Phillip Brix

people from the government have been testing my capabilities "in secret". they've already tried waves of hate and sadness on me to little affect.

also i apparently have all the colors. i'm, not entirely sure what this means. but i recently went to the hospital, and while there i suddenly felt mentally stronger, the guy there said i can download.

i know there is a God because i've met him. he told me i made him kill his son twice and then he said that i killed his son twice, then he he said, well once but still. he was just about to met out a punishment for me, then suddenly he stopped just before doing so and i haven't heard anything from him since. also i have an angel. shes spoken to me on several occasions. if you have questions for her she might answer them i don't know.

no i mean that stephan has brought up that they have had anarchist societies in places such as iceland. but they were replaced with statist societies. why?

after watching stef's video on the left, i felt i owed an apology for my op. i put an idea forward without really thinking through the consequences. i thought i had but apparently, or more precisely, obviously, i hadn't. i do want a moral society. i just think that's better achieved with a minarchist government over anarchy. I've read steph's work, and i'm not convinced it could truly work. i know i know, we tried that once and it didn't work, the government just kept getting bigger and bigger. but obviously a government capable of growing beyond the original intent is not truly a minarchist government. i don't know how we achieve that. as stef says paper doesn't stop bullets. but anarchy didn't last either. i think it should be researched why.

they look like a group that's trying to impose the American way of life on former communist countries. at least that's whats stated as their mission statement or something fairly similar. admitted i haven't researched them too thoroughly but this looks like a positive change. can anyone shed some light on the group? Stephen Molyneux thinks they're spreading leftist gibber-gabber, but form what i can see it looks like they are trying to bring about positive change in the world.

okay, you make a valid point, obviously not just anyone can consent on anyone else's behalf. i guess what I'm asking is what part of the u.s. constitution do you not agree to? the whole thing? then i can violate your rights guaranteed under them? if its the tax part, how else do you expect the government to defend your rights?

Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will? not necessarily, for example say you're traumatized beyond speech or unconscious, obviously you cant consent to medical procedures right? but the doctor can consent for you. part of living in a civilized society is that we agree to follow a unified code of rules. those rules must be enforced, and that enforcement must be paid for. if you can't agree to that, than clearly you've got some thinking to do. you would be morally justified in taking my savings if you were an enforcer of the rules. not all of course, i need to live, but certainly some.

you say taxation is theft. okay fine. then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right? and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right? so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense. so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist. now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society. i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle, or i wager war on the government.

i recently had to cancel my 5 dollar a month donations as money is getting extremely tight, but after hearing stephs plea i gave 50. Stephen, you've been a big inspiration to me and have encouraged me through out my life with your videos. never give up the fight.

i recently watched stef's video asking for more donations, though i would deeply love to donate more, I'm afraid i simply cant afford more than the 5 dollars a month I'm currently doing. I'm unemployed. if you know of a good place that's hiring a cpu programmer to work remotely from home, i can donate more.

Recently donated 0.1 bitcoins to the show currently worth roughly 60$ to help Stephan pay for his medical bills. it would be more but I'm currently unemployed. Love your show Stephen, keep up the great work.

when i make an argument for a case i ussually try refutation, counterargument (rarely with evidence though, mostly with reasoning. ussually giving extreme examples.), or contradiction. i rarely do the first one becuase i try to go in with the perspective that i can be convinced elsewize.

i'm saying you need a definition of law that includes these laws. i know government is poor at enforcing them, but that doesn't make the law itself invalid. even in a stateless society you would have these laws. they wouldn't be enforced by a central coersive agency but these laws none-the-less.

although i think a sudden and dramatic cut off from the state would lead to violence, if we could somehow organize into a voluntary society people would be better off. as for examples of anarchy in practice, most games are such an example. for example in baduk, i rarely find a case of someone cheating to win, even though its hard to detect. i once used a computer to get a good result without telling my opponent, which is cheating, but i vastly enjoy playing a ligitamate game.