Search the Community

The only thing protecting us from the corporations is government. If left to the 'free market' you would have a few mega-corporations controlling the global economy, key economic sectors dominated by a handful of virtual monopolies masquerading as duopolies, highly serviced enclaves for the rich while the rest of us would have to do with low-standard housing, high prices, low wages, hugely expensive health care and mediocre services etc. Oh, wait doesn't that resemble the current economic climate. Given the good sense in the rest of your broadcasts it does give me to wonder if you are being paid to spout this kind of nonsense, comes straight out of the plot of Atlas Shrugged. ref

I was watching a video this morning. It was the live stream between millennium woes and Faith Goldy. They were talking about identity politic and preserving the western world. They also talked about preserving the white race. This reminded me of this issue that I have been thinking about for a while. I was thinking of how to preserve the west, where will my children grow and under what system, I was thinking of freedom and migration. So if you want, sit down and listen to what I have to say for a while =). Let me start with my political history. When I was young, I was indoctrinated by the communist party. This indoctrination would, in the long run, changed me into a certified sociopath. By looking at what we were proposing and the real world, I realized that this political system was complete crap and I left it (no pun intended). Then for many years, I believed that politic was complete bullshit; that it did not work; that no government had any possibility of working and that it was a waste of time. Then came the migrant crisis and Brexit. I really believe in Nigel Farage. I started to advocate strongly on the net for his cause. I read all I could about conservatism and Churchill. I made hundreds if not thousands of debates online to promote Brexit. Then came Trump. GOD I LOVE THIS MAN =). I started advocating for him and felt a huge sentiment of accomplishment when he won the election. I then joined the Canadian conservative party. Met some pretty good people. But when I saw the results of the leadership race, I lost faith in them. I then came across books about libertarianism. I read some John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, David Boaz, Thomas Paine, learned more about Jefferson and so on. As a scientist, I have to try to drill has many holes in a hypothesis and then see if it still floats. If it does, I must accept it until some other hypothesis disproves it. And so far, I have not found a single situation that cannot be solved with the libertarian way of thinking. Now I look back at conservatism with a libertarian lens and I now realize that there is something terribly wrong with the conservative principals. If you want to preserve this society, you will have no other choice but to impose legislation, enforced by the power of the state, to prevent any change. You will try to prevent any change in culture, any change in demographic. You will create a huge coercive force and your civilization will die out because people wont want to invest themselves in such an oppressive regime. The right is the same thing as the left. They will both use the state to impose their will on the people. To find a solution, we have to go off the beaten path. Stefan is right when he says that the real enemy is the welfare state. But even if we build a wall and stop migrants from coming in, men are still oppressed inside our borders. Men are treated as disposable commodities that are made to be used, despised and discarded. Every minute, we men, spend under this oppression is unacceptable. But if we stop 3rd world migration, rebuild the economy and save our culture, the very next morning men will still be exploited. T he real solution is to bring the entire house of cards down. As quickly and dramatically as possible so that no government could adapt. Before we do that, we need to stock up on goods, gold, weapons, commodities. We need to build communities and so on. We need to preserve the seed with which to rebuild after the collapse. We could expect a decade or so of chaos, but afterward we can build a system based on merits, free market, non aggression and so on. And it is not hard to bring this house of card down. we only have to stop pushing against the storm and start pushing in the other direction. We could create 50 millions genders: fish gender, pokemon gender... Demand for the most absurd classes be thought in academia. Why arent they teaching Kpop dancing in University RACISM!!! why are they not teaching navajo literature RACISM!!!! call the SJW racist because they do not acknowledge your frog gender. Ask for the most absurd project. Like a bridge that leads from Greece to Egypt. And every time the government tried to back out of it: RACISM!!!!! The western government have removed every mechanisms to fight back against those accusations. So they will have no choice but to comply. And dont worry, once this socialist gynocentric world goes off in flames. We will feel relieved and free for the first time in our lives.

The question "Can We Rebuild Black Wall Street?", posed by the black nationalist Nation of Islam's publication "Final Call", can only be answered with a bit of background in political economy. Black Wall Street was built on oil profits. These profits derive from property rights protections -- in this case mineral rights. If the costs of those protections are paid for out of taxes on things other than the property rights themselves, the profits are subsidized by the tax system. This is the basic con game of so-called "capitalism"*. Since some blacks in Oklahoma had acquired land prior to the discovery of oil on that land, they were in a position to reap some of the subsidized profits of this con game. The escalation of a relatively common extralegal mode of dispute processing (a 19 year old WHITE had been lynched a year earlier for shooting a cab driver in that town) into a full blown battle had a simple objective: Make the owners of the oil rights sell cheap to some sociopaths that knew the con game forwards and backwards. This con game is as old as civilization. The shift of tax burden off property rights, on to economic activity is a stage in the "progress", into decay, of civilization -- a stage missed, by the way, by such "luminaries" as Carroll Quigley. It is, therefore, a very highly developed art -- even genetic predisposition -- in the oldest of civilized cultures, which is why Silicon Valley is now over 2/3 "Asian" -- primarily south Asian. The answer, therefore, to "Can We Rebuild Black Wall Street." is, "Probably not." for the simple reason that Africans are not as highly coevolved with civilization as are, for example middle eastern or south Asian cultures. *There is another con game corresponding to so-called "capitalism" to which African cultures are more highly adapted, and that is treating society as one big tribal organization with a "big man", or tribal chief, rule. This is what we're starting to see emerge in the US in a process that started with the Civil War's abrogation of the 10th Amendment -- expressing in the imperial presidency. In this form of the con game, the subsidized profits increasingly centralize in the "public sector". Look at the concentration of blacks in Washington D.C. and the fact that the counties surrounding Washington D.C. have the highest per household median income, if not net assets, in the US.

I was reading this (communist?) site: https://www.redneckrevolt.org/ They seem to be obsessed with the early industrial times, and suggest that we are still fighting a war against "bosses" today. They mention this subject a lot: http://infogalactic.com/info/Coal_Wars Can someone give me a starting point for understanding these events from a capitalist perspective? I remember stef's presentation on robber barons. I need to do more research, but my head is spinning. Were the workers actually being exploited this much, or are we only getting one side of the story? Would the seeming exploitation have sorted out naturally as the country developed anyway? Did the coming of unions eventually affect overall American prosperity for the worse?

The main question is this: How can an anarchist society flourish (or even survive) surrounded by statist societies? The main reason I bring this up is because the only two things I see a government capable of doing right at least most of the time are national defense and law enforcement. While I can conceive of more localized law enforcement under an anarcho-capitalist society much like of Stef's vision, I simply cannot see how such a society would remain free so long as "enslaved" (I will use to Greek definition of liberty: free from rule) societies remain. If America were the site of a free society, the main obstacle would be a heavily militaristic and morally relativistic Mexico. Should Mexico actually transform from a crime infested hell to some kind of nation state, I would say Mexico would probably repeat old history an attempt to invade America, at least to reclaim their old territories and gain some more as a bargain. If there is no standing army in this hypothetical on the part of the Americans, then the Americans would be doomed to fail as history does not favor a mass of localized militias (I assume militias would act as armies in times of need in an anarchist society) without central authority or military discipline. I use America as my prime example mainly because I am American and feasibly the only statist society that might invade for *inset reason here* is Mexico, whereas in Europe the political dynamic would be a bit byzantine in that essentially every European country has historically been under pressure to be the local hegemonist or be conquered by another hegemonist. In America I see a free society being the most feasible as the only historically militaristic society liable to invade that could not be handled by a couple of cities' militia would be Mexico. My own answer to this problem, which I will subject to change if you guys can give me the arguments, is something like this: We need states so long as states exist, therefore states will always exist unless one state conquers every other state and disbands itself (by state I mean government, not a Germanic province). As a side question: has Stef written a book on what his vision of anarcho-capitalism might be? If so please give me a name so I can read/listen and give myself a better picture on what anarcho-capitalism applied might look like.

I worked for a highly competitive private business in the food service industry for 35 years in California. We did a great job keeping the customers happy. The competition was tough but so were we. However, our biggest customers like Safeway, Vons, Kroger, Albertsons, Walgreens, Smart n Final, Whole Foods, etc. could have cared less about the service we provided because they knew they would be the priority over all others due to the shear volume of their account and they were right. The problem was that when ever a new company came to town, they would threaten to switch for price alone. We got to where the price was so low we could barely compete against these multinational corporations. I'm not complaining about this in regards to why capitalism works so well, but more how I always felt like I could loose my job at any moment. After time that really does take it's toll. Yes, that constant fear does motivate you to do what ever it takes to survive thus it keeps prices low and service high, always tweaking your business model and service tactics and that is good, to a point. What I found was It started affecting everything in my life. I was always working and spending less time at home with my kids. It made me less empathetic to everyone around me so I not only had the battle at work but it became a battle to be at home. My wife and kids were endlessly supportive but I became more and more frustrated, depressed and disengaged at home. What I was experiencing is not only common throughout the US, it has become pathological. Some people do better than others in that environment (young single males) but look at the corporate/political/Geopolitical condition of the world today, it's ruthless and highly unstable. It made me start to think that there just has to be a better way. It doesn't look like anything will change now since multinational corporations and international banks are running the world corrupting the body politic and most everything else in their path. However, this problem certainly explains why so many people are trending towards socialism / communism as a way to relax the constant fear thus creating more and more susceptibility to the "languasites' Stefan described in podcast FDR3263. I am aware that as long as the current economic structure (fiat money, Keynesian economics and "languasites') are dominant, there is little to no chance of this changing any time soon so my timing on this subject is no doubt out of sync, but I think it is relevant to a bigger picture. Ruthless business models are a big cause of destructive family environments in so many ways it's too much to go into here. People equate this false capitalism as actual capitalism, the cause of their constant anxiety, thus we see the popularity of Bernie Sanders types, along with more and more talk of resurrecting so many historically destructive political systems. The near total loss of freedom seems to be more acceptable than the current work environment and social instability. Capitalism did give rise to this phenomenon even in it's infancy and in it's purest form. I think the purest capitalistic system is susceptible to this regardless of how 'pure' it is. Money corrupts even the most ethical of humans so governmental systems will always have to exist until either the average IQ gets over 110 or the population decreases below levels that existed before Kings, Queens and religion. I have often thought that the only viable government would have be an AI programed in such a way that it's primary objective is for humans to eventually no longer need it, thus no longer needing government to force cooperation. This is based on the idea that it's impossible to bribe a machine but then there is always the programmer. There could be something like a medical cure for low IQ across ethnic lines (as Stefan described in a recent podcast) or a medical cure to the 'virus' of sociopathic and psychopathic disorders though the odds of something like that happening is at best unlikely any time soon. The peaceful parenting model is a necessary imperative but I fear a mufti-generational approach will not be enough to fix anything before we destroy ourselves or render the world uninhabitable. The current social and political situation is dire -- I am not hopeful. (Comments Welcome) Dusty Wiggins 'What this world needs are massive and spontaneous outbreaks of positive creativity.'

This guy's position is left anarchism.

From the Peak Prosperity Podcast: Published on Sep 28, 2015 Recently, author and "de-growth activist" Charles Eisenstein stopped by the Martenson homestead while traveling on business. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Chris sat him down to record an impromptu discussion on the nature of wealth. As should come as little surprise to Peak Prosperity readers, financial wealth ("money") is just one component -- and given society's current over-fixation with it, its pursuit oftentimes limits our ability to be truly wealthy.

So I was watching a TED talk, (Strange Answers to the Psychopath Test | Jon Ronsonand) and even getting mildly interested in it. I've always thought TED was a sophist cult, but here's the creme of the crop.. "Capitalism gives ruthless rewards to physhopathic behavior" "It's a form of psychopathy that's come to affect us all" https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c?t=9m52s(Where he makes these comments) How are we ever going to convince people that freedom is the way when we have people on such a highly held platform openly saying that free trade is psychopathic? Do you think this man is legitimately evil and psychopath himself, or is he simply ignorant of the extend to which government force is the pinnacle of psychopathic power? What's a concise point to shut this guy down, aside from the moral argument from non aggression which he obviously denies?

Just something to give you a brain hemorrhage! Enjoy, or not... http://gift-economy.com/the-disease-of-patriarchal-capitalism/ The Disease of Patriarchal Capitalismby Genevieve Vaughan Women’s Worlds, Ottawa, July 6, 2011 Download a PDF We European/Americans have been infected by the disease of patriarchal capitalism and we have carried it to all the populations where we have settled. For many of them it has been fatal, others have adapted but some have succeeded in defending themselves and their traditions against all odds. This disease hurts us as well as everyone else. It is the cause of wars and oppresssions of all kinds. It magnifies racism, ageism, nationalism, religious prejudice. Let me try to say what I think it is. I believe it is an economic disease which originates inthe merging of patriarchal values with market values, creating a link between the man at the top of the hierarchy and money.These are both false concept models of value and they pull people towards being them or having them. They seem to offer and justifydominance, power and the ability to judge. Bilateral exchange for money, giving in order to receive an equivalent,cancels the unilateral gift. We base the economic market on exchange and consider it to be the only economy while forgetting that the unilateral giving of goods to needs is also a mode of distribution. Market exchange is a way of eliminating free gifts, making them valueless and invisib while appropriating them as commoditiesle. Who even thought of the gift of fertile seeds until their species were privatized and free fertile seeds were replaced bycommercial terminator seeds? Who even thought of the gift of free clean water until it was commodified and made scarce by pollution? Who thought of the gift of free housework until it began to be counted in monetary terms? It seems that the only way we can recognize the value of anything in our society is byexchanging it, naming it with money. For me this way of doing things comes from the denial of the importance of mothers, mothering and being mothered for the definition of human beings.Our society has isolated mothering in the nuclear family rather than generalizing it to society as a whole. In fact unilateral gift giving (and its values) cannot be generalized if the main social nexus is exchange. Because babies are born unable to care for themselves, their motherers have to give to them unilaterally without expecting a return. The unilateral gift has a logic of its own, and it creates relations of mutuality and trust. It unites people and a syllogism is connected to it. If A gives to B and B gives to C then A gives to C.The unilateral gift by which we satisfy others’ needs also gives value to the other person by implication. The receiver is not passive but creative, and the success of the gift depends on her use of it.The unilateral gift can be repeated by the other person,taking turns. That is the other person has a turn at taking the initiative to give to the previous giver or to someone else again. This can be seen in the interactions between mothers and children which are not exchanges but alternations of unilateral gift giving initiatives. Our ability to satisfy other’s needs unilaterally(and pass it on) has been left out of our vision of the world because we base our thinking on exchange, giving in order to receive an equivalent. Exchange requires quanitification and measurement and places an equation between giver and receiver which actually covers up an adversarial relation – because each tries to get more out of the exchange than the other, not realizing that this means that each one is actually trying to get something free, that is a gift, even if it is forced. In fact that is what profit is, a forced or leveraged gift, which is unrecognized because it is called by another name. With the gift of their free housework women contribute to this profit because the capitalists and corporations do not have to pay for the so called work of reproduction. Then there are the many gifts of nature and culture that are given low cost or free, and the savings corporations make by not cleaning up their own pollution and letting nature supposedly take care of it. These gifts of profit accumulate and form capital, which is then re invested to leverage more gifts. All of this market thinking and doing, upon which I could expand ad infinitum, makes gift giving difficult. It creates scarcity in order to maintain control. In abundance gift giving is easy and delightful, but in scarcity it becomes difficult and even self sacrificial.The giving of gifts of profit to the few takes gifts of subsistance away from the many. When too much abundance accrues in the economy the overage is wasted in wars and symbolic excesses. Abundance would make the population difficult to control and people would not work for capitalists if they lived in abundance. They would rematriate, they would return to a maternal gift economy. This possibility is a real danger for capitalism which therefore creates the scarcity which makes it impossible. These strange characteristics of the market economy seem normal and natural to us. In fact we do not question them until they begin to make our own lives difficult. I submit that the market avails itself of the unilateral gifts of all, and that these are the gifts of the maternal model. They belong to an economy of mothering, supplying needs without the intention of getting a return. Unilateral giving can be elaborated in many ways. I believe it is the basis of language and I have done a lot of work in the directionof showing how words are verbal gifts, and sentences are gift constructions. In this case language would be virtual mothering, mothering with gifts and services in the medium of sound. Therefore humans would be an extremely mothering species since we do mothering not only much longer than most other species but we do it virtually as well as materially. And we do it in language all of our lives (not just in child care). We use it to create and communicate all our thoughts, our literature and science but we do not recognize it as such because the mentality of exchange has wiped gift giving and mothering out of our world picture. Instead we are told we have inherited behaviors and inherited grammars, inherited altruism and indeed inherited superiority. Finding mothering in language and the economy allows us to generalize it, or to say that it is already general but unrecognized as such. It is by the return to the interpretative key of mothering-and- being-mothered, unilateral giving and receiving that we can begin again to understand the relational side of life. Egalitarian non authoritarian motherers mind-read the needs of the child and adapt their gifts to the childs needs. The child is a creative receiver who in her turn can give to the mother, vocalizations,gestures, coos and smiles, which the mother receives and gives some more of her own. The child and the mother create moments of joint attention in which they point at parts of the world and receive those perceptions together. That is, when they attend to the same thing, they are both receivers of the same perceptual gift. In doing this we also project the mother onto theworld around us and receive this motherworld’s gifts of perceptions and experiences because we have learned to be creative receivers by having been cared for by our human mothers. The interface between ourselves and the environment is a nurturing motherly relation in which we are the receiving role. Moreover we preconsciously select which perceptions and events to give our attention to. That is, preconsciously we are like a mother who selects the most important things to give to her children.So we are unconsciously, pre consciously and physiologically ourselves mothering nature regarding ourselves and we also turn this towards others. Maternal interactions, whether the mother is only one person or many, an extended family or a whole village, provide the basis for communication in the rest of life. If we say all this behavior is inherited we cut out the social importance of mothering and unilateral giving. Then we do not use that logic any more for understanding what human beings do. I believe we need a rematriation of Western philosophy and science. We need to bring back unilateral giving as a basis for understanding who we are as human beings before and beyond patriarchy and the market, and act accordingly. We need to rematriate European Americans to the mother in our own society and ourselves, respect the rematriation of the Native Peoples to their lands and traditions and stop the destruction of the Great Mother world wide.

Stefan, you really need to make a video that explains what capitalism is. A truth about capitalism or some introduction to capitalism like your introduction to anarchy and clarify laissez-faire free market from this pseudo-capitalist monstrosity of the government that people seem to get tangled in whenever they hear this distasteful word that's been stolen and spit on by statists. *sorry if there's another spot where requests like this should be made Does anyone else agree? I find really just constant Q and A when trying to explain this to people. I can do it, but I'm sure you can do it better Stef.

I've been fielding a lot of questions on my channel about "the free market" and a common retort I get is an example of Big Corporations running wild -- that is, until you consider that the only reason they have all this power is because they made a bee line for the very government institution which is supposed to protect us from such excesses... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvVVObVO59Y&list=UUmkSQppUOY6r7qd-sbcftBQ

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it: 1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever. 2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so. 3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights. I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered: "No. It's because money is only numbers, not property." After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them! Markus FIN

I just learned about an interesting political philosophy that was created by Paul Émile de Puydt & as you may have guessed it is called Panarchism. "Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale." -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism There is close suggestion to this that was created by a Swiss Economist called Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ) but to me that conception sounds like pre-Thirty Years War Germany honestly. I think this is viable & was wondering what everyone else thought? BTW I will now call myself a Panarcho-Capitalist Edit: It was a joke because they are contradictions of each other, like I have said many times my jokes aren't great. Edit 2: Here are some articles I read on Panarchism that explain it better than the Wikipedia article, please if your going to comment with something regarding it please read a few of these before you do. http://www.panarchy.org/zube/gospel.1986.html http://www.panarchy.org/zube/aphthonius.2005.html http://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchism.html http://www.panarchy.org/knott/principles.html http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.html

I've looked around the internet for a solid critique of the 'Communist Manifesto' from a Laissez Faire position but have not found any (interestingly enough I found communist critiques if the book). So I have decided to write a page by page critique of the communist manifesto in the vain of Hazlitt's 'Failure of New Economics'. I'm about a quarter of the way through but I'm not sure where I could post the entire critique. If anyone knows of a good place to post it please reply to this. "There is a specter haunting America, it if the specter of AnarchoCapitalism" -Me

Is there any authoritative digest published of the theories and principles from Adam Smiths book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"?

</php $base = 0.001;$compound = 1.03;for ($year = 0; $year < 10000; $year++){ $base = $base * $compound; echo $base; echo "% global resource usage after year: "; echo $year; echo "</br>";}?> How it works. $base is the amount of resources the global society uses in year 0(zero), represented by a percentage of the total available amount of resources on the planet or the total amount of resources the planet can supply each year. $compound, is the compound rate of growth capitalism "requires" to work (3 percent). $year is the current year in the for loop and this for loop will run for 10.000 (ten thousand) loops (years). Even though the initial amount is only 0.001%, we are already over 100% after 389 years (101.51205858519% to be exact and 101.5% rounded). After 1323 years, the percentage can not even be represented by a 32 bit number anymore, at this point the value of $base is 99194024233445% (ninety-nine-thousand-billion percent roughly). Now, we could of course factor in a recession here and there, make some "market-corrections" here and there and do all sorts of small things, but overall growth will be sustained. Perhaps by doing these small adjustments, we could get it to last a little bit longer, but it would still run over 100% eventually. Now... there are some arguments that this does not matter, cause the market will come up with ways to live on more than one planet (just an example), but even if we do this the rate of growth will still continue and we will eventually need 2 whole galaxies to sustain it, so the big question is, when is it gonna be enough? You can argue with every little detail in this post, I don't mind at all, but know this, any% compound rate of growth forever, is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

How about it, Stefan? I haven't seen you rip apart an article like this in... Hmm. Well, at least a week. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_youre_wrong_about_communism_7_huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/

I wrote a rebuttal to Harry Binswanger's, "Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government" which was posted on the Forbes website earlier today. It basically comes down to saying that competing governments means competing force. While one government is a protection from force. The logic used was refreshing and new, but nothing special. Still maybe worth a read. Article is here.