***YOU ARE LIVESTOCK!*** History lesson on human farming

In short, you support acts of violence against people who have never harmed you?

And this is a good moral principle to follow?

we are predators not prey.
participation in the system is voluntary.

mark o the beast (TM)

Senator Harry Reid: "Taxation Is Voluntary"

[link to www.youtube.com]

Humans are harvested for energy by negative entities that live on the lower astral plane. They use it as a food source. That's why we're always fighting and depressed.

subject of the state or god
choice

"The reason slavery hasn’t returned to society is because people recognize that the ownership of human beings is completely immoral. This has not penetrated our social consciousness to the degree that it is commonly understood that we exist as tax livestock, but there is no chance of slavery being accepted as moral.

This is what will cause statism to be rejected: a recognition that the initiation of violence to solve social problems is completely immoral.

Once we put this into practice, vigilance against statism will no more be required than vigilance against slavery is today."

Sorry, I don't think what I wrote can be summed up to "support for acts of violence". That's superficial.

But to reply to your statement, acts of violence boom when the STATE as a principle of social organization disappears. Anarchists hate states/statism, they want a world of no-states/stateless. They should take some trips to failed states and see how their utopia would actually play out in the real world.

people are waking up all around the world

“The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society.”
– pro-slavery apologist William Harper, in 1852

Arguments Against the Abolition of Slavery and Arguments Against the Abolition of Government (as We Know It)


Slavery is natural.

Government (as we know it) is natural.


Slavery has always existed.

Government (as we know it) has always existed.


Every society on earth has slavery.

Every society on earth has government (as we know it)


The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

The people are not capable of taking care of themselves.


Without masters, the slaves will die off.

Without government (as we know it), the people will die off.


Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves.

Where the common people have no government (as we know it), they are much worse off (e.g., Somalia).


Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

Getting rid of government (as we know it) would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.


Without slavery, the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

Without government (as we know it), the people would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.


Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.

Trying to get rid of government (as we know it) is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal.


Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

Forget anarchy. A far better plan is to keep the ordinary people sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter.

[link to www.lewrockwell.com]

It most certainly can. So you do not support acts of violence against people who have not harmed you? I understand why one might want to dodge around this issue. :)

FUCK STEFAN MOLYNEUX HE IS A GODLESS ATHEIST AND CULT LEADER.
HOPE YOU DIE STEFAN!!!!

homeless squatters are more free than we are...

Key words being "failed states." Leaving aside that those places are examples of failed states, should one take a trip to North Korea to see that statism doesn't work? Or is your 'argument' on this very selective?

Secondly,

"Your proposal of a central government that only protects liberty is a lot like a proposal for a giant bohemoth that only gobbles the wicked. It's magical, imaginary, and Utopian. In every example of central government in history the well connected and powerful have controlled it, to their own benefit, at the expense of everyone else."

thee comes a time when the system itself demands so much that the foundation from which it draws it's energy is no longer able to sustain it.

kinda like when a company comes under control of the HR department instead of sales.

"Stateless Ireland, Iceland & The American West"
[link to theuklibertarian.com]

"Often people will say that there has never been an example of a working stateless society and that it is some utopian fantasy. This is not true. Many people have written about the following but Ryan Faulk’s videos over at Fringe Elements are an excellent introduction:"

YouTube - Stateless Iceland

[link to www.youtube.com]

YouTube - Stateless Iceland 2

[link to www.youtube.com]

utopia is my strong right arm!

One of the most unrealistic utopian beliefs is that you can concentrate the power and money into the hands of a few thieves and mass murderes (who get into their positions of power by being the best liar, for example) and that this scenario will end in unicorns and ponies.

"One of the most unrealistic utopian beliefs is that you can concentrate the power and money into the hands of a few thieves and mass murderes (who get into their positions of power by being the best liar, for example) and that this scenario will end in unicorns and ponies."

oh like we have now?
i agree!

Stefan Molyneux. Recognised the voice immediately.

Great channel. Anarchism w/o violence.

So TPTB are getting scared of him?

Good.

LOL

Comparing past pro-slavery arguments with (contemporary?) anti-anarchist arguments is poor propaganda. The slaves were to be released in a society governed by a state, with laws and law enforcement, behavioral rules, authority that would have prevented or reacted to them running amuck! There is no comparison between that and what would be there if the state is eliminated. Like I said, go to failed states and see the amount of mayhem, arbitraryness and slavery that goes on there. The result is human misery.

Why would I go to a place where statism (a "failed state," as you point out) has run society into the ground to show me the benefits of statism?

Again, do you support acts of violence against people who have done no harm to you?

the rule of law is not inconsistent with anarchist thinking.
i think you may have anarchy confused with nihilism.

the early USA with her unlimited reasources was a very anarchic society.
lawless too, and no utopia except where the actual local community imposed rule of law.
in our english speling countries today, liberty going back to the magna carta has been subverted by the fight against terror.
and terror means anything they choose.

They're called failed states because there is no longer a state authority there or it is reduced to name only. An anarchists' paradise.



The well connected and powerful would control a no-state construct too. So what remains is to compare the constructs (the added value they bring to human life and civilization), not who controls them. Because who controls them would remain a constant.

Celtic Ireland (650-1650)

In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century. In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the Ibos in West Africa), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense "primitive": it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice.[3]

[link to eng.anarchopedia.org]

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690

The free people of Pennsylvania would not vote for taxes, and simply would not pay the quitrents to Penn as feudal overlord.

If for most of 1684-88 there was no colonywide government in existence, what of the local officials? Were they not around to provide that evidence of the state's continued existence, which so many people through the ages have deemed vital to man's very survival? The answer is no. The lower courts met only a few days a year, and the county officials were, again, private citizens who devoted very little time to upholding the law. No, the reality must be faced that the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience. Furthermore, the Assembly passed no laws after 1686, as it was involved in a continual wrangle over attempts to increase its powers and to amend, rather than just reject, legislation.

The colonists were evidently content in their anarchism, and shrewdly engaged in nonviolent resistance against the commission. In fact, they scarcely paid any attention to the commission. A year passed before the commission was even mentioned in the minutes of the Council.

The state had reappeared in a flurry of activity in early 1688, but was found wanting, and the colony, still taxless, quickly lapsed back into a state of anarchism. The commissioners somehow failed to meet and the Council met only once between the spring meeting and December. Pennsylvania was once again content with a supposedly dreadful and impossible state of affairs. And when this idyll came to an end in December 1688 with the arrival of a new deputy governor, appointed by Penn, the deputy governor "had difficulty finding the officers of the government. . . [He] found the Council room deserted and covered with dust and scattered papers. The wheels of government had nearly stopped turning."1

William Penn, seeing that the Pennsylvanians had happily lapsed into an anarchism that precluded taxes, quitrents, and political power for himself, decided to appoint a deputy governor. But the people of Pennsylvania, having tasted the sweets of pure liberty, were almost unanimously reluctant to relinquish that liberty. We have observed that the commissioners of state had failed to assume their posts and had virtually failed to function after it was presumed they accepted. No one wanted to rule others. For this reason, Thomas Lloyd, the president of the Council, refused appointment as deputy governor. At this point, Penn concluded that he could not induce the Quakers of Pennsylvania to institute a state, and so he turned to a tough non-Quaker, an old Puritan soldier and a non-Pennsylvanian, John Blackwell.

As for Blackwell, he believed the Quakers to be those agents of the devil foretold in the New Testament, who "despise dominion and speak evil of dignities."

With Blackwell out of office, the Council, back in control, resumed its somnolent ways. Again headed by Thomas Lloyd, it met rarely, did virtually nothing, and told William Penn even less. Anarchism had returned in triumph to Pennsylvania. And when Secretary William Markham, who had been one of the hated Blackwell clique, submitted a petition for levying taxes to provide some financial help for William Penn, the Council completely ignored the request.

[link to mises.org]

To me freedom is the freedom to do anything you want. That includes that which is considered immoral. DO WE REALLY WANT FREEDOM in it's truest form?

Can any of you actually handle someone else being free? Could you handle in a free world living next to a child abuser? a pedophile? a rapist? a thief? or would you freely kill them all so you could live in a "safe place of mind".

We'd all kill each other in a free world without any rules.

I'm all for freedom for everyone as long as you're not harming anyone (physically/sexually/mentally/emotionally/spiritually/ etc..).

You're kidding, right? Stefan's ideas about an ideal world of anarchism without violence are so naive its not worth mentioning. "Dispute resolution organizations" would never work, nor would his ideas about a private military, etc, etc. The guy straight up says that God does not exist, and those who think otherwise are morons. Honestly its his arrogant attitude that gets me, notwithstanding his faulty views on sociology and philosophy.

"Can any of you actually handle someone else being free? Could you handle in a free world living next to a child abuser? a pedophile? a rapist? a thief? or would you freely kill them all so you could live in a "safe place of mind"."

i grew up in a small town in oklahoma, and when someone did something serious they were dealt with by the commonity.
quickly, and unequivocally.
oklahoma hadn't been a state for long.

so there were not many baddies.

They are not called failed states because statism there... failed?

Again, societies that have been driven into the ground for many decades are not examples of non-statism.

If I tortured you for years, and then did not torture you for a few days, would you say your psychology and body were good examples of non-torture?

Of course not. That claim would be absurd, but that seems to be the very type of claim you are making.



Might you take the time to explain how you can speak for an entire group of people with wildly varying opinions?

And might you point out those who have called any of these places their "paradise"?



I've already posted examples of stateless societies. Is your solution to just ignore these examples?

But lastly, and most importantly, do you support violence against individuals who have never harmed you?

I notice you continue to not address this question.
:)