freedom not even free market idealogy.
You're gonna have to explain what you mean by a free market creating monopolies on land. This is a vague and incoherent objection to me.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric He is referring to property rights being a 'monopoly' upon the use of the property. So if you own some land, you have a monopoly on that land. His assertion that a free market cannot dislodge that monopoly is of course absurd, as all one needs to do is to purchase it.
Panpiper 1 month ago
@LeksServices States have a monopoly on land. If the U.S. were to become stateless today, whatever other problems exist, the land distribution would be relatively equal. Would 200,000,000 people suddenly sell their land for no place to live after having it? No. The monopoly you propose will not happen because their is no private interest for it to happen. States have a monopoly on all land today.
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
One of the best videos. covering the the basics with good examples.
But now I REALLY have to go to sleep. No more Freedomain Radio for me. Zzz
Think I need the government to regulate my bedtime. -_-
DragonMountainFilm 1 month ago
Before the first minute has even passed in this video it is already apparent that the man speaking has issues with arrogance. ... Even if he holds valid knowledge in his mind, his attitude appears inconsiderate and he seems to feed on being acknowledged as a source of truth. I suspect his stubbornness keeps him from many areas of contemplation in open consideration.
theslothmonkey 1 month ago
@theslothmonkey So, new to the non aggression principle, eh? Actually once you get to know Stefan you will find him a most considerate and empathetic person. Please go to his site and watch more videos before you come to such conclusions.
hooverdog1957 1 month ago
@theslothmonkey Human intuition is basically flawed when it comes to an accurate understanding of reality. Disregard emotional reaction and focus on the logic of the arguments. If you find that the logic is flawed after study and contemplation then please stifle his arrogance with a logical rebuttal. Besides, if Stefan is wrong then I want to know, because I would be wrong as well. Thanks
000MrJwright 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - Stefan's been told he's wrong. He knows he's wrong. He's failed to ever make a rebuttal to the demonstrations of his wrongness. Right now, he's just lying, no better than Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort.
How is he wrong? If you have two landlords, and one owns a trillion acres of land, and the other owns one, and the trillionaire is abusing all his tenants, does the one who owns one acre break the monopoly? Of course not! Will new land mystically appear? Of course not!
LeksServices 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - This asshole knows that land is the only real wealth we can have on this planet. He knows owning land is the key to power and control over everyone. He also knows that personal property rights and the NAP guarantees that the most ruthless robber barons will own the land. Finally, he knows that land can't just mystically appear out of no where ... unless there's some big change in geology I did not know about. You know all this too. So why defend this lying asshole?
LeksServices 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - After all, Mr. Robber Baron Land Owner can charge people a fee just for being on the land if he likes. He can chase them off his personal land "in defense of his personal property," even if there is no place for the people to go. He can tell them what they can and can not do on their land. He can tell them how they can do what they can do on their land. He can demand things from those on his land. You grant the robber baron these rights. Don't deny it. You support tyranny.
LeksServices 1 month ago
@LeksServices the u.s. government can imprison or chase off people on land it claims, tell people what to do based on the laws of people voted in by less than a majority of the people in its borders. The difference is that the robber baron had to first supply society with something of value, while the government merely does what it wants. You believe the government has the right to do this. Don't deny it. You support real tyranny.
4lifejackhammer 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - I know ... "Under a free market the robber baron can't own all the land." Look up the mining riots of the nineteenth century. Private interests owned entire towns. People who moved in to those towns could only live there under the conditions the private interest dictated. They could only buy what the private interest permitted to be sold on the land. They could only allow people in to their homes the local private interest allowed them to let in their homes.
LeksServices 1 month ago
@LeksServices They could also leave.
arcanekrusader 1 month ago
@LeksServices If a town was built from scratch from a singular private interest then what exactly is the problem? It's not like there weren't a million other towns to go to.
You sound completely hysterical.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - Your, and Molyneux's, flawed ideas have been tried. They failed. They failed so badly THE GOVERNMENT had to step in and break up the vicious monopolies. They had to step in and FORCE THE PRIVATE INTERESTS TO REWRITE THEIR RULES.
You think what the government did is wrong. But when the private interests were shooting children "because the families wanted to spend more time together," you're okay with that since that was "a contract violation."
LeksServices 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeksServices There has never been a de facto monopoly in history. The theory of natural monopoly is an expost facto justification for government ownership or monopolization of industry
"But when the private interests were shooting children "because the families wanted to spend more time together," you're okay with that since that was "a contract violation.""
This sounds like hysterical contex dropping.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@000MrJwright - BTW, I don't care if you tried giving me your apologetics. They're bullshit.
Personal story: I just bought a house. It's a nice little house. Needs a little work, but it's not bad all things considered.
We need a new power mast. The power mast costs much less than the house, and we paid the house off in two years. According to the credit agencies, though, I'm no good with money, so I can't get a loan to make the repair.
Does that make any sense to you? "FREE DUMB!"
LeksServices 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for explaining the standard narrative in your first two comments.Your right that people will still be consumed with power absent government.So, I think we are on the same page as far as understanding that we will still be living on the same planet with the same people absent governments.The only difference will be that when the non-aggression principal is violated all will recognize it.No one will wonder if the offenders are part of some club or organization with the "right" to violate.
000MrJwright 1 month ago
@LeksServices No? Point? You seem to be a very aggressive person. In a free society it would be hard for you to find assistance just because your kind of a dick.
000MrJwright 1 month ago
@LeksServices
Sure, if you were able to pay off the house, then you will be able to save enough money to buy power mast (whatever that is). You can get loans with pretty much no credit, just have to provide collateral. Maybe you don't know how to seek credit from creditors?! You know.. just a thought.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@theslothmonkey again with people not being able to actually disagree....you just generalized some negative characteristics. Arrogance is irrelevant to philosophy (although stef is not arrogant, just challenges peoples ways of thinking), point out where his philosophy is wrong and how it is.
karthadastim 1 month ago 2
The book the Spirit Level: why equality is better for everyone shows that socialist countries have lower crime, less mental illness, less violence, high quality of living, great health, amazing education. Yes it is paid for through taxation but thats a small price to pay for a heathly society.
noscman1 1 month ago
@noscman1 Maybe, but eventually they end up broke. Socialism is a concept that cannot sustain itself without the use of force. What a wonderful concept. Now if you can provide socialism without force, I am all for your grand experiment and wish you and your followers well.
hooverdog1957 1 month ago
@hooverdog1957 I like the idea of having "followers" haha and as an anarcho-socialist/communist/sydicalist depending on what i've been reading recently, I'm completely for voluntary associations rather than authoritarian and violent ones
noscman1 1 month ago
@mistara31415 I allso get it... but the video was sooooo good that I dident notice it ^_^.. Until I read your coment... basterd ;D
chrstilen5 1 month ago
From a philosophical standpoint, there s this question that really bothers me :
Ok, having a government is immoral. But why do you keep paying your taxes ? Why do you keep financing this modern form of slavery and let it use your money to inslave even more people ? Going to jail should' t be the issue, philosophically speaking. Socrates drank the conium to make a point. Isn' t a bit contradicting to say "slavery is wrong" and at the same time give money to the slave owners ?Any answear welcome
badseed86 1 month ago
@badseed86
I believe Stefan has covered that question in previous videos. The issue is that Stefan wants to educate people about philosophy and society. It's sort of difficult to educate a wide audience while you're in prison...
Draginvry2 1 month ago
@badseed86 "having a government is immoral" Yea that's true but you have to remember going to jail mean's your still a slave physically. Sorry but it's not the same as giving money to a slave owner because slave owners don't force you to give money to them and if they did they would be just another government. We are being robbed were not supporting it, theft and voluntary choice are different. He is not supporting it intellectually or finance's the majority of fools are supporting it.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@badseed86 "Going to jail should' t be the issue, philosophically speaking"
It isn't a philosophical issue. It's a survival strategy.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@badseed86 To look at this from yet another angle: How would you fix the problem of slavery when most of the people around you think they need a master? Let's say your idea of starving the beast successfully destroys the gov't, in spite of the violence used to keep you paying. What happens next? People will have to decide what kind of society to create and most of them still think a gov't is the best way to go. So you will likely end up with another gov't. You have to change minds first.
AndreisEntaro 1 month ago
Stef, can you provide more facts and educational videos? A lot of your videos come off as activism, in which case you reduce your arguments to what is capable of swaying minds, but what about anarcho-capitalists like me who simply want to learn?
keep up the good work though! While my mind needs no convincing, I still love yours vidz.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 a good resource is mises.org......also, a lot of his older videos are really long bc he goes into the manutia of the topic.......i guess he doesnt want to keep making the same 2 hour podcasts.....
lukaskoube 1 month ago
I like the right to bare arms, unless it's cold out.
Noblehammer16 1 month ago 18
Provision of health care... The last Labour government wanted to increase choice. Our current Lib Dem + Conservative government is following the same ideas, increasing patient choice by offering private health care in some cases, increasing efficiency in the NHS etc. I'm really not following your point that our government puts the public at gun point for the provision of health care and that only the state can provide this form of health care because it simply isn't the case.
TheLolthazun 1 month ago
@TheLolthazun You still have to pay for the NHS if you go private, so its not a real choice. so they offering people to pay for healthcare that would treat them faster, that they would get for "free" from the NHS. you cannot opt out of the system
breakinmedia 1 month ago
@breakinmedia Putting people at gun point because they can't afford to get private health care which will cost you in excess of a few thousand pounds for minor operations. I still don't see how it's bad at all. I've had atleast £10k worth of treatment in my life time from removing excess teeth since I was a child had to have atleast 2 or 3 operations, removal of tonsils, and braces which the Orthodontists said cost over £4k privately.
TheLolthazun 1 month ago
@TheLolthazun Apart form the moral standopoint of it being coercive forced. It is not that bad at all, better than the U.S faux free market health care. I just don't think Its sustianble, getting more than payed in. The cadrinal rule to maintain the NHS was to not go into defecits to support it,
there has been annual deficit spending in the region of 7 billion per year for the past serveral, so cracks are starting to show.
breakinmedia 1 month ago
A government wants its citizens to work, and will therefore try to keep its citizens as healthy as possible and research how to prevent diseases.
A corporation wants its customers to come back, and will therefore not try to make its customers not need their products. A new disease? A new source of revenue.
TehRakblad 1 month ago
@TehRakblad dead customers don't come back.... and customers that don't work can't earn a salary and can't pay so a corporation wants the best for it's customers .... like new research and promoting health. how's this logic? now there is a bit of a diff - a corp hasn't the moral right in people's heads to dictate anything to anyone or incarcerate or make up laws,while a gov can do all of that. gov is not reasonable, it's born from a malicious primitive desire to dominate others.
pipobun 1 month ago
@TehRakblad "A government" or "a corporation" doesn't want anything, it's a collection of individuals with individual goals. A government official wants what will get him reelected; what will get him reelected is the appearance of doing something positive for the country, whether or not he succeeds.
A corporate executive wants whatever will get his company a competitive edge, which may include retaining a steady income stream but also includes developing an untapped market.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
To me it seems more "violent" to deny healthcare to somebody who didn't pay for it. Isn't it? I mean, is it justified to deny healthcare to somebody, simply because they didn't pay, for whatever reason? If they die as a result of that, was it still justified? Also, with private healthcare come those agents who look for reasons in your past to deny payments to you, so it becomes a profit to deny your healthcare. And that in itself isn't good, because money is nothing compared to health and lives.
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
telling people they have no right to bear arms is like telling a scorpion it has no right to have a stinger
deshaebeasley 1 month ago
If socialism is so bad why is the best countries to live in socialist? Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, all have low crime, high standard of living, high quality of life, no poverty what wrong with that?
coopmuch56 1 month ago 4
Comment removed
batmanthe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coopmuch56 All of those countries were already doing well but have since stagnated and have started eroding overall wealth since they expanded socialist programs. It's like what happened in the USA, almost every centralized program since inception has either gone downhill or caused stagnation in said industry; when prior to the programs there was a continual improvement nearly every year. The Department of Education and the Federal welfare programs are a prime example of this.
batmanthe 1 month ago
@coopmuch56 They aren't socialist. The all have free trade and next to no regulations on business. If their taxes weren't burdensome on business owners, you would see their economies expand more rapidly. The reason why their social safety nets work, is because A. the culture still emphasizes work and B. everyone is the same. Norway and Sweden are two of the most homogeneous societies on earth, in terms of race and wealth. The Scandinavian system wouldn't function in a more diverse country.
nickdeb2 1 month ago
@coopmuch56 It also stifles innovation.
nickdeb2 1 month ago
Howabout a voluntary government?
nottinmatterz2day 1 month ago
WONDERFUL, stefbot
nottinmatterz2day 1 month ago
Stefanie looks like a pelican wearing that turtleneck as it really accentuates his double chin. What an abominable look.
dsturch 1 month ago
Logical contradictions equals false hood is quite more epic to me.
TerrierBram 1 month ago
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene"- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now
dopejoel 1 month ago
0:13
Scientism.
AkivaII 1 month ago
I think you should re-upload a few videos every year so we get to hear them repeatably. Did you see Atheism 2.0 on TED? Its related to my first sentence.
Stonegoal 1 month ago
the awesome logic was like scratching a brain itch. mmmm
badjer1785 1 month ago
LOL - most epic line ever - "Hey marines, I would rather you piss on me than blow my head off."
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago 9
You a good lookin' future bald space man type. dat turtleneck.
JackSatanson 1 month ago
Stunnigly coherent arguement.
AtheistPatriot1 1 month ago
Stefan, What would you tell folks that say, if you want people to have arms, so you want people to get nuclear or biological weapons. Just curious because I hear it all the time.
NewAmericaNow 1 month ago
@NewAmericaNow Who would provide all the funding, expertise, equipment, and resources to fund and create this without government? ... There's your answer ;) I doubt anybody would voluntarily donate their money to this cause, and without government stealing half our health, this simply would be unattainable. There's my opinion at least for what it's worth!
zdrux 1 month ago
@NewAmericaNow You can't defend yourself with bio-weapons or a nuclear arsenal, only attack without any discrimination. Those are wmd's. Guns, no.
alleygh0st 1 month ago
@NewAmericaNow As a land developer, I would make it a part of the purchase contract, so as to make my other nearby property more attractive to other customers, that no one is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction on the property. I expect very few regions would not have similar proscriptions. Nor can imagine any company offering legal insurance to people that allows them to own WMDs, and someone without legal insurance would be effectively an outlaw.
Panpiper 1 month ago
@Panpiper Nicely done. Very logical. One thing though. If another nation develops WMD's and we are all penguins that have guns but no WMDs, If we allow our military to have them and we do not, we shall no longer be penguins of the same stripe. If we do not allow our military to have those items then our society of penguins run the risk of annihilation. Just stretching the logic.
NewAmericaNow 1 month ago
What about good people? Is there no such thing in the opinion of Stef? Good people who can be trusted to deal with evil people, good people who have power, in other words. Is power and force always necessarily evil? Just because we see so much abuse of power everywhere, does that mean power itself is not worth fighting for? Evil people and good people are not the same penguins.
not2tees 1 month ago
@not2tees Is the notion of possessing legitimate power over others a true idea? If people have a voluntary agreement to grant power, then it's not REALLY power. It's just a contract. But if it's seized power, then it's not legitimate. So can people rightfully possess power over others? Power IS Force and therefore illegitimate.
PhillyEDC 1 month ago
@PhillyEDC You can contract to give others power over your business, as in the power of an insurance agent, a banker, a lawyer, or power to family members to decide if you should be taken off life-support should you become senile, and so on. It's complicated with government, because of so many people being involved. What a relief that would be if you had an option whether to join society or not. Sign the "social contract" or not.
It's disrespecting the individual to not have it so.
not2tees 1 month ago
@not2tees, how can you sort out the good people from the evil people? If I was an evil person i would pretend to be good person because that would create more opportunity for me as everyone lets down their guard.
dothackerkiko 1 month ago
@dothackerkiko By their actions, and the results of their actions, are good people and bad people known. Of course bad people will put up a false virtuous front, but like the saying goes, don't judge a book by its cover. It doesn't matter for long, then, what you pretend to be. But, I guess, stupid people do only look at the image or the cover or the 30-second sound bite, and go by that.
not2tees 1 month ago
I won't own a weapon but I don't mind anyone else owning a weapon as long as they have a good level of trust with regards to that weapon I don't think it should be a human right.
QPWimblik 1 month ago
@QPWimblik It is a human right to be free (which includes self ownership, property, etc.). The right of a person to be free is only limited to the extent that it would otherwise impinge upon someone else's equal right to be free. There are no other rights.
Me owning a weapon does not deprive you of your own freedom in any way. Me aggressively using that weapon upon you of course would, and that would be a crime.
Panpiper 1 month ago