The state’s corruption of language, how do you deal with X in a free society, using self-defense against the government, unprocessed history impacting motiva…
Free Market Capitalism and Government are two sides of the same coin. Free
Market capitalism can only exist when there is only one person left on the
planet. He can do whatever he wants kill animals, make spares, build a hut,
or build a Government or State. Thus, Government is formed by free market
capitalism. They cannot exist without each other. Even if he does not build
a Government he makes his own rules as he goes about his life (governing
himself). Thus, free market capitalism and government are two sides of the
same coin. In fact, it is more like the Yin & Yang symbol. On the one hand,
free market capitalism cannot exist by itself without a small amount of
government law to protect the people. On the other hand, Government cannot
exist by itself without some amount of free market capitalism. Thus, they
are like the Yin & Yang symbol. When economists and socialists argue about
more government or free market capitalism. They are arguing over the amount
or proportion that can maximize the allocation of resources :-)
On the nature of good vs. the nature of evil. Good relies mostly on a very
special quality of truth: it is tenaciously persistent and never goes away.
But, like exercise, the benefit can be slow and difficult to see at times.
Because it values individual will, it must wait for each individual to
*choose* it: it cannot be foisted upon anyone.
Evil, on the other hand, relies on a special quality of darkness:
obfuscation. Because force and pressure can, like a drug such as cocaine,
provide quick and easy to see effects, it can appear to be a smart way to
go at first glance. However, like a drug, the benefits are always
outweighed by the costs (and if they weren’t it wouldn’t be evil) *when all
factors are considered*. This is its weakness: that the *unseen and usually
purposefully hidden* costs can be revealed, whereupon it is easy to see
that it is not a smart way to go: that is, for those who choose to look.
This guy at 56:00 – 1:30:00 + is really annoying… dude, if you have
enough ambition to call into a show to get advice on ‘how to be ambitious’,
JUST GET UP AND DO IT. The only reason you don’t do dishes is because you
are lazy, not because your dad “wasn’t there”.
I just wish Stef would make a brave step forward and start moving toward a
clear goal. And that goal should be the change of the existing system into
a better one. I fear all of this might not have any effect on anything
other than maybe helping few people from time to time with their personal
problems. I did watch a couple of movies Stef made and placed on his
website, this I watched like few years ago, I think, but it was long time
ago and I was under impression he might be able to do something concrete,
something that will have a big impact on things around us. He certainly is
or was in a position to do so. I don’t know.
**I just want to clarify. Stefan Molyneux is a former CIA agent, and this
is well documented. He is still on their payroll. We have evidence of him
meeting with Bush.**
Nah, just kidding. You’re awesome Stef’. :=D Good work. Another great
podcast. Kudos to all the brave callers. I really relate and feel these
conversations are helpful.
Wow, I relate a lot to the guy from 0:56:11 to 1:59:17, even though the
abuse I experienced was but a tiny fraction of the abuse he did. On the
other hand, one thing is pointing at the source of the problem, another
thing is to find a solution — I still don’t understand how to go from one
to the other.
Does anyone wonder why the state holds a monopoly on force? We should all
go back to the time of tribal warfare and landlords fighting one another
for resources. Why don’t you move to the tribal regions of Afghanistan and
Pakistan Moly?
At first, I thought ‘Unprocessed History Impacting Motivation’ was fixed in
2 minutes. The Philosophoraptor would have had some serious competition.
But, it was more like 62 minutes.
Great, now that you guys think that EVERYBODY ELSE is corrupting their
language, you’ll feel even more justified in twisting the meaning of words.
Tax being theft and the like. Hey, why does Stefan have such problems with
the words “structural violence” then? Simple, because “i am right, you are
wrong”… but that kind of philosophy is doomed to fail. Call taxation
immoral, call the state violent, but don’t redefine the language everyone
agreed to use, please.
They are not ‘my’ taxes. I did not impose them and I did not sign off on
them. They are not my taxes. They are the taxes of others. They are the
ones attempting to force their taxes on me. They are NOT ‘my’ taxes.
I can’t help but think that aloud every time I hear the phrase.
Just so we are clear what we are arguing against, taxes are claimed to be
valid like this: 1) For the sake of having a harmonious and safe society, a
group of people need to be given a monopoly on violence. 2) To ensure that
these people are of reasonable quality, each adult gets to vote, so if
someone bad gets in, it only requires that they be voted out to get rid of
them. 3) Therefore, “the people” select these people as self-rulers, and
can get rid of them if they are dissatisfied. 4) Therefore the collection
of taxes is voluntary and for the good of all. (It used to be that a
section about the constitution establishing base rules that limit the state
could be included in this argument, but unfortunately, that part has been
shredded… as we can see, though, it is not necessary to the main
argument.)
Now, as for UPB? That is based on consistency, that is, what applies to one
human will apply to another, but the entire *point* of democracy is to
select people who will enforce the *law* upon everyone: once voted in, they
aren’t meant to be in the same category.. therefore, that is irrelevant to
the argument. As for NAP? Obviously, since we have violence, we need to
have a way of containing and restraining it, which is exactly what
democracy supposedly does.
It would be nice if just naming taxes “theft” was enough to unravel this
“argument” but, unfortunately, it isn’t that easy.
I remember when I first got a gun and a carry license (after a childhood of
abuse from just about everybody in my life, including many who weren’t IN
my life, just in proximity), I looked forward to the opportunity to be able
to shoot somebody with impunity. “Fortunately” I got to find out how wrong
I really was without anybody getting hurt.
I was delivering pizzas at the time in a bad part of town. The first time I
had to decide whether or not to pull a gun on another human being (who was
making it necessary) I was so ill at ease it took 3 days of surrounding
myself with friends and family before I began to feel any sort of normalcy
and this was just a few days before xmas.
I hope that caller is as “fortunate.” Somebody pulling a gun on you (as in
Stef’s hypothetical) is going to be traumatic enough. You don’t want the
trauma of having to disassemble another human being on top of it. Not for
something like $1 for sure. Even if it was a righteous shoot like the guy
tells you he’s going to take your life and you manage to wrestle his gun
away and end the conflict, you’re going to have their family members crying
out what an angel the person was, possibly the media shaming you because
you used a gun, a zealous prosecutor looking to start his career putting
away a pistol-packing citizen… You just don’t know how far that butterfly
wing flapping will alter the course of your life.
In closing, I know a guy who’s been doing private security for decades. He
asserts that if it’s a righteous shoot, there will be no thinking on your
part because it will literally be act or die. Wanted to add that in since
the caller suggested there was a windows of rational thought somehow.
stephen you ARE a psychologist!!!! albeit on youtube. you help people
psychologically. and you use CBT method. see the truth. don’t deny it.
whats causing ur denial?
It is not true that babies who are not assertive enough to cry for needs
like food are necessarily weeded out of the gene pool. In some cultures it
is quite the opposite; the Lakota, for example, had a tradition of
abandoning or even smothering to death any infants who cried more than once
at an inconvenient time. It is quite possible for evolutionary forces to
favor genes that babies less assertive, so long as either the genes or the
habits of the society cause the mothers to be attentive enough without it.
In many, perhaps most, human and hominid societies it is common for mothers
to carry their infants in such ways as to allow them to reach the breast
and feed without needing to get attention first. It is also very common for
infants to sleep with their mothers so that they can feed at night without
waking her. Babies do not have to assert themselves by crying very much if
the mothers are as attentive as they ought to be.
My mother claims that I almost never cried as an infant. She does not
recall me crying for food or attention. I was held to the breast enough
that there was no need for that. She also tended to change my diapers so
promptly that they did not bother me. Pretty much the only crying she could
remember from my infancy was when my circumcision scar was bothered by
soapy water while being given a bath.
until we can change the violent nature of human beings a free market is
never going to happen in a million years Infact a free market is nothing
but a utopia
Firstly I am lost for word with this video in a good way.
Reading the comments leads me to state the following.
To have and maintain a positive social/ecological/technological etc etc
etc; the nature of the individual must evolve. this must start with a need
to change (e.g. Lack of food requires new tactics). All social structures
are the highly developed manifestations of these basic needs. Therefor
natural selection based on an artificial subconscious imperative is the
only way a society can eventually develop a perfect (or close to) system;
politically or otherwise.
Now requirements such as food are as whole a non issue hence the need for
an artificial progenitor
IMO this is what philosophy should be focusing on before even the current
system can be intellectually disassembled.
you need an infallible parallel; one not based on morals as they leed to
confusion in this context.
But what do I know ; I study electronic engineering :)
Best for all to start forming militias.
Keep it secret.
Train whenever you can in guerrilla warfare,shooting,orienteering,make up
your own hand signal or use established ones from US officer
handbooks,medical,dental and supply lines.
Do this and you may have a chance at whatever comes at you.
Where I live in Texas militias are everywhere.
We even have a non federal “National Guard” state Militia.
Form coops with local farmers and ranchers but keep it secret.
If you live in South Texas look for “El Tercio Tejano”.
No normal (sane, healthy, happy) human being would perpetrate any act of
force, violence or fraudulence against another – no sane normal human being
would abuse or exploit another.
Next to an unimpeachable (maybe occasionally shaken-but-then-rectified)
sense of self worth there is no other experience more desired, more potent,
more empowering than that of experiencing the esteem of one fellows – at
least that of other sane, normal human beings – not to omit that of any of
the other denizens of this planet.
Perpetrating acts of abuse on others immediately & irredeemably implodes
not only one’s own sense of self worth but the esteem of others. Other
people don’t even have to ‘find out’ about your ‘sin’ – your lying,
cheating, thieving, killing etc – as your guilt & your irreparably
sabotaged sense of self-worth will be amply & inerradically evident in your
body language from then on – until you not only confess but restore +
damages whatever your wrongful act was. And get forgiven. And get fully
reconclied to those you wronged.
The fact that the Abrahamic ‘god’ had to tell ‘his people’ – & via their
proxy, us – that thieving, lying, cheating, killing, dishonouring one’s
parents, envying ones neighbours’ possessions – not to omit the vast
multiplicity of other accompanying psychotic, off-this-planet-insane
injunctions found alongside these so-called ten great commandments – only
indicates that ‘he’ was trying to deal with humanity as if we are obligate
psycho-sociopaths – quite literally as if ‘every thought of the
imaginations of our hearts are only evil continually’.
And according to this story we are this very thing, & we got this way
because our ancestral progenitors ate an apple which particular event
somehow got into these progenitors’ genes & got passed on to us all as
‘original sin’ – from which there is absolutely no self-engineered escape
……………………..
As the vast majority of us humans do verily indeed live lives riddled
24/7/365 with ‘sin’ of varying magnitude – lying, cheating, thieving,
killing not just each other but via self-sabotage of roughly commensurate
or greater putrifaction, internally towards our very own selves – &,
further, do not have the vaguest, foggiest notion either why or more
importantly, how to cease doing so, one way or another – either
‘religiously’ or secularly – hook, line & sinker we’ve bought into the idea
that ‘sinning’ is our NATURAL STATE.
Which is very antithesis of the notion stated above that ‘no normal (sane,
healthy, happy) human being would perpetrate any act of violence or
fraudulence against another – no sane normal human being would abuse or
exploit another. Or themselves.
So are we intrinsically & irredeemably constituted for lives of abuse &
exploitation – as either victims or perpetrators ? Are we ? And is there
no escape ? Can we work out our own salvation ?
Is ‘benign anarchy’ the solution ?
Until we discover the reason why so many – 99 – 100% of us – live lives of
ceaseless abuse & exploitation of ourselves & each other, we’ll never
discover the solution, if there is one.
Fortunately there is.
If we all loved & cared for one another as we could & should – along with
our once glorious planetary home – there would be no problems. No lying,
cheating, killing, thieving, abusing, tormenting, exploiting one another –
or anything else in our greater surrounds, animate & inanimate alike. No
raping & pillaging each other or the planet.
So is ‘love’ the solution ? Rather than even benign anarchy ?
Yes. And the only source of love on this planet is a mother’s arms, womb,
breast & lap – is a properly loving & competent mother’s arms, womb, breast
& lap.
I know Stef & all – well hopefully not all – of you philosoraptors out
there don’t want to hear this – especially including that otherwise most
esteemable woman-hating Karen Straughan – patriarchy is the reason, the one
& only reason, the sole & only reason, we human beings left paradise & fell
to hating, lying, cheating, killing & defrauding each other & ourselves
24/7.
And the reason it did is very simple.
Patriarchy was not only the world historic defeat of woman but worse – well
same, same – it was also the world historic defeat of mothering.
Among many other strictures it requires, our own (species specific) brand
of mothering not only requires a happy, healthy, sane, normal, competent, &
utterly willing mother but as these qualifications in a woman cannot obtain
unless she is wholly immersed within – completely surrounded by a fully
supportive & competent bevy of her own – & no one else’s – female blood kin
– her own blood mother, grandmother, maternal aunts, maternal/sororal
nieces & cousins etc – nothing less than just such a milieu will suffice –
for the production of normal human beings – for the appearance of normal
happy, healthy, sane non-violent, non-abusive, non-lying, cheating,
thieving, self-hating human beings on this planet.
For truly loving, caring human beings.
[In fact so definitive is ‘mothering’ within every sphere of human
existence – including both our past & future evolutionary trajectories –
nothing less than renaming our species ‘maternis sapiens sapiens’ will
suffice.]
Until we get mothering right we’re doomed.
And the sole reason for patriarchy was/is to negate it.To abrogate it.
Because fertilisation can occur in under five minutes behind the local
mulberry bush, men decided – & yes it is a conspiracy, the biggest & worst
of all – to institute patriarchal marriage. And the rest of our own
downhill slide towards now near certain omnicidal oblivion is history – is
‘his’ ‘story’.
Is not ‘her’ ‘story’.
There will be no cessation of either intra- or interpersonal violence of
all kinds & degrees until we restore our mothers back on the pedestal of
worshipful attention nature originally gave her – & which the patriarchy
took away.
The very first commandment should not be ‘Thou shalt have no other gods
before me, Jahweh, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them’
….. but should be instead ‘Thou shalt not pay higher attention to
anything or any one than thine own mother …… thou shalt not bow down
thyself nor serve any other than she’ …………
The greatest thing you can ever learn is to love & be loved in return.
‘Mothering’ – species specific mothering – in our own species IS AN
ENTIRELY LEARNED BEHAVIOUR – which can be acquired via the imprinting type
of learning exclusively at one’s own mother’s breast. If she doesn’t do it
right for whatever reason, her offspring willbe majorly stuffed. Will
literally turn out psycho-sociopaths to whatever degree she failed & in
which specific ways she failed – nutritionally, emotionally, etc, etc.
We’ll give you patriarchs a little time out to lick your wounds but then
stand up & take it like men, courageously, powerfully & competently. You’ll
be greatly empowered to do so if you keep in mind that the dismantling of
patriarchy & the re-instatement of what is after all only our own proper
brand of species specific, clan-embedded mothering, will not only purify
your own souls, not only save humanity (without having to worship a Jewish
zombie nailed to a forked tree) but will save the rest of our planet too
……
You know in your heart of hearts this interpretation of our now
pen-ultimately dire predicament is correct. Especially you men
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can you not trust people cause they let you marry a bad partner when
you yourself didn’t leave it? Surely you are the one responsible for
deciding ultimately who you choose to be with as an adult. I love all the
childhood stuff but to blame your friends as an adult when you get out of a
7 year relationship doesn’t feel right.
With all respect to Stefan, the caller who said he would shoot the mugger
in the back clearly lacks the awareness or training to have the vaguest
semblance of understanding of what he is talking about. He freely admits
that he has never had to defend himself. Absent experience or training, he
hasn’t the vaguest clue what that experience would be like.
How about self defense against a FOREIGN system of government called
“Islam”? To call Islam a ‘religion’ is technically & literally TREASON.
Self defense starts with the mind. Don’t be fooled into thinking that
reality is anything other than 7 billion humans stranded on a plannet in
the middle of nowhere: There is no God & there is no law, there is only
people making up shit.
Being against the government is being against the people. If you don’t
understand this, then you should check Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:
“Beginning with the now-iconic phrase “Four score and seven years ago” —
referring to the Declaration of Independence, written at the start of the
American Revolution in 1776 — Lincoln examined the founding principles of
the United States in the context of the Civil War, and memorialized the
sacrifices of those who gave their lives at Gettysburg and extolled virtues
for the listeners (and the nation) to ensure the survival of America’s
representative democracy, that “government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth.””
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address)
I don’t see how violence can be compared to small pox at all, its actually
quite intellectually dishonest to say so. “Violence is easier to prevent
than polio” give me a fucking break. I have a lot of respect for Stef but
when he goes into a rant about this subject I just get pissed. 27:40 – 28:20he says that the causes of violence are “so well hidden” from the populace
(because of of course violence is just some esoteric conspiracy that can be
easily remedied by education) and that only if people read from these very
select few people who share my opinion will they see the light! How is this
not an appeal to authority?
I’m not saying there is no truth to his statements, of course a child will
be better equipped to deal with the world if raised in a safe and loving
home. But that does not mean that child will not end up being a con man or
a murderer, does it reduce the chances? Probably, but it does not guarantee
a non violent, moral person.
So the question still remains. How do you deal with violent criminals in a
stateless society? Its a valid question, not one that can be simply tossed
aside because you assert violence wont exist in the future.
29 “The causes of violence are so ridiculously well know”
no they are not, they are choices of the free will and to talk about causes
is damn determinism. The causes for violence are choice and choices are not
caused. They are a god damned mystery and they have to remain a mystery and
to even look fot heir causes is a grave sin, get it? Blasphemy.
Stef, you seem to assume that anyone can cure an addiction they have just
by making the choice to do so and if they fail to do so, all of the blame
falls on them for not making that choice. I would argue this is too
simplistic a view of a very complex problem.
I find outrageus what was sad in fourth caller. My mother hit me too for my
rebelion against my brother. Until I was able to fight back my brother and
then she start to guilt me about that playn the role of victim. Fuck that
bitch. Fuck that bitch.
Hey Stefan, what are your thoughts on Murry Rothbard and his views on the
state? Seem to be right up your alley. I just found out about the guy and I
was wondering if you had heard of him.
I think the book that put him on the map is “Anatomy of the State” and I
just finished listening to an audio version of that book. Great stuff. He
makes a rebuttal for people who defend the state:
“Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute
certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in
extortioin, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping,
murder and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate
chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable
of causing.”
and
“Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the
horrors with which they menace mankind inevitably come to pass. Because
people are vile and corruptable, the state, which holds that greatest
potential for harm, and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is
much to risky for anyone to justify its continued existence. To tolerate it
is not simple to play with fire, but to chance the total destruction of the
human race.”
How the heck is there no mention of the State of Indiana here?
Your right to use deadly force in self defense against a law enforcement
officer – or any other public servant – is substantially protected under
the legal system there.
with regards to the first caller, you are pretty lucky to be going to the
school you belong to. i’m currently a junior in high school and i cant
mention any political views at all without instantly getting the reply
“well that’s your opinion” and the entire “debate” being thrown in circles
around that one statement.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Free Market Capitalism and Government are two sides of the same coin. Free
Market capitalism can only exist when there is only one person left on the
planet. He can do whatever he wants kill animals, make spares, build a hut,
or build a Government or State. Thus, Government is formed by free market
capitalism. They cannot exist without each other. Even if he does not build
a Government he makes his own rules as he goes about his life (governing
himself). Thus, free market capitalism and government are two sides of the
same coin. In fact, it is more like the Yin & Yang symbol. On the one hand,
free market capitalism cannot exist by itself without a small amount of
government law to protect the people. On the other hand, Government cannot
exist by itself without some amount of free market capitalism. Thus, they
are like the Yin & Yang symbol. When economists and socialists argue about
more government or free market capitalism. They are arguing over the amount
or proportion that can maximize the allocation of resources :-)
On the nature of good vs. the nature of evil. Good relies mostly on a very
special quality of truth: it is tenaciously persistent and never goes away.
But, like exercise, the benefit can be slow and difficult to see at times.
Because it values individual will, it must wait for each individual to
*choose* it: it cannot be foisted upon anyone.
Evil, on the other hand, relies on a special quality of darkness:
obfuscation. Because force and pressure can, like a drug such as cocaine,
provide quick and easy to see effects, it can appear to be a smart way to
go at first glance. However, like a drug, the benefits are always
outweighed by the costs (and if they weren’t it wouldn’t be evil) *when all
factors are considered*. This is its weakness: that the *unseen and usually
purposefully hidden* costs can be revealed, whereupon it is easy to see
that it is not a smart way to go: that is, for those who choose to look.
This guy at 56:00 – 1:30:00 + is really annoying… dude, if you have
enough ambition to call into a show to get advice on ‘how to be ambitious’,
JUST GET UP AND DO IT. The only reason you don’t do dishes is because you
are lazy, not because your dad “wasn’t there”.
I just wish Stef would make a brave step forward and start moving toward a
clear goal. And that goal should be the change of the existing system into
a better one. I fear all of this might not have any effect on anything
other than maybe helping few people from time to time with their personal
problems. I did watch a couple of movies Stef made and placed on his
website, this I watched like few years ago, I think, but it was long time
ago and I was under impression he might be able to do something concrete,
something that will have a big impact on things around us. He certainly is
or was in a position to do so. I don’t know.
**I just want to clarify. Stefan Molyneux is a former CIA agent, and this
is well documented. He is still on their payroll. We have evidence of him
meeting with Bush.**
Nah, just kidding. You’re awesome Stef’. :=D Good work. Another great
podcast. Kudos to all the brave callers. I really relate and feel these
conversations are helpful.
Wow, I relate a lot to the guy from 0:56:11 to 1:59:17, even though the
abuse I experienced was but a tiny fraction of the abuse he did. On the
other hand, one thing is pointing at the source of the problem, another
thing is to find a solution — I still don’t understand how to go from one
to the other.
Does anyone wonder why the state holds a monopoly on force? We should all
go back to the time of tribal warfare and landlords fighting one another
for resources. Why don’t you move to the tribal regions of Afghanistan and
Pakistan Moly?
At first, I thought ‘Unprocessed History Impacting Motivation’ was fixed in
2 minutes. The Philosophoraptor would have had some serious competition.
But, it was more like 62 minutes.
Great, now that you guys think that EVERYBODY ELSE is corrupting their
language, you’ll feel even more justified in twisting the meaning of words.
Tax being theft and the like. Hey, why does Stefan have such problems with
the words “structural violence” then? Simple, because “i am right, you are
wrong”… but that kind of philosophy is doomed to fail. Call taxation
immoral, call the state violent, but don’t redefine the language everyone
agreed to use, please.
I take issue with the phrasing “your taxes.”
They are not ‘my’ taxes. I did not impose them and I did not sign off on
them. They are not my taxes. They are the taxes of others. They are the
ones attempting to force their taxes on me. They are NOT ‘my’ taxes.
I can’t help but think that aloud every time I hear the phrase.
Just so we are clear what we are arguing against, taxes are claimed to be
valid like this: 1) For the sake of having a harmonious and safe society, a
group of people need to be given a monopoly on violence. 2) To ensure that
these people are of reasonable quality, each adult gets to vote, so if
someone bad gets in, it only requires that they be voted out to get rid of
them. 3) Therefore, “the people” select these people as self-rulers, and
can get rid of them if they are dissatisfied. 4) Therefore the collection
of taxes is voluntary and for the good of all. (It used to be that a
section about the constitution establishing base rules that limit the state
could be included in this argument, but unfortunately, that part has been
shredded… as we can see, though, it is not necessary to the main
argument.)
Now, as for UPB? That is based on consistency, that is, what applies to one
human will apply to another, but the entire *point* of democracy is to
select people who will enforce the *law* upon everyone: once voted in, they
aren’t meant to be in the same category.. therefore, that is irrelevant to
the argument. As for NAP? Obviously, since we have violence, we need to
have a way of containing and restraining it, which is exactly what
democracy supposedly does.
It would be nice if just naming taxes “theft” was enough to unravel this
“argument” but, unfortunately, it isn’t that easy.
I remember when I first got a gun and a carry license (after a childhood of
abuse from just about everybody in my life, including many who weren’t IN
my life, just in proximity), I looked forward to the opportunity to be able
to shoot somebody with impunity. “Fortunately” I got to find out how wrong
I really was without anybody getting hurt.
I was delivering pizzas at the time in a bad part of town. The first time I
had to decide whether or not to pull a gun on another human being (who was
making it necessary) I was so ill at ease it took 3 days of surrounding
myself with friends and family before I began to feel any sort of normalcy
and this was just a few days before xmas.
I hope that caller is as “fortunate.” Somebody pulling a gun on you (as in
Stef’s hypothetical) is going to be traumatic enough. You don’t want the
trauma of having to disassemble another human being on top of it. Not for
something like $1 for sure. Even if it was a righteous shoot like the guy
tells you he’s going to take your life and you manage to wrestle his gun
away and end the conflict, you’re going to have their family members crying
out what an angel the person was, possibly the media shaming you because
you used a gun, a zealous prosecutor looking to start his career putting
away a pistol-packing citizen… You just don’t know how far that butterfly
wing flapping will alter the course of your life.
In closing, I know a guy who’s been doing private security for decades. He
asserts that if it’s a righteous shoot, there will be no thinking on your
part because it will literally be act or die. Wanted to add that in since
the caller suggested there was a windows of rational thought somehow.
STEF:
Please stop telling us to “live as if there was no state”…because if we
actually did, we’d end up behind bars or dead.
stephen you ARE a psychologist!!!! albeit on youtube. you help people
psychologically. and you use CBT method. see the truth. don’t deny it.
whats causing ur denial?
It is not true that babies who are not assertive enough to cry for needs
like food are necessarily weeded out of the gene pool. In some cultures it
is quite the opposite; the Lakota, for example, had a tradition of
abandoning or even smothering to death any infants who cried more than once
at an inconvenient time. It is quite possible for evolutionary forces to
favor genes that babies less assertive, so long as either the genes or the
habits of the society cause the mothers to be attentive enough without it.
In many, perhaps most, human and hominid societies it is common for mothers
to carry their infants in such ways as to allow them to reach the breast
and feed without needing to get attention first. It is also very common for
infants to sleep with their mothers so that they can feed at night without
waking her. Babies do not have to assert themselves by crying very much if
the mothers are as attentive as they ought to be.
My mother claims that I almost never cried as an infant. She does not
recall me crying for food or attention. I was held to the breast enough
that there was no need for that. She also tended to change my diapers so
promptly that they did not bother me. Pretty much the only crying she could
remember from my infancy was when my circumcision scar was bothered by
soapy water while being given a bath.
until we can change the violent nature of human beings a free market is
never going to happen in a million years Infact a free market is nothing
but a utopia
Firstly I am lost for word with this video in a good way.
Reading the comments leads me to state the following.
To have and maintain a positive social/ecological/technological etc etc
etc; the nature of the individual must evolve. this must start with a need
to change (e.g. Lack of food requires new tactics). All social structures
are the highly developed manifestations of these basic needs. Therefor
natural selection based on an artificial subconscious imperative is the
only way a society can eventually develop a perfect (or close to) system;
politically or otherwise.
Now requirements such as food are as whole a non issue hence the need for
an artificial progenitor
IMO this is what philosophy should be focusing on before even the current
system can be intellectually disassembled.
you need an infallible parallel; one not based on morals as they leed to
confusion in this context.
But what do I know ; I study electronic engineering :)
Best for all to start forming militias.
Keep it secret.
Train whenever you can in guerrilla warfare,shooting,orienteering,make up
your own hand signal or use established ones from US officer
handbooks,medical,dental and supply lines.
Do this and you may have a chance at whatever comes at you.
Where I live in Texas militias are everywhere.
We even have a non federal “National Guard” state Militia.
Form coops with local farmers and ranchers but keep it secret.
If you live in South Texas look for “El Tercio Tejano”.
No normal (sane, healthy, happy) human being would perpetrate any act of
force, violence or fraudulence against another – no sane normal human being
would abuse or exploit another.
Next to an unimpeachable (maybe occasionally shaken-but-then-rectified)
sense of self worth there is no other experience more desired, more potent,
more empowering than that of experiencing the esteem of one fellows – at
least that of other sane, normal human beings – not to omit that of any of
the other denizens of this planet.
Perpetrating acts of abuse on others immediately & irredeemably implodes
not only one’s own sense of self worth but the esteem of others. Other
people don’t even have to ‘find out’ about your ‘sin’ – your lying,
cheating, thieving, killing etc – as your guilt & your irreparably
sabotaged sense of self-worth will be amply & inerradically evident in your
body language from then on – until you not only confess but restore +
damages whatever your wrongful act was. And get forgiven. And get fully
reconclied to those you wronged.
The fact that the Abrahamic ‘god’ had to tell ‘his people’ – & via their
proxy, us – that thieving, lying, cheating, killing, dishonouring one’s
parents, envying ones neighbours’ possessions – not to omit the vast
multiplicity of other accompanying psychotic, off-this-planet-insane
injunctions found alongside these so-called ten great commandments – only
indicates that ‘he’ was trying to deal with humanity as if we are obligate
psycho-sociopaths – quite literally as if ‘every thought of the
imaginations of our hearts are only evil continually’.
And according to this story we are this very thing, & we got this way
because our ancestral progenitors ate an apple which particular event
somehow got into these progenitors’ genes & got passed on to us all as
‘original sin’ – from which there is absolutely no self-engineered escape
……………………..
As the vast majority of us humans do verily indeed live lives riddled
24/7/365 with ‘sin’ of varying magnitude – lying, cheating, thieving,
killing not just each other but via self-sabotage of roughly commensurate
or greater putrifaction, internally towards our very own selves – &,
further, do not have the vaguest, foggiest notion either why or more
importantly, how to cease doing so, one way or another – either
‘religiously’ or secularly – hook, line & sinker we’ve bought into the idea
that ‘sinning’ is our NATURAL STATE.
Which is very antithesis of the notion stated above that ‘no normal (sane,
healthy, happy) human being would perpetrate any act of violence or
fraudulence against another – no sane normal human being would abuse or
exploit another. Or themselves.
So are we intrinsically & irredeemably constituted for lives of abuse &
exploitation – as either victims or perpetrators ? Are we ? And is there
no escape ? Can we work out our own salvation ?
Is ‘benign anarchy’ the solution ?
Until we discover the reason why so many – 99 – 100% of us – live lives of
ceaseless abuse & exploitation of ourselves & each other, we’ll never
discover the solution, if there is one.
Fortunately there is.
If we all loved & cared for one another as we could & should – along with
our once glorious planetary home – there would be no problems. No lying,
cheating, killing, thieving, abusing, tormenting, exploiting one another –
or anything else in our greater surrounds, animate & inanimate alike. No
raping & pillaging each other or the planet.
So is ‘love’ the solution ? Rather than even benign anarchy ?
Yes. And the only source of love on this planet is a mother’s arms, womb,
breast & lap – is a properly loving & competent mother’s arms, womb, breast
& lap.
I know Stef & all – well hopefully not all – of you philosoraptors out
there don’t want to hear this – especially including that otherwise most
esteemable woman-hating Karen Straughan – patriarchy is the reason, the one
& only reason, the sole & only reason, we human beings left paradise & fell
to hating, lying, cheating, killing & defrauding each other & ourselves
24/7.
And the reason it did is very simple.
Patriarchy was not only the world historic defeat of woman but worse – well
same, same – it was also the world historic defeat of mothering.
Among many other strictures it requires, our own (species specific) brand
of mothering not only requires a happy, healthy, sane, normal, competent, &
utterly willing mother but as these qualifications in a woman cannot obtain
unless she is wholly immersed within – completely surrounded by a fully
supportive & competent bevy of her own – & no one else’s – female blood kin
– her own blood mother, grandmother, maternal aunts, maternal/sororal
nieces & cousins etc – nothing less than just such a milieu will suffice –
for the production of normal human beings – for the appearance of normal
happy, healthy, sane non-violent, non-abusive, non-lying, cheating,
thieving, self-hating human beings on this planet.
For truly loving, caring human beings.
[In fact so definitive is ‘mothering’ within every sphere of human
existence – including both our past & future evolutionary trajectories –
nothing less than renaming our species ‘maternis sapiens sapiens’ will
suffice.]
Until we get mothering right we’re doomed.
And the sole reason for patriarchy was/is to negate it.To abrogate it.
Because fertilisation can occur in under five minutes behind the local
mulberry bush, men decided – & yes it is a conspiracy, the biggest & worst
of all – to institute patriarchal marriage. And the rest of our own
downhill slide towards now near certain omnicidal oblivion is history – is
‘his’ ‘story’.
Is not ‘her’ ‘story’.
There will be no cessation of either intra- or interpersonal violence of
all kinds & degrees until we restore our mothers back on the pedestal of
worshipful attention nature originally gave her – & which the patriarchy
took away.
The very first commandment should not be ‘Thou shalt have no other gods
before me, Jahweh, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them’
….. but should be instead ‘Thou shalt not pay higher attention to
anything or any one than thine own mother …… thou shalt not bow down
thyself nor serve any other than she’ …………
The greatest thing you can ever learn is to love & be loved in return.
‘Mothering’ – species specific mothering – in our own species IS AN
ENTIRELY LEARNED BEHAVIOUR – which can be acquired via the imprinting type
of learning exclusively at one’s own mother’s breast. If she doesn’t do it
right for whatever reason, her offspring willbe majorly stuffed. Will
literally turn out psycho-sociopaths to whatever degree she failed & in
which specific ways she failed – nutritionally, emotionally, etc, etc.
We’ll give you patriarchs a little time out to lick your wounds but then
stand up & take it like men, courageously, powerfully & competently. You’ll
be greatly empowered to do so if you keep in mind that the dismantling of
patriarchy & the re-instatement of what is after all only our own proper
brand of species specific, clan-embedded mothering, will not only purify
your own souls, not only save humanity (without having to worship a Jewish
zombie nailed to a forked tree) but will save the rest of our planet too
……
You know in your heart of hearts this interpretation of our now
pen-ultimately dire predicament is correct. Especially you men
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best regards
Margriet xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I looked that statement up Stefan about the judge in our system of today
who got 10 days. Everyone else should also, and read the comments too.
http://www.kxan.com/news/anderson-back-in-court-in-misconduct-case
How can you not trust people cause they let you marry a bad partner when
you yourself didn’t leave it? Surely you are the one responsible for
deciding ultimately who you choose to be with as an adult. I love all the
childhood stuff but to blame your friends as an adult when you get out of a
7 year relationship doesn’t feel right.
With all respect to Stefan, the caller who said he would shoot the mugger
in the back clearly lacks the awareness or training to have the vaguest
semblance of understanding of what he is talking about. He freely admits
that he has never had to defend himself. Absent experience or training, he
hasn’t the vaguest clue what that experience would be like.
How about self defense against a FOREIGN system of government called
“Islam”? To call Islam a ‘religion’ is technically & literally TREASON.
Self defense starts with the mind. Don’t be fooled into thinking that
reality is anything other than 7 billion humans stranded on a plannet in
the middle of nowhere: There is no God & there is no law, there is only
people making up shit.
Being against the government is being against the people. If you don’t
understand this, then you should check Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:
“Beginning with the now-iconic phrase “Four score and seven years ago” —
referring to the Declaration of Independence, written at the start of the
American Revolution in 1776 — Lincoln examined the founding principles of
the United States in the context of the Civil War, and memorialized the
sacrifices of those who gave their lives at Gettysburg and extolled virtues
for the listeners (and the nation) to ensure the survival of America’s
representative democracy, that “government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth.””
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address)
I don’t see how violence can be compared to small pox at all, its actually
quite intellectually dishonest to say so. “Violence is easier to prevent
than polio” give me a fucking break. I have a lot of respect for Stef but
when he goes into a rant about this subject I just get pissed. 27:40 – 28:20he says that the causes of violence are “so well hidden” from the populace
(because of of course violence is just some esoteric conspiracy that can be
easily remedied by education) and that only if people read from these very
select few people who share my opinion will they see the light! How is this
not an appeal to authority?
I’m not saying there is no truth to his statements, of course a child will
be better equipped to deal with the world if raised in a safe and loving
home. But that does not mean that child will not end up being a con man or
a murderer, does it reduce the chances? Probably, but it does not guarantee
a non violent, moral person.
So the question still remains. How do you deal with violent criminals in a
stateless society? Its a valid question, not one that can be simply tossed
aside because you assert violence wont exist in the future.
29 “The causes of violence are so ridiculously well know”
no they are not, they are choices of the free will and to talk about causes
is damn determinism. The causes for violence are choice and choices are not
caused. They are a god damned mystery and they have to remain a mystery and
to even look fot heir causes is a grave sin, get it? Blasphemy.
Stef, you seem to assume that anyone can cure an addiction they have just
by making the choice to do so and if they fail to do so, all of the blame
falls on them for not making that choice. I would argue this is too
simplistic a view of a very complex problem.
I find outrageus what was sad in fourth caller. My mother hit me too for my
rebelion against my brother. Until I was able to fight back my brother and
then she start to guilt me about that playn the role of victim. Fuck that
bitch. Fuck that bitch.
Hey Stefan, what are your thoughts on Murry Rothbard and his views on the
state? Seem to be right up your alley. I just found out about the guy and I
was wondering if you had heard of him.
I think the book that put him on the map is “Anatomy of the State” and I
just finished listening to an audio version of that book. Great stuff. He
makes a rebuttal for people who defend the state:
“Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute
certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in
extortioin, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping,
murder and countless other crimes, requires that one imagine nonstate
chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that nonstate actors seem incapable
of causing.”
and
“Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the
horrors with which they menace mankind inevitably come to pass. Because
people are vile and corruptable, the state, which holds that greatest
potential for harm, and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is
much to risky for anyone to justify its continued existence. To tolerate it
is not simple to play with fire, but to chance the total destruction of the
human race.”
How the heck is there no mention of the State of Indiana here?
Your right to use deadly force in self defense against a law enforcement
officer – or any other public servant – is substantially protected under
the legal system there.
with regards to the first caller, you are pretty lucky to be going to the
school you belong to. i’m currently a junior in high school and i cant
mention any political views at all without instantly getting the reply
“well that’s your opinion” and the entire “debate” being thrown in circles
around that one statement.