All Episodes
Feb. 14, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
16:39
980 Hot Asian Girls Discuss Anarchy (audio to a video)

Aiming high on 'youtube'... ;)

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody. I'm a group of hot Asian girls and I would like to talk to you about anarchy.
I'm also known as Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I have read a book on how to achieve popularity on YouTube and apparently it involves mutating myself into a group of scantily clad Barely legal Japanese girls, so I've been working on that.
I hope that it's to your satisfaction.
Certainly the book did not seem to be very positive about middle-aged bald men talking about anarchy, so for the sake of philosophy I give you a group of hot Asian girls talking about anarchy.
Now, I had a post on my board at freedomainradio.com forward slash board, which was about my book, Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.
And in the book, I talk about how we can prove ethical theories by looking throughout history to find out whether they work or not, or rather we can support them in the same way that physical evidence does not necessarily prove a scientific theory, but it does support it if it's there.
So the light that bends around The starlight that bends around the gravity well of the sun, which can be visible during an eclipse, is a proof of Einstein's theories of relativity.
So, of course, we can see that the disasters of communism produced pretty strong evidence for the moral theory that theft is evil.
And so he wrote to this, he said, about the murder thing, does anybody have any good empirical examples of why a theory that states murder is moral fails?
I'm just thinking like some ancient warrior culture or something.
I realize it's not necessary.
I was just stunned at how good of an example communism was for disproving.
Theft is moral theories.
And it is a fascinating, fascinating disconnect when you think about it.
And I'll make a relatively short case because I know that hot Asian girls are supposed to be fairly rapid.
But it is fascinating when you look at the disconnect that goes on in this gentleman's thinking.
So this is a man, I think he lives in the United States.
And he says, you know...
Is there any empirical examples of why a theory that states murder is moral fails?
I'm thinking, you know, like some ancient warrior culture or something.
So how far afield do I have to look to credit or discredit the theory, or to find positive or negative proof for the theory, that murder is moral?
And so, of course, I wrote back to him and said that it is just have to look around you.
You just have to look around you.
It's really impossible to understand the value of anarchy.
And by this, I mean, I'm a free market anarcho-capitalist, if that means anything to you, but a stateless society, let's talk about a society that can run without government.
It's impossible to understand what the criticism is without understanding that we live in a murder-based society.
And I know that's a startling thing to say, and let me just take a few minutes if you don't mind to step you through it.
In my hot Asian way.
But when you have taxes, when you have taxation, because of course the government is a group of people who claim the moral monopoly and exercise the right of initiating the use of force against other people in a defined geographical area like Japan.
And they then take money from those people at the point of a gun or with the threat of violence in order to achieve various goals or aims that are either collective or individual in nature.
So a government is just a group of people who claim the right to use force against others to take their property and control them.
And some, of course, a few of those things you and I would probably agree with, like rape is bad, Child abuse is bad, murder is bad, theft is bad, but that is like a tiny, tiny percentage of what the state does.
And what the state does with the rest of the money is violate all of those principles wantonly and in an ever-escalating manner.
So, let's just step through how governments actually work, and then we can see why you don't actually have to look for some sort of ancient warrior culture, hopefully composed of the aforementioned Hard Asian girls, To actually see where the disproof of the proposition murderer's moral exists in reality.
So, when you get a tax bill, and I'm just waiting for mine's coming in, the bill for my property taxes, so you get this piece of paper, and this piece of paper says, you know, pay us the money, right?
Give us the money. And why would I do that?
I mean, I can drop a bill off at your house that says, give me $4,000, and you're just going to go like, didn't order this, right?
Throw it away. So what is the difference?
Why is it that I would end up paying my money to these people who call themselves the government?
Well, clearly it's because if I don't, I will get another letter and then another letter, and then at some point the police are going to come to my...
Like, they'll set a court date, and if I fail to show up or whatever, they will send policemen to my door.
Policemen simply indicating men in a blue costume, right?
Like Halloween, but without the candy.
Or the fun.
Or the non-aggression.
So these policemen then come to my door, and if I don't agree to pay the money with penalties and so on, then they will seize me.
Now, of course, I have done nothing to aggress against anybody, so their seizure of me in a moral universe, in real ethical terms, is an initiation of the use of force on the part of these men in a blue costume.
So, if I then resist, then, of course, they will escalate the conflict.
And I'm, of course, if it's just some dudes in a blue costume, I'm allowed to use whatever necessary force to avoid being kidnapped and locked away in the rape room of some dungeon, which is, of course, the actual name for modern prisons.
Rape room dungeons is pretty much the way it goes, with murder and assault and so on.
So, if these were just guys in a blue costume, I would be perfectly legitimate in using whatever force I could to defend myself against their initiation of the use of force against me, the kidnapping, and so on.
But, of course, because they're police, I'm not allowed to.
They're allowed to shoot me, and they actually will get counseling and no dock of pay, and it will be considered a just and fair thing that they did.
So... Why would I submit to being taken away in their car to jail, to these dungeons?
Well, of course, I would submit because I know that if I don't submit, they're going to kill me.
I mean, let's just strip away all of the metaphorical nonsense that floats around the state and look at the naked gun, right?
The naked force that is occurring.
So, if I don't submit to their will, they're They're going to kill me.
Because all threats, fundamentally, all threats of violence are threats of murder.
There's nothing that doesn't stop short of that.
I mean, if you think about you owe some money to some local mafioso who's not a guy in a blue costume.
You owe some money to a local mafioso, and he says, I'm going to, you know, hit your hand with a hammer if you don't pay me.
But why on earth would you submit to having your hand hit with a hammer?
Why wouldn't you fight tooth and nail?
Well, because if you don't let him hit your hand with a hammer, he's going to escalate the violence, right?
So the least you can get away with in that situation is getting your hand hit with a hammer.
Because if you resist, if you fight back, if you pull a gun, he's just going to shoot you.
This is what I'm saying. All threats, all threats are threats of murder.
Let's look at something even more innocuous, that you have to have some stupid-ass government label on your cabbages when you export them to Taiwan.
Well, if you don't have those labels on and you send it, they're going to give you a fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you're going to get a letter and a court date, and eventually the guys are going to show...
At your house, they've got the blue costume on, they've got the guns ready, they can shoot you without repercussion.
The reason that you pay the government the money, the reason that you obey the regulations and the legislation, is because they're going to kill you if you don't.
All threats are threats of murder.
If you resist, we will club you.
Nor subdue you, as they say, right?
If you are in prison, why do you not escape?
Well, you do not escape because they will shoot you.
If you're making a run for it, they may let you go, but if you resist them when they arrest you after you've escaped, they will, you know, all threats are threats of murder.
And if you don't understand that, well, of course you do understand that, that's not, right?
Slavery as a system, when we look back in sort of the 18th and early 19th century, slavery as a system was predicated on murder, that the reason you stayed on the plantation when you were a slave was because you would be killed if you tried to leave.
And if you left and you were caught and you resisted arrest, they would kill you.
Without repercussion. Right?
I mean, this was so funny.
We think James Bond is some fictional esoteric character.
Ooh, he's got a license to kill.
Well, they all have a license to kill.
Everybody who's in the military, everybody who's a policeman, everybody who's a prison guard, they all have license to kill.
And if you resist their rules, they will kill you.
So, this is what's so funny, right?
I just read this bit again, right?
Just so we can understand what a kind of disconnect there is in the way that we look at our own society and the way that we are often so smug, you know, like, ooh, you know, somewhat free market-ish remnants here and a little bit of a piece of paper over here that's supposed to protect us from the government, like, pieces of paper are really great at stopping bullets.
The Constitution is an amazing piece of Kevlar.
And we think, oh, we've got it all sorted out, but of course it's not true at all, and this is the anarchist criticism, right?
So this guy says, about the murder thing, because in my book, Universally Preferable Behavior, I prove that murder is immoral, because unless you can get a secular proof of ethics, a proof of ethics that is bulletproof and doesn't require God and doesn't require governments and so on, then... As far as being an anarchist go, in my view, you're just fighting in the wind.
So he says about the murder thing, which is the proof in UPB, does anybody have any good empirical examples of why a theory that states murder is moral fails?
I'm thinking like some ancient warrior culture or something.
I realize it's not necessary, but I was just stunned at how good of an example communism was for disproving theft is moral theories.
Well, all governments are predicated on the moral Premise that murder is good.
Murder is moral. If you don't pay your taxes, we are not only allowed to kill you, we're supposed to kill you.
It's good to kill you. And we will kill you if you don't come along to jail.
Why would you submit to going along to somebody's rape room dungeon?
Torture, brutality, assault.
Confinement for years? Why would you kidnap and be enslaved in somebody's dungeon?
Why would you do that? Well, because they'll shoot you if you don't.
All threats. All laws.
All legislations. All regulations.
All taxations. All.
Everything that the government does is predicated upon the threat of murder.
And of course it doesn't work.
Of course it doesn't work. It doesn't work in the Scandinavian countries, where you have massive and spiraling debt and high suicide rates.
It doesn't work in the United States, where you have staggering quasi-Roman imperialism.
It doesn't work up here in Canada, where we have a huge shortage of doctors, massive public debt, and of course the bulge of the population moving towards retirement is going to completely break the back of the system, which is why it's so good to get these ideas out before all of that nonsense comes down.
So it doesn't work anywhere, except, of course, from a financial standpoint to those who are in charge of the system.
But you just have to look around you to see how the proposition that murder is moral fails.
If you don't pay for the government's war in Iraq, which is not really war, but simply just gang genocide.
Since they have to pay for the gang genocide in Iraq, the United States...
Gang, right, the mafia heads of the US, quote, government, if you don't pay for the gang genocide in Iraq, then they will shoot you here, right?
It's so funny, right? They say, well, we have to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.
But that's nonsense. Since the initiation of the use of force, or the threat of the initiation of the use of force, since the threat of murder is a form of terrorism, Then fighting them over in Iraq, going to kill Iraqis, actually increases the amount of money that you have to pay in taxes, either directly or indirectly through inflation.
Over here in America, so it's because we're fighting them over there that additional terrorism, which is the aggression against you by your government, has to increase here at home, right?
So this is...
It's all true, but it's all backwards, right?
Which is exactly what you would expect from an imperialistic, i.e.
highly propagandized culture.
So... Oh, I guess the last thing I would say as well.
The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political goals.
Which, of course, is the welfare state.
And is foreign policy, is the military, is the roads, you know, the political goals of the drug war and so on.
Governments are, by their very nature, terrorism.
All governments, by their very definition, use force to achieve political goals.
They're all terrorist thug gangs responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings every century.
And if you don't see that, like if you don't see that you live in a murder culture, that you live in a society that is run by the threat of murder and rape, imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, if you don't get the sick and savage river of blood that is flowing right through the core of your society, well then of course the anarchist criticisms aren't going to make any sense.
I mean, if you think that blacks are real happy being slaves and wouldn't want it any other way, Then, of course, you're not going to be an abolitionist, right?
If you think that women really enjoy not having property rights in the 19th century and really enjoy being chattels and slaves to their husbands, well, then, of course, you're not going to be a feminist of that brand, right?
So, until you understand what is being fought against or what is being talked about or what is being criticized from a moral standpoint, I mean, the criticisms won't make any sense.
So, unless you see that you're living in a society That is entirely defined by near-infinite threats of murder, rape, torture, coercion, kidnapping, imprisonment, and so on, and that the anarchist criticism is that that is a sick, savage, and evil way to run a society which always leads to disasters of one form or another in the long run, and, of course, in the short and in the immediate term.
If you don't understand the violence as its root of your culture and the fact that there is an alternative to running a society based on murder, rape, imprisonment and theft, well then of course the anarchist criticisms aren't going to make any sense.
But if you do understand that, if you do get that you live in a society that is organized through the threats of murder and rape, Then, of course, you will begin to have some possibility of sympathy or interest in the anarchist position.
If you do, if you do understand what it is that I'm talking about and want to find out more about how we can have a society that is based on voluntary and peaceful and positive and moral interactions, a stateless society, then, of course, I do invite you to come over to freedomainradio.com Have a listen to the podcast, read the articles, look at the videos, participate on the board.
We even have a chat room. I'll give you free books, whatever it is that I have to do to get this basic information out to a highly propagandized, unfortunately, group of people, as I was too.
I mean, this is not something I was born with.
But please drop by freedomainradio.com.
And I would love to chat with you.
There's thousands of other listeners to this as the number one philosophy show on the internet.
Thousands of other listeners for you to chat with and interact with and, you know, take the red pill, my friends.
It's a scary, fantastic, exciting, and beautiful journey.
Thank you so much for watching.
Export Selection