Phillip Brix

so, if you really wnat the whole story, pm me and i'll give it to you. i tried to commit suicide by banging my head against a table as hard i could repeatly. after the third attempt, i physically felt a finger prevent me from doing so a fourth time but could see nothing. not only that but no had no bumps, buises, bleeding, abrations, or even a cuncussion.

God has proven himself to me. i tried to commit suicide, and either god or some supernatural force physically prevented me from doing so, i still have not clue why. i don't know whether i have "the correct religion" if such a thing exists. but as far as i can tell, God does value life.

i apologize for being rude. i know you feel you understand what your advocating, but to me anarchy means something else. to me anarchy means vigilante justice. i'm willing to pay people to defend me against thiefs and murders. i think that in order to achieve to most peace in society, you need a group of armed citizens paid for by everyone in order to defend the public. for that reason i have no real problem paying taxes. i feel i should have more say in where my tax money goes; for example, i don't like the wars the USA commits, nor do i agree with the war on drugs, but i have no idea how to change the system.

okay. you undertand what anarchy means right? it means no rulers. agian it does not mean win win negotiations. i argue again, that whoever has the guns makes the rules. don't belive me? here, i'm pointing a gun at you right now. can i order you to do whatever i want? when a majority of citizens in an anarchy, that is no rulers, agree that basic human rights do not apply; the minority have two choices, either they can illegally buy weapons and take up arms against such government, or they can submit passively to the orders. when someone is willing to initiate the use of force, you have two choices passively submit, or violently oppose. i've heard stefan molyneux argue on several occasions that government is the ultamate anarchy. i would argue no, government is not the ultamate anarchy, the minarchist system i've descirbed thus far is the ultamate anarchy, war of all versus all. a place where vigilate justice rules, where anyone can buy a weapon and use it, where the majority of citizens can overthrow the rights of the minority. and agian, how else can you organize society in an anarchist system? cause whoever you give the weapon to can use it however he or she sees fit. don't believe me? try it.

now you know how i feel about the world! i am utterly confused too. let me show you how confused i am. what system of government do we currently have? i would argue we have anarchism. becuase government is the ultamate anarchy. the rules are always changing, there are so many laws on the books no one can keep up, everyone is effectively a criminal, and so on. i would also agrue we have communism. becuase government has a monoply on the supply of money. when govenrment has a monoply on the supply of money nothing is privitely owned. i would also agrue we have a dictatorship. the president of the united states throught history has pretty much done whatever he wanted with little fight or fuss from anyone. i would also agrue we have a democracy. if everyone has the right to vote, and the government officals are elected by that vote, we have democracy. i would also ague i'm a free man. i have the right to buy pretty much whatever i want, marry who i want, work wherever i want, in fact i'm so free slavery is illeagal where i live. i would also agrue i'm a slave. because if i don't do exactly what the government orders every day, i get sent to the prison rape room. i'm a 50% slave 50% free man. its maddening.

i would tend to agree with this statement. your rights are whatever you can enforce. if you can't enforce a right then it's not much of a right. the only way i know of to enforce rights is ultamitely with a weapon of some kind. and whoever has that weapon is the ruler. i can pay for body gaurds if i disagree with the laws of society. i can gather up together like minded indiviuals and form an army if im angry enough about it. i can't think of anything i can't do simply because society has a gun; as long as i'm able to buy a gun for myself and enforce the rules i see fit. i want win win nogotations; believe me i think win lose is not jsut worse, its morally repugnant. but there are people out there who are willing to use win lose nogitations, and the only defence against them that i know of thats truly effective is violence. let me ask you this; would DRO agents be armed? can i use violence against an armed DRO agent if he doesn't enforce my contract, or unfairly tries to enforce a contract against me?

anarchy means no rulers. i propose that the people with the guns are the rulers in society. i propose anyone can buy a gun and use it. i propose anyone can enforce any law on anyone else by paying for that enforcement. i don't see how much more minimalistic system of government you can get. anarchy does not mean win win negotiations. win win negotaions only occur when guns aren't involved at all. and since guns exist in society and people are willing to use them, you have to submit to the laws made by those people. the only way to achieve a non-violent society is to completely elimate the gun. but if you try that, then only the crimals will have guns. explain to me how else society could work?

So If I make a law that I can shoot you, then I can as long as I buy a gun and a bullet? sure, but i have a law that says if you shoot me you get executed by the police that i pay for. Who decides on these rights or are these majority decided? Or if not, can I just make a law and then pay for you to not have the right to life? everyone decides what the rights are for themselves and pays to enfore them. if you pay for me not to have the right to life, that is end it, then i can do the same. what if people disagree on some of these rights who wins? The majority? What if the majority is wrong? who wins always? the majority in any system. even in anarchy, the majority wins. what if the majority is wrong, well that's what the right to self defence is there for.

i do not feel the majority has the right to eforce it's will on the minority. any one can evoke any law on anyone else, if they are wiling to pay for it. for example here would be the laws i would evoke. basic human rights. you have the right to religious beliefs, right to trial by jury, write whatever you want, say whatever you want, as long as its not hateful or violent, right to own a weapon and defend yourself. right to decide whether to help your community pay for public school, or pay for private school your self, right to help your community pay for medicine or pay for medicine yourself, etc. i would be willing to pay to give as many people these rights as possible, and i think alot of other people would as well. i understand, society can become violent and destructive. if more than a majority disargee with the above, then there's little that can be done. based on my understanding of history, any system can become broken.

let's say i adovocate the right to kill jews, am willing to pay for thier death, and willing to persecute them for being jewish. then i can be persucted for my religious beliefs as well. anyone who is a jew can pay to have me executed. mutually assured destrcuction further more i would have to convice more than a mojority of society that killing jews is a good idea. back to the public schools. anyone who doesnt want to pay for public schools can evoke laws on me as well. for example, they can make a law requiring me to send my kid to privite school. if they really belive that private school is better. however if i disgree that private school is better, then they have to pay for my childs private schooling, as well as my imprisonment, for refusal to comply.

okay so i think thare are lots of ways of organizing society. i think the "best" way to organize society is to have a small group of citizens; say 10% of the population; willing to defend other citizens from violence. to do so they need to be armed. i think that when society in general gives up its right to self defence against such defenders of the peace, you create a much more peaceful much more prosperous society. if i was the leader of a minarchist society; i would have only 1 law on the books. any law you're willling to apply to other citizens gets applied first and formost to yourself. here's how it would work. let's say i'm an advocate of public schools. in order to achieve this; i have to be willing to do the following. 1) pay for the imprisonment of any citizen who doesn't want to pay for public schools. 2) pay for the court trial to sentence him; if he doesn't support public schools. 3) aditionally pay for public schools. if i'm willing to do all 3 as well as convice many others to do the same, then this would become the law.

no, this is not the position i think i am debating against. but libertus straw-manned my argument before he even heard it.

arachism - the belief that vigilante justice is the best means of organizing society. if no one is in charge, setting the rules, that means everyones out for themselves.

hey stef. hope you're doing well. i have upped my subscription from 10$ a month to 20$ a month in reply to the rash of cancellations. i have no idea how i'm going to afford this, but in truth i really do not care. i would gladly give you my life savings to keep you on the air for one more day. i would like to do a debate with you of the merits and pitfalls of minarchism. i know you've done this debate several times, so i hope i have something new to add to the conversation. i image the debate will take a good hour, so if you perfer a time other than your sunday show, i have no problem with that. you get to name the time. i've never dealt with skype before, so i would perfer to call in via cell phone if that's okay.

it's arbitary in the sence that it's a belief i kinda grew up with. just becuase i can't logically prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i can't really follow scripture becuase the bible contradicts itself all over the place, and i really hope God isn't as cruel and vindictive as he's protrayed in the bible. as i said earlier, i don't pray, or really belive my prayers are being answered. but i think there are events that occur that can't simply be explianed with science.

hmm, good question. i would say for me yes. if could explain every aspect of my life in a logical rational manner, i would cease believing in God. I'm saying that i atribute my minor mircles to a supernatural event, and i attribe supernatural events to God. if I had been born in China, i probably would belive that what happened was caused by Budda. I fully accept this.

Hi Phillip It's perfectly natural to think their might be control in the universe (some outcomes of nature look so elegant that they looked designed at first look). This would be trusting your sensual perception.* i think science has a hard time explaining various things. for example gravity. what exactly is it? we know objects accerate toward eachother, but right now science seems to have 3 different thoeries of how gravity works. i'm not saying God is a good answer to the problem. its not. we should definitly explore what causes this motion. but untill science can explain the motion of the solar system, the motion of the stars around the galaxy, and the motion of the galaxies away from eachother, i'm not conviced science has the answer. "Everything" can't quite be explained logically and rationally, we're still working on it, morality still is a WIP, and there is externalities and luck associated with achieving goals, so it's not just blaming yourself. I think as a diest it's easy for me to blame God when things go wrong. maybe its a crutch, but its a useful one. as an athiest, if you don't achieve something you have your heart set on, who can you blame but yourself? So, you've come to the same list of unknowns and un-solved-fors that plague everybody, but then you've arbitralily made a nice cover-all solution by believing in a God. Lacking these answers, don't you think it would be more satisfying to throw your hands up in the air and say you don't know instead of claiming an absolute knowledge? I'm not claiming i absolutely know god exists, i'm saying i intutively assume he does. there have been several events in my life that i jsut can't explain in a logical rational manner. nothing major, but many minor things. like, one time i was playing football with my friends agaisnt a professional baseball sports team. while had the ball, one of them, instead of tackling me, tripped me, hard. i flew heals over head and landed directly on my neck. not only did i not break my neck, i didn't feel an ounce of pain. I am fully convinced God has something to do with that. and i have several other events that i attribute to God as well. Why do you need know everything? I don't. but i do feel i should know the important things. and knowing how the universe works feels pretty darn important to me.

i cant seem to watch fdr videos on fdr. i can watch them on youtube but not here. anyone else having this problem?

I personally consider myself a deist. i belive God exists, but i honestly doubt he listens to my prayers or will grant me an afterlife. i tried very hard to be an atheist. to belive that the unvierse is competely uncontroled by a higher power, that everything in my life can be explianed logically and rationally, that the world always makes sense if you have the right principles, that moral code can be derived solely though intution and philosphy, that i have no one to blame but myself when i can't achieve i certain goal i set for myself. but i find it impossible to believe these things. the amount of personal integrity it must take to truly be athiest is beyond my coprehension. i envy you guys.

my parents ecouraged me to take the video down, thinking it sent the wrong message, so i'll simply ask my question here. at what point would you be willing to use violence agianst the state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGp15uM650E&feature=youtu.be

hey stef, i am so sorry to hear of your diagnosis. i have jsut donated 500$ to your account to help in a small way to cover your bills. i must ecourage every freedomain radio listener to do the same. if you value your freedom, let's help stef get better the best way we can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T6fg5IV6KD8 my friends jeff's responces: on fiat curreny. the government is granted the leagal right to coin money. it was agreed to by the original founders. if you don't like it, move! the money is backed by the economic production of the us. its not backed "by nothing". the fedral reserve is a private institution. so the government doesn't set the interest rates. a privately owned monoply coroporation does. on insurace: insurance is not a hedge against risk. are insurace companies required to pay out every claim that's filed? no. if they refuse to honor their agreement with you, do you really have a recurse? no. maybe you boycott. well the insurance company as hundreds of thousands of customers, are you really going to convice all of them to give them up? maybe you sue. the insurance company has a team of lawyers to dispute any such action for years on end. do you have the ecomomic resourses to spend on such a case? if the insurance company goes backrupt, what happens to all the people who had coverage under them? tough luck? i mean you can't squeeze blood from a lemon. are you going to buy insurance against your insurance company going out of business? on chemical/ bank insurance: do you know how many chemical companies are in your county where you live? do you have insurance against them poisining your water supply? do you know of anyone who does? can you name one person in the entire country who does? do you know how many banks are in your area? do you have insurace agianst your bank going under? do you know of anyone who does? voluntarism: if your claim is that volunatry action can solve these problems, then prove it. show me how voluntary action is currently solving these problems. the u.s. has the lowest taxes and the least amount of govenment regulation of any industrialized nation. we are 20th place or worse based on any measure for quality of life. the regulations the government has, most of them came about becuase the free market wasn't solving the problem. so i obviously need some help guys. how do i respond to this.