Disappointed with "Do humans need government?" video

[DSEngere]

In this video, I think Stef is confusing people who are new to Anarchism.

The NAP does NOT prohibit the use of force against people who have done wrong to others. For instance, if someone rapes or steals, then force CAN be used against them to extract what they have stolen (restitution, etc.)! Stef makes it sound like only people with brain tumors will rape. Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals.

Now, using force may not be the BEST way, but it's not morally wrong. I agree that ostracism is great and preferable, but Stef is making the NAP sound almost pacifist, which it is not.

Stef made similar "far out" arguments about how an anarchist society would work when on the Joe Rogan show, where he spoke about future weapons targetting peope based on DNA, etc. I was pulling my hair out... For statists, you need to ease them into the anarchist paradigm. The most solid argument is simply "If it's a service that people want and are willing to pay for, the free market will provide for it". Boom. Simple as that.

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this?

[J. D. Stembal]

If we aren't breeding or living with statists, why should we care about easing them into voluntarism? Who cares how we come off sounding? We are able to deal with violators of the NAP through social and economic ostracism. Why would force be necessary except in self-defense?

[MagnumPI]

In this video, I think Stef is confusing people who are new to Anarchism.

 

 

The NAP does NOT prohibit the use of force against people who have done wrong to others. For instance, if someone rapes or steals, then force CAN be used against them to extract what they have stolen (restitution, etc.)! Stef makes it sound like only people with brain tumors will rape. Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals.

 

Now, using force may not be the BEST way, but it's not morally wrong. I agree that ostracism is great and preferable, but Stef is making the NAP sound almost pacifist, which it is not.

 

Stef made similar "far out" arguments about how an anarchist society would work when on the Joe Rogan show, where he spoke about future weapons targetting peope based on DNA, etc. I was pulling my hair out... For statists, you need to ease them into the anarchist paradigm. The most solid argument is simply "If it's a service that people want and are willing to pay for, the free market will provide for it". Boom. Simple as that.

 

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this?

 

Well, you can dumb your arguments down for idiots, certainly. But I don't like to practice being stupid. If your audience has trouble with a concise and reasoned argument, talk to someone else.

[dsayers]

Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals.

How do you know? This is begging the question. Human aggression is rooted in childhood trauma and undamaged children are naturally empathetic. There's nothing utopian about it.

 

Also, you're conflating the initiation of the use of force with the use of force. I've never heard Stef argue that defensive force is not allowed. In fact, when you look at aggression in terms of property rights, you understand that the aggressor is consenting to defensive force with their very actions. This is the problem when you talk about NAP instead of what that is actually short-hand for.

 

Finally, every video FDR puts out gets its own thread. You could add to the conversation taking place here. The only thing I was disappointed in the video is the way the caller was met with rational refutations and kept on going as if his bigotry remained unassailed.

[AncapFTW]

If we aren't breeding or living with statists, why should we care about easing them into voluntarism? Who cares how we come off sounding? We are able to deal with violators of the NAP through social and economic ostracism. Why would force be necessary except in self-defense?

 

They still exist, just outside of our group.  Not only will teaching them about your view turn at least some of them to your side, but those that don't switch can at least understand where you are coming from.

 

I don't get this "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude that some anarchists have.  You want a society free from the initiation of force, yet you won't even take basic steps to insure that people don't have a reason to initiate force against you.  When people can't understand your cause, it's much easier for someone to convince them that you are evil, and therefore they should use violence against you.  If they understand your position, even though they don't follow it, they can at least see that the person who's trying to turn them to violence is wrong about you, and therefore is wrong about them needing to use violence against you.

 

Look at it this way, there are many people who think all Muslims are terrorists, and therefore all Muslims are the enemy.  If you can convince them that not all Muslims are terrorists, though, then they have no reason to use violence against any Muslim that isn't violent.

 

At the very least, talking to people about it and letting them understand your views will prevent the people who are against your from convincing them that you are their enemy too.

[BaconForAllah]

LOL @ your Greenwald quote. A maniacal war-mongerer who calls anyone critical of Islam a bigot, all while serving the Islamists in their quest to punish girls for the crime of going to school, talking about free speech. Might as well quote Kurt Waldheim on the evils of the SS while you're at it, what a joke.

[AncapFTW]

LOL @ your Greenwald quote. A maniacal war-mongerer who calls anyone critical of Islam a bigot, all while serving the Islamists in their quest to punish girls for the crime of going to school, talking about free speech. Might as well quote Kurt Waldheim on the evils of the SS while you're at it, what a joke.

I liked the quote.  I don't know who said it.

[dsayers]

I don't get this "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude that some anarchists have.  You want a society free from the initiation of force, yet you won't even take basic steps to insure that people don't have a reason to initiate force against you.

Are you saying that disagreeing with somebody is a reason to initiate the use of force against you? Do you talk to statists and to them that their "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude towards anarchists is in comprehensible?

 

If you're a doctor on a battlefield, where you have a number of patients damaged to varying degrees and you spend time on the ones that are done for, you are a bad doctor. Once you understand WHY people think what they do (check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series for more on this), you learn that beating your head against a brick wall doesn't effect the wall at all. It just wastes your time and erodes your resolve. This war of attrition is effective (look at US efforts vs al'queda).

 

The way I look at it, it takes all different types. I do things others aren't willing to and they do things I'm not willing to. We're all working towards the same goal. If you want to take the time to try and convince somebody who has already told you they cannot be convinced, go for it. I tend to a little bit myself in public avenues since you don't know who all you're going to help by doing so. But I'd rather spend my time making the case to people who, though resistant, are open to the possibility. Something EVERYBODY should possess if they seek the truth. If somebody rejects that 2+2=4 just because somebody shouted it at them, well then they weren't actually interested in math, were they?

[AncapFTW]

Are you saying that disagreeing with somebody is a reason to initiate the use of force against you? Do you talk to statists and to them that their "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude towards anarchists is in comprehensible?

 

If you're a doctor on a battlefield, where you have a number of patients damaged to varying degrees and you spend time on the ones that are done for, you are a bad doctor. Once you understand WHY people think what they do (check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series for more on this), you learn that beating your head against a brick wall doesn't effect the wall at all. It just wastes your time and erodes your resolve. This war of attrition is effective (look at US efforts vs al'queda).

 

The way I look at it, it takes all different types. I do things others aren't willing to and they do things I'm not willing to. We're all working towards the same goal. If you want to take the time to try and convince somebody who has already told you they cannot be convinced, go for it. I tend to a little bit myself in public avenues since you don't know who all you're going to help by doing so. But I'd rather spend my time making the case to people who, though resistant, are open to the possibility. Something EVERYBODY should possess if they seek the truth. If somebody rejects that 2+2=4 just because somebody shouted it at them, well then they weren't actually interested in math, were they?

No, I'm saying that to authoritarian people disagreeing with them can be a reason to use violence.  Just look at any religious war.  I don't understand the second statement.

 

Yes there are people who won't be convinced no matter what, but they aren't the ones you are trying to convince.  There are people in the middle who will be effected by your argument, and maybe one of them can reach the other person through some other method (maybe because they're a friend or lover).  Even if they can't, you might turn the person in the middle, even slightly.  It's like a debate.  You won't turn the person you are debating with, but you might convince the audience.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

In this video, I think Stef is confusing people who are new to Anarchism.

 

 

The NAP does NOT prohibit the use of force against people who have done wrong to others. For instance, if someone rapes or steals, then force CAN be used against them to extract what they have stolen (restitution, etc.)! Stef makes it sound like only people with brain tumors will rape. Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals.

 

Now, using force may not be the BEST way, but it's not morally wrong. I agree that ostracism is great and preferable, but Stef is making the NAP sound almost pacifist, which it is not.

 

Stef made similar "far out" arguments about how an anarchist society would work when on the Joe Rogan show, where he spoke about future weapons targetting peope based on DNA, etc. I was pulling my hair out... For statists, you need to ease them into the anarchist paradigm. The most solid argument is simply "If it's a service that people want and are willing to pay for, the free market will provide for it". Boom. Simple as that.

 

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this?

 

You are being unempathetic to make claims about what Stefan said without providing quotes or context. "Stefan makes it seem" and "can we stop sounding so utopian?" are not arguments. Stefan has been doing this show for nearly a decade, is an expert of philosophy, and has 300k subscribers. If he made some obvious error about self defense, it really would be necessary for you to provide context or a quote to be taken seriously.

 

This, combined with comments such as "I was pulling my hair out because he said "x" instead of "y" to Joe Rogan" really are unempathetic, considering you are approaching an expert who is, as far as I can tell, infinitely more successful than you at what you are giving him advice on (I see you have 14 subs on Youtube). It is past the edge of troll-ery, but if this was not your intention, then there are simple ways you can make up for it (by making actual arguments and providing context and quotes), and then I'm sure this can be a more productive affair as to whether you are correct or incorrect about Stefan's supposed errors. 

[AncapFTW]

You are being unempathetic to make claims about what Stefan said without providing quotes or context. "Stefan makes it seem" and "can we stop sounding so utopian?" are not arguments. Stefan has been doing this show for nearly a decade, is an expert of philosophy, and has 300k subscribers. If he made some obvious error about self defense, it really would be necessary for you to provide context or a quote to be taken seriously.

 

This, combined with comments such as "I was pulling my hair out because he said "x" instead of "y" to Joe Rogan" really are unempathetic, considering you are approaching an expert who is, as far as I can tell, infinitely more successful than you at what you are giving him advice on (I see you have 14 subs on Youtube). It is past the edge of troll-ery, but if this was not your intention, then there are simple ways you can make up for it (by making actual arguments and providing context and quotes), and then I'm sure this can be a more productive affair as to whether you are correct or incorrect about Stefan's supposed errors. 

Argument from authority much?

 

It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to someone on youtube or how much they seem like an expert, they aren't perfect.  Everyone can make mistakes.  Claiming that you can't critique someone if they are less popular than them or are less of an authority in your eyes isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

[dsayers]

It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to someone on youtube or how much they seem like an expert, they aren't perfect.  Everyone can make mistakes.  Claiming that you can't critique someone if they are less popular than them or are less of an authority in your eyes isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.

While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that you did claim somebody said something without source or context and that the things you said he said were not arguments in fact were not arguments.

[AncapFTW]

While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that you did claim somebody said something without source or context and that the things you said he said were not arguments in fact were not arguments.

When did I do that?  Maybe you are referring to the OP?

 

Also, this sentence is written in a confusing way.  Could you try to write in a less confusing way?