Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!

Hi, everybody. It’s Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain
Radio. Some thoughts on Halloween, October 2011. So we have Jon Stewart’s 19 Questions Libertarians.
I will attempt to answer them succinctly. Number one, is government the antithesis of
liberty? No. That is like saying that a dragon is the antithesis of biology or a ghost is
the antithesis of a human being. Governments and dragons and hippogryphs and unicorns and
ghosts do not exist. They are really only people with guns and people running and hiding
from them. So the initiation of force is the antithesis of morality and of liberty. The
government is simply one large example but there are many others — rapists, thieves,
murderers, assaulters and so on. So no, government is not the antithesis of liberty. The initiation
of force is the antithesis of liberty. Two, one of the things that enhance freedoms
are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom. Absolutely,
and allowing rape enhances the freedom of a rapist. But freedom is not the goal; morality
is the goal. Jet packs give you freedom from gravity so to speak. That doesn’t mean that
they’re moral. So yeah, for sure social safety net enhances freedom. But, of course, these
things also enhance the freedom to make bad choices. So for instance, free roads from the government
and they were free for those who bought them because they were all financed through deficit
spending. So the bill was simply paid forward to the future generation of billed forward
to the next generation. It will ask you to make bad choices. A welfare allows you to
make bad choices like not completing your education, like not getting job skills, like
having too many kids when you can’t financially pay for them. It’s really, really bad for
the children. So roads allow society to make bad decisions like have urban sprawl and use
massive amounts of energy as opposed to looking for alternatives. It doesn’t matter what the
results are. Slavery enhances the freedom to trade for slave owners. Yet, we would not
say that it’s moral. Three, what should we do with the losers that
are picked by the free market? Well, there are two kinds of losers. I don’t really like
to use that phrase but let’s use it. There are two types of losers. There are people
who have problems in and of themselves, like some mental deficiency of some sort or physical
handicap that significantly impedes their economic productivity. And that’s a very small
percentage of the population and Americans already give hundreds of billions of dollars
to charity as is the case with most of the western world. So there’s no reason to believe
that that won’t continue. And so those people will be taken care of.
They will have family, they will have friends, they will have charities and all these kinds
of things to take care of them. But there are other people who are losers who are not
picked by the free market but are losers as a result of their own choices, right? So they
have sex without protection, get pregnant and bingo-bango-bongo, they have a significant
impediment to their future productivity. People make mistakes. They make bad choices.
People can choose to invest in only one stock, some speculative mining stock and then they
get wiped out. Well, that’s the result of your own choices. I mean freedom is risk,
freedom is responsibility and people who choose to take risks in order to make lots of money
— no problem with risk taking. I mean, it’s risky for me to quit my secure career as an
IT executive and entrepreneur to do this crazy stunt for a “living.” And if that had blown
up in my face and I ended up starving to death or having to go back to my old career, it’s
a risk for me to take. So it’s not losers that are picked by the free market. It’s to
externalize the reality of people’s choices. Do we live in a society or don’t we? Are we
a collective? Everybody’s success is predicated on the hard work of all of us. Nobody gets
there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For
a group that doesn’t believe in evolution, it’s awfully Darwinian. Well, it’s really
a shame when people who don’t understand science use scientific metaphors. I think it’s Ayn
Rand who observed that people call capitalism a dog-eat-dog world, but dogs don’t even eat
each other in nature, let alone in the free market. The free market is predicated on win-win negotiations.
This is a practical, logical, foundational, fundamental truth that if two people engage
in voluntary trade, both of them anticipate or expect to be better off at the end of that
trade, right? There’s simply no way to get around that. If I have 5 bucks and you have
a pen, I’ll give you 5 bucks in return for the pen. You want my $5 more than you want
the pen, and I want your pen more than I want my $5. So we’re both better off. It is win-win.
That is not the case with a lion chasing a gazelle. That is win-lose and eat. So Darwinian doesn’t apply to the free market.
If your business fails, you don’t get eaten by predators. The idea that nobody gets there
on their own, well, sure, but that doesn’t mean that — I mean, it’s true that somebody
who succeeds has some participation. They have lenders, they have investors, they have
employees, they have the people who heat their building, they have the people who make their
computers. But the difference is that we voluntarily trade to gain all of these benefits. The fact that Steve Jobs is successful because
I bought an iPad, it doesn’t mean that I am somehow owed some part of Steve Job’s fortune.
No, because we voluntarily trade it. His company gave me an iPad in return for the money. I
wanted the iPad more than my money. They wanted my money more than the iPad — voluntary exchange.
We trade for those things. We don’t expect them because somebody is successful while
we’ve been sitting on our thumbs that we somehow are owed some portion of their success. In a representative democracy, we are the
government. We have work to do, we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.
We elect you as our representatives to look after our interest within a democratic system.
I mean, these are all just words. I mean, this is exactly what was said about Soviet
Union under Stalin that it was a representative of the will of the people and it represented
the interest of the proletarian and so on. But it’s not how the government works. It’s
not what the government is. And the financial services industry over the past few decades
have contributed over $2 billion in campaign contributions. So they have bought and sold
politicians who should be running around with logos of the companies stitched all over them
like NASCAR drivers because they’re owned. So the only people we get to vote for are
people who have been bought and sold by special interest beforehand. Financial services industry
has donated more to political runs for office than the healthcare industry, than the defense
industry, than a bunch of other industries all put together. I mean, this is all just — this is just like
jailhouse rock elevated to a description of reality. We’re not the government. We’re not
the government. We say to the government, “Oh, we want you to regulate this financial
industry.” Well, all that means is that the financial industry buys the people who regulate.
They write the laws because we always think that — I don’t know. Regulators are like
parents and the companies are like — the corporations are like children. But quite
the opposite is true because if you’re really, really smart in the financial industries,
you don’t go to become a regulator. You go make a billion dollar on Wall Street. It’s
the dumb people who go into the regulars, the bottom of the class. It’s the low IQ with
the less skilled, the less competent. They are the ones to become the regulators. They’re
outsmarted, outmaneuvered, outbought, outbribed by everybody in the financial services industry. That is the reality of what happens. And going
back to grade school, imaginary propagandistic nonsense to describe this predatory system
as childish and ridiculous. Six, is government inherently evil? It should
be taken and dragged into trial for eating virgins. Well, no, it’s a fairytale. The government
is a fairytale. The initiation of force is immoral, and those people who initiate force
is immoral. Fraud I think would be punished in a free society so those people who lie
and misrepresent will face negative consequences whether they’re financial or some other matter. To say government is inherently evil is to
create a red herring, right? It’s like saying, are black rapists wrong? It’s just one category
of rapists, and government is just one category of the initiation of force. So forget about
the government. It doesn’t matter. I mean, people said to me, “Well, you’re an anarchist.
You’re an atheist.” None of this is true. I mean the reality is that I’m a philosopher
which means I pursue truth. And I’m sorry if imaginary things get knocked over by my
mad drive towards the pinnacle of truth, but they’re not there to begin with. So, yeah, the government is not inherently
evil. That is prejudicial. You got to be more specific and more precise. I mean, if I say
black rapists are evil, I’ve only confused the issue. No, rape is evil. The initiation
of force, you won’t care if the government does or anybody else does it. It’s just the
reality. Seven, sometimes to protect the greater liberty,
you have to do things like form an army or gather a group together to build a wall or
a levy. Yeah. But, see, these are all terms of voluntarism. Gather together, voluntarily
form an army. People can do all of that stuff voluntarily. I mean, if the majority of people
can act in an intelligent way which is how the myth goes in the democracy, if the majority
of people can act in an intelligent way to vote people in and understand all of the issues
of the politicians are going for, I know how those politicians should act in healthcare
and national defense and education and roads and debt and foreign policy, I’m smart enough
to — well, then people are smart enough to do all these things voluntarily with voluntary
free association. Eight, as soon as you’ve built an army, you’ve
now said government isn’t always inherently evil because we need to them, because we need
it to help us sometimes. So now, it’s that old joke, would you sleep with me for a million
dollars? How about a dollar? Who do you think I am? Well, we’ve already decided who you
are. Now, we’re just negotiating. Well, again, in my free book Practical Anarchy available
at, tons of solutions and [0:10:22] [Indiscernible] — you can find
all of these places, the great examples of private defense solutions that don’t require
a government. So you can build an army without a government.
You can have a defense agency without a government. It’s just a logical fallacy to say that because
the government does it, if the government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done. It’s like
saying, “Well, slaves pick the cotton. And if we get rid of slavery, nobody will pick
the cotton.” No, because the goal is to pick a cotton. The goal is to pick the cotton.
And if you take away one methodology which is immoral called slavery to do that, other
methodologies far superior and far more moral will be created and brought to bear. Easy
peasy. Solved. You say that government which governs least
governs best. But those were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for eight
years. It didn’t work and went to the constitution. The government is immoral. The initiation
of — I just already corrected myself in that. It is easy to slip into these colloquialisms.
Initiation of force is immoral. I don’t care what form it takes. Ten, you give money to the IRS because you
think they’re going to hire a bunch of people. So if your house catches fire, they will come
there with water. Well, first of all, you don’t give money to the IRS. Saying you give
money to the IRS is like saying you make love to your rapist. It’s contradiction in terms.
It’s like saying that you are charitable towards your thief, a man who is robbing you. No.
There were private ways of putting out fire. Did the government come up with sprinkler
systems? No. These are all done by private companies. So yeah, tons of ways to keep fire
at bay. You don’t have to have a government to do it. Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation
in certain matters more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that
I would give up my liberty to an insurance company as opposed to my representative seems
insane. Representatives are not accountable to voters. They are not accountable to voters.
Do you have a contract with your political representative? Is he bound by law to fulfill
the pledges, all the promises that he makes to you? Do you have any recourse if he breaks
his word to you? If he does not do exactly what you asked him to do or what he promised
to do? No, you have no recourse. I mean you have recourse if somebody doesn’t ship you
an iPod on eBay. You have no recourse if politicians break promises to you. The idea that people
are — I mean, the politicians don’t even know who voted for them and then you say that
they’re accountable to voters. It’s madness. Again, libertarians trust corporations more
than they trust government. It’s a misnomer. Of course, corporations are an effect of state
power. Corporations don’t exist in and of themselves and never would in the free market.
I’ve done lots of videos on that. But it’s like saying do you prefer voluntary interactions
or do you prefer violent interactions? I mean, this is the reality of it. I mean a private
organization that is providing a good service voluntarily. Do you feel more comfortable
saying no to Apple or do you feel more comfortable tearing up a letter that you get from the
IRS? Do you feel more comfortable not returning a phone call from a telemarketer, or do you
feel more comfortable not returning a phone call from your local government? Twelve, why is it that with competition, we
have such difficulty with our healthcare system? And there are choices within the educational
system. Well, the basic reality is that we have difficulties in our healthcare system
for two reasons. One is that there will always be people who have difficulties with their
healthcare system. There will be people who choose not to have health insurance and who
then gets sick and those people are in trouble. Absolutely. And there are people who die without
life insurance. Does that mean that we should all be forced to pay for everyone’s funeral? You make choices in life. You make choices
in life, and you’re responsible for those choices. So there are people who make bad
health choices. I mean, I don’t like to work out particularly. I don’t like to spend money
on a home gym or going to a gym or time or energy away from doing other things that I
would rather be doing. It’s not that much fun sitting there. I’ve got a bike machine
in the basement with a couple of weights and so I go and work out. It’s a bummer. I would
love to eat more cheesecake. I would love to eat more things. I love to eat but I don’t
because I want to stay healthy. And so exercise and eating well is my choice. Other people don’t choose. They choose not
to exercise. They choose to eat really badly and so on and those people, pay me now or
pay me later. I mean, I choose to not to do that. Other people choose to do that. So why
should I have to pay for other — I mean, if they ask me, maybe I’ll help them. People
make bad decisions and you shouldn’t die for them. But the reality is nobody is going to
force me to do that, and I can’t force other people to subsidize my preferences or my choices
because force is wrong. People are going to make bad choices. They’re
not going to have health insurance. They’re going to not take care of their health. They’re
going to get sick. Other people get sick. Michael J. Fox gets Parkinson’s. God help
him, right? I mean, that’s terrible, and I’m really happy to help those people. I really
am because it can happen. So there’s always going to be problems with healthcare because
people are going to make bad choices. But the reality is that — I mean, in the US,
more than 50 cents on every dollar is controlled by the government, regulation is controlled
by the government, payouts are controlled by the government. I mean, it’s nuts, right?
So the more violence you put into a system, the worse it’s going to get in the long run.
The better it is in the short run, of course. It’s like heroin. It’s good in the short run.
It’s just not good in the long run. Would you go back to 1890? This is comparing
apples to oranges. The advancements that have occurred since 1890 are scarcely the responsibility
of the initiation of force. And it’s like saying would you rather have no slavery and
no pyramids? Well, yeah, of course, because if they hadn’t had slavery, we’d all have
a much more advanced world right now. Fourteen, if we didn’t have government, we’d
all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice cream. I
mean, don’t even know what to say about that. Fifteen, unregulated markets have been tried.
The ’80s and ’90s or the Robber Baron age, these regulations didn’t come out of an interest
in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that have
been victimized by a system that they couldn’t fight back against, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so unregulated markets have scarcely
been tried. They’re certainly been more on less regulation and so on. The Robber Baron
age, I mean just have to — you read Tom DiLorenzo from this sort of stuff or any written competent
libertarian historian. I mean, this all just lies and nonsense. I mean, we live in this
1984 world of everyone in the back was an evil monopoly figurine with top hats and a
bald cat and swirling their pencil thin mustache out of a steam bath of evil. It’s all nonsense. I mean, the people who made a lot of money
in those days made money through voluntary trade because they lowered prices, because
they’re insanely competitive, because they worked really hard. I mean, do we call Steve
Jobs a Robber Baron? No. Of course, Steve Jobs did imply some pretty gruesome labor
practices in China and so on. That’s for another time. But Steve Jobs did say to Barack Obama,
“Listen, you’ve got to loosen the violent control that governments have, that the governments
have in America over the creation of factories.” He much rather would have had factories in
America than go over to China. And the problem with the factories in China is the lack of
the free market in China. This is not exactly a free market situation or environment in
China and so — I mean, do we look at this guy as an evil guy who stole from everyone?
No, I don’t think so. Although he was a real patent troll and I think that was a real mistake.
But again, I blame the player. So I blame the game, not the player. Blame the rules,
not the players. Patent trolling is so profitable and so essential
in many ways to modern hi-tech companies because if you don’t do it, somebody else is going
to do it; that to blame people for using that, to blame the powers to be who create these
rules, not the individuals who are forced to live within them and attempt the profit
within them. But yeah, I mean I think it was the guy at Rockefeller. He saved the whales,
he saved the whales. You don’t hear that about 19th century capitalist, right? So when they
came up with the kerosene for people and reduced the price so the people could use kerosene
instead of whale oil to light their lamps, people switched to kerosene and the whales
were saved. You don’t hear about Robber Baron saving the whales because that doesn’t fit
into the narrative. Why do you think workers that worked in the
mines unionized? Well, I think they unionized because they had terrible working conditions,
absolutely. And they should unionize and people should unionize and they should voluntarily
get together and they should strike if their conditions are not to their satisfaction.
I think they absolutely should. I don’t think that they should beat up scabs who are willing
to work for less money because I care about the poor but yeah, unionizing I think is fantastic. You don’t need the government to unionize.
You don’t need the government for everyone to get together and say, “We’re all not going
to go. Well, I’m not show up to work tomorrow unless this, this, and this is addressed.”
You don’t need that. Or for the workers to get together and say, “Listen, let’s all quit
and we will take an offer to the bank to buy the mine out if we want to based upon all
of our knowledge, all of our productivities. We’ll go to the bank and say, ‘Listen, you
guys are financing this mine operation or whoever it is.’ We’re all going to quit tomorrow
or next week or next month or whatever and we will do X, Y and zed to take over.” I mean
these things were all possible and they’ve been done before. So yeah. But you don’t need
the government for any of them. You don’t need the government for people to get together
and make decisions. Seventeen, without the government there are
no labor unions because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired or even
sometimes the government. Well, I don’t know what to say about that. Eighteen, would the free market have desegregated
restaurants in the South, or would the free markets have done away with miscegenation
if it had been allowed to? Would Martin Luther King have been less effective than the free
market? Those laws sprung up out of majority sense of. In that time, the blacks should
not blah, blah, blah. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch
counters. I mean, please, oh, my God. What do you say? What are you going to say? All
right. I mean, this is too ridiculous for words. And again, it’s just a moment thought. I mean, the whole beginning of the Civil Rights
Movement was the woman who got on the bus and crossed over and blah, blah, blah. The
restaurants want customers and a restaurant, whether blacks who want to eat there at a
restaurant that is serving cheaper food because the blacks had a lower income at that time.
So do you really think that cheap restaurants, fast food restaurants in a sense and bus companies
want to piss off blacks who were going to be a big source of their customers? No, of
course not. They were forced to segregate. It was the government that made them segregate.
So the idea that segregation somehow gets blamed on the free market is ridiculous when
they were forced to be segregated. But let’s take that away. Let’s pretend that
historical fact didn’t really exist, doesn’t really exist at all. Doesn’t really exist
at all, and the government didn’t force anybody to segregate. It’s still complete nonsense
because all you have to do is ask yourself one basic question when you look at society
as a whole and you have problems with it. It’s a basic simple question. Ask yourself
who the hell was educating these children, these children who grew up to be bigots and
racists in the south? Which agency was responsible for their education for the most part? Was
it the bus company? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think it was the fast food. I think
pretty much these kids went to government schools and emerged as racists. So the idea that you’re going to blame the
tenure of society, the morality of society on some free institution when children are
compelled to go to school, that parents are compelled by force to pay for that education,
that indoctrination really, is ridiculous. It’s like the government forces all the children
to go to school and learn French in France and then you say that you blame voluntary
and free market and peaceful associations for the fact that children speak French in
France. I mean, this is madness. Everybody glosses over, government schools and their
responsibility for the education of the young and how much children’s minds and morals and
values and ethics and worldviews and natures are shaped by this coercive institution called
government education, using the word in the loosest possible sense. Anyway, 19, government is necessary but must
be held accountable for its decisions. Yeah. And I think that we should all summon pink
flying lisping unicorns to cure cancer. I mean, I think that would be great. Can you
imagine? If you live in a world of words, you manipulate your fantasies any way that
you want. The matrix is language. Government should be held accountable for its actions,
but what do you even say about that? You can’t say anything about that because there’s nothing
of any reality in there. An imaginary entity should be held accountable
in some imaginary un-described way for the actions which itself as an imaginary entity,
it can’t event take. Since the government can’t exist, it doesn’t act. It’s like Citibank,
right? So Citibank got dinged for $500 million in fines for bundling up all of these toxic
securities and selling them while shorting them. So it was selling all these securities
to people while at the same time betting these securities were going to go down. It’s complete
fraud, complete lack of disclosure. And what is it? 2,500 Occupy Wall Street protesters
have been arrested so far and zero bankers for anything that happened over the past few
years, zero bankers. Score, bankers zero in arrest and Wall Street protesters over 2,500.
That’s what we call government justice. And the reality is that people say, “Well,
Citigroup did a bad thing and Citigroup got a fine and Citigroup had to pay that fine
and that’s called holding Citigroup accountable,” completely ignoring the fact that Citigroup
doesn’t exist. It’s not a real thing. It’s not a building. It’s not even electricity
or energy. It’s words on a piece of paper. It’s an imaginary artificial construct, like
a country. It doesn’t exist. You can’t see it from space. So the idea that Citigroup is somehow held
to account, held to account, you see, because Citigroup had to pay a fine. No. Citigroup
didn’t have to pay a fine. If you’re a kid and you do something bad and you say, “It’s
my invisible friend who’s going to get in trouble.” The kid is fine. All you need to
do is encourage that kid to get more bad, do more bad things because his invisible friend
is getting punished or accepting any consequences. I mean it’s madness. Citigroup didn’t pay
any fine because it doesn’t exist. Now, if people had said that the $500 million
fine has to be paid by the executives and the traders who executed these decisions from
their own personal bank accounts, their houses have to be seized, their own personal bank
accounts have to be seized as a consequence of their decisions because they profited,
they took money out of this fictional construct called Citigroup, they took real money out
of this imaginary construct and put it in their banks and use it to buy real things. So if Citigroup has to pay a fine and they
took the money out, all the money has to go back in because there was a fine. It never
happens. Those people get to keep all that money and who pays the fine? Well, shareholders.
They will accept less value in their shares. Employees will have to accept lower or less
raises or customers in one form or another will pay either in reduced income or they’ll
raise their fees for managing whatever they manage. I don’t know if they’re doing mutual
funds or whatever but that will just raise their fees. They don’t pay. The idea that
Citigroup is going to pay anything is ridiculous. It’s a fantasy. There’s no such thing as Citigroup.
They’re people with money. And the people who got the money out don’t have to pay these
fines. Other people have to pay these fines. What is it? Bank of America was floating this
idea that you now have to spend $5 a month to use their Interac card. Well, that’s called
accountability for the Bank of America. Bank of America got hit with a bunch of fines and
so now they just pass the cost along to their customers. This is called justice in a statist
society. And what can you say? What can you say? You have to declutter and demystify your mind
and your language and your words have to be precise and your words have to wrap like a
Christmas present wrapping around real things, and do not lift up a box that is empty and
think you’ve received a gift. If somebody gives you a word like government, collective,
corporations, society, country, god, these are mere empty syllables rattling around in
our minds. They do not represent anything that is true. They do not represent anything
that is real. Two-year-olds understand this. You give a two-year-old a present. Have her
open that present and there’s nothing inside and say, “No, no, I’ve really given you something.”
The child will cry and we should too.

100 thoughts on “Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!

  • It was Joseph Dejacque, a libertarian communist, who first used the term
    "libertarian" in a political sense back in the 19th century. It wasn't
    until around the 1950s in North America that the right-wing appropriated
    the word, with people like Murray Rothbard
    boasting about having "stolen the word from our enemies." The US
    "Libertarian" Party itself wasn't created until the 1970s.I'd highly
    recommend visiting the Anarchist FAQ, as they have entire sections on right-"libertarianism" and "An"Caps.

  • what if… you had to claim the dole cos by 10 you where sniffing gas & glue….and by the time you were at 14 you'd decided your were going to fuck right off away because now you know, things are rotten and your dad was a nonce ? then you end up in a kids home…trust me, they'll fuck you up there to. I'm a bit gutted Stefan. I have watched loads of your stuff and it's all been so bloody good. I feel a bit gutted now.

  • "Socialism only works on paper and doesn't exist in practice. Now let me tell you all about a magical free society with a 100% free market that only exists on paper."

    Any society will be corrupted by greed, regardless of the government's structure. Can we stop pretending like the world is so black and white?

  • 11:41 "There are private ways of putting out fires–did the government come up with sprinkler systems?"

    So if my neighbor's house is on fire and he doesn't pay to put it out, and it spreads to my house…? Fuck me?

  • I disagree with you. The government has a role and it does have a role with violence. But this violence is only justified if the government stays within its roles. The role would be the enforcer of a social contract. We agree on the social contract, the government has enough power to defeat a single violator of the social contract but weaker then the combined strength of both sides of the social contract. The problem is when the government begins to take a side within the social contract, modify the contract, and act as it wishes without consulting the initial members of the contract. Small government is the solution to the prisoner's dilemma of human nature. Big government is the realization of "absolute power corrupting absolutely".

  • 22:20 Did this moron just blame the government for racism? What was the racism being taught in schools? Pretty certain racism is a social thing and a belief thing. The government turn white children into racists and the parents who were completely against racism did nothing about it. The government must have also created those racist cartoons white people liked so much which were probably more responsible for teaching racism. Oh right, private companies like Disney created those

  • When a small group of people have "won" 90% of all wealth, and allow the "losers" to starve, soon the small group of winners will be killed by the "losers." Witness the French Revolution.

  • you get an FF for fucking Failure…nice try loonytoon..I hope Stewart sees this ..holy shit his response would be comedy gold

  • In a free market, the least skilled competitors are out-maneuvered and replaced by automation, better competitors, or the economic sector has reached its carrying capacity. These people who lose the game go elsewhere to start their own enterprises. Thus creating new tribes of K-select individuals to the benefit of the gene pool.

  • I'm not crazy about Stephen's answer for #2. Social services are based on the concept of freedom from cost, which is an illusion. The focus of the Bill of Rights is freedom from coercion. Infrastructure and healthcare can be provided more effectively by the free market. The answer that Stephen gave is more of a traditional conservative argument and less a libertarian one.

  • I just genuinely don't understand some his points, especially the one regarding the free market.

  • 9:07 "Gather a group together to build a wall." Oh so in 2011 it was okay to build a wall but now it's racist, Mr. Stewart?

  • these old stefan videos get so much hate. Its almost like if just because now he has 700k subs nobody dares question him? I mean, it makes sense, but that gives some perspective on how easily deceived we can be just by popular opinion.

  • Stef, this was the first vid of yours I ever watched and the rest is history. Happy to have seen your channel take off 🙂

  • "Freedom is not the goal, morality is the goal"

    That's one of the key points that differentiate Stef from the hordes of licentious libertarians fulfilling the agenda of Cultural Marxism.

  • If there is not a government you do not have a recourse for anything but your own force. You have a huge logical fallacy in your on in your argument

  • At just about the 20 minute mark, Stefan talks about those types of small, worker organized unions could be smashed by Pinkerton organizations, or even the government.

    I'd say that if this were the case, then those workers would be well within their rights to use their second amendment right to self defense. They could even raise a militia from the local population if they were so threatened, and the government were unwilling/unable to help, or were even the source oft he threat, then the local populace would be justified in raising a militia for the defense of the workers who sustain their local economy, but also on principle. They could reasonably argue that such a Pinkerton group, or heavy-handed government posing a threat to the workers poses a threat to the entire community by extension; If they can attack the miners, then what's to stop them from attacking the school teachers, clergymen, etc.?

    The free market AGAIN provides a solution, when the locals are able to speak freely, to persuade friends and neighbors to voluntarily band together for mutual defense.

  • I'm libertarian but i do believe a government needs to exist, much like we need a military force and police. However i do also believe the government shouldn't force it's beliefs on other people or invade people's right to privacy, nor should the army or the police unless we're being invaded or if one person is harming another person. I'm not anti-government i'm just all for less of it and less invasion and more privacy provided you're not harming anyone.

  • Apple uses child and oppressed labor to build ipads but when apple sells they aren't forced to write all the negative consequences of their product.

  • I think the real problem of accepting libertarian morality is that nobody can agree on what is moral and what is not.

  • So you build a business how are the employees going to go into that in a win win? If you employ them are you not wanting more of their production than they get out of it? Also how do you keep our business from operating as feudal monarchies? where the king (business owner)and his nobles(or shareholders today). I have a contract with the government called the constitution and the ability to vote them out. The issue is voters would rather not engage much like not getting that iPad and just not fighting to get what your owed. Finally Steve jobs wouldn’t use China factories….right work for less and get no protections from being Murdered by these businesses. I mean this guy seems to just think business with all the money wouldn’t wield all their power against you as they do now. In the end his message is don’t get in the way of your attackers and they won’t use their power against you. Government is only a issue to business because it’s a barrier red from them dominating us entirely. What falsehood it is to believe these buinesses can be held accountable by individuals.

  • I disagree that giving money to the IRS is like giving money to a thief. You pay taxes under the promise of a service. There is least the attempt of choice by democracy to agree on how to run those service. A thief in the other hand gives you no choice, nor personal nor collective, and gives you nothing in return, not to mention it's more prone to use violence as first resort.

    Lets keep the false equivalences at bay please.

  • If, as you have stated in past lectures, human beings have an innate built in ability to control, dominate and enslave, then how can anarchy be the only viable means to achieve a free society? Inevitably the predators will rise to the top and without others banding together into groups with agreements and contracts to protect each other the predators will enslave human society.

  • 28 seconds in and it is already clear that this guy is a complete fucking imbecile. Governments don't exist??? What a retarded thing to say. And ghosts and dragons were completely bad analogies, the correct analogy would be another social construction such as money which only an idiot would deny exists.

  • What does he mean when he says the government doesn't exist? How does the government not exist? When one asks whether the government is inherently evil is it not better to ask whether this government is defined by the use of force or not. A government can take the shape of a local community of people coming together to solve local social issues or discuss values rather than a socialist vision of a state lead forceful bureaucracy. Please someone clear this up, perhaps I'm just missing the semantic nuance as to what a government really is.

  • Why libertarianism is an evolutionary dead-end (video by a former libertarian):

  • Wow. You have managed to convince me of your arguments and your views of the world in general. You gave me the red pill. I suspect that this will change my life. I am very very grateful to you.

  • Thank you, thank you, ty! This is perhaps 1 of Stefan's top 5 vids.
    Keep up the Great Work of Truth-telling my Brother.
    Your vid on Gov't enforced Slavery in the US South was also wonderful. Free-markets destroyed Slavery, Gov't Offices continued it.

  • "Give" money to the IRS.
    That made me lol before Stefan pointed out no one gives anything to the IRS. They take it.

  • Also social welfare does not enhance my freedom from taxation. I do not consent to forceful removal of my capital and giving it to others.

  • On point #4: does Michael Jordan have an obligation to pay his coaches who helped him when he was 10? Of course not.

  • I have traveled this country coast to coast and I've found that the majority of people are marginal at best and lazy at worst and there are a select few who are exceptional and / or selfless in the way that you are describing. I like to consider myself Libertarian and I like to believe people could make the right choices if given the liberty to govern themselves but I doubt all the time given constant examples to the contrary. Government is the application of force…. yes. The problem is, most Americans crave that force and without it, wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. I want that not to be true.

  • Here's a question: If private voluntary means are far superior to force why is it that historically we have NEVER seen these superior forms used? Why is there nowhere in the world where roads were built without force? Why have we never seen a private army work for a free collective but instead for governments or gangs? It appears to me that mankind simply isn't morally capable of executing a responsible act collectively.
    Here's a possible answer: Why are wise and responsible men not actively administering private collectives to help the next generation be free of force? Because they don't need money and they are not morally strong enough to take on such responsibilities without incentives greater than the collective wishes to give. Could there be a reason why the Bible describes the Utopian millennial social structure as a benevolent dictatorship ruling with a rod of iron?

  • The IRS Steals Money From The American People & They Call It Taxation. (Theft: The Act Of Taking Something Without Permission Or Asking For What You're Taking). I Have No Problem Paying Taxes For Somethings (The Military, Strong Borders, Police Departments, Sheriff Departments, & Hospitals), But There Are Some Things That I'm Strongly Against Paying Taxes Towards/For (Politicians, Unjust/Unconstitutional Laws (The War On Drugs, Affirmative Action, All Jim Crow Laws, Anti-Descrimination Laws (Companies Should Be Allowed To Refuse Service To People For ANY Reason & Also Refuse To Hire People For ANY Reason), Marijuana Prohibiton, & All Gun Control Laws), Corrupt Cops, Corrupt Federal Agents, The FCC, CPS (Also Known As DCF, DCYF, DSS, & HRS. Known As SRS In Kansas When I Was Younger), Government Secrets, Schools, The CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF, Illegal Survillence, Foreign Aide, Health Care, Illegal Immigrants, & Government Cover-Ups). Paying Taxes Should Be By Choose Not Force Or Theft.

  • The only strong point against capitalism IS THE FACT that the likes of Steve Jobs move their factories to China, so they don't have to pay a lot of wages and that they can maximize profits.

    And Stefan just brushes over that and literally says: a topic for another time.
    Dude… that IS the topic. Nobody is against the normal working of a normal market.
    We are AGAINST the exploitation of workers, wich is the result of capitalism and Steve Jobs moving his factories to Asia is THE BEST example.

    Who are you debating here? An autistic communist?
    Strawmanning is a tactic for the left. Stop it!

  • Free market can give us roads without govt. Government is indeed the antithesis of liberty, and I don't even consider myself an anarchist.

  • God Stefan is speaking dumb on this one. First 2 mins. How is government not an impediment to liberty? As an anarchist he has already recognized his desire for a government less country, I've heard him say it. Hypocrite. Comparing roads to rape and acting like we wouldn't need them without govt, that we'd have better tech already? Dumb. Bullshit imo; But, without govt free market would indeed generate roads Better than what we have imo because free market would generate competition to make roads better. And yes, Darwinism Should apply to free market. I'm a fan of Stef but he's being a real fag in this one.

  • I have a question
    When it comes to a private military or a voluntarily made one, that is defending against a foreign power, what is to happen with those that refuse to help? They dont pay, they dont serve, nothing, but they are amongst, and encircled by those that do pay and volunteer. I find it wholly unfair that they should receive the benefit without out contributing. How would anarchy deal with that?

  • I'm a small-government conservative, and I do lean as libertarian as possible in most areas. And in many ways, I do think Anarchy is the logical end of pure Libertarianism. Anarchy is lovely in concept. However it practically falls apart because of the nature of man. Man is by nature evil and selfish, and will not be curbed any BETTER by voluntary unionization than it is by government.

    Others have pointed out this very problem about "voluntary groups forming" to defend / offer help / etc. This is no different than a government in the end. They'll still need resources. Voluntarily provided by whom? Those who run it? You'll never be able to get enough resources to properly defend a people group of enormous size unless everyone contributes. And given pure free voluntarism, very few people will contribute. That's the Tragedy of the Commons. So your little voluntary groups will not get off the ground because of the nature of man. So yes, if you don't want to be forced to pay taxes, then go ahead and leave. And good luck with that.

    In short, anarchy presumes upon the generosity of strangers in large groups. Unfortunately the more distant people become from one another (in values, nature, ethos, religion), and the larger the group becomes, the less generous they become. So it's a poor thing to presume upon.

    So keep people in small groups, you say. Well maybe so. But economic growth and innovation happens most successfully in large groups under a common banner of values (ahem, countries). If you look at the native American people, there were hundreds of tribes divided along very narrow lines. Yes there was very little coersion (yay libertarianism), but there was almost no technological innovation, and there was certainly a lot of violence between the groups. Nothing was accomplished for millennia.

    Because people are necessarily evil, some government is A necessary evil. The only way anarchy actually works is if people stop being evil. Calling governments and corporations fictional is a silly philosophical cop-out. They are labels by which we identify institutions voluntarily created by people (and recognized by government groups in some cases). For instance, I'm a businessowner and an S-Corp. Until recently I was a Sole Proprietor. Which is just a fancy name for "guy doing work as a freelancer". When I switched, very little changed. The government doesn't really MAKE corporations (ie making them fictional), it recognizes them as already existing as actual entities. Before I incorporated, the money in my pocket was just as real as after I incorporated.

    Government must exist because people need governing for maximal productivity. But it must be minimal. Their job is to protect and encourage good, and punish evil, and that's the biblical definition. All the social nonsense ought to be voluntary. That would cut the US budget by 60% right off the bat.

  • about #18
    which came first, Racism or slave trade? because it could be said that rich slave traders(free marketers) forced (bribed) the government to turn the people racist through their regulations and education system in order to help them(slave traders) keep up their profits and maintain their customers. what proof is their that that was not the case?

  • Unions and Government-Backed Companies (corporations) have donated unreal amounts of money to the governments they hail from.

  • Wow…the trolls commenting herein are amazingly ignorant. To say Left or Right is better than Libertarian is to prefer your freedom be handed over to the globalist elite while they lull you into a false sense of independence but sadly you realize when you wake up, you are in a collectivist nightmare! No thank you. I'll fight to keep my individual rights and for those of my neighbors and family. If you are so enamoured with big government, go live in Russia or China.

  • Interesting because government could be a little neighborhood that bands together or like how the globalists want a whole fucking world under one structure one Ponzi scheme

  • Governments do not exist. They're just a bunch of people that came together to make and uphold laws.
    Companies do not exist. They're just a bunch of people that came together to make money.
    Vehicles do not exist. It's a just a bunch of molded parts that comes together to make a large object move.
    Organisms do not exist. It's a just a bunch of molecules that came together in the shape of a living thing.

    Stripping something to its barest definition doesn't make it not exist.

  • I think fairness should be the goal, not just freedom. Freedom to be fair to everyone.

    Education should be at least available to everyone to learn the free market system we live in. Some will take part. Some won't. The ones who don't take part will work for the ones who do. That would be fair.

    There must be SOME rules to business though, because some people have a ravenous, predatory nature when it comes to labor and wealth.

    Again fair would be for companies to pay a wage that workers can survive on, at least, in the geographical area.

    Too much regulation does limit people's ability to make money independently. That is not fair.
    It's like tying a baseball player's arm behind his back and telling him to swing the bat at a pitch. He can swing, but far less effectively.

  • The way Jon Stewart insinuates that all Libertarians don't believe in evolution is so disingenuous, he can't really believe that, he's just trying to characterize libertarians as Christian fundamentalists because a lot of people see everything through a partisan lens and think only the left has any valid ideas.

  • I am happy to hear one libertarian who says that freedom is not the goal, but morality is, actually, you are the first libertarian I hear saying such stuff. But welfare being a cause for people not getting educated is simply misunderstanding of welfare. I live in a welfare state, and we actually can affort university thanks to welfare, or high school. It motivates us to become better and make ourselves more marketable. I have many people around me who used the system that way, and even in the welfare state, we would never ever ever ever think that we will just live on that welfare state. And we do have a very strong welfare state and you might get cca 1100 dollars per month of 'basic income'. The same all over Europe. So I would say that even though logically it might be sound, experiment just does not support that assertion.

  • As for losers, it is not that your choices only affect you. John Steward seems to be a NAP guy, he should consider that if people are 'losers' and are 'faced with the consequences of their actions' will of course do everything to get out of their predicament. And that also means they will become parasites and possibly also predators (i.e. criminality will rise). At the very least, they will be out of the market, or dimnished, and the productivity for us all will be hampered. Because we are humans, I believe that in a libertarian society, there will be some healthcare for the poor, some education for the poor kids; the rich will pay all of this. They will not be left to die, exiled or benevolently involunary euthanatised in the name of public order. And it will only be voluntary in the sense that it will not be forced by taxation. But it will be equally forced by the environment, and ultimately by the parasiting or predating poor and their aggressive violence, even though it is also passive aggressive, i.e. they are ruining themselves with their bad choices and bad luck and you are being ruined by the need to deal with the negative consequence of their choices. Given that we can very well predict that this will happen, it is rational to solve this beforehand by tax basded solutions.

  • As for the company vs. the person and government vs. the person, you have only recourse because the government sets the playing field up with non private courts, police and so on. If you had no government and everything would be private based, the normal human being would be much more at the mercy of those big corporations, because the whole playing field would be based on how much money you have in your pocket. Instead of asking 'do I rather hang up on the tax authorities or on a salesman' I would rather ask 'do I rather hang up on my boss or the tax authority'? I rather hang up on the tax authority, even though it is government, because I will be in much less trouble, even if it is an important matter like unpaid taxes. Hanging up on my boss is a huge risk compared. Even if I make one employee of the tax authority angry, even if I am late on my payment, I will not go to jail immediately or be ordered to pay huge summs. There is due process in the public sector. There is potentially no due process with the private sector. You make them lose confidence in you, your livelyhood is weg. Swoosh. The private sector in the libertarian order will be much more in the position of my boss than the salesman, as they will take care of all those things which now the government does for us and which we need for our very survival.

  • As for the black/white segregation, if the blacks are almost all poor (which they are in the order of structural discrimination), they are not potential clients for 'white' restaurant. If you do not enforce desegregation, market will demand (because the racist whites will demand) that there is and remains a segregation. It might be that some lower class establishment will be segregated, but then the other way, that whites are not welcome. Actually, there are establishments here and now where they look on you really weird if you are not Moroccan, so it is reality. If there was no state, they would have the right to just throw me out instead of just looking at me weirdly. It is riddiculous to imagine that the market will somehow force the high class establishment to desegregate. And this is not only about super high class restaurants, but also public baths, schools… you name it. This is dangerous and evil.

  • Funny you bring up steve jobs who largely benefited of ip which is a violation of voluntary transactions

  • I fail to see libertarianism as an ideology when it is used as a justification for selfishness and apathy. There's a hypocrisy in justifying western governments, all of which charge tax, justifying the enforcement of subjective morality, criticizing a government which failed to punish Citibank, and then deciding that because winning in this particular system is possible, then we should make it more like a third world country where anyone can control a road, anyone can enforce an educational model or moral code, or anyone could hire strongmen to guard their fortunes when they are outsize and highly apparent to oppressed and dying men (so long as they have earned enough money to sustain their ambitions). Colonization has been successful in the British Colonies in creating a system where markets can grow and private property can exist in relative peace and that is because there is a respect for fairness that must be protected. I see libertarianism as the protection of private property rights and individual creative expression, not the protection of your selfish right to withdraw, not participate, and count your gold coins to determine your worth instead of reflect on your memories of how you have lived your life.

  • Good, so what happens when a person uses their private property to hurt another person? Yes, dogs do eat each other in nature. Wolves which are dogs will eat their young to survive. Capitalism is compulsory because working for a pittance is better than poverty. The problem with this free agency problem is the concept of private property. A private organization will commit violence to protect the right of private property. I would be comfortable not returning a call from a telemarketer but a call from my boss, that would be different. Actually, the government invented the internet using the money from taxes. And yes, robber barons put rats in your meat. The reason why we have food regulations is because they put rats in your meat. And yes, the free market likes to segregate, who would scab if workers were united in the struggle. Guess what, if we weren’t segregated and had the same mind to what was in our historical best interest we would seize the means of production the same way the capitalists seized the land from the royals and the royals seized the lands from the natives. Yes, private property isn’t real… there is nothing besides the force of government that ensures it’s existence. We’ve developed it as a social construct, and now it no longer serves the majority.

  • Where do you get the $5 for the pen though?

    That's why I think capitalism as it is applied now is a win/lose situation. Its a Pyramid scheme. We've never lived in a world where money actually had value so to lean on the idea of free markets as Libertarians is kinda dangerous I think. I think a stronger value is free agency of the human. When we highlight that aspect, it becomes harder to justify someone else creating laws to control your agency. Just some of my scribbles, not judging, just staring conversation.

  • This moron in one response to a question says all the regulators are bought and then later lambastes regulation as an evil force. Well, which is it? How can they be evil if they are ineffective and bought by industry? If they don't do anything then they are perhaps a waste but hardly evil. Self contradiction much in your self delusions? Grow up.

Leave a Reply

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