I liked this video. Definitely a bit dark when you consider it, and it's not the whole picture. But it does give a good outlook into governments, freedom, and taxation (whether enslavement, 100% tax, or any tax less than that).
I thought the bit saying "the smallest governments end up the largest" was very intruiging, and potentially partly true.
Topic: The Story of Your Enslavement (Read 2408 times)
We are enslaved by fear and doubt. It's what makes us human. We must find love to be free. We must find the truth.
Wait a minute. Wasn't there someone who made a promise that you shall know the truth, and that the truth shall make you free?
Chuck Norris?
We are enslaved by fear and doubt. It's what makes us human. We must find love to be free. We must find the truth.
Wait a minute. Wasn't there someone who made a promise that you shall know the truth, and that the truth shall make you free?
Yeah, I was talking about concepts derived from reality, not about what holy pieces of paper say.
The state still enforced criminal law and tax payment. They just did not think commercial law was the state's business. The standard interpretation is that lack of state intervention in Chinese commerce helps explain why Western countries got rich first.
So then, I guess (by extension) explaining why Western countries are now the first to get poor, while China is gets rich, merely involves pointing out that Western countries no longer regulate commerce, like $600 trillion in fraudulent derivatives for instance, and instead subsidize it.
Subsidies are a form of regulation, if we are to understand that regulation means third-party intervention in other people's affairs. They're just a form of UP-regulation (incentive) rather than DOWN-regulation (threat of punishment). Just because the activity in question is regulated to generate MORE fraud, doesn't mean that the activity isn't being regulated.
Meddling in other people's affairs ALWAYS brings unintended consequences.
The state still enforced criminal law and tax payment. They just did not think commercial law was the state's business. The standard interpretation is that lack of state intervention in Chinese commerce helps explain why Western countries got rich first.
So then, I guess (by extension) explaining why Western countries are now the first to get poor, while China is gets rich, merely involves pointing out that Western countries no longer regulate commerce, like $600 trillion in fraudulent derivatives for instance, and instead subsidize it.
Along with any reputation built up with that name. The long con, a la Pirate, is a problem, but few will have the time to invest in something like that, and no pseudonym is perfect. Just ask Trendon Shavers.
Have you ever lived in a developing country where there is no effective market regulation (not like in Singapore or the US or even Silk Road for that matter)?
Bascially, every non-repeated txn involves either a) swindling the swindler b) being swindled. Swindling is a contest of wits. It is a big waste.
Okay you say, just make repeated txns. Well what if I want to leave my village? Then what the fuck do I do?
Okay, maybe I come from an important town or ethnic group. My town or ethnic group has enforcement associations in other communities. They will help mediate my txns. Then I can do business elsewhere.
What if I'm not lucky enough to be born somewhere important? Should I just farm my plot and stay in my village?
This is how markets were organized in China prior to the 20th century by the way. Private, nonviolent enforcement of contract law through reputation. It limited long-distance trade to people originating from a handful of famous communities. Shouldn't everyone have the right to be an entrepreneur? Why set up such an unfair playing field?
[Don't get carried away here. The state still enforced criminal law and tax payment. They just did not think commercial law was the state's business. The standard interpretation is that lack of state intervention in Chinese commerce helps explain why Western countries got rich first.]
2) Who said anything about anonymity? Pseudonymity is sufficient.
The point is, if a person does not know who to retaliate against then no retaliation can occur. Retaliation of someone using a false name would only cause that person to lose that name.
Along with any reputation built up with that name. The long con, a la Pirate, is a problem, but few will have the time to invest in something like that, and no pseudonym is perfect. Just ask Trendon Shavers.
2) Who said anything about anonymity? Pseudonymity is sufficient.
The point is, if a person does not know who to retaliate against then no retaliation can occur. Retaliation of someone using a false name would only cause that person to lose that name.
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.
Beneficial to whom?
I did this MRI many times and some people could grasp the concept of what to normally but some people had either a steep learning curve or they would not understand at all. I feel that tit-for-tat has 2 flaws.
1) Some people take offence to different things. I wanted a 50/50 split of the profits I sent to Bob, so if I sent 20 units and now Bob has 60 units, they better send me back 30 units or I will retaliate (i.e. not give them any units the next round). I have seen people get angry with overs from what they feel is offensive as they lost face and that offence could become violent. Humans are emotional creatures, not rational ones.
2. If there are no repercussions then there is no fear of reprisals. Anonymity cannot exist. If reprisals are OK then some kind of surveillance is required to give proof, otherwise anyone can say, "this person stole my things, I get to steal there things." It is similar to, "this person is a witch, we should burn them," when in reality the accuser is just angry at the accused.
1) Some people take offence to different things. I wanted a 50/50 split of the profits I sent to Bob, so if I sent 20 units and now Bob has 60 units, they better send me back 30 units or I will retaliate (i.e. not give them any units the next round). I have seen people get angry with overs from what they feel is offensive as they lost face and that offence could become violent. Humans are emotional creatures, not rational ones.
2. If there are no repercussions then there is no fear of reprisals. Anonymity cannot exist. If reprisals are OK then some kind of surveillance is required to give proof, otherwise anyone can say, "this person stole my things, I get to steal there things." It is similar to, "this person is a witch, we should burn them," when in reality the accuser is just angry at the accused.
1) cross-cultural communication has always had this sort of problem.
2) Who said anything about anonymity? Pseudonymity is sufficient.
Beneficial to the physically stronger one? I'm sure we could agree that there are some things that are more easily attainable through violence, so the question should be about the magnitude of this benefit.
Yeah... Might makes right worked so well for most of history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.
Neither is such a hypothesis correct, nor did the video ever suggest it either. The video just said that propaganda-based slavery was more efficient than chattel-based slavery -- that's it. At no point in time did the video claim that slavery was more efficient than non-slavery.
Please, re-watch it and realize this.
I may have used the wrong verb there. The video suggests that the whole ordeal is, not only to create the best exploitation mechanism, but also to cultivate the most efficient set of subjects to be exploited. The video doesn't say that we should expect a free society to be less (or more) efficient, yet I thought it was almost apparent.
I'm more interested in why you think the hypothesis is incorrect though. Also, is a free society that is trying to compete with the production power and military might of the slave society to even preserve its existence would actually count as free?
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.
Beneficial to whom?
Beneficial to the physically stronger one? I'm sure we could agree that there are some things that are more easily attainable through violence, so the question should be about the magnitude of this benefit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.
Neither is such a hypothesis correct, nor did the video ever suggest it either. The video just said that propaganda-based slavery was more efficient than chattel-based slavery -- that's it. At no point in time did the video claim that slavery was more efficient than non-slavery.
Please, re-watch it and realize this.
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.
Beneficial to whom?
And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.
I tried that game with someone else on the other side of the world while I was in an MRI. The Alice 20 units and said whatever you give Bob will triple and they give back however much they want. The more units the user had at the end, the more real money they study would give the participants.
I am sure my MRI showed revenge. If I gave Bob all 20 units they would either keep it all or give me only a small profit, instead of splitting it evenly.
I did this MRI many times and some people could grasp the concept of what to normally but some people had either a steep learning curve or they would not understand at all. I feel that tit-for-tat has 2 flaws.
1) Some people take offence to different things. I wanted a 50/50 split of the profits I sent to Bob, so if I sent 20 units and now Bob has 60 units, they better send me back 30 units or I will retaliate (i.e. not give them any units the next round). I have seen people get angry with overs from what they feel is offensive as they lost face and that offence could become violent. Humans are emotional creatures, not rational ones.
2. If there are no repercussions then there is no fear of reprisals. Anonymity cannot exist. If reprisals are OK then some kind of surveillance is required to give proof, otherwise anyone can say, "this person stole my things, I get to steal there things." It is similar to, "this person is a witch, we should burn them," when in reality the accuser is just angry at the accused.
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.
Beneficial to whom?
And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.
Beneficial to people living in Singapore who care about getting wealthy above all and don't give a fuck about moral structure of any kind. Convince them that Anarchism will help them get rich and you can convert the whole nation of Arch-Statists in a New York minute. So far they are doing pretty well with Statism of the most extreme kind.
That success makes them a little skeptical of people who criticize the State. After all, how can you exploit third-world peons without State violence. What? You don't want to exploit them. But exploiting them is so profitable.
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.
Beneficial to whom?
And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.
You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.
So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?
To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.
Am I being too pessimistic?
You hit the argument to the video head on. The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence. The strong try to conquer the weak. If people can get away with it, they will lie, cheat, and steal. The weak can assemble to become strong, but then they conquer the new weak players. This is how the world works.
The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.
You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.
So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?
To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.
Am I being too pessimistic?
Just look what happened to land values in the South when the Union won the civil war. Extremely valuable cotton-growing land plummeted in value. You can't pick cotton efficiently without coercive labor arrangements. Same goes for sugar cane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.
You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.
So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?
To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.
Am I being too pessimistic?
A wise man once said.
"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."
Nietzche also said
Quote
Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
A wise man once said.
"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."
Nietzche also said
Quote
Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
A wise man once said.
"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."
Great clip! Stefan Molyneux rocks.
"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy conversation in the world. http://www.freedomainradio.com"
Very very good video.
Very very good video.
Perfect.
OP, take notes. You too, Bitware.
"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy conversation in the world. http://www.freedomainradio.com"
Very very good video.
Very very good video.
Does anyone really watch random Youtube videos posted to forums with no explanation or intoduction?
Well, Let's find out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
In the future, could we at least get a sentence, answering the "5 Ws"? (Who, What, When, Why, & Where) kthx.
Does anyone really watch random Youtube videos posted to forums with no explanation or intoduction?
We are enslaved by fear and doubt. It's what makes us human. We must find love to be free. We must find the truth.
Bmup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t
A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.
Jump to: