Mike Fleming

Well, I see it as the younger members of the existing power structure who saw that it wasn't viable anymore and restructured and slightly decentralized things to make them more economically viable. The older members complained and even attempted a coup but eventually were pushed aside. Just smarter, younger thugs replacing older thugs really. Just like what happens in the mafia.

Kind of like when a company collapses but other companies come in to take control of the assets. The assets in this case being the former people's of the Soviet Union tax farm who are now distributed across a range of new tax farms. Collapse didn't lead to freedom in this case. The problem with my analogy above is of course that people are assumed to be property.

I was, if not a fan of Milton Friedman, reasonably supportive of him and thought he was smart, well-intentioned and all that. Then I listened to Stef's podcast on Friedman, one of his early ones, where Stef puts forward the case, I think persuasively, that he was a bit of a hypocrite. Basically that he spoke the Free Market but defended the state and it's actions when he was involved. That he made the case that he had lessened the impact of the state on the market even though the state grew and grew and became worse and worse. The podcast is well worth a listen if you are interested in Friedman. At any rate, I try not to get too caught up in personalities. We're all human and we all make mistakes, it's the ideas that are important. His son David Friedman, is one of my favourite anarchists to read and listen to.

Also, how did you get here? Do you have a libertarian or anarchist view of the world? If you believe in the ideas of voluntarism and non-aggression and self-ownership and responsibility do you/have you applied them in your family life also?

I think Ron Paul would be an excellent guest for the show. He was my gateway into libertarian ideas which eventually led me to anarchism when I realised the inconsistencies behind the small government idea and had to look for something else. It doesn't matter that they don't agree on anarchism. Stef has had other guests on his shows that aren't anarchists. At any rate, I agree with those who think Ron Paul is a "closet anarchist". That if he takes his principles to their logical conclusion you end up with anarchism. He is also great friends with Lew Rockwell and many of the Austrian School who are professed anarchists, as well as Murray Rothbard of course. I think he would be quite happy to see an anarchistic society, but probably believes it isn't possible at least at the moment and so worked with what he thought he had. I don't have any proof of that of course but it would be nice to get a good interview out of him now that he has no more political considerations and is free to speak his mind. The best person to do that kind of interview would be Stef. I think also, getting facts and stories about government and it's workings, from the horse's mouth as it were, would back up many theories that Stef has put forth. The idea seems all upside and no downside to me.

Libertarian socialist seems like a contradiction to me. I was always on the left before I turned to libertarianism and then anarchism but to me neither the right nor the left as they are traditionally described seem compatible with anarchism. Don't know enough about the history of the term to know if you are correct or not but that's why I describe Chomsky as "sort-of" anarchist.

It's been a few years since I saw it and I think it was pre my libertarian days, but the general impression I have is that this is true. It was good, but it had an agenda. If you can look past that, there is some interesting information. The problem is they only have part of the story and so try to derive a conclusion without using all the facts and so the conclusion ends up being not quite correct from what I remember and very unsatisfying. This is a memory from many years ago, when it first came out I think, so it's a bit hazy. I think a few left-wing icons such as Michael Moore were featured prominently. That sort of anarchist, Noam Chomsky also I think.

I'm same. I never felt like my feelings were cared about. I had a mother who pretended to care, but really, all she cared about was how she felt. In fact, numerous times when I was a child I was told by my father ( a damaged boy himself) that my mother's feelings were all important and by extension though not openly said, mine were insignificant. My parents had very little capability when it came to thinking for themselves, they were always eager to go along with what society as a whole wanted and I guess this is true of many parents which is why the brainwashing is so effective. Traditions die hard. I grew up quite cold towards women, even though rationally I knew I shouldn't be and never really understood why I was. But it frustrated my ability to have good relationships with women for a long time. Deep down, I always knew I had to fix things within me before I could truly love someone else. It's up to both sexes to do things and quite obviously Stef is doing his part), but I agree that women are the ones going along with this and perpetuating it for the most part. Incidentally I spent half of my youth in England and had English parents. I too remember the war comics, Battle and so on. I think this kind of thinking seems especially prevalent amongst the English. When I came to Australia people seemed more laidback, but it didn't change the way my parents treated me.

Yeah, it was kind of like a "oh, thank God, God doesn't exist". Pun intended. Having such an evil powerful entity would be truly scary. Especially considering how petty and arbitrary he is. He's like my mother was/is. You never know what the rules really are or what might set them off at any instant into a blinding rage so you end up just not doing much less it upset them. Or like the government for that matter. But I guess it's all the same thing really...

The second coming arrives. "So, God, we have reason to believe you have been involved in genocide and mass murder. How do you plead?" The Romans got it right if you ask me, although I don't condone capital punishment. But the great and wise God says it's OK, so I guess I'm wrong.

9 That's interesting, because I certainly don't agree with his statement that you've quoted there. Hearing him talk in the personal interview he didn't really say that. I don't want to make excuses for him, but I've certainly said things before that I've later thought were a poor choice of words. If I could personally interview him I'd want him to explain exactly what he means by mild pedophilia and I'd grill him on the racism issue because even back then there were people who knew it was wrong even if "society" thought it was OK. I do agree with you that the atheist community is generally unsatisfying and that they aren't as consistently skeptical as they make themselves out to be.

I heard an interview with Dawkins about this. He said that it was maybe a minute or so of being felt up. He acknowledges it was wrong but that one minute of time hasn't adversely affected his life. I honestly don't see what's wrong with his position. He isn't saying it's OK, he's just saying that it didn't make him personally a victim. I think Girl Writes What has a similar position on her rape, which sounds like a more severe event than the Dawkins incident. She didn't allow it to make her a victim. They both acknowledged it, have publicly said what happened to them and that it was wrong, are willing to talk about it, but haven't let it turn them into victims. Willing to hear counter views but that's my take on it. Personally, I have never experienced anything remotely like either so I don't have personal experience.

One quick thing that I noticed. You mentioned the Bank of England being like the Fed in that it was privately owned. Actually it was nationalised after the second world war. Private ownership of central banks is not the issue of course, it's their government granted powers that are the problem which is why the Fed and Bank of England basically operate the same way even though one is nominally private. If they were both completely private, without govt powers and subject to market forces there wouldn't be an issue. If we were to end them and give their functions to the treasury, the problems would remain. Otherwise, great vid. I especially loved the ending.

So the guys name is William Molyneaux and the guy who works for him has the first name Stefan. Coincidence?

Beyond Two Souls is a new playstation game. In many ways it seems more like an interactive movie. The characters are very real. I watched a let's Play on YouTube. Let's Play's can be a bit hit and miss, sometimes the commentators can be really annoying but I found this one to be good. The whole thing lasts a few hours if you watch all the parts so it won't be for everyone. ****** SPOILERS BELOW ******** The character that really interested me was Ryan. He was sort of the love interest for the main character. When we meet him, he is a real asshole and you have no problem hating him, but by the end of the film you are left thinking this is a pretty decent guy. Which got me thinking about the idea of redemption and if this was realistic. You get to hear a bit about his history. He has parents that he sees as little as possible. Didn't really know what to do after school, ended up in the army and then was recruited into the CIA. Like I say, early on he is a jackass. Someone who will do the wrong thing to get what he wants. But then interactions with the main character gradually soften him. I began to think of myself and my early 20's when I was a frustrated, angry young man and kind of reacted in many similar ways. But then I started to meet nice people and gradually wanted to be more like them. It makes you wonder, if I was a dick, but was only that way because I didn't know how else to be, (it was all I had seen growing up), then how true is it of other people? And redemption, at least to me, does seem possible but it should always be realised that it is a hard road to walk initially. I think the game partially showed this.

I came acrooss this interview with Jacques Fresco. I think the old guy has lost the plot

Even if a supercomputer could be constructed that would perform efficient economic calculations it doesn't matter. Money is freedom for individuals to make their own decisions and solve their own economic calculations. Taking away money and replacing it with a super-computer would remove that freedom. Even if it did work as claimed. OK, well I'll concede that point. You are a lot better researched on the TZM than I am. I just watched the movies and listened to the Stef interview.

I agree it's almost impossible to know. Maybe interviews would be the best starting point because then it's not just like it's one lunatic ranting . jk stef But seriously, maybe find a subject she has some interest in whether it is economics, politics, parenting practices, or whatever and then dig up one of Stef's interviews on the subject. EDIT: the truth about series are good as well. Maybe the "there will be no economic recovery" video will be a good hook.

I don't think Stef thinks that violence is more economically efficient overall. His argument is that is better for a small group of people. And for that group of people to benefit they must propagandise the rest of society. Therefore, overall, it results in less economic efficiency and less overall well-being. Much in the way that slavery also had a similar effect and had to be abandoned. That's why I think ultimately the current system of govt will eventually be abandoned for the free market. It will because it is ultimately the only way to continue the path of continual progress.

You know, I think PJ started out with his ideas, never saw much, if any criticism of them, did some videos (high production quality videos which must have taken serious effort), started a movement and then probably started to come across conflicting information after all this work and effort had been done. Maybe he's just too invested in it now and it's blinding him to criticism of it.

Free market is one of those loaded terms in society. But really a market is just people exchanging goods and services with each other. Some people are better at producing certain goods and services than others which is why we have the division of labour. So advocating for a free market and freedom are one and the same. And it can be seen voluntary exchange and production of goods is far more efficient, and therefore more conducive to overall human well-being than are the coercive sectors of the economy which waste resources, principally human resources (think of all the wasteful public sector jobs) on a massive scale.

I don't know that he is a charlatan. Misguided yes. Has bad ideas that are potentially dangerous yes. But I think he genuinely believes them and like Stef says it probably comes out of a traumatised/inadequate upbringing. It's the bad ideas fundamentally that need to be exposed as such, which is what I think Stef's goal was.. PJ just happened to be the vehicle for the bad ideas..

There won't be a second debate. Or at least I think it is highly unlikely. Stef went into it with an open mind, ready to debate the points, even deep down I'm sure he suspected it was going to go the way it did. And that's exactly how it did go. There's really nothing more to be said. PJ has been discredited. That's it. End of story. There is no great debate to be had between these two minds. The reality is there is only one great mind. And he did an excellent post-debate analysis.

That's when the psychological abuse kicks in to high gear.

I was a reluctant determinist at first too. Once you rationalise it out it makes perfect sense though. The concept of free will is unimaginable. It certainly doesn't exist in this universe and it's hard to imagine it existing at all. I've mentioned before that you have to believe in determinism to believe in peaceful parenting. After all, if people have free will then what matters their upbringing? The facts are that every choice we make is based on our past expereinces. Stef even talks about people being a sum of their previous experiences. It's obvious when you think about it. Therefore, the choice you make at any given time is the choice you were always going to make. It's actually a good way to understand yourself imo. I don't have much respect towards this censorship towards it. It seems at FDR people DO consider some information to be forbidden or not to be talked about. A very statist authoritarian concept. Kind of like how the religious don't want to talk about criticism of their religion. For me, I'm quite happy to talk about criticism of determinism. But it seems the concept of free will is not to be questioned at FDR. Incidentally, if you want to watch Stef turn into Peter Joseph, watch his free will videos. The rational, brilliant mind evident in so many videos is nowhere to be seen. I guess everyone has one blind spot.