The Ethics of Capitalism Part II (Capitalism & Morality Seminar 2012) - Stefan Molyneux

mr. morning all right I am ready good night are you all carved up ready for some good philosophy all right so sorry some people over there so they couldn't hear me is that it's a better kind of guarantee throw this thing okay well thanks for course I just wanted to mention this really be great to me call the listeners to freedomain radio who say it's kind of you to see you in the flesh so just for them I'm offering for you just so experienced such a migraine that's not good so if you remember from this morning ethics suck if I think that's where we left off this morning ethics suck but they don't have to so that's what we're going to try and work on a little bit this afternoon so this is philosophy 101 real quick I'm sure lies you aware of this this is how philosophy I think should be taught so let's this is audience participation afternoon so feel free to jump in okay so let's say I say I do not exist still your about it so I do not exist what's wrong with that yeah it's performative contradiction right self that negative if I say I do not exist you're not going to believe me right okay who here has never donated to freedom in right here okay good because I don't want to smoke any donators if I'm wrong if I say you do not exist does that make any sense that's to me the same thing so if I say you do not exist that committee makes no sense right because I'm pointing at you and saying identifying you as a discrete entity saying you do not exist so I do not exist user not exist makes no sense how about language has no meaning we can adore cooking at 1p language has no meaning does that make any sense but I have to make specific words that meeting in order to communicate the language has no mean sound does not exist yeah you can but then I'm contradicting myself right i mean i can make up whatever not since I want I've said acute that in the past but sound does not exist it's like it's like making someone a letter saying let us never get delivered okay so this is to me the essence of philosophy everybody you know is this whole human thing you can't get an award from in years ago had that one thrown at you it's as boring as when somebody says correlation doesn't look for causation anyway of course when you say you can't get a note from an is you just got at what which is your Lord not to say than what exists a way but if what it means is that there's nothing in reality that says how things should be human beings need food to live but that doesn't mean that human beings have to eat right okay so let's move on with some of our sub detonating statements there is no such thing as truth there is no such thing as truth once what if anything is wrong with that's it this statement is an assertion of trivia you get a free podcast yeah if I say there's no such thing as true fine I'm just ascertain the truth and that's our fitness sorry for those go filled with me I'll be random family motion Mike like me thinking anyway so from these basics I would argue you can get philosophy and you can even get that juicy little tidbit of future salvation we call rational ethics branch mon ethics so if i say to you there's no such thing as true then i am making a claim of universality that there's no such thing as university so what is truth the other question what is true life and time and easy because there are magazines but truth is tough for us what laughter anyway so if I say what is true well truth is correlation between my internal state of mind my propositions my thoughts my theories move is nice and what's going on out in the real world right if I say this is a screen it's not seek outlets on an unwilling to screen so what I'm saying has some validity to what is going on in the world so truth it's relative to what is going on in the world it has to be verifiable if I say I had a dream about an elephant last night I verify that but you can verify stuff that I'm saying about the next don't work now the external world is objective it's rational it's sensible and you know that's just cast aside quantum physics for the moment just the current good right side no because the reason is that philosophy has nothing to do with quantum physics quantum physics of the quantum flux and all that they all resolve itself before you get too sensitive before you get to know this kind of stuff so you know subatomic stuff is weird and unstable but this if not me or not so so reality is objective and empirical and told that's kind of good brandy and objective stuff yeah down to that I think that's enough to doubt we are of course always capable of making mistakes there's no mistakes in reality on are not understanding but there are mistakes in our heads right we can make mistakes we can make mistakes we think we can make mistakes in counting we can make tons of mistakes and so we need a discipline called philosophy to you know validated little sticks so when you engage in conversation when you engage in argument when you engage in a debate there are a huge number of bundled and implicit assumptions universals that are included in what you do the idea when you debate with someone you don't debate usually weather pistachios are better than peanuts I mean you can have it sorted today I guess but it's not be a cornerstone of model dilemma right i mean is i scream better than throw your crew members right but you know so you don't have to bait about stuff that subject if you have debate about stuff that is this objective that is in the real world as tangible as material that approval and what happens is people get confused because there's lots of things that our internets that don't exist in the real book right so think of a forest what is it a bunch of trees and undergrowth a couple of hundreds diving away from each other you got a forest that is all just a bunch of trees and stuff there's no such thing as the forest the concept that's out there in the real world so to make sense you can't take a picture of a family with no people in it that make sense I mean so we think to think about it is important so when I count four coconuts there are four coconuts there's not the number four in there sprayed on or hanging off for the shadow of the number for anything like that so those concepts in her head that don't exist in reality and because they don't exist in reality people think that they're subjected but they're not or whether there are four coconuts or five coconuts is not subject but the number four is in my head and not out there in the real world doesn't mean that it's subjective so matter and energy exists in the world does the scientific method exists in the world no the scientific method doesn't exist it done I mean you can write it down the atoms of the boards but but the scientific method doesn't exist in the world what it describes exists in the world but the scientific method itself does not exist in the world is the scientific method subjective now the whole point is it's reproducible it's testable it's you know according to measurements that aren't it feels true to me you know has to be writing people get confused in in philosophy you know if I have this conversation you know man I don't know what sounds like a hippie who say you know man just because it looks Brown to you doesn't mean it looks totally Brown to me you know it could be kind of rust colored man it could be whatever and there's I mean the sign me the technical term for color is not color its wavelength it bounced a wavelength off you get the same number no matter what I mean the fact that we see different colors our eyes is slightly colorblind it doesn't matter color is a subjective term wavelength is an objective term so concepts we derive from reality I see four coconuts the number four is in my head because there are in fact for coconuts just the fact that the concepts exists in our head but not in the real world does not make them subjective if you want to know something about the physical world that is true you've got to use a scientific method if you don't care whether it's true or not you can use a Ouija board you can ask a bureaucrat you can you rip out chicken entrails you can read tea leaves you can use any sorts of nonsensical things that you want but if you want to know something about the material world that is true you have to use the scientific method if you want to know what the true price of something is what do you do stop people pointing guns at each other when they trade then you will find the true price so this is all very deeply related to ethics so the way that I approach it think it's a good way and we'll find out smart audience let me know where I go astray universally preferable behavior is the term that I use now universally preferable behavior is an umbrella term for for me philosophy because philosophy is the arts the science the discipline of comparing what is in our heads that makes claims about the real world to the real world you know if I like unicorns and I do my daughter's three I see a lot of them so if I like unicorns that's fine i'm not making an objective statement that you know unicorns exist but if i make an objective statement about reality welcome reality if i make an objective statement about reality then it has to be objective that's sort of a truism so there are two tests for truth the first is internal consistency put a mathematical theorem out there put a scientific hypothesis out there whatever you want to call it the first test has to be is it internally consistent right so if I hand you a 200-page mathematical thesis and on the first page that says for this thesis to be true two and two have to make five for a pie and a unicorn at the same time how many pages in are you going to get well one I guess just to read that you're not going to go any further because I've set up a contradiction at the basis of my thesis it doesn't matter what happens on page 200 if page 1 is a contradiction so the first thing we look for is internal consistency and the second thing we look for if internal consistency is proven is empirical validation so what if I say to you there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior does that make sense when right yeah if I'm saying there's no such thing as University preferable behavior I'm saying that you should not say that there is because it is universally preferable for us to say true statements rather than false statements and your statement is false and does not conform to reality and it is universally preferable for our stated thoughts to accord with reality I cannot say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior it's similar to saying i do not own the effects of my actions what's wrong with that one I it is tricky stuff so you know if it's foggy daya i do not own the effects of my actions well you don't see the best arguments of the ones where you don't have to bring anything from the outside in how am I contradicting myself when i say i do not own the effects of my actions my argument is an effect of my action my argument is that i do not own the effects of my actions but my argument is an effect of my actions which is talking and holding a microphone and right you understand this is Amanda the foundation for property rights doing I've uh I've had people literally argue themselves blue in the face with me saying staff you don't only your argument that you own the effects of your actions is incorrect it doesn't make any sense because they're identifying it as my argument did you see it's not that it's not that hard to make sense of philosophy and the reason I started off with philosophy sucks sorry ethics suck well philosophy is all about ethics suck is because i don't think that ethics are that complicated because if they're that complicated we can't be bound by them how many people feel morally bound by what is it 200 books of tax law anyone anyone right i mean because if we can't understand the law we can't be bound by it this is the problem with ethics is that if ethics is so complicated that three thousand years of brain bending forehead melting hair eating human thought it's not produced a system of ethics that we can understand how could we be bound by ethics if it's so complicated that we can't get an answer that makes sense we can't be bound by it it's asking the impossible really yeah yeah you understand okay so ethics can't be that complicated but it's really hard y'all get into ethical discussions I'm sure all the time doesn't it feel like you're rolling down a barrel with rabid LSD monkeys biting your eyes out sometimes you know it just feels really crazy and complicated I don't think it's because ethics is that complicated I think it's because of what we talked about this morning that ethics was invented to serve evil and we're not allowed to actually universe lies that which we're told is universal so it's like trying to do a math problem with two people yelling numbers in your ear ears right it's hard to do because we've got so much propaganda but what if ethics is actually really really simple so I'm not going to go through the whole the proofs for this that and the other in the book but I wanted to point out that the first thing that we do when we start a debate if we want to really be intelligent I would argue about it is we think about what does it mean to actually have a debate well it means that there's an external standard of truth there has to be otherwise you can't have a debate there has to be a an external standard of truth otherwise it's believed because I say it so there has to be an external standard of truth has to be objective has to be rational and truth is infinitely preferable to false it I mean all these things are implicit in the very act of having a conversation with someone you don't have to believe any of these things you can be you know some Ted Kaczynski carex you live in the woods your whole life and so on but who cares because you're not part of the social discourse you never debate with anyone so do you don't show up and it's not on the radar but when you debate you were accepting all of these implicit things so ethics this morning we talked about the four major double plus ungood human activities that ethical systems need to work with Aristotle made an argument it's a really good argument I think which is to say if you come up with an ethical system that can prove that rape is virtuous I don't care what you've done you've done something wrong you know like that that is not right now I mean I know we come up with ethical arguments that says that taxation is theft and for a lot of people that seems quite as bizarre but I do sort of agree with that you can't come up with an ethical system that says yay murder yeah theft yay rate but these can't work because we all have these ethical instincts right it doesn't mean that you have to be a philosopher I mean a dog can catch a ball he doesn't have to know physics so here's where we get to the audience-participation part this kind couple not an actual couple these nice to people have agreed if you can come up I'm going to take you through a couple of the proofs of what I would consider to be a good approach to ethics and then you'll see if it makes any sense yeah coming up now this is you may end up on YouTube but it's okay it's tough to get on youtube so they really are they're really passing over a high hurdle here okay so before having them act out various ethical scenarios i have actually checked that they're not married because sometimes that can go awry okay so universally preferable behavior well first thing is it has to be universal and what that means is that it has to be achievable by everyone all the time it has to be achievable by everyone all the time it has to be a behavior not a thought because thoughts are not empirical thoughts are not scientific they can't be tracked they can't be traced you can trace behavior you cannot trace thoughts so universally preferable behavior so let's look at let's start with murdering all right I couldn't get my props I'm afraid through customs anyway so if you could just turn to this lovely young lady here and just you could put your hands on her neck gently but pretend but gently okay so here we have not good right here's hoping Durant security grants in the hallway if you're going to call someone all right so here we have so let's let's put this thou shalt murder through University preferable behavior thou shalt murder let's see if that can work no try now I'm getting dumped okay so this guy is is choking the fine young lady here so he is able to achieve thou shalt murder right he's in the university preferable he can do it he can achieve the university preferable behavior called thou shalt murder now if you could take your hands and put them on his stubbl excellent look at that it's a statist hug so now they're both achieving thou shalt murder what's wrong with this well yeah okay they might okay it's unlikely that they'll both kill each other at the same time they could theoretically I guess pass out at same time well there hot stuff at the same time so it can't be they're actually not killing each other yet they're just trying to so right now they have because murder is the death thing right otherwise it's assault or whatever right motor is when the person dies so right now this guy is not able to achieve thou shalt murder because he hasn't killed her yet she hasn't been able to achieve thou shalt not murder thou shalt murder because she hasn't killed him yet so they can't achieve University preferable behavior called thou shalt murder but there's more sorry if Idzik anything alright so it is impossible empirically to really achieve thou shalt murder does that make sense but it's impossible logically to achieve thou shalt murder oh this one's tricky you'll see it and be like of course but anyone want to take a guess as to why they even if they kill each other at exactly the same time why can they not logically achieve now shall murder is the same as killing zone you can kill someone if they're trying to kill you and have you considered further tell me a little more I just want to make sure I understand that if you're trying to kill this right now do you want to come up here yeah you were try this man is trying to kill this lady if she kills him to prevent him killing her it's not considered murder yeah that's self-defense right okay but we're talking about can they both achieve forget self if murderous is the good right then self-defense would be the bad because they vary but the reasons anyone else want it that's a good good point it's not quite the the true rational reason because again that's bringing in an outside argument called self-defense you don't even need that why can they not you if you want to have a if you can speak she would have to resist me oh yeah this is a man who knows a little bit of something about it so I'm going to stay over here while he continues to do his nefarious deed okay well listen tell me mark well for it to be murdered she would have to resist otherwise it's something else right so if it's not murderer and so if she's if she wants to be killed it's euthanasia right right like if if if you steal something from me I don't want you to steal it it's theft if you if I don't mind you to borrowing it right so the reason not only can they not physically kill each other at the same time but it's only murder if the lady doesn't want to be killed and he does so murder cannot be universally preferable behavior because it's only murder if the victim doesn't want it they can't both want murder at the same time because then it's not murder does that make sense I know this is tricky Yuri true tribe with another example the next one is called greco-roman wrestler getting with hot oil okay sorry just just one more thing I've got here I might want this later okay no that's right all right so you have a lovely cupcake what about theft is universally preferable behavior oh let's do two cupcakes I knew it kept you for a reason there we go all right so theft is universally preferable behavior so you both desperately want each other's cupcakes drew a little if you get it okay so you both want each other's cupcakes you can't achieve it physically right i mean you could both steal from each other at the same time I think it's not Universal because theft is an act of time once you've got it you're not stealing it anymore right but why can't it be achieved that they can take each other's cupcakes and have theft be universally preferable behavior not that the case unless you don't want it to happen yes right exactly it's only theft if you don't want it to happen so you can have theft is you PB only if she doesn't have theft is upp because if she doesn't want you to steal it that's what makes it theft but if she does want you to steal it it's not that so if you both have theft as you PB theft cannot occur does this make sense okay we're not going to do the right one I would even tell you the props i had for that but the batteries are too expensive but assault is the same thing it's only assault if the other person doesn't want it right then it's some S&M dungeon thing whatever right but thanks i think that's that's great and thanks for that I appreciate that so these are just some examples of how you can come up with a system of ethics that says yeah you can achieve don't steal consistently two people in a room with one iPad or two iPads a matter can both achieve universe preferable behavior called don't steal they can do that just fine you can't have don't murder don't assault don't rape these things can all be achieved by everyone all the time no problems but neither empirically nor conceptually can the opposites be achieved consistently so in the book which again is free on the website I propose something which is a good it's a good rule of thumb it's not perfect but it's good rule of thumb called the comma test can a guy in a coma be doing evil no I don't think so I mean I you know I think I mean I can't imagine how he could be he could be doing evil and I think that's that's an important thing right so if a guy in a coma can't be doing evil then actions which are defined as good that are positive actions a kind of problematic because it means that he's doing the opposite of a positive action so if you have thou shalt murder is the good then the guy in the coma is doing the opposite of that because he's not murdering but he can't be doing evil because he's in a coma so that's I think that's a reasonable test it just sort of first pass test of an ethical theory now I said that ethical theories need to be internally consistent but they also need to accord with empirical reality that's you know that's the test that's a good test so if somebody comes up and says thou shalt steal well that is not even remotely internally consistent now what happens to an engineer who tries to build a bridge based upon inconsistent calculations or contradictory calculations are incorrect calculations well it doesn't always fall down sometimes you build it way too much right but it's it's not going to be optimum for sure and most likely it's going to fall down right so we would expect that societies which don't follow the four basics right theft bans on theft rape murder and assault do very well right so communism it's pretty much thou shalt steal from the state right amid the recording of the state right and so it is a bridge built on a contradiction because only some people are allowed to steal those in the Politburo and then everybody else is not and and all this kind of stuff so we would expect that society to not do very well because it is a bridge built on incorrect inconsistent contradictory principles as we as a society lose track of the basic moral principles that in many ways to sort of the common law foundation of Western civilization how well are we doing as we continue to have thou shalt steel through debts through counterfeiting through all of this sort of nonsense we are doing progressively less well as a society I mean it's all masked over by massive amounts of debt and being forced to use this monopoly money that they pass off as as as real money but we would expect that societies that proposed behavior that is more contradictory that have universal standards that are more contradictory that are more problematic for that society to get worse and worse and quite the contrary would be true as well that when societies put in these basic ethical rules no stealing no killing no raping no murder that those societies would generally tend to do better I think that you know the big view of history as you probably know I mean all the batarians here I mostly so you got this subsistence subsistence so Roman Empire Oh black no starvation black death and subsistence sins and then you know starting in the depends on when you measure at the Agricultural Revolution sort of 13th century industrial revolution 17 to 18 19th centuries massive massive increases in wealth to the point where we can have these kinds of conversations and not you know be hunting for the last starving rabbit in the forest and it's because we have to a large degree begun to more so than in the past respect things like property and things like bans on assault and so on right now I mean a lot of it has been displaced to a lot of status mumbo jumbo mercury in the financial world and in fiat currency and so on but we have done a lot to bring about these basic moral rules in society which is why we've had this massive increase in wealth I mean if you look at the basic rights of property available to the average citizen in modern canada vs ancient Rome I mean it's night and day I mean ancient Rome I don't remember the percentages it was I think sixty seventy or eighty percent slaves so massive violations of the house shalt not steal stole the whole person's life from it turn them into property you know there's that old just okay one tangent I don't want me tension there is a old saying or an aphorism that they were concerned that the slaves were passing themselves off as citizens and so one of the Roman senators proposed that all the slaves be made to wear yellow armbands so that nobody would get into any place where slaves weren't allowed the other Roman senator said are you crazy then they'll know how many there are aren't we just trying to put those yellow armband so a mistake that people make when talking about ethics is to focus on specific actions I'm gonna make the case that that's not a good idea and then you can tell me where I've got a completely Australia if I have how many people have been directly robbed by a mugger in the room okay not not too many not too many okay good how many people have found themselves paying taxes alright those who didn't put their hands up talk to me after are you in more danger from an eighth from an evil actor or an evil theory an evil theory are you afraid of the mugger who can take your property or are you afraid of Revenue Canada who can take your property well no this is the problem for us yes but not for the majority of people right because if you say I got mugged people like oh man that's terrible you okay you must be so traumatized is there anything I can do to help what happened April sixteenth runs along i just paid my taxes man oh you okay that must be terrible do you need to talk to someone a trauma counselor anything yes I do it is the ethical theories that are the big problem in this world not the ethical actress the unethical actress I it's not people doing evil that we have to worry about it's the people who are doing evil by believing in a theory they think is virtuous that is not virtuous so it's a long sentence but does does that sort of make sense so you know people if I say to you man stabs woman good or evil don't know maybe he's a surgeon well no but this is what I mean like so or maybe maybe I was choking on something that it got to cut me open an emergency tracheotomy or whatever right hey man stabs without an estate you can create these scenarios right man takes bike without permission is he a thief no maybe he's taken back his bike from someone who stole it we all get drawn into conversations about immediate tangible ethical actions but I don't think that's where the power of ethics is I think is a huge waste of time and this is where we get confused in in terrible ways rock falls down is that a scientific theory no I mean a dog can catch a frisbee they know where it's going to go they know where it's going to land that doesn't make them a scientist a scientist a scientific theory is something that claims universality all objects fall to earth that 9.8 meters per second per second or whatever that's a scientific theory gases expand when heated that's a scientific theory mass has gravity proportional to its size whatever the universals science doesn't bother with individual tests except insofar as they reflect on the truth or falsity of a general theory so you can test the theory of gravity by dropping a Rock but the drop in the rock is not the theory of gravity it's just a simple individual test for it and so when you're talking about ethics my argument my focus is to focus on the theories that are presented and look for the logical consistency in those theories or logical inconsistencies in those theories don't think about the individual actions I think that's a red herring of the huge distraction and what you really want to look for based upon what we were talking about this morning is that weird little flip you ever see those guys they always find magicians annoying I don't know this may be just me it's like stop messing with my head tell me how it's done you know but but but they're really good at this misdirection right they they got the balls they got things that women in tights and they got confetti cannons and doves and all this sort of stuff and lighting in music just so you can't see when they switch the card from one hand to another or something comes out their sleeve or something like that it's the same thing when you in ethical arguments with someone is that there's this flip that we talked about that you're never allowed to discuss universally preferable behavior is universal for human beings I mean we're in a special moral category we have reason we have choice I argue for free will we have all of these kinds of juicy tidbits that you know tadpoles and bald eagles and so on don't have but you will find that people will set up these arbitrary distinctions that we talked about this morning theft is bad for you taxation is good for society you cannot go to your neighbor's house with a gun and get four thousand dollars from them to send your kid to school but when the government does it its moral it's good because we care about our children there are these flips and it's so absurd when you think about it it's so absurd that we think that a costume changes the moral essence of a human being this would be as absurd as me going to a biology conference with a whole bunch of frogs saying these are all amphibians except that blue frog he's a mammal people say what what an earth does the color of his skin have to do with his frog eNOS right there's no answer to that but we somehow think we put a guy in a blue costume or a green costume that we have changed their moral nature we have no more change their moral nature than we have granted them the ability to fly or to stand on the surface of the Sun unharmed universality means universal to all human beings irrespective of costume you and I cannot enrich ourselves by placing the unborn in debt but if you're the government the central bank but this is the ethical theories that we need to attack everybody recognizes theft is wrong at the personal but it's up to the state is to justify which they cannot do how that which is immoral to the individual is moral to another individual how do you get to flip that morality and not even openly say it that's the sneaky part that's the subterfuge that's the sleight of hand that sells off our freedoms in our future theft cannot be morally justified rape murder assault cannot be morally justified because they cannot be achieved by everyone all the time either physically or conceptually it is a moral theory that is entirely self contradictory that creates entirely arbitrary distinctions between different human beings and then they say oh no but you see it's a social contract it's voluntary it's a social contract social contract theory is equally easy to undo with upb anyone want to try ash like you guys telling it are you with me brothers and sisters alright so social contract theory says that you know if you choose to live in this society then you choose to participate in the tax structure and you choose to participate in the social programs and you choose to you know you can get involved politically and if you don't like it you can go to some some other well a upp would say okay if that is a moral proposition for human beings that is a moral proposition for everyone in other words everyone can impose a social contract on everyone else what happens if everyone imposes a social contract on everyone else nothing it's like giving everyone the right of Taxation I tax you $10,000 what are you gonna do tax me 10,000 top of that you can't get anywhere with it you all have to pay me money or leave well you just turn around and say to me Steph you have to pay me money or leave and you know we can't possibly achieve it not to mention the fact that it's a complete violation of property rights to say a small group of people who've homesteaded nothing on the whole planet and the whole country and can order you off at will so that's again and there's six million holes in what it is I've said today I mean it's it's a it's a whole book you know please you know download it it's free review it critique it tell me where it can be improved but this is a very brief example of how we can build a system of ethics that doesn't require a deity it doesn't require you have to obey at all you go to jail it simply requires logical consistency in proposals for university preferable human behavior it solves the problem that ethics has always had which is ethics it's always seemed to me like a diet book for thin people I mean how many evil people are really interested in ethical theories I've never met I don't know don't really know any evil people but I don't imagine a lot of them are reading through a lot of Aquinas right so people who are interested in ethical theories that kind of tend to be good to begin with and people who want to really do harm only study ethics to use it to manipulate the world or control and subjugate everyone else so this solves that problem because you have an ironclad argument ethics can only be binding if it's universe so if ethics is universal then it's binding on everyone if it's binding on everyone then everyone has to follow the same rules and you can't have rules that promote theft rape murder and assault and we can property rights it's very much related you own yourself and therefore that's the violation you own the effects of your actions and so on but we don't have to talk about that necessarily right now it's comes right out of the theory but what I like about this theory is it it goes straight for moral theories it goes straight for moral theories those are the great dangers of mankind what kills people you know the lady up here was earlier what is the most destructive thing that human beings have ever invented it's not bombs it's not germs it's theories its moral theories because it's the moral theories that get people killed it's the moral theories to get people killed it's the patriotism that drives volunteering for war that gets people killed it's believing that there's this brain bending set of geniuses at the top who can waive all the guns in the world never get corrupted and produce nothing but good it's the idea that theft is wrong for most and right for some the murder is wrong for most and right for some the counterfeiting is wrong for most but right for some we are building the bridges to the future on contradictory falses of course they're going to keep falling down of course society is going to keep going through the same damn cycle over and over again where we achieve some bits of Liberty some bits of freedom some bits of free trade and generate some wealth from there and what happens then what happens when we poor serfs managed to scrape a few shekels together government says hey collateral I can use that as leverage to borrow and bribe this is why freedom I mean this is why one of the reasons from a practical consequence why I'm an out-and-out anarchist because if you crush the state back down to something tiny you get a huge amount of economic freedom huge amount of economic productivity growth wealth prosperity yay and then the government uses it to raise taxes and the government uses that as collateral to grow bigger and bigger accident that the very smallest government in history that was ever designed the American government has now grown into the largest most powerful most destructive government in terms of in terms of its capacity that has ever existed freedom while you have a state freedom is food for the cancer of the state this is why we keep having the same cycle we get some freedom who who was one of the first countries in the modern world to have free trade England 17th 18th centuries what did Ingram become an empire America 19th century prices went down wealth went up what did America become anyone know why they first built the roads in Rome free trade free trade first and because of that free trade the government gathered enough wealth from the citizens to have an empire which then cancers grow until they overwhelmed the body politic and kill it and then we go into these dark ages and then we scrape a little bit of freedom together and then we get more wealth than the government's take it over and it all just happens again and again can't reduce this thing it has to go so when you look back at the history of philosophy we just talked about this a little bit of lunch time do bear the history of philosophy there's no history of anything that's objective obviously right i mean the the the the story of history goes to the winners right i mean you may have heard this myth that the great stock market crash was brought about by free trade and then the government stepped in to try and rescue capitalism and then it was only rescued when the war came you know this is this is what people or if you heard this one that the recent financial crash was the result of too much freedom deregulation right so history is the future whatever you believe about history as a culture is what the future is going to be if you believe that the financial crash was caused by deregulation the only solution is going to be regulation the Philosopher's that we know of in history are not a random selection of thinkers they are all approved of by the rulers for the most part it's different degrees and so on I how many people that ever heard of Lysander Spooner before they got into libertarianism I hadn't I mean the guy's brilliant stone genius but don't you don't get him you get John Locke who says obey the laws I mean he's got civil disobedience in there but you get thomas hobbes who says obey the laws you get Hagel who says oh yeah right obey the laws can't who says obey the laws Socrates who says obey the laws Aristotle who says obey the laws Plato says there's nothing but laws and live the lie the original matrix I mean even rain rant love her to death that smoky Russian vixen she said obey the noise what's the end of Atlas Shrugged Oh spoiler oh yeah let's go back and rewrite the Constitution this time we're gonna get it right was there a government in Galt's Gulch no read your own book woman anyway you had 13 years you might have noticed there was no government in God's couch anyway but the philosophers that we hear of you know why do we hear of Keynes and not muses because Keynes was incredibly useful to the people in an hour oh we get to borrow in your theory and spend in the here and now and buy votes you're a genius I wonder your system we're evil and we can't do a thing to bribe anyone to give us power oh well we're not going to talk about you so that's why you know when i'm reading philosophy i'm looking with the skeptical i how did the serve the interest of those in power because there was not a lot of philosophers out there in the past who were able to write and speak who didn't help those in power when they the band or put to death or now that the soft censorship of funding and tenure and publications and junkets and sabbaticals and all this kind of stuff but i think that's that's an important thing to recognize and be skeptical about the history of philosophy always look for whether philosopher says you must obey the law right render unto caesar you must pay your taxes taxes of the price we pay to live in a civilized society you know same usual trash all the superstructure i think is all just about about your taxes and nobody will ever talk very few people will ever talk about the violence that is required of the users sorry it require required of the rulers and forbidden for you because that can't be talked about the moment that's talked about it's very simple so these little ethical demonstrations that we had up here that's why i'm saying i don't think ethics is really that complicated you can't have a thou shalt steel rule doesn't work doesn't what conceptually doesn't work physically doesn't work in terms of economic consequences you can't have a Dow shall murder rule doesn't work it fails the test of logical consistency it fails the test of empirical verification and it didn't take that long and there were relatively few casualties few cells not the neck but nothing is it doesn't really take that much time to go through it and that's why I think it can be binding to people as a whole if it's not that hard to understand then we can be bound by it I mean one of the fascinating things about being a stay-at-home dad is teaching ethics to my daughter daddy's always right no you're not she's got it but mean she she's really great hey I gives you ask you one example and to me if a two-and-a-half-year-old can get it in wood it's not that hard so I you know I like all parents of a most parents I try to keep my word to my daughter you know like I'll take you swimming in the morning and then the morning comes and it's like hail and it's like okay look this way but you know I I try not to lie to her forget things whatever right so anyway she was going through this phase around two and a half she's experimented with lying which i think is great I want her to have the ability to lie you know she may need that at some point I think we all do at some point how many people came through customs no nobody lied I know but it's a useful skill to have it's not like I want to know I don't want her to know how to murder someone but if you wanted to know anyway so you know trying to explain why lying is bad to a kid is his challenge because I don't want to just say well it hurts daddy's feelings that's not really very objective and so on but i did say do I lie to you when she was about two and a half and she did think about it she thought about it cuz I knew she wanted to lie and they knew she was enjoying lying its productive and she just it's long pause she said okay daddy you can lie to me she could universalize at two and a half that she could not claim the right to lie if she did not give me that same right she universalized lying at two and a half ethics is not that hard if someone who's two and a half can do it it's not that hard it's just hard because we've got so much propaganda to the contrary all right so um I think there'll be time yeah okay so thanks everyone I will be around this afternoon and for dinner please pepper me with objections and this is a huge important I think essential project I don't think we can ask people to give up theological ethics if we can't give them something new we can't ask them to give up the state if they if they can't we can't give them some new way of processing ethics that don't require you know necessarily just prison cells and hell and so on so ethics has sucked I think that there's ways to make it not suck let's have it not suck together thank you everybody we have about 10 minutes of people have any questions yes you know what I'll stay here you take the mic on are we still on here I think it's a pretty straightforward question but I just wanted to get your take on bus shot and the law that he wrote because we were bringing up philosophers from the past and that one seems a little bit different well remind me of what his it's been a long time since I've read him so what was his central argument again well it was kind of like the central argument that brought about libertarianism from what I can tell I only lists in the auto book maybe three times and haven't come across a good copy to read but the premise was a lot of the whole non-aggression principle in action and fundamental human rights is as laws yeah and I think that's I mean there's very few people who say my theory of ethics violates some people's rights I mean there's not many people who say that even though obviously it does right in the UN they say you have a right to education which turns educators into slaves right i mean obviously if you have a right to somebody else's labor they're your effective surf so you know if people if they talk about equality I think that's great keep your eyes peeled and i actually just picked up a copy of the laws when I from from laissez-faire books and when I was down there talking in a Freedom Fest in Vegas I can read through it again look for that flip where suddenly he says we we need to this equality and we need the government to to maintain this equality because then you've just broken universality and you've got theft and you've got right so again I'm not want to just I don't want to disc passed yet because maybe he doesn't do that switch but almost everyone else I've read does do that switch Rothbard not included it's not one that you've analyzed yet no no it's not okay no no but it's a good one because I know he's very important to the libertarian community yes sir hey just like to say that you're as fun in person oh thanks I'm sweating I got philosophy sweats on I need be towel down afterwards I have three questions your discussion at the getting on the ownership of effects caught my attention and I have sought three questions surrounding that so just give me one at a time I'm over 40 okay so the first question is does not cook in like is that significant tier upp argument I didn't I didn't see the connection is there one or was that well you can't have morality if people don't own the effects of their actions because if I go strangle some guy I own his death I have created I have produced I have homesteaded his corpse so to speak right if we don't own the effects of our actions you can't charge anyone with morality right says the difference like this this crazy shooter in Colorado let's say they found out he's got some giant brain tumor you know that that has completely fried his brain well that's a different moral situation than elsewise so if we do we can't have any ethical system or any responsibility and you also can't debate if somebody doesn't own the effects of your argument so if I responded to dr. block like if i said hey Walter that was a great point you just made about blah blah blah blah blah you'd be like hey that was my point like you can't respond to Walter so you can't even debate unless you're responding to the points that the person is making by recognizing that they own the effects of their actions so you know and this is the true you know if you create you know you go harvest some cherries or whatever you've created them as a usable good we own the effects of our actions morally in terms of property and so on so it is pretty important to the theory yeah okay and the reason why I'm curious ism I think you've explained it now thinking about meaning and when I think of ownership myself I typically think of property physical goods and we have ownership in the property because we are trying to avoid conflict and so I was thinking well how exactly does that translate into an ownership of something that it's not physical that you cannot grab and say hey don't take that that's mine and what you I think mean is you have an own as a sort of Simha a sort of a categorically different idea of ownership in terms of the results of your actions in the sense that no it's not like we're having we're potentially about conflict here you're just saying taking responsibility there is assignable responsibility for an action as opposed to a an ownership that we think of in terms of proper yeah I'm very much against consequentialism you you cannot judge the value of a theory by its effects right you don't say is the theory of relativity true or false because it produces atomic weapons I mean that that's no meaning you can't judge a theory by its its consequences you can judge it by its internal consistency and the empirical evidence but you can't say it's good or bad so to me say okay well property reduces conflict well so does a dominant state that forces everyone to pay to the point where everyone just hands over their money that reduces conflict too so I'm not a big one for property as a reduction account I think it does reduce conflicts but it not it's not just affair because it reduces conflicts I think it's a happy byproduct of a rational system of property rights but no I don't I don't think it's big it's good because it reduces a conflicts okay that's interesting all right and then the final question was if we concede that there is ownership and the effects of our actions and one action might be a discussing a new idea that I've got that you didn't have yet now you've got it for me that's a result of my action my argumentation do I also have the ability from this does it follow or does not that I can claim ownership in my ideas and that IP is therefore valid that was my third question well you can claim ownership of anything that you want is it valid or not I you know I p is a big topic and you probably want to talk to somebody much better at this another staff out there called Kinsella that you probably want to have more I've done some shows on IP to me if I write a book and sell the book I can include in that don't resell it that could be a condition of sale and then if you resell it you've broken a contract so to me I p is not something that should be centrally enforced obviously bye-bye estate but it should be a continuously evolving system of contract law and of course it's optional I choose not to copyright my stuff it's all available for free and everything I do is a donation donation based model but if people you know they're free to put a contract in and say if you buy the CD don't copy it and then if you copy it but of course nobody can ever find these people it's all unenforceable so I would be very fascinated to see what would happen I'm very taken by some of Jeffrey Tucker's arguments which you can read about in it's a Jetsons world about the degree to which say music had incredible leaps forward where there was no IP and no copyright and in the countries where there was IP incorporate that's an argument from effect but I think it's still an interesting one to go so I do definitely think that taking somebody's music obviously doesn't diminish the original thing it's different from taking somebody's kidney no I mean that that's very soon mean property is my body too right i mean i have grown my property in the same way that i write a book but it's still not quite the same thing if somebody you know lens my book to someone to read it versus somebody takes a spoon and carves out my kidney so i would be fascinated to see what I people would look like in a free society it wouldn't look anything like it is right now and i think that the creativity of the planet would be much benefited there by anybody else last last questions anybody anybody anybody else certainly go ahead Stefan I I the way I got interacted with you is I heard you ripping up ron paul on one of your speeches and i only listen to the first 10 minutes and then i wrote this blistering attack on you which is in my book chapter 12 i will sign that in the in the in my own tears actually I've been trying in a little jug then what happened is we communicated with each other and we agreed to debate formally these issues maybe in a law reviewer a libertarian journal or something and then I kept saying well when are you going to send me your reply and finally you never sent me a reply but what you did is you pretty much caved in and supported Ron Paul so then you said there was no need for a debate is my recollection correct on this let me know if this is off topic to anybody else but I i believe look there's no no one alone I think has any clue how we can prove how we're going to achieve freedom I mean I have my arguments people have political arguments and so on but I do believe in commitment and so I believe I wanted to give as much ammunition to the Ron Paul supporters as I conceivably could putting myself in their shoes to make the case as strongly as possible for supporting Ron Paul and that way if they do all of that and it doesn't work I think there may be free of an illusion that it can work so I really wanted to get behind and hell people because look I could be wrong maybe ron paul will is maybe political action is the way to go and my sort of peaceful parenting thing is not it's not going to work but so I you know I'm fully committed what it is I'm doing I really wanted to make sure that the people who were supporting Ron Paul had as many Quivers in their intellectual as many arrows in their intellectual quiver as I could think of I didn't change my stance on political action but I definitely wanted to encourage people to really go full-tilt boogie towards that because I think there's no freedom from illusion like commitment so said I help I Stefan just wanted to thank you once again for coming to vancouver and to the other speakers my quick question is it might be kind of silly but let's go back to the gold skull CH scenario this sort of microcosm of a libertarian society let's pretend that one of our protagonists I get a debilitating disease and let's just say that he doesn't have any savings but he you know worked hard his whole life you know what is to happen to him in that you know microcosm of that libertarian society would it be like that movie the beach with Leonardo DiCaprio where they just stuff the guy in the tent let him die ignored him what do you think it would be on that in that microcosm environment what is the philosophical well that's you mean there's there's two ways to help people in a free society I mean there's insurance and that's charity and both of these have been proving incredibly effective in the past right so insurance there were these things called friendly societies which occurred before the welfare state where poor people would get together and they'd all pool their resources and requirements and they'd come up with a big collective bargaining agreement so to speak with an insurance company or they and it was incredibly cheap I saw this at liberto p 0 2 years ago don't quote me on that some crazy some like a hundred dollars a year in current dollars got you really decent health care so of course you want health care to be as cheap as possible which means the free market you want friendly societies will emerge to fill the vacuum life is risk we never know when we're going to get sick or what's going to happen so people band together to deal with those risks and for people who have never had a community you've never paid into insurance and have no money doctors used to give I think it was a day a week sometimes they used to give for free or they'd be paid in or they'd be paid in kind there were charitable organizations and so on and yes it certainly is conceivable that some people will fall through the cracks but as we all know here what is it a third of Canadians can't find a primary care physician they can't get a family doctor people are waiting up to two years for cataract surgeries it can't be worse in a free society than the way it's going right now and this is even if we don't count the fact that the health care system is ridiculously underfunded incredibly in debt what's going to happen when I can't pay the bills at all anymore so you know again it's not a perfect society in a free society but it's a you know it's a lot better you know you maybe you'll be unemployed for a week or two after you stop being a slave but it's still better than being a slave so yeah I think the charity prevention all these kinds of things are the way that it goes and you know ii-if if the Canadian healthcare system or socialized medicine reflects the true will of the people then people care about sick people I believe I mean who wouldn't care some guys sick and you need some help I mean no chip in right I mean that's what people do if people don't do that then democracy means nothing because we have all these systems that nobody wants but if democracy does represent what people want then people do want to help the poor and they do want to help the sick they do want to help the old so we don't need the ridiculous overhead of the state where eighty percent of the money goes to bureaucracy and and crap and and only twenty percent of it ends up with the poor it's much more efficient to give your money to a private charity and that's how people can really be helped one we're gonna do a duet honey I'm looking at that suit feeling it's nothing more you never close your eyes here's a question I would ask you to elaborate a little bit I saw sorry just repeat that first bit again because I never get that just one more time but slowly you want me to elaborate do 2500 podcasts I'm being asked to elaborate beautiful that's all right again yeah I would like to ask you to elaborate on you as far as I understood it you meant to say that you disagreed with the idea that laws kasam laws should be observed and i happen to be a lawyer and a copyright lord at that so I'm just sure there's only one of you I'm just trying to understand to settle I think it's with laws it's the opposite of a diet book for our thin payable people it's diable for people who are not then or people who try we try to get then so I if I misunderstood you I like you to clarify that and if I understood you correctly but didn't get you on the under under on the on the basis on the basics of that that be again that you mean sort of modern status law and eggs that modern state law is that what you mean like it's it's it's only applied against those who are doing wrong is then yeah but it's not no I mean vast majority people is not non-violence and I of any garbage laws both of the laws we have nobody even the whole process does anybody know what percentage of American cases actually ever get to trial 325 yeah three to five percent everything else is plea-bargained down because they pile these ridiculous threats on you and people just cave and I can understand why I mean so we have no legal system at the moment I mean we have a legal system that just threats and coercion and semi fascism I mean in my in my opinion I mean you don't know the guilt or innocence of anybody in that system once you get caught up in that machinery you're just going to get you know you can't bribe a judge but you can threaten someone with 20 years and then get them to confess because that's not bribing you with your freedom versus $10,000 I mean it's crazy sorry I'm if that's not but isn't that the result of the government's failure to actually fulfill one of its primary roles which is to have a system of courts that works well I would not argue that the purpose of the state is to to fulfill any good obligations the purpose of the state is to provide free evil to those who want it and to to to have a system where you can avoid the consequences for the wrongs that you do you can do unbelievable evils in government and retire with the gold plated pension and healthcare so I you know there is this idea that the government has this noble purpose and has deviated from it I don't share that particular opinion because the government is founded on the initiation of force which is an immoral concept to begin with and I don't think you can you know you can get roses out of fertilizer but you can't get virtue out of the of the state so then two questions should there be any enforcement and if yes what would be the basis of that enforcement you mean for like contract law or violent crimes and so on yeah yeah sure yeah of course I mean we all want protection all these kinds of things and of course the majority of protection in the world is provided by private companies security guards all this kind of stuff so that that can all continue you know not to go too much off topic but the roots of human violence are pretty well understood now I mean it's abused childhoods produce criminals not all abuse victims become criminals but almost all criminals were abused as so if we can apply the non-aggression principle to children what a shock you know where we can actually do good right spanking is a violation I argue with the initiation of force so is verbal bullying verbal abuse and so on neglect and so on if we have children raised peacefully you know the estimates are eighty to ninety percent of crime will vanish and the only people who will remain of the people who want to start up the government again and I think we will not pay much attention to those so it will only going to have a free society when children are raised peacefully in my argument and once we have that the the problems of random crime will be if you like taking out insurance for an asteroid strike on your car I mean you could if you want but it's going to be so rare we won't really need to worry about it isn't that about just reducing the number of laws to just one reducing the number of laws to one the non aggression but it's still a law no that's a principle a law is something that is enforced by a monopoly and no you would have a series i mean you would buy protection for your contracts and yeah well you so if you Welch on my contract some insurance company will pay me and those principles those the cost of that will go down the more honorable we are for the longer we are and so there's lots of ways to protect yourself against their pollution and that's you know a ball two blocks done some great work on this as murray rothbard and all these other people have as well so you can look into all of these free market solutions to all of these kinds of problems there is a great temptation you know we have this big stick called the state which we think in wave away problems i don't think it can i think it causes many more problems than it solves and i'll take my risks with volunteerism over the certain growth and eventual collapse of civilization that status i'm engenders thank you last question sorry i'm going to start with information stefan we keep talking about how a private healthcare system would work but we forget that in canada we actually had one and it was nationalized yeah i had my first child before the government nationalized healthcare and we had insurance and we paid a portion of all of our fees but I grew up in Kitchener they were free clinics every week doctors did pro bono work there were free you know what not fertility but the opposite first control thank you so I lost that clinics doctors had a variable billing system if they if they knew or thought that your family was a little bit less able to pay they charged you less sometimes even forgot to invoice you and those who had more money paid a bigger price they didn't necessarily get ahead of line but they might have and 0 in Ontario and I don't know what the stats are for the rest of Canada only ten percent of the population was uninsured at the time they nationalized the system yeah so they started by making it a welfare thing set up a whole healthcare system to handle the ten percent somebody in a back room said all the money is going out nuns coming in what should we do about that so they nationalized the insurance companies you know there's a terrible thing that happens when you nationalize something like so the doctors who in your day and not that distant from my day but the doctors in in your day you know they made house calls you know they would work in 78 hours a week they were incredibly attuned to their you know they stayed but the same patient they had that detailed knowledge they really work to prevent when you nationalize you still get all those doctors with that work ethic that they developed in the free market you know it's like NASA they hired all these private engineers they put a man on the moon in a couple of years and then for the next 40 years you've got like two spaceships right so when you when you nationalize something you get all the free market work ethics and you get the free market structure that's really closely tied in terms of price and responsiveness and and even the distribution of doctors all tied to the free market and then slowly like you know you get those binoculars you can turn them out of focus slowly slowly what happens is it drifts and then you get a new generation of doctors who never made a house call in their life and you they start to replace the original doctor so for the first people you get the government paying for everything usually through debt and not even through raising your taxes and you get all of these great doctors with a great work ethic that's closely tied and for them it's a complete bonanza for like a generation and then the sucking comes in really slowly but it seems almost irreversibly and then you end up with the system that's unrecognizable to people who knew the one before exactly yeah and actually the other point when you're talking about charity governments come in and they literally take over charities that are successful try to universalize the concept and in so doing they literally destroy the ability to be charitable because they tear down the the systems that already exist five years later when there's no budget for it it disappears from the community so it isn't just that charities and alternative to government government destroys charity because it's competition yeah and the last thing I said we did not speak of the last thing I'll say is libertarians are often accused of not caring about the poor but putting the poor trapping them in this underworld of unsustainable poverty reducing the quality of their education reducing their opportunities through things like the minimum wage and creating a system where inflation robs those hardest who have the least money in those on a fixed income and creating all of this in a system which can't possibly sustain itself what is going to happen to the poor when they can't fund the health care system what is going to happen to the poor when they can't fund the well for a system that is where the benevolence of the libertarians will be truly revealed and I would say the inhumanity of the status will be revealed but I'm sure it will be painted quite the other way government sucks yeah thanks everyone thank you very much mr. morning if you like the work of Stepan Mullen you can access all his work on his website free domain also if you find his work of value there is a button of the contribution to his work on the website

  1. Ok, so you have a great philosophy, and what do you do with those who chose not to follow it? Thats like having "gun free zones" The reason for the growth of our government is not due to state being the cancer, since state is nothing more but a collection of people. But rather the absence of education, or rather allowing statists to teach statism.
    "Mr. Franklin! What kind of a government have you given us?!"
    "A Republic, madam, if YOU can hold on to it!"

  2. Slavery, conquest, colonial exploitation and looting. Sure, trade was involved too, but how does that relate to the building of roads?

    Are you saying trade generated the wealth needed to build the roads? That's not the case either. The millitary and slaves built the roads. Neither where especially well-payed.

  3. I've got a quick question for you…
    Have you ever wanted to work from home…?
    Own your own business…?
    Come on… you know you want that lifestyle… the one that everyone talks about..
    Where you can "work from home in your underwear…"
    Or on a "beach with your laptop…"
    So… why hasn't it happened for you yet?
    Come on… Check this website Money94.Com and make $7000+ a month
    And Learn inside secrets of Internet Marketing
    Get out of rat race , and enjoy the life that was ment for you!

  4. Sorry for the late reply, but since YT messed up the inboxes…

    What I meant was, the only objective way to determine the "fitness", or rather potency, of any society is the pure darwinian selection; the weaker structures gets eradicated or assimilated into the stronger ones. This is only the case if there is a war of conquest, or strong and long-lived commercial influences. The latter is only now becomming a true factor, through globalization, whilst the former has been the historical arbiter.

  5. 44:30

    The roman roads, save for the very first ones, where not built to promote trade; They where strategic assets. The roman millitary doubled as an engineering force, and along with conquered slaves built most of the roads, especially in and out of the (would be) provinces. This was to hold together the empire and protect the borders. Trade was secondary.

  6. I have a couple of problems with the "coma test" (26:30)… Firstly, if you make every person in the world unable to do evil, does that make you good?( –> Murder)

    Secondly, I find the idea that inactivity in any form is the benchmark for good or evil to be disgusting.

    Thirdly, inactivity (save for the extreme, non-existance) does not exist. You are influencing people and using resources even in a coma. It only makes sense in the meaning of things that are evil in themselves, wich nothing is.

  7. I'll just jump right in here…

    What both of you seem to assume is that people in general are the least interested in logical consistency and empirical evidence. Sadly, and historically, they are not.

    Social structures are, and have ever only been, subject to evaluation by the means natural selection in times of total war, or in modern times from global commercial competition. Society as a structure, along with the majority of the population, is astoundingly stagnant in thought.

  8. @stefbot I liked your Part I video, but you really should read popper, the science does not yield truth – you seem to be a bit stuck at verificationism (or something close to it), which is quite literally dead. You also completely boggle the lines between tautology and science – internal consistency has little to do with science, it has lots to do with mathematics, but again very little to do with other tautology like religion.

  9. Inflation is the expansion of the money supply, rising prices are a result of the expansion. Scarcity, productivity losses and higher demand can all lead to higher prices, but in most instances, prices fall. Food prices are going up because of the money printing and oil prices rising. For every Calorie you eat, it took 10 calories of FF to produce that food. The fed wouldn't exist in a free market.

  10. It's kind of this crazy fraud where no amount of information is going to change someone's mind about these things. It's not just vaccines. I know of a woman that blew her families life savings on donations to the Copelands' (that might be the right spelling, they are a TX based TV faith healer) and lottery tickets that were made payable to him should she win. It did a lot of damage to her family, not to mention her own death.

  11. How are you going to know who infected you? Like I said, vaccines only work if most or all members of a society are vaccinated. This anti-vaccing thing is very bad. Go look at infant mortality rates and virtual elimination (in the west) of all the diseases that kill children. In fact, nearly all of our life expectancy has come from fewer deaths in childhood.

  12. and you said "prices fall on the free market" yet you don't acknowledge inflation in every corner of the markets.
    food prices haven't gone down in decades. they are going up, even with the abundance of it. the free market does not correct prices. it inflates them. convincing people otherwise is a fallacy.
    and the federal reserve is not a government department. regardless if those people suckered the government into thinking it is.
    do you understand why inflation exists in the first place?

  13. DCA (dichloroacetate) is a simple patent-free molecule.
    the University of Alberta has been heading up research and advancement on it.
    the American pharmacuetical system dismissed DCA because it's so cheap, and it cannot be patented.
    without a patent, enabling corporations to drive up the price and cause 'artificial scarcity', the drug would not get funded from private entities.
    where there is no return, there is no funding.
    at least here in Canada, we can advance it without private funding.

  14. Leave it to insurrance companies obviously. If it really works and the graphs I saw are false – that disease levels were falling long time on a stable trend and introducing vaccines did nothing to alter this trend – they will make you do it via financial pressure. Also they will do research really carefully and objectively because if you get sick – they pay and capitalist pigs do not like to pay. I don't trust government in this matter at all.
    If you on the other hand infect somebody – you pay.

  15. Voluntary fraud? That's an oxymoron. If I know that I am being defrauded, than I'm actually not being defrauded.
    All those things you mention – consenting adults interactions are legitimate.
    I'd argue that vaccines do not work all that good – I was vaccinated and got tuberculosis. May be very harmful especially administered with dubious adjuvants in huge amounts to infants. I say it's your opinion not objective truth.

  16. The federal reserve was created by an act of congress, turns over all their profits to the US government and the chairman is appointed by the president and approved by congress. Gasoline is rising for several reasons: 1) New oil discoveries are more remote, more expensive to produce and have lower EROEI. There is also the inflation driving up prices for gas as well as Chindia's demand. Nobody says the free market is perfect and their is NO cheap cure for "cancer" (of which there are many forms).

  17. I would like to know how a free society would deal with "voluntary fraud"? Things I put into this category are things like faith healing, homeopathic remedies, astrology, psychics, anit-vaccers etc. When people are presented with information that these things don't work, they don't listen and do them anyway and some are extremely bad for society (such as anti-vaccers). We don't want a fascist state forcing vaccination, but the vaccines only work if everyone is vaccinated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *