Anarchast Ep. 10 with Richard Maybury of the U.S. and World Early Warning Report

In this episode we speak with Richard Maybury of the U.S. and World Early Warning Report

Topics include:

-The Definition of Anarchy
-The Case for Government is Not Proven
-Anarchism is not the Same as Being Against Law
-Government is the Enemy of Law
-How Child Labor Laws Force Children to Stay in Abusive Environments
-The US Government was Broke and Now It's Destitute
-We are in a Great Depression Right Now
-Schools Teach a Blind Faith in Government
-Politics is not Speeches and Voting... Politics Involves Guns
-Austrian Economics has Clear Explanations of How the World Really Works
-Anarchists are the Philosophical Descendants of the American Founding Fathers
-Government Employees can be the Most Violent
-Your Child is the Property of the State
-The US Department of Defense is really the Department of Offense
-The US Military Attacks Foreign Countries to Divert Attention

LINKS & REFERENCES

http://www.chaostan.com/
"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand: http://amzn.to/oeeRqv

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• anarchast
• jeff berwick
• libertarianism
• anarchist interview
• Richard Maybury

[xelenty]

@onbradley Yeah, perhaps Maybury's points weren't entirely well thought out I agree. Just from my own experience, when I was 16 in 1985, I took off from the family home as soon as I could, because it was hell.. Perhaps wasn't as bad as some situations for kids and certainly running off isn't the best solution. I'm not convinced by govt solutions to child abuse, since they often lead to even more abuse frankly. And given all the regs of recent years, that decision has been limited for youngsters.

[nrgrus]

@ onbradly I have met children 10 years old who are capable of working. I have lived in the Eastern worlds and know what you are saying. In some countries abuse is rampid. These children might excape if they worked? The life they have is much worse. My fathers & my grand fathers generation worked very hard jobs and learned a valuable work ethic. The "Dickenson" scenario is gone from most western society. We simply cannot govern the world. In the USA we have laws against abuse but it happens

[nrgrus]

@ onbradly I see your point. I have met children 10 years old who are capable of working. I have lived in the Eastern worlds and know what you are saying. In some countries abuse is rampid. These children could excape if they worked. The life they have is much worse. My fathers & my grand fathers generation worked very hard jobs and learned a valuable work ethic. The "Dickenson" scenario is gone from most western society. We simply cannot govern the world. Not just 1 answer here.

[onbradley]

@nrgrus It is a straw man argument to say that children working hard around the family home, farm, or in a cottage industry is sufficient reason to repeal child labor laws. Maybury's point is that kids in brutally abusive situations should just be able to get out and find a job!  Maybury doesn't need to look back at Dickensian England to see how bad that was, all he need to is jump off the plane in SE Asia, where they still have a "free market" of children...wearing makeup and scantily clad.

[onbradley]

@xelenty I think that point has no logical foundation. Resources exist today in both government and the private sector to help any child leave an abusive situation, and most of those resources did not exist in the "utopian" system described by Maybury. His whole argument comes down to the one specious example that a small child could fleee abuse to find a job. Child labor jobs have been dirty, tiring, soul-destroying and dangerous child labor throughout history. Maybury is simply a fool.

[labrusca10]

@GodOfTheInternets

You saying "facts remain facts" doesn't make your assertion true. You have to provide evidence or a logical argument in order to advance your case. Simply you saying "humans are this way because they are" does not make it so. Your assertions are contrary to a vast wealth of information and empirical observations of humans that indicate the opposite.

I do realize, though, that YouTube is not conducive to constructing long arguments or having a thorough dialogue.

[labrusca10]

@GodOfTheInternets

Are you and the other "traditional" anarchists claiming ownership of the word "anarchist"? You are attempting to coerce us into using YOUR definition of the word "anarchist". That is tantamount to claiming you can own that word. That's theft, according to Proudhon.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@labrusca10

The facts speak for itself, humans are soft-wired for altruism, compassion, empathy and sociability. You can dispute it all you want but facts remain facts.

Anarchy literally means "no rulers" but/and was defined as "no masters or sovereign" by Proudhon. Master is someone who has control over someone else, e.g. an employer. Anarchism by its very definition means the absence of a capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

[labrusca10]

@GodOfTheInternets

I disagree that human nature is compassionate and altruistic. I do agree that it is social.

Anarchist means "no rulers". I don't want any rulers coercing me. Socialist usually means something more about lack of right to own property, which I do not identify with.

[Hashishin13]

@GodOfTheInternets "Capitalists don't understand human nature AT ALL. Human nature is compassion, social, altruistic, and monetary reward for innovative work is counter productive. Human nature is not selfish."

So do this and convince others to do this voluntarily under a free market system if its so great and admirable? No one is going to stop you unless you violate their property.

We take it to mean no involuntary master or owner, a fair re-interpretation by any reasonable standard.