LovePrevails

Here are some popular objections to Stef's arguments that are sometimes overlooked onm the show. It might take an hour but I think responses would make a great show and listeners could pass the arguments on to their socialist friend who may make these objections. We might have some fun with it on the thread as well. 1) Persons on the left hold that the society we have created is unjust because it is not designed to meet people’s needs but demand, that is, the demand of those who can afford to pay for it, in other words the world’s poorest people will never get what they need, even though it can be provided to them, because they are incapable of creating the demand that can incentivise it. To exemplify, the village TotesStarvingHereStef in Africa want a well with clean water more than Mr. Maxamillion Buxdude wants another Ferrari – they cost the same since the dollar goes far in TotesStarving – but the cash goes on the Ferrari because the African village is subsistent, they can’t create the demand for what they need. Most people would be quite happy to use the hand of the state of Maxamillion to pay for this well. Do you think this would be achieved in Agoristopia by social pressure on Maxamillion rather than taxation? 2) You often say “Would you help the poor? So would I too, so it would get done.” But this seems like a straw man because it completely misses the point of the argument for taxation which is a) everyone should pay their share otherwise it is unfair - that's why it is mandatory, and 2) rich people should pay more than poor people. You and I don’t have the same disposable income as Maxamillion Buxdude, so if lots of us are paying but he and his buddies Ivor Welltheo, Aristo Crat, and Topiv Tehchain aren’t it would be so useful. I don’t think this argument should be made without addressing these two objections because it is so transparent that these are the responses that will be received. 2b) Quote from a progressive: “I don't support tax on income, I support a progressive tax on land and wealth. In this country (UK) 6000 people own 69% of the land and they don't have to contribute anything to society at all. Creating Wealth? I’d be surprised if these elites have hardly lifted a finger in their life.” This policy would create a buyers’ market for land as elites tried to shift it to reduce their tax burden, people who wanted to could get their own land and become self-sufficient, and start communities along like-minds. Since people who had “just enough” land would pay little or nothing in tax, the tax burden would fall on those hoarding. 2b) You talk about allowing individuals to make choices, but those choices are limited to circumstances of birth, for example my parents could afford the choice to get me health insurance whereas my friend argues his could not. 3) From a leftish perspective the market is not good at apportioning wealth rationally. For example, your show has stopped thousands of people from hitting their children and helped lots of people improve their ability to reason, argue, and favour evidence over bias. Still it gets significantly less funding than the latest mind rot on the shitbox. In Socilaist Utopia Land, leaders could look assess what is working and put resources into it, and could do so very effectively because they would have A LOT of resources to allocate. Naturally the system in place is corrupt, but this isn’t the system socialists support, they want a life-enriching version. Wouldn’t you rather Delilah Diamonds forgot the Gucci bag that costs $6000 and got one for 500 bucks instead so that good causes like FDR could expand their projects. It would so transparently be better for society that 6000$ for stopping child abuse is better than 6000$ for a Gucci bag that most people would support this. 3b) The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) produces far higher quality and more original programs than competing commercial stations because it is run by people with discerning tastes rather than people who are mainly concerned with market share. Sorry about the pro-state news coverage on there, but the comedy is great! 4a) Tangential point – you make the argument that state departments are not incentivised to solve problems because if they do they are out of the job. A progressive idea is to solve this problem by not creating state departments to solve problems, but having a system of rewards apportioned each year to organisations that are already solving problems. So instead of creating a department to wage a war on drugs, you allocate some money as incentive to organisations treating addicts and apportion it according to whichever charities or businesses have modalities which produced excellent results in a period. If they want more rewards they have to keep delivering the goods. When the private and third sector are done solving the problem they can use their capacities to solve other ones. 4b) Why shouldn’t a Nationalised Health Service make private healthcare cheaper and better since they have to compete with a free service? 5a) You say that welfare disincentives seeking to contribute meaningfully to society, but it’s the current welfare system that creates a poverty trap where someone might get less for working more. It does make people dependent on the state, but there are rational alternatives which do not disincentive work such as a basic income. It could replace all benefits, pensions, tax allowances and social security payments. Every man, woman and child (through their parent or guardian to replace child benefit) is entitled to a certain sum, not huge, but enough to ensure they don’t go hungry. People with adequate incomes would receive this as a tax deduction instead of a welfare payment, and people in between would receive a mixture of both. This would remove the argument that people on welfare are parasites because everyone would be getting the same treatment. In any circumstances if you worked more you would be earning more not less, so it would remove the poverty trap as well. While the system would still yield problems and abusers, these still exist under the present system it would be a huge step in the right direction alleviating the current problems. Imagine what this would do to alleviate the stress and suffering in our society, if people knew even if they lost their job there was a safety net which encouraged them to get back on their feet. Stress is a huge killer. It would encourage entrepreneurialism because it would be there for self-employed people, it would also help people take time to retrain, recognise the value of voluntary work which goes unpaid, as well as stay at home parents who work very hard! 5b) Do you have to be so anti-welfare? Can’t we focus on ending the wars and stopping the government from buying nuclear weapons, and look at the banking bail-outs and all the corporate welfare and public subsidies for the rich, and once we get rid of those abhorrences which both the left and libertarians agree upon, then maybe we can talk about slashing poor granny’s pension. 5c) Also why are people on welfare considered parasites by libertarians but not people who make millions through rent, usury, share dividends and property speculation. They are just piggybacking on other peoples productivity and hard work. 6a) You say people respond to incentives. Great. We should tax junk food and use the cash to subsidise goji berries, turmeric, cayenne pepper, garlic, ginger, blueberries and hemp milk. 6b) What's wrong with policies like taxing motorists to pay for free public transport, this seems sensible, it's good for the environment as less people will drive around and buy cars, it worked to eliminate congestion when tried in the Belgian city of Hasser. It's egalitarian. etc. Not just "it's funded by force" argument, we don't care about that if it's very practical, what is economically wrong with it? 7a) Won’t there be a lot of people who can’t afford to pay for DROs, not just a few. 7b) So far it sounds as though the system you are advocating will entail people choosing whether they can afford either police and fire service, home and property insurance, healthcare insurance, or education for their children, and rarely all of those. All these different insurances! Lots of people won't be able to afford all of them. 7c) If that is the case that may be satisfactory to you but it is very unlikely to win round persons on the left or even the centre. That's why people demand you make a positive case rather than just saying “yeah but it doesn’t use force.” They’re like, so? I’d rather a bit of force, and a bit less anomy thanks. 8) One of the solutions you have suggested to stop pollution is to pay people not to open a factory beside The River Clean, it seems obscene to pay people for doing nothing. Won’t more and more people try to move in just to get the bribes if this is how the problem is handled? 9) In one community they have a scenic street and someone comes and develops a block of apartments beside it, it ruins the whole ambiance, and everyone in the community is sad. In a statist system the community goes to the local council and insist that planning permission is denied to the developer. How can the community be represented in Anarchytopia? 10a) An argument you make which dates back to John Locke is when you mix your labour with the land it becomes your land, but every time you mention this argument you should address the counter argument, which is that when you pour a jar of Ragu into the sea you don’t own that part of the sea. You lose your Ragu. (Don't try this with your marbles.) 10b) In third world countries corporations buy up vast swathes of land they don’t plant to keep the populace indentured and working at whatever terms they dictate since they cannot provide for themselves. For socialist-anarchists if a person owns a lot of land and employs peasants to farm it, say in a third world country where they are very poor, the force is exerted by the landlord to maintain his property. In Anarchocapitalia would the peasants just tell the landlord "bogoff, we plant this land not you, we don't acknowledge your right to the property" and take it in common. 10c) Allegedly, this example to show that force is not black and white, taxes and laws are not necessarily the only way, so can rent be force, no animal needs to pay rent to live. If someone owns far more than their fair share people just don't acknowledge their property rights to own... their local community park, or the road on their street… or maybe some workers decide to socialise their workplace because the owner who is very ill mannered and abusive, they offer him a job… anarchists on the left argue is actually freedom in action. 10d) On the point of workers socialising their work place, this would be subject to “market forces” of a kind – if it typically worked well and produced good results for society then it would become more prevalent. If it was a total disaster it would stop happening. 11) Is it not true that under capitalism the faster we take stuff, make stuff and throw it away the bigger the economic boom? It’s all about throughput. 12) You say we have Self-ownership because we have a body. But we don’t have a body, we are a body. That argument is a scope shift, you are missing hidden premises.

If you want to come on my youtube channel youtube.com/theprogressiveparent and tlak about it in an interview or post up links on the facebook group then I can help I have had Roslyn Ross:

I think we should send it to big ethics people like Peter Singer If stef could debate him it would be huge

well they will if more people buy hard copies teehee I got mine but don't know where I could put them where they might get more readings teehee

yes, I think that podcasts that are enduringly popular could be either edited down for posterity, or redone as presentations highlighting the important points stuff like my parents were really nice parts 1-4 could be redone in one hour long presentation if Stef had time to listen back to them, take notes and represent it's just a suggestion I don't know if the time is there

If she's that perfect she should still be around for dating in 2 years when she is 18 I think she would have to be really rather a cultivated person to make up for the age gap so you might want to talk to her and find out about her find out if shes interesting, and interested in learning about things you're interested in I am 27 and I have found girls anything below 21 too immature for several years it's not so much the age as the fact that people need a few years out of school before they become human beings and learn from the "actual" real world

I like it when they stand up too

good thread, we all know that povert leads to an increase i crime and whatnot this is a critical issue especialy since most people think libertarians "don't care about the poor" the level of violence in a country, it has been said with some evidence to support it, is proportional to the gap between the haves and have nots of course voluntarist anarchism is probably the best way to narrow this gap good thread, we all know that povert leads to an increase i crime and whatnot this is a critical issue especialy since most people think libertarians "don't care about the poor" the level of violence in a country, it has been said with some evidence to support it, is proportional to the gap between the haves and have nots of course voluntarist anarchism is probably the best way to narrow this gap

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said. There is all you need to read. He's a relativist. This doesn't surprise me at all because in my experience "skeptic society" type people have a tendency to be very emotionally stunted ie. All up in their heads its like a lot of them go to skepticism out of an obsession with thinking rather than genuine passion for truth that's why they are so hard to reason with when it comes to suff like statism that's been my experience of the community

good questions and answers I would put the thing about potheads LAST insteadd of first, it creats not such a great vibe , seems less serious a bit spurious even

1) most news is about politics so a lot of that would no longer b necessary 2) there is not much in the way of critical thinking or reasoning taught in education until the tertiary level, but these are such integral skills - especially in a free society - that no education in a stateless society would not encompass them.systems of contracts 3) No government to ensure that media doesn't lie so people would want third bodies to regulate this more -> what is more, they will have contracts with DROs, and it's big trouble for companies that advertie if they are associate with poor media 4) Newspapers may easily be done for fraud under voluntarist - 5) If people believe media lies and damages are caused by them they can raise the greivance with their DRO, who know the consequences 6) there may not even be press by then with the internet and whatnot beause a stateless society will be long in the future if anyone wants to refine these arguments, add to them, or add new ones, then I'm curious to read

feedback on my response, if you wish Why do you assume just because there is an incentive to solve a problem it will get solved. People often behave counter-rationally. First of all if people are behving counter-rationally then by definition, what is being described as an incentive is not an incentive, it is a disincentive since it is not incentivising anything. Secondly, if that is true then you cant ave a government because people don't respond to incentives so whatever laws the government passes will ail. What is more people who don't respond to incentives will go into government and act counter-ratonally. Yes, they could be exxperts who know what is best, ut even so, all the counter-rational people who thin they are doing the wrong thing - and who are in the majority will get up and stand in the way. Maybe the politicians can sell the case to the counter-rational population. If no - then government won't be able to solve problems, and making it illegal for people other than the governmen - in the vluntary sector of society - is hardly going to make things better. Now only the government, who can't find the political will, are allowed to solve a problem which the population don't want solved because they are counter-rational. If yet, and the politicians can sell the case - then clearly there is no need for government as te solution can be solved by community workers, buinesses, entrepreneurs, charities, non-profit organisations, etc. The government is disincetivised from solving the problem because if they do solve the problem they make themselves redundant because they are no longer needed for their jobs.

On that website

Hi friends , can you please give me some feedback on this ad. I am thinking of droping some cash on featuring it and want to make sure I'm not wasting money on a poor text. Any suggestions on imrpoving the text welcome. http://www.gumtree.com/p/community/essential-communication-skills-for-enriching-your-life-relationships/1033626329

welcome to the community

In the whole of the first world war with shrapnel flying about only a handful of soldiers contracted tetanus. There may be use to some vaccines, for all I know, but they should be chose sparingly as your blood cannot puke up the way your stomach can of your lungs can sneeze, therefor toins put in your body through the blood are more or less here to stay and as you know vaccines have ether, detergeant, thermosil, and cells from eggs or foetuses in them amongst other ingredients which won't easily be removed

one thing that has been causing trouble is that journalists supposedly "don't have time" to do real investigative jounralism any more it's too time consuming and expensive to compete with the lowest common denominator drivel one thing in our favour is the fact that critical thinking skills would be so important in a free society that they would make up part of everyones education

Couple of questions: Why a new journal Why not become a collumnist on Lew Rockwell or something tha has an established audience? What does Voluntary - The Freedom Journal have to offer which is new or not already accounted for? How are you getting an audience?

A lot of users may not use this forum but may sign up to newsletter Why not a monthly online newsletter or magazine including content from memebers: - creative writing/poetry/excerpts from plays/art - articles/commentaries or perspectives on recent content/ any points stef missed or disputes - popular posts from forum used with permission - alerts for services from freedomainradio listeners/links to websites - fundraiser for listener in need etc. would this be compelling?

is my statist's response to the argument well people want the problem solved that's called a demand so they will compete to find solutions " that's just like saying 'it will get solved' - which is not an answer" what is your response? I have some I will share but interested to hear from other bright minds

My associate said - the British Press is hardly regulated at all in fact the government is trying to introduce more regulations for it because no one likes them yet, the tabloid provide such a poor quality of news coverage, in fact they make stuff up and sell bigotted views on immigrants and crap economics etc. how do you think the press would look in a free society and why? what would motivate good quality reporting over propaganda? I know newspapers might not be around forever, but out of curioity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sLP3wKU99do "This is so populist and emotive and oversimplified. Parts of it are true, parts are half true, and parts are just false. And he is all over the place. I can't take him seriously. Quantitative easing has massive advantages when done correctly. He simply shows a lack of understanding with his summary of the Keynesian perspective as well. It is not as simple as just calling it stealing from the future since that will affect the future. If stealing from the future will give you resources to build an even better future then it is no longer stealing but instead it is a present. Of course that makes little sense, but that is the only way to explain it within his perspective and that is what you get when you oversimplify. This is what is known as a time-inconsistency problem in economics. Whilst it is true that there are negative consequences of borrowing from the future (because it is borrowing, not stealing), there are also positive ones too. That borrowed resources can be used for investment. Although initially it will reduce investment, since the whole goal is shifting resources from investment to consumption, that additional consumption can prevent a severe shock to aggregate demand. A shock to demand can do even more harm to investment in the medium term as producers will not be able to rely on demand for their products. There has been a demand shock of massive proportions recently and mitigation of that is highly desirable.Quantitative Easing is actually preferable to interest rate cuts since it works retrospectively as well. Bear in mind, it is a tax on wealth. Well there is a lot of wealth which has accumulated due to unreasonable leverage due to low central bank base interest rates. Quantitative Easing would unwind that since it is the opposite of that. If you also allow pay rises, and therefore protect wages, particularly for those at the bottom (who also have the highest fiscal multipliers) then all you are doing is taking back what was unreasonably earned. This is not stealing, if anything, it is the opposite. Robin Hood was also a thief!" Rebuttals?

the book is called Anarchism in Practice also if you want to solicit articles on any particular topics then let me know as it's always a good kick in the bum

The relationships feed on the website

sounds great, I'd love my ervices to be advertised on the voluntarium and I would love to support other business people on the voluntariium