ILO

It starts at 2:14:04

I'm sure it would be better than socialisms nuclear paradigm where every man, woman, and child gets a free nuke.

@Wesley can you use that with amazon?

Maybe if we can get Bitcoin to stabilize, and be accepted by more retail/online stores.

Stefan has often discussed the decline in employment, and in some conversations made the case that welfare, and regulation is a significant factor. Is another possible factor that available jobs have declined due to technological advancements, requiring fewer workers, and the population has increased?

I'm with it!

I was having a discussion around individual & social responsibility, and got this message from a Zeitgeist advocate. Is deflection, word-salad, and copping out common place for the Zeitgeist movement? That came after sharing repeated signs of interest in Zeitgeist, and admitting my lack of understanding about it. I'm also finding it difficult to discuss with them, without being painted as some sort of "Fox News Social-Darwinist" character. I definitely do not watch Fox, am not a Republican, and do not support the current social structure that we live with. Full discussion here: http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/10621/can-the-99-create-a-sustainable-zeitgeist-world

If you own a Monster Truck, I'm 99% sure that it's legal to run over the car of anyone you see littering on the roads.

I assume whatever rights landowners have now would not change. Turning everything over to private ownership doesn't seem right to me though, I think public land should remain public including rights and we just need to start looking at non-coervice means to accomplishing our goals.

@Cosmin Thanks for the link & name. I believe I just heard a bit of it in this podcast episode 1. http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/stateless_society_take_2_320.mp3 It is fascinating, and seems plausible especially with current technology. I think incentives can also be a powerful tool, where participating businesses could offer 10% discount to members with a certain rating.

@threebobs and yet if someone's conscience and moral compass indicates that it's not a fair situation one should listen carefully.

What is DRO? Google is only coming up with weed and Debt Relief Order.

I don't know what it is about Peter Joseph, but there's something about him that seems disingenuous, almost like there's an ego-maniac hiding underneath the surface. Even the Venus Project founders want him, and his movement to stop using their materials.

@ThinkSkeptic Thanks, I see what you're saying. I wonder if arguing against "the state" and "government" in favor of "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalist" is less effective than simply speaking out against coercion, extortion, and the initiation of force. If we convince enough people of the virtue of coercion-free society, then it doesn't matter whatever we call an organization that seeks to enforce dominance & control through coercion, it is simply immoral. I think there is more power in communication that focuses on the advocation of the principle of non-aggression, than there is in railing against "the state" or whatever we call whatever institution/organization is using coercion & initiation of force. For example if I lookup "state" in the OSX dictionary I get: A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. The civil government of a country. Those are fairly benign definitions, adding to the confusion of any argument against "the state". Argue for coercion-free society, and against the legitimization of coercion, and I think we have more power than muddy arguments against "the state".

If we're changing society's opinion of the initiation of force, why not simply update the definition of government? Most people that I know don't think of government in terms of that definition, rather they think of it as an organization of public services. Government: The organization of public services voluntarily funded & managed by a democratically elected administration, adherent to the principle of non-aggression.

If society demanded that government be based on the principle of non-aggression, and all of it's services were funded voluntarily, is it still government? Myself, and others get hung up on the anarchy bit, feeling a need to maintain a public organization for, and by the people, but also agree that it must adhere to the principle of non-aggression. Other organizations, private or public, should be able to compete, and everything must be done in adherence to voluntarism, free of coercion/extortion. Why draw an anarcho-capitalist line, when we could draw a non-aggression capitalist line?

I don't know how large scale you're looking to get, but V.E.G. Vertical Earth Gardens on YouTube is very helpful, and Vitalii Jidkov on YouTube has the most massive hydroponic greenhouses I've ever seen.

I'm fully convinced that the non aggression principle is moral, (who isn't?) but somehow hadn't really noticed how government operates above it. I have been against the involuntary income tax for years because defense.gov/contracts seems to be an obvious racket. But there is a simple power in the moral argument against coercion & extortion in government that really hit me hard, in a good way. I've watched so many Freedomain videos now over the last week or two that I don't recall how I stumbled into my first. Thanks Stefan! I should've said I hadn't noticed how government is founded on premises of coercion and extortion at it's core that violate the principle of non aggression, because that is what I had overlooked for most of my life, although I knew many aspects of government were corrupt, mismanaged, and doing more than it ought to be. Is a government that does not use coercion & extortion, and is fully based on property rights & voluntarism still a government? Or does it become some other sort of organization? I think anarchy is misunderstood & turns people back to government because we envision the kids with black masks who want to see the world burn and the streets in chaos. However I get great reception to the case for voluntarism, and against coercion/extortion.