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.

not really no. if i'm forced at gun point to gamble, but i win, i don't owe the money to anyone, even though i wouldn't have gambled without the gun. so private poperty should primarly be based on a common law mentality. if you aquired a good though voluntary exchange, then its yours unitll you sell it or give it away. a more difficult question would be things like public land or buildings, who do they belong to? i would surmise the highest bidder.

people often want things without paying for them. I've been just as guilty of this as anyone. society faces a difficult problem. how do you remove crime, which everyone benifits from, without requiring people pay for it? if you're successful in removing crime, people don't feel a need to pay. if you're unsuccessful, more money might be required, yet people will generally be reluctant to give more money to a program that's been unsuccessful so far. i'm not saying forcing people to pay is the best answer. or even a good answer. what i'm saying is that i'd rather people who benifit from a service be required to contribute by thier community, than everyone having their own personal enforcement system. that option just seems too haphazard to me. i know, i'm making an opinion statement. not an argument. i'm just trying to express my viewpoint.

government aren't created at random. they are formed by people who benifit from them. sometimes for good sometime for ill. but most govenrments have to maintian order in order to be successful. if they didn't do that they would die out. not everyone rejects murder assualt rape and theft as bad. that's why we have these laws. yes and no. i'm not against the idea of anarchy, in the sence of no government. but even anarchy would be based on a set of rules requiring or at least permitting the use of force against force. and that being the case, you cannot say law is an opinion with a gun. well let's say that 10 of your fellow nieghbors agree to pay for a security business, but you absolulty refuse to. what do you expect the security agancy to do, skip over your house somehow? if you benifit from thier services, you should be laible for the service. i know what happens in prisions and i find it despicable. but i'm not convinced a privately run prision would do any better. if i had to gamble, they would run forced labor camps. i know, libertarians are against the intation of force, and thus agianst prisions with forced labor camps. but how do you ensure this doesn't happen?

forcing people to convert to a religous or non religious perspective is hardly the same as maintaining order by theatening acts of violence against angainst anyone who is violent or destructive. okay let's say instead it was a scientist well versed in the scientific method and how it should be applied. would you agree with him forcing everyone to agree with the scientific method? huh? you honestly believe there's no valid ethical thoery that's against murder? then why are you against the state? or do you mean there's no valid ethical theory wich supports the state? well sure there is. do you agree people can accosiate and form contacts? do you agree that the formation of the us government was orginally voluntary and based off contract law? do you agree that sometimes police keep murders off the street? do you agree most police think it's a good idea to do this? do you agree that to deny paying for that service is a form of theft? do you agree theft should be punishable by imprisonment? police are often called up to face charges againt brutality, wars have been around since the dawn of time and most politictians have fought in one so they know that its like, ecomonic policy is set by the federal reserve which is a privately owned oganization. agian do you agree that the government provides serivices that no private company currently is? do you agree that not paying for these services is a form of theft? this speaks more to the character of people than to the character of government wouldn't you agree? okay, good point, but that doesn't make pollution a good thing, and most laws agaisnt pollution are there for a reason, even if poorly enforced. either all chinese men are shorter than the ducth or some are and some aren't. if a law doesn't quilify as an opinion with a gun, then means you can't make the general statement about all laws, because then it wouldn't be correct.

there are certain laws that the goevernment enforces that i do not consider an opinion with a gun.heres just a small list. anti murder is not an opinion with a gun. anti theft is not an opinion with a gun. anti rape is not an opinion with a gun. anti assualt is not an opinion with a gun. anti pullution is not an opinion with a gun. now we may say these laws are enforced with a gun. but no sane person is pro these things. therefore they are not opinions. they are matters of civil society. now we can debate wether the government does a good job or not enforcing these laws, i would personally say not since most offenders when caught face either such signifcant negitive consequences that they have to plead down, so justice isn't really despenced of fairly. but that doesn't change the fact that certain laws are not opinions. they are not really up for debate. we can debate the severty of the punishment, but not the severity of the crime. so please, in all good conscience stop saying law is an opinion with a gun.

I apologize ahead of time for not reading the whole topic. I’ve also never really understood the theory of relativity. here's my problem. let's say we have an observer, an object going 60% of the speed of light relative to the observer, and the observer is emitting a light beam. in order for the theory of relativity to be true, from the perspective of the light beam itself both objects must essentially be going zero. Anything other than zero for the 60% light object, would mean that the 60% light object would see the light beam going slower than normal. I agree light is constant-in the medium under which it it traveling. If its traveling in the air its going one speed. if its traveling in a vacuum its going another. Here's the problem. Imagine you're in an airplane going 60% of the speed of light. You fire a light beam. now I’m fairly confidant that while its in the plane it will go the speed of light, because you're carrying your medium with you. however, does it go the speed of light relative to you after it exits the plane? If it does, then the speed of light is not constant in air. If it doesn't then the speed of light is constant in air, but the theory of relativity needs to be rethought. also I’m highly skeptical of the Michel Morley experiment. i don't understand why it failed. The earth is not just traveling through space, Its accelerating, that is changing velocity - both direction and speed - while doing so. So I don’t see how the speed of light cannot change under such a circumstance, as I’m pretty sure the velocity of light should change under an accelerating frame of reference, even according to Einsteins theory. The only way I personally can make any sense of it is if gravity isn't a force accelerating matter but as yet something else we haven't discovered.

the civ 5 topic got me thinking, how would one design a game around the priciples of anarchy? first: you would need no violence. so, can't capture pieces; no army. second: voluntary exchange. so players can trade any item they possess. third: property rights. players should be able to own land, and improve it. fourth: mutable rules. besides the above rules always in enforcement, any other rule the players create is subject to negotiation. any other things the game would need?

hehe baduk is my game fo choice.

it doesnt sound like they are getting rid of govenrment altogether, just shifting from local to county.

i personally didnt really care for civ 5, perfer civ 4 myself. though i have civ 5.