Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, discusses current and future events with Vinny Eastwood.
@stefbot : I couldn't help notice that you condemned the "argument from armageddon" at 12:24 and then essentially use it yourself at around 26:04. I fear that people smart enough to listen to what you say, but not smart enough to understand the "ad hominem" logical fallacy will see this sort of inconsistency on your part and use it to dismiss all of the things that you say, most of which are things they will not likely hear anywhere else.
@ZoneofA The U.S. Government has spent almost $500 billion dollars to invade and occupy Afghanistan alone. Wars and invasions are not profitable and are only possible when a government can convince or force its citizens to pay so that it can extract trillions of dollars in taxes every year (and that's live, productive, happy, working people who haven't had everything they own confiscated by some rogue military powerhouse). It's simply not profitable.
@ZoneofA ctd. And assuming, of course, that your victims "wouldn't have a gun", and that you have the resources to take on every last one of your clients. Know that criminals comprise a minute percentage of the population when crimes are limited to violent crimes with victims; you certainly won't need a whole lot of resources at your disposal if you're policing, so when you hike rates to start your dastardly plan, what do you do when competition steals your market share?
Who would buy the property you obtained if they know you'll just as likely blow them up than pay them? Who's going to trust you enough to sign up when everyone knows you're a charlatan who preys off of the vulnerable?
As soon as you introduce violence into the equation, the concept of profit and return disappears from the equation. You'll either kill the whole world or you get killed in return. It might work for the first door you kick in, but after that...
@ZoneofA Assuming, of course, that their time preferences are so short that they'd rather take $100 now then earn $1000s over a few years. And assuming, of course, that the benefits gained from stealing outweigh the costs of mounting a full-scale invasion. And assuming they're able to mobilize enough capital in secret to do so without attracting the ire of their would-be victims. And assuming... lots more that I can fit in one comment.
We are starting to unite, Stefan should do a radio show with Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist Movement. Talk about up coming things for 2012, and try to find an understanding of values that they have in common.
@stefbot : I couldn't help notice that you condemned the "argument from armageddon" at 12:24 and then essentially use it yourself at around 26:04. I fear that people smart enough to listen to what you say, but not smart enough to understand the "ad hominem" logical fallacy will see this sort of inconsistency on your part and use it to dismiss all of the things that you say, most of which are things they will not likely hear anywhere else.
theredscourge 1 month ago
The 'BATMAN' of philosophy...love it very funny!
jamesjjjspike 1 month ago
Blame the masses. I know too many people who unknowingly follow that ignorance is bliss.
olsonr 1 month ago
@grassmaster180 Thanks for starting my New Year with a laugh.
TinyBlueCage 1 month ago
@ZoneofA The U.S. Government has spent almost $500 billion dollars to invade and occupy Afghanistan alone. Wars and invasions are not profitable and are only possible when a government can convince or force its citizens to pay so that it can extract trillions of dollars in taxes every year (and that's live, productive, happy, working people who haven't had everything they own confiscated by some rogue military powerhouse). It's simply not profitable.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@ZoneofA ctd. And assuming, of course, that your victims "wouldn't have a gun", and that you have the resources to take on every last one of your clients. Know that criminals comprise a minute percentage of the population when crimes are limited to violent crimes with victims; you certainly won't need a whole lot of resources at your disposal if you're policing, so when you hike rates to start your dastardly plan, what do you do when competition steals your market share?
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@ZoneofA ctd.
Who would buy the property you obtained if they know you'll just as likely blow them up than pay them? Who's going to trust you enough to sign up when everyone knows you're a charlatan who preys off of the vulnerable?
As soon as you introduce violence into the equation, the concept of profit and return disappears from the equation. You'll either kill the whole world or you get killed in return. It might work for the first door you kick in, but after that...
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@ZoneofA Assuming, of course, that their time preferences are so short that they'd rather take $100 now then earn $1000s over a few years. And assuming, of course, that the benefits gained from stealing outweigh the costs of mounting a full-scale invasion. And assuming they're able to mobilize enough capital in secret to do so without attracting the ire of their would-be victims. And assuming... lots more that I can fit in one comment.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@TinyBlueCage Stefan beat PJ's ass in a debate earlier this year
grassmaster180 1 month ago
We are starting to unite, Stefan should do a radio show with Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist Movement. Talk about up coming things for 2012, and try to find an understanding of values that they have in common.
TinyBlueCage 1 month ago