Course Guide Blog.com

25 Comments For This Post

1. stefbot Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   haha thanks, I have no doubt that that…

2. lkjhg4696 Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   LOL your videos are brilliant but you suck at pronouncing dutch names

3. clemonsx90 Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   Read Atlas Shrugged, it’s a fun novel, and it’ll change your mind

4. blmutantx Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   I`d like to see you in a debate with a communist, a real one.

   It seems like to me at least, that while this kind of anarchism might be nice and fuzzy in your mind, you must know that it cannot work in the real world , just like communism (the real one) it has no chance in the 21st century .

5. newexperiment Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   I will actually. I’m very anxious to learn your strategy. I’ve tried to explain a stateless society to my friends, it usually hits a brick wall @ “power will still congregate and the less fortunate will become puppets working in a free market with no potential to close the gap between rich and poor” -The only way I’ve found to argue this is by proposing eugenics @ which point I just concede the argument because I’m against eugenics. I’m indeed very curious, are you against eugenics Stef?

6. stefbot Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   The central question is whether you would initiate the use of force against someone who did not help a child? I would not. I have also written in my free book Practical Anarchy have children will be protected in a stateless society, you might want to check it out.

7. newexperiment Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   While anarchism seems to have far far far less problems then statism, there still problems. The non agression principle is not enough to cover say.. what to do when you witness child molestation, or child abuse on the street. NAP says “If you do nothing you are not initiating violence so it’s O.K. to do nothing” which we don’t even need philosophy to tell that this is the wrong answer. Continued…

8. newexperiment Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   lolwut?

   Replace holocaust survivors with lost children or orphan’s who’s parents died in a traffic accident. Also, I never knew stef was a proponent of social Darwinism …

9. SopraTutt1 Says:
   June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

   You are way off comparing it with Holocaust survivors. If there were no Holocaust survivors, we would have nobody to care for, right? Just brilliant. What about the Holocaust victims?

   There can’t be no poor people… This is why the nature invented the natural selection after all.

   I like Stefan’s approach on… “wtf do you care?” logic, is good to use it especially with “asking question” people that are not coming with solutions/suggestions.

10. vegnagunL Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    That´s what how we were touch to believe. The values upon the material world is something that we learn. Study the cultures of the world, don´t try to analyse this with the narrow world view that we westerns have…

11. stefbot Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    No, it’s a fair question of course — but if you are too personally handicapped to help the poor, it seems highly unlikely that you will be engaging and highly abstract philosophical debates — if you have the competence to debate, you have the competence to help…

12. Gorevet Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    I watched your video obviously – I know where you are going with that comment. But what if I am personally too handicapped to help the poor?

    I feel like this is a semantic and – forgive me – gimmicky answer for a question like this when there are better arguments. I’m not trying to poke and pry and score points (I’ve been subscribed awhile, I’m not trolling) , I’m just saying I do not feel people will actually want to agree with you if you are telling them to “shutup” with their question.

13. stefbot Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Perhaps you could start off by telling me what you are doing to help the poor…

14. Gorevet Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Of course a poor person can cook another poor person a meal, however that does not help that own person’s “poor” situation very much, since they could have otherwise used that time to look for work or educate themselves.

    If the only form of aid the poor receive is from other similarly deprived people (and of course stefbot) do you think that is enough to give them equality of opportunity?

15. stefbot Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Are you saying that a poor person cannot do anything to help other poor people? Cook them a meal, walk their dog, check up on them?

16. Gorevet Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    I don’t like the argument at the end stef.

    What if the person you are talking to is part of the poor?

    What if the person is handicapped in a way that makes him unable to help the poor?

    Even if you are both in agreement that you will help that poor, does that really serve as a good enough example for the rest of society?

17. Mattprole Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    On a practical stand
    point, you could perhaps run a charity and advocate others to aid in your noble cause.

18. Mattprole Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    But what are we living in now? No matter how the world is configured we will always behave in a ‘selfish’ way, merely because this is the only possible behavior for us, since everything is entirely mediated through the individual. What is the government, then? Why should this particular institution transcend this valuation, especially without proper incentive?

19. newexperiment Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Exactly my point. Just because someone isn’t doing something for the poor, does not mean the don’t care or don’t have the right to care. Extrapolating this to say I advocate the existence of government to do anything is a simple logical error.

20. MigDanskeren Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    I might, but everybody else might not, and my money alone are not enough to help the poor

21. vegnagunL Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    We want the common good on a self-interest, individualistic, greed based society…. So how is that possible?

    Guess what it is not. Freemarket = Monopoly + illusion of democracy, of free speech, and above all of CHOICE.

    For god sake im not talking about socialism…

22. seggallion8 Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Or…

    What are you doing to educate the poor?

    “Nothing.”

    Why?

    “Because I defer responsibility to the government.”

    With out the government to defer responsibility to, who’s responsibility would it be to educate the poor?

23. stefbot Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Then you would give an equal amount to charity, and thus do not need the state…

24. MigDanskeren Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    I agree on the point but I’m not sure the argument is valid.
    What if I say that I do care about the poor, that’s why I’m for taxes and willing to pay my share?

25. Chameleon41 Says:
    June 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    How does the fact that people are already paying for it affect whether a private company is able to set up an alternative?

    That’s what Stefan said, and that’s the point I’ve contested.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code:

• Popular
• Comments
• Featured
• Tags