Stefan Molyneux vs. Peter Joseph Debate [VIDEO]

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Once you give it a monopoly, you may call it whatever you like to make you feel better about it. It's still a 'capital-G' government.


I don't see what relevance intentions has. I hear there is a road leading to hell paved with good ones.

Sounds like you have a lot of anger issues. You should probably try working through those. Anger is an expression of stress, and stress is the number one killer in the world.

[A Son of Liberty]

Sounds like you have a lot of anger issues. You should probably try working through those. Anger is an expression of stress, and stress is the number one killer in the world.

Uh wat? You got 'anger' from that?

I may not sugar-coat my words, but there isn't anger behind them. Don't mistake my focused passion against the state for anger.

I vigorously oppose monopolists who assert authority over my life. I will not give any ground on that question, especially when one purports to do so 'for my benefit.'

[July]

Governments are systemic outgrowths, which is what I attempted to demonstrate. Whether or not they become parasitic would depend greatly on the system itself. A system in which a parasite would starve (not finding the nutrients needed to sustain itself) will quickly sluff off any parasitic infection such as parasitic systems of governance.

I wouldn't disagree with that... any form of government we have is a natural outgrowth of the system/ideas/philosophy/culture/beliefs of the society we have. The parasite, will eventually starve out. Empires, the larger and larger they become, are unsustainable political systems. I guess I just don't see where the system we have is necessarily an outgrowth of "the free market" though, because I would define the "state" as an anti-market force, and the type of outgrowth we have I would classify as a "state". As an anti-market force, you can see evidence of this in the way that states will tend to try to prop up monopolies, control trade, and block market competition. It sounds like you have a different definition of what a "market" is though, one that involves the hoarding and violent usurpation and control of property and resources. I think that is what I would define as a "state" and not a "market". A "free market" involves exchange of property and resources through voluntary contract.

If property ownership is violent if someone else might have use of the property, how does one reasonably share resources with others fairly without simply violently taking from each other by force? If I am eating a ham sandwich, and somebody else who doesn't have one decides they could use my ham sandwich too, is it not violent if they simply decide take it from me? Now, I might agree voluntarily to give or share half of my sandwich, and maybe the other person might decide to share something they have that I need in return for it (something more useful to me than the ham sandwich), benefiting us both in the process.

All systems of trade are formed by coercion -- The need of some resource controlled or somehow manipulated by another, and the inherent benefit of differential advantage, toward selfish ends rather than simple self interest.

And now we come to the question of "property". What is property, and why are all systems of trade a form of coercion? Every individual inherently has at least one form of property no matter how "rich" or "poor"--their body. The abolition of "property" as a concept isn't a good enough solution, in my opinion, because it negates self ownership, and the negation of self ownership philosophically is a recipe for authoritarianism and slavery. Because labor is a resource...people are considered a resource. It would mean that you do not have the right to own yourself and your own labor, should somebody else decide they have use of you as a resource. And you wouldn't have a right to refuse. That's evil.

On the other hand, I do understand the criticism that any "property" that can be taken and controlled through sheer force, is a form of coercion and also authoritarian. The idea that anything and everything can be taken and controlled as one's 'property', just because it can be gotten by law is authoritarian, I agree. But that doesn't mean we should negate the concept of property...it means there needs to be an ethical system of property rights.

As for arbitration and law, I'm not sure I really follow why it necessarily has to lead to the establishment of a state and taxation. It can, certainly if the people decide there ought to be a monopoly on such things, but I don't see why that necessary has to be the case. The people don't have to decide that. The people can also decide there ought to be a monopoly on roads or the internet or healthcare or all sorts of things, and so on and so forth, until eventually there is one big central monopoly controlling virtually all market activity. That is kind of what is happening, no? The people have decided, for various reasons, it's necessary and more efficient to have monopolies. The people don't really have to decide that, though, but we end up with the kind of government we deserve I guess.

Yeah, laws are a form of "governance" but I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think the goal should be lawlessness.... So it's not so much about the absence of governance/law, nor the monopoly of it...but more like a radical decentralization of it.

[July]

I will agree that the idea of the super computer has its appearances which could be construed as a centralized authoritarian rule and dictatorship. However, having spoken with Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement, and having listened to many times where he fielded questions, I'm not convinced that is the intended result, or the purpose of the super computer. In fact, it would not actually be a centralized super computer, as originally envisioned by Jacques Fresco so many years ago. That part is subject to updating. The "central computer" doesn't serve the capacity of distributor of goods and resources. It serves as an information system about what resources are available, at what rate they are being produced, and what rate they are being consumed, and in what forms. Thus allowing for an informed public body to determine how best to make use of the remaining resources, rather than allowing all such matters to be planned by a central body such as a government elect, or committee.

A lot of what we see about the Zeitgeist Movement from the outside looking in is coming from uninformed people with limited world views and biased opinions. It is a distortion of what the movement actually talks about based on some antiquated notions and obvious biases (neo-Marxism, socialistic fascism, etc.).

I don't think that is the intended result, to the contrary, which is what I meant. I think that some of the stated goals/ideas can only be achieved by letting go of central control/planning, and letting it happen naturally through the market...but this would require a degree of faith that causality isn't just random chaos. I meant, fully letting go of the desire to create artificial gods of any kind, super computers or super governments alike, etc.

[Jim Casey]

Lauren Southern is the new champion of the resource based economic model, taking up the fight with Stefen Molyneux where Peter Joseph surrendered.



The globalists have got to go. They have so much faith in these supercomputers that they even believe they can take us to the moon and back. How ridiculous!

[dannno]

Lauren Southern is the new champion of the resource based economic model

Wow, totally inaccurate..

Listen to the first 30 seconds. She is PRETENDING to advocate for Marxism so they can have debate. Sorta like debate club when you pick one side or the other and debate it, regardless of your personal opinion.

[anaconda]

I'm enjoying this! Molyneux has sure made Joseph edgy and defensive-sounding at around 23:30

[anaconda]

47:56 Joseph squirming in his seat as Stefan describes voluntary free market exchange. Yet, I am paying serious attention to Joseph's ideas about market failures, etc.

[dannno]

Lauren Southern is the new champion of the resource based economic model, taking up the fight with Stefen Molyneux where Peter Joseph surrendered.



The globalists have got to go. They have so much faith in these supercomputers that they even believe they can take us to the moon and back. How ridiculous!

Omg... I'll bet she has the best fake orgasms ever, that was freaking incredible..

[Jim Casey]

Wow, totally inaccurate..

Listen to the first 30 seconds. She is PRETENDING to advocate for Marxism so they can have debate. Sorta like debate club when you pick one side or the other and debate it, regardless of your personal opinion.

How well do you know Lauren Southern personally that you would be willing to say you have the ultimate insider understanding of what opinions she pretends to advocate for and what lies in her heart of hearts?

I'm enjoying this! Molyneux has sure made Joseph edgy and defensive-sounding at around 23:30

Peter Joseph has dedicated much of his efforts into film and musical pieces. His position is greatly bolstered by the political showmanship of Lauren Southern.

47:56 Joseph squirming in his seat as Stefan describes voluntary free market exchange. Yet, I am paying serious attention to Joseph's ideas about market failures, etc.

Stefan's brand of truncating simplistic arguments inside a small box works wonders with a short attention span populace. The current United States President tends to effectively follow this modus operandi as well.

Omg... I'll bet she has the best fake orgasms ever, that was freaking incredible..

Lauren Southern's enthusiasm for libertarianism and Trumpisms seem much more contrived than her defense of a similar philosophy to what Peter Joseph espouses.

[dannno]

How well do you know Lauren Southern personally that you would be willing to say you have the ultimate insider understanding of what opinions she pretends to advocate for and what lies in her heart of hearts?
.

lol.. dude, she doesn't believe a word she is saying.. That is the whole point, listen to the first 30 seconds..

You got fake orgasmed by a pro.

[specsaregood]

lol.. dude, she doesn't believe a word she is saying.. That is the whole point, listen to the first 30 seconds..

You got fake orgasmed by a pro.

that dude also believes the earth is flat, just saying...