31 votes

FINALLY: Stefan Molyneux debates Peter Joseph of ZeitGeist Movement + Moly on Joe Rogan Show - 9/24/2013!

Zeitgeist Versus the Market - Peter Joseph Debates Stefan Molyneux

http://youtu.be/vUtv5E6CkLE
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Sep 24, 2013

Stefan Molyneux debates Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement on the nature and reality of the free market system.

For more information on Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement and the Culture In Decline series, please visit: http://www.peterjoseph.info - http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com - http://www.cultureindecline.com

The Joe Rogan Experience with Stefan Molyneux - Sep. 20, 2013

http://youtu.be/72Boihk2p8s
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Sep 24, 2013

Stefan Molyneux speaks with Joe Rogan on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. JRE #396 - Recorded on Friday September 20th, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Subjects include: media hypocrisy, wasted human potential, nature vs. nurture, epigenetics, fragmenting the central narrative, the availability of information, confirmation bias, changing the world through better parenting, daycare, single mothers, pharmaceutical drugs, why marijuana is illegal, the difference between boys and girls, memory, the corrupt financial system, connecting at a primal level, the backgrounds of MMA fighters, managing aggression, the mind/body dichotomy, making mistakes, circumcision, Joe's childhood, violence in involuntary relationships, drones, chemical weapons, accidents of birth as virtue, success through hard work, acting, stand up comedy preparation, the horrors of divorce for men, gender/intelligence, gender equality, lying to get laid, discipline and the future of mankind.

MP3: http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2491_Joe_Rogan_Exp...

Subscribe to the Freedomain Radio Podcast Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

Amazon US Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUS
Amazon Canada Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada
Amazon UK Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK

Freedomain Radio Facebook: http://www.fdrurl.com/fb
Freedomain Radio Twitter: https://twitter.com/freedomainradio
Freedomain Radio Google+: http://www.fdrurl.com/google
Freedomain Radio LinkedIn: http://www.fdrurl.com/LinkedIn

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But I hope

Molyneau destroys him, I really despise Peter Joseph

O Great

A total christian hating Communist and an Anarchist, 2 crackpots, a stupid debate and Joe Rogan is a shill

This is great stuff!

I'm sneaking in here to comment at only 22 minutes in. Whether or not, or how Molyneux rebukes Joseph's analysis down the line is not important at this point, as I am inspired to do so myself. At around 17 minutes in Joseph declares that "the market necessity of competition... does not, and would never stop, at the traditionally assumed edge of the market board game". "Referees"... etcetera...

Why am I popping in here before watching the entire debate? I don't know. :D I suppose I merely intend to flag this point as Joseph's initial fallacy. I have hopes for Molyneux, but I've never known anyone to notice and successfully address this simple departure Joseph takes early on. Many people debating Joseph don't catch his fallacy early enough [at its core] and get bogged down in defending concepts like competition and greed as neutral or even good.

Joseph has always seen the market as a game. He is among those who can't separate market fundamentalism from the market. Market intervention is what creates a system, that which can be gamed. A free market is not a system and can't be gamed. Individuals can game other individuals in a free market, but they can't game the market.

Simply using the term "market necessity" implies that the market itself has become an entity, a thing of needs, something with which to negotiate and game in and of itself separate from its individual participants. Until such a fallacy is addressed, Joseph will never develop a justifiable use for the term "equity" but for confusing "inequitable" for "unjust".

Good point

I think you are substantially correct. He has substituted the straw man of economic theories for the actual market and has imposed the idea of a "system" on that which is the denial of system. As an anarchist, I'm sure Molyneax is used to that and recognized it. Unfortunately, Peter Joseph is also incapable of listening to anything but his own voice, so there could be no debate on any topic.

:D

Thanks for the simple reply. Worthy feedback in kind promotes sanity, and I regard sanity quite highly these days. Your second sentence confers back to me your total understanding of my simple point, well taken. Makes me wonder if this is actually you, narrating this video. Perhaps I'll send it on to Peter Joseph...

Will Zeitgeist and Thrive please just die?

Why is this nonsense continually retread here.

Read Mises and Hayek, no NWO neo-paganist collectivist nonsense like Zeitgeist and Thrive is necessary.

I've been waiting for this

I've been waiting for this debate for like 2 years LOL!

*listens quietly*

"Structural violence" is

"Structural violence" is responsible for the greatest number of deaths worldwide according to Peter. Stefan asks for a definition. Peter gives a very abstract "definition" that boils down to social inequality as a root cause of violence. Again social inequality is such an abstract concept very difficult to define. When you talk about a cause of violence, people are the cause of violence. One person or a group of people take an action to hurt or destroy another person or group of people. So social inequality may be a motivation, but to me it sounds like an excuse to take revenge on those whom you believe to cause your low social standing and an avoidance of personal responsibility.

Eternal Damnation

http://www.structuralviolence.org/structural-violence/

“Structural violence is one way of describing social arrangements that put individuals and populations in harm’s way… The arrangements are structural because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world; they are violent because they cause injury to people … neither culture nor pure individual will is at fault; rather, historically given (and often economically driven) processes and forces conspire to constrain individual agency. Structural violence is visited upon all those whose social status denies them access to the fruits of scientific and social progress.”

It appears to be the penultimate liberal melting-pot euphemism for all potentially theorized non-direct states of victimhood.

It appears the likes of Peter Joseph have us teetering at the precipice of a potentially bottomless abyss.

some quick observations

I don't have time to watch this right now, just caught the first 10 minutes. It sounds fascinating.

I just want to make a quick observation about body language. Stephan's body language comes across as the relaxed confidence of a cultivated being who is at peace with himself. The body language of Peter comes across as adversarial posturing of someone who is internally at war with reality. I am not sure if anyone else will get these impressions, but that is what stood out for me initially.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

You're right.

A lot of what he says seems to be driven by a bad experience he had as an employee at a company that went out of business. He is unwilling to take responsibility for the difficulties he encountered. His response: All my needs should be met without me having to work or be responsible for myself. (That is, I've decided to believe in magic.)

Yep, he's an angry man in

Yep, he's an angry man in need of serious self reflection. He has a good heart though, and he's incredibly talented and intelligent. I wish him well.

(Stefan wiped the floor with him in the "debate".)

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Let's Just Pretend

Peter Joseph's counter to free market capitalism is to simply pretend that the state doesn't exist at all. Very clever argument style, but morally illiterate.

+1 For Stefan

If Stefan is not "on your playlist," what is wrong with you?

Stefan is such a great source of reason and philosophy. His content is so relevant. You must get on board. I can't believe that Stefan is not a top dog on this site.

Always great to see ...

... Stefan in a debate.

And that Peter Joseph ... wow ... reminds me of the sort of ivory tower, condescending, obtuse thinking that a bureaucrat would display.

RE: Joseph vs. Molyneux

The video is extremely frustrating to watch because neither side is really addressing core points.

The core argument is the allocation of resources.

IMO Peter's fundamental argument is resources do not need to be considered scarce if technology can allocate resources in a way which allows everyone to have abundance.

IMO Stefan's fundamental argument is resources are scarce and ought to be allocated in a free market of voluntary exchange using the price mechanism and private ownership.

Both arguments have a fundamental flaw. The flaw of Peter's argument is who gets to decide how to allocate resources. The flaw of Stefan's argument is who gets to decide how aggression is defined. In other words both viewpoints are an intervention of nature. In nature resources are not allocated by technology and violence can be initiated in nature. In order for either system to be effective an intervention of nature is required.

The common denominator of both positions or any other form of social organization is belief. The only logical conclusion is that any system can work if people believe in it. So ... how is a problem, such as uniformity of belief, which seems on its face impossible solved?

The only answer I have is an opinion based on my own observation. I don't know anyone who thinks murder is good. It seems to me whatever system of social organization is based on self evident truth in order to obtain a maximum belief has the best chance of effectively working.

This is right on point

I agree, good post.

Technocracy leads to both total mis-allocation of resources due to bureaucratic corruption and incompetence, as well as total totalitarian control by the sociopathic 'middlemen' that design the system.

True Anarcho Capitalism has a serious accountability issues - lack of clear consensus on how to handle 'bad actors' (including those sociopathic elite wannabees now stripped of state power structures but still extant) that deliberate defraud and are destructive to life, liberty and property leads to uncertainty in the markets and in every aspect of civilization for that matter.

A true decentralized Localist Republic is the limit of 'how stripped down can we get' with any kind of modern state given the current level of human evolution imo.

I think you're right that any

I think you're right that any system can work if people believe in it, but there's only one system that people will believe in because it's natural.

It's not natural to be a slave. No non-domesticated animal prefers captivity or to be systematically deprived of it's resources.

Once resources start to be allocated via government guns, everyone will see that government guns are the real vis maior of the world and seek to control them.

What Stefan means by aggression is quite well defined. He means when discussion ends and someone picks up a weapon.

Humans have predatory instincts as well as cooperative instincts. They can go either way. The cooperative instincts however don't contradict. Everyone can indulge their natural desires without conflict except the ones to aggress on their fellows. That's natural law. So called because it's natural. Preying on your fellow man is natural, but it cannot be law because law must apply to everyone.

It can't be natural law to defend yourself and simultaneously attack others. Preying on your fellow human, thus can neither be a right nor law.

The uniformity of belief can be solved simply. By removing the only gun in the room, and allowing the gun to one special person, if that person wants it.

You, the individual.

When people are free as possible, then you will find the maximum uniformity of belief, if that's what you really want.

But I don't think you do.

I would like that. That's one reason why I want people to be free, to find out what that belief would be.

But usually when people talk about uniformity of belief, what they mean is imposed uniformity of their belief.

One thing we do know is that imposed uniformity has never worked and has caused more human suffering than anything else in the world.

Governments do not come into

spontaneous existence. Name one government that has continued to exist once its services were no longer demanded by anyone?

The definition of a free market is a market absent violence. Not only does such a market not exist in nature it is impossible to exist in nature because violence is a natural part of nature.

The obstacle to achieving maximal belief for any one form of social organization is that no form of social organization is perfect and no one is advocating law of the jungle. Everyone advocates a system which intervenes against nature's laws of the jungle in one way or another. Whether it is eliminating violence or allocating resources by technology is pretty irrelevant in the context of intervening against nature. What is being argued is essentially a pissing contest over which imperfect system is the so called best system.

How is any kind of maximal belief achieved for arguments of imperfection? It is not as simple as removing the gun in the room. Who gets to remove the gun in the room?

Nor is aggression a clear and simple definition. People have all different opinions about what they consider aggression especially if we start talking about threats that do not involve physical harm or property damage. If we throw fraud in the mix .. oh my it only gets more complicated. Do I have an obligation to educate you for free by providing a full and honest disclosure about everything I know because I have taken the time to alleviate my own ignorance at my own expense?

Let's presume for a moment when the Constitution was ratified people were as free as possible and had a maximum uniformity of belief. What did they create? A government which has racked up the most debt of any nation on earth ever not mentioning any other present tyrannies.

The law of the jungle is what everyone BUT us wants

You want systematic predation.

We want none whatsoever.

No form of belief is perfect, but we can determine which is natural and optimal, by seeing what free men do when no one has a monopoly on violence.

And anyhow, why is conformity of belief so important to you? That's rhetorical of course, we know the why of your lust for others to conform.

As for your definition of aggression being as "I have something you covet, and refusing to give it to you", you have essentially justified any act of predation as 'self defense'.

That's why that is a nonsensical definition of aggression.

The only meaningful definition of aggression is what everyone understands to be aggression, and it is certainly the one we mean.

When you cannot convince me to do something voluntarily and threaten violence, or don't even care to bother to try to convince me.

The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the “survival of the fittest” to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The “fit” in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The “fit” on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle’s destructive competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one’s self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the “weak” to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the “strong” in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful “struggle” of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence.

Man, Economy, and State - Murray Rothbard

That post is pretty

absurd ...

Who is we?

I want? I think there is a fallacy about erecting a strawman. How do you derive "I want" out of anything in my opening post? I simply asserted what I consider self evident observations of nature and then concluded since resource allocation in nature occurs by law of the jungle any system devised by humans is an intervention against nature. Seems like a pretty basic observation to me. I then concluded that if all of these systems devised by humans are imperfect they are sustained by belief. I then concluded that isn't a very solvable problem and if an effective system does require belief it better be about as self evident as murder is bad.

You are coming back with a bunch of non-arguments. My comments about aggression meaning different things to many people was not me defining aggression. I asserted aggression has no universal precise definition because it means a lot of things to different people. Shit man, I posted a comment recently in a thread about a news article in Montana where consensual sex with a minor was characterized as rape. That constitutes evidence on the Daily Paul aggression has no precise and consistent definition because all people do not agree on what precisely constitutes aggression. Where is your rebutting evidence that all people agree to one definition of aggression? Your point is absurd. It is even more absurd you would erect a another straw man claiming it is my definition.

"The only meaningful definition of aggression is what everyone understands to be aggression" ... and what is that meaningful definition precisely? How is someone supposed to respond to some absurd BS definition where the same term is used in the definition? Try presenting a definition of aggression all people agree with that doesn't use the term aggression in the definition.

I am a huge fan of Murry but even Murray can be imperfect. It only takes one question to point it out ...

Does the free market exist in nature because a market absent violence is natural?

The answer of course is a self evident no. Violence is permissible in nature. Murray's description of the laws of the jungle and all that is ... hogwash. Voluntary exchange is also permissible in nature so to say the laws of the jungle are exclusively survival of the fittest is ... hogwash. The laws of the jungle include everything that is permissible in nature including violence and voluntary exchange. Murray would have us believe the laws of the jungle do not include everything that is permissible in nature but only the violent aspects. Like I said ... it is hogwash.

A free market which is by definition absent violence is an intervention against nature. The question then becomes who gets to eliminate violence? If you answer the individual do not pass Go and proceed directly to ... belief.

In the video Stefan was very clear ... don't misrepresent his position. Don't misrepresent mine. In the video Stefan was very clear when an argument was actually made and when words were just being tossed around. If you have an argument to make then make it. Don't just toss terms around.

Edit: I almost forget. My point about free men creating the United States still stands unchallenged. I think it can also be presumed cave men were free and at some point along the way started forming tribes. I'd say it is pretty probable what began as tribes evolved into the modern day state.

There's a difference between

There's a difference between a straw man and an assumption. Not that I expect you to understand this, but for the casual reader.

It's true that I didn't have proof that you are a statist when I wrote that, but I assumed it was true. You have done much to confirm that belief.

Definitions. Aggression is understood. And it is well understood. Because if the meaning of aggression is that I have something that you want, but don't want to convince me to give up, then everything is aggression. PJ's faux fallacy of truncation is belied by his genuine fallacy. To whit, there is not one thing that another person does, that you don't like, that cannot be construed as aggression. This creates a contradiction and renders this definition, as PJ puts it, 'moot'.

To be clear, this definition creates a contradiction in that, it defines everything. There is nothing that can be said to be not aggression. This is a nonsense definition. Worthy of collectivists.

You do have a point, the free market is an intervention against nature. It denies the part of us that is evil, toe collectivist part, the predatory part. It embraces the part of us that is cooperative.

Predation cannot be a right. We cannot all share the 'right' to prey on our brothers and sisters. Predation is a privilege.

All else in our nature we can however respect. The things we desire which do not conflict with our brothers and sisters similar pursuit.

The things are rights. Rights don't conflict with other people having them.

Also yes the market attracts predators. Freedom smells like vulnerability to the would be ruling class. The Constitution didn't last. It lasted until capitalists figured out how to dupe the sheeple into supporting a progressive government.

But now they likely couldn't. They couldn't sell the war against Mexico, or WW1, or even WW2 today. With the internet? They barely sold the Iraqi slaughter, and people were still monopoly media centric then.

There is a difference between

making a presumption and presuming the belief's of an individual. Not that I expect you to understand this, but for the casual reader check out "Poisoning the well" under "Ad hominem"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

"It's true that I didn't have proof that you are a statist when I wrote that, but I assumed it was true. You have done much to confirm that belief."

Ya ok ... feel free to back that assertion up at any time ...

Let me just break down what you wrote in English:

"It's true that I didn't have proof ... when I wrote that"

Check ...

"but I assumed it was true"

Are you in the regular habit of assuming any ol garden variety bull shit that blows your way without proof is true?

I also noticed you are still defining aggression using the term aggression. The burden of proof is not on me. I am not asserting there is a universally precise concept of aggression.

I claimed the opposite and provided an example. Is consensual sex between an adult and a minor aggression? What constitutes a minor and adult? Are all threats aggression? What constitutes a threat? Is fraud aggression? What constitutes fraud?

Instead of regurgitating definitions which include the same term as the one being defined how about providing specific definitions to clearly illustrate all people agree with your definition of aggression.

If you are going to label someone a statist perhaps you should find a mirror. Asserting vague terms or phrases that have no precise meaning in any context to limit government which are often found in constitutions is they type of shit I would expect from a statist.

I can use ad hominem's too ...

You say I have a point that a free market exists within the framework of nature which is a system where violence is permissible. Who gets to exclude violence? Who gets to decide what forms of violence are excluded? You?

The thing I find interesting about this exchange is that I only originally posted to comment what a let down the video was because the core issue ... allocation of resources was not even debated.

Why is that important? Because a free market system can only emerge when it is believed to be in peoples best interests. How many people? I have no idea. It is like answering how many people does it take using a currency to become money

Ron Paul preaches that same exact thing all the time does he not? Does Ron not proselytize government reflects the will of the people?

If that is the case isn't it important to actually debate a core issue and not side issues? That is the basis for my original comment and here I am responding to someone who believes any ol bs without proof calling me a statist ... roflol I must be losing my mind to even be replying to you.

For shits and giggles rate this thread I created a little while back on a statism scale of 1(Anarchist)-10(Statist):

http://www.dailypaul.com/298897/explaining-to-a-10-year-old-...

Last I checked I'm not required to prove an assumption:D

Unless I label it as a proof or fact, which I did not. You smelled statisty and you still do.

The reason it is and will remain an assumption is because I'm not going to cyberstalk you to prove you are, to find some post to say "ahah! see you're a statist!" Not just because it would be silly, but because I have better things to do.

From the post you linked, you have good anti-establishment instincts but your anti-authoritarian impulses remain questionable.

This isn't said with any malice. I get along with many statists and respect them. Also if you're not, and it matters to you please correct me.

Usually when people criticize Stef for something other than his ego, (which I find somewhat charming, but I know many people do not) it's a sign they are still mired up in the the religion of statolatry. Partly the reason for my assumption.

Specifically Mr AM. It seems to me that the people who are caught up in who the bad guys are, race, religion, hell for some, even human or not, are sort of missing the point. After all what difference does it make if it's whites, blacks, jews, evangelicals, pagans, satanists, reptillians, or shadow men doing the bad stuff?

Bad stuff is bad.

But more than that, when someone focuses on who, like JP, it is often a sign that they just want to replace the current bad guys with themselves or at least bad guys more to their liking. They aren't anti-authoritarian, they are just anti- the CURRENT - establishment.

I have no use for that. I want to solve the problem for everyone. Not just change the person wearing the hat.

The only thing

you have presumed is my beliefs which has already been pointed out to be a form of ad hominem.

It is impossible to set forth a premise which is not self evident. Humans act is self evident and unrefuted. All humans agree to a universal definition of aggression is not self evident. I asserted murder is bad is self evident. I did not assert all humans agree upon the definition of murder because it is self evident they don't. Some people call killing or manslaughter what others call murder.

Your claim there is a universally understood definition of aggression is not a presumption. It was a rebutted assertion which used the same term in the definition. He who asserts ... bears the burden of proof.

"From the post you linked, you have good anti-establishment instincts but your anti-authoritarian impulses remain questionable."

I am reducing a complex legal concept most people never grasp down to a simple picture. To reduce complex concepts in a way that is easily understandable requires complete mastery of the subject matter.

"and it matters to you please correct me"

It doesn't matter to me one bit. I am who I am.

"You smelled statisty and you still do."

You smell like every other libertarian or minarchist hypocrite I know. Hypocrite libertarians who rail against the state but choose to exist and operate within the framework of the state. Do you know what their answer is when asked why? They say it is because they would be persecuted if they didn't. They say it is too difficult. You know why that is so ludicrous? Because you can't trust a hypocrite that does not have the courage to act upon their own beliefs or principals. Am I supposed to believe a hypocrite who claims we would be much better off without the state but takes no risk to achieve a stateless society? Am I supposed to believe such a hypocrite would defend themselves or neighbors against a local mafia should one arise in the absence of a state (as if the wealth of Bill Gates or profits derived from capitalism make such a thing impossible)? Am I supposed to believe such a hypocrite who is too afraid to do that which is difficult? When is anything easy? Hypocrites possess the mentality that supported Hitler and went along with every other tyrannical regime because how can we possibly oppose such a powerful regime? Just like the DoI states ... mankind are more disposed to suffer.

I can assure you that I believe hypocrite libertarians just as much as I believe hypocrite minarchists who espouse the United States is a Republic as if those people are going to act like armed sheep defending themselves from wolves. There is a term for hypocrites who rail against the state but are too afraid to resist or oppose the state ... conformist. And this nation of spineless conformists has the gall to think they can elect a spineless conformist who will miraculously and spontaneously somehow grow a spine while in political office ... give me a break.

Such people are not people who change the world nor is any conformist a threat to power. The world is changed by deeds not words and people who only have words are piggybacking on people doing the deeds. The American Revolution did not prevail on words, it was done by deed. There have always been people like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc. but it is people who get the shit beaten out of them in police abuse videos or some other persecution who are doing all of the heavy lifting. Ron Paul has been talking about the same BS for over three decades. Who was listening twenty years ago? Why are they listening now? Because the amount of tyranny has become so plainly obvious it is inescapable. Yet despite all of these blatant trespasses against liberty do people rise up to organize against them? Few do ... the rest are conformists and they always will be. I am not counted among them.

In any event, I won't be responding anymore to your drivel. I already know there is no universally understood definition of aggression and continuing to respond to someone who believes any ol BS that blows their way and now wants to discuss how I smell ... serves no purpose I am interested in.

I sometimes forget the effect of belief in paradox

I didn't say the definition was 'self evident'.

You can be saved by logic. I hope you do. If you don't listen to me still consider taking a class in formal logic.

In logic there is proof by contradiction. If you can show that a proposition creates a contradiction, then the opposite must be true.

In brains destroyed by positivist thought, specifically progressivism, they can hold contradictory ideas simultaneously without much dissonance. Certainly you are trained that morality is such that your masters may steal from you, kill you, or cage you, and it is never ok for you to do those things. If you're into conspiracy crap google trivium. But whether by design or accident, most people have been conditioned to accept paradox. We know, because you do Mr American Majesty and you're smarter than the average bear. But your ability to use that intelligence to help yourself is truncated by belief in paradox. Once you accept paradox as reasonable, you become a tool.

The slave mindset requires belief in paradox. Many slaves do not internalize this, they give it lip service. Many men do, and once they internalize this anti-logical concept, there is little reason anymore to doubt any paradox. It is not without reason that collectivist societies abound with 'woo'.

I'm trying to tell you something. I'm appealing to your humanity. Not in the sense I want you to be charitable. In the sense I want you to be human, and reject the mentality of livestock.

You're angry, I get that. But your anger at we who remind you that you are a slave, is very much misplaced. You behave as livestock. Anyone that lies to you wants to use you. A system that lies to you, is called slavery.

Paradox.

If aggression is anything other than the commonly understood definition, it creates a paradox. A contradiction.

Simply if anyone who fails to provide whatever someone else wants is 'aggression' then everything can be aggression, and the word is meaningless. If the word means nothing, then it has no definition by .. definition:)

All of this is paradox and shows that the definition of aggression or violence as 'structural violence' renders all of these terms meaningless.

I know you are smart enough to get this. I know because you're annoyed with me but unable to logically point out what it is. You are capable of logic, but have been trained not to use logic.

For example: Anyone who voices belief in Democracy has SURELY had their logic lobotomized. FFS wth does popular opinion have to do with right and wrong?

Yet 'democracy' is held out as virtue of the highest order!

EDIT: I should add you have not disclaimed statism. I'm not complaining, but pointing it out. I very much trust a statist of the Constitutional variety over someone who won't claim a position. In fact I trust an avowed ansyn over someone who won't admit their position. I have a lot in common with ansyns and ancoms. So far as I can see, VP is just ansyn with star wars camouflage.

This is the kind of drivel I refer to ....

"Belief in paradox."

Give me a break.

"You can be saved by logic"

Give me a break.

"Certainly you are trained that morality is such that your masters may steal from you, kill you, or cage you, and it is never ok for you to do those things"

Give me a break.

"You're angry, I get that."

Give me a break.

"A system that lies to you, is called slavery."

A system that lies is called dishonest. When force is used against you without your consent that is called slavery. When anyone other than you exercises any member of the bundle of rights which attach to property ownership over your property without your consent that is called slavery.

"If aggression is anything other than the commonly understood definition"

Anything "commonly understood" can be defined with precision. Apparently you are incapable of doing so yet continue to assert aggression has a universally understood definition when it doesn't.

"I know because you're annoyed with me"

Annoyed is the not the right word. I have a lack of interest debating drivel.

"Yet 'democracy' is held out as virtue of the highest order!"

Free market capitalism is pure democracy.

I require a drivel translator to explain the point of your post.

wow

Listening to Peter Joseph gives me the image of verbose diarrhea. He keeps spewing out words which are not in existence. Economic manifold???

I love it.

I love when people make arguments more complex than they really are in hopes that people will assume they are right just because they use a lot of complex sentences and big words. I forget where I heard it, but I recall someone once saying "If you can't explain something in simple terms, then you don't really understand it."

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Anybody

have a link to, or a method of reducing the file size? I'd like to listen to the whole show while driving to/from work, but 330 megs is a LARGE file!

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav