Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
    I just picked my way through this vid, a snippit at a time. I must say that I am a regular listener of Stefan's and a fan, big fan.

    You guys should listen to his podcast of a month or two ago where he defends Ayn Rand. It's very, very good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years ago
      Now I probably will watch/listen to both. As I said he sounds eclectic. I'm not surprised to find he spoke on Rand. I'd like to see how/if it's consistent with the post in question.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
        Since he has been outspoken on this particular subject "IP must die" I hesitate to trust his ability to make a philosophical argument for capitalism which would be a moral one. If you do not support property rights, that conversation would be very short
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years ago
          This, and your other comment may save me some time watching this. At least, closely and with interest.

          "IP must die" and "libertarian perspective" pretty much do it for me. As a young but fairly far along Objectivist I attended my first (and last) Libertarian Party meeting in Ann Arbor, MI in 1971. 'Nuf said.

          I may still grit my teeth and listen to his Podcast on Rand. See how he mangles that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
            it's pretty good-of course he brings it around to himself quickly :) I actually have enjoyed some of his stuff. but there was one where he basically came unglued and I haven't watched any since.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
              That made me laugh (your comment). I've heard him get worked up a few times. For me...any of the podcasts I listen to are for entertainment, mainly. The occasional Alex Jones meltdown can be fun (but I have a strange sense of humor). I like how Stefan reiterates that government is force, and a few other fundamentals. I think he's basically just an anarchist...not that there's anything wrong with that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
                well, although I appreciate your thinking abaco, I respectfully disagree that there is nothing wrong with anarchy and so would Rand. Property rights are essential to capitalism
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
                  I was joking. I am no philosophy expert. We'll never have anarchy. Right? So, I consider it a moot point.

                  I do agree with him that government is force. Watch his video, "The Story of Your Enslavement" to get a good sample of where he's coming from. For me, the video rings very true. I think it explains a lot.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
                    I appreciate the dissonance in that argument. there should always be healthy skepticism in thinking about govt. but property rights can only exist if there is an enforcement mechanism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
                      I like having that enforcement mechanism. But, I also think government should only really do things like secure the border, fix potholes, enforce basic laws, but not much more. At this point we are no longer a country, but have become just a big government. As just one example - the biggest employer in California is the State of California. Argh! I am sure you get all that, though.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 9 years ago
    He doesn't seem to even be able to articulate what he WANTS to do, let alone WHY.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
      you hit the nail on the head salty. that was my take as well. the person started with a problem: he wasn't enjoying his business. From there, he was unable to get down to root cause of his frustration. He grasped at the concept of money (I suspect he is a secret hater of money as the source of evil) and from there he ran with it. The problem that I discerned was unhappiness because he was not getting to interact with people as much as he wanted to. He uses the negotiation of price as a way to interact. It's novel, and certainly can happen within capitalism but is inefficient. How then he makes the leap that no one should have money and tests why that not be a great idea (ie investing) is just lazy and sloppy thinking. That Molinouix starts with a big discussion of funding his blog is partly why I don't appreciate him because he ignores telling his audience that those who watch his videos and don't donate 50 cents help him attain advertising dollars and spread his name. bah! also, he' uses 500x more words than necessary and sometimes never gets to the point. I always have to fast forward.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years ago
    It is not possible to arrive at this conclusion logically, consistently and with any evidence. But it's been said before, and i doubt there are any new arguments in this video. As i am not the most patient man in the world, and my time is valuable, I'm not sure I could watch it. But I might just out of curiosity, to see if there is ANYTHING I may not have heard before. Doubt it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
      the problem really is-the answer comes from a libertarian perspective-therefore philosophical short cuts. capitalism, because there isn't anything better-not because it is a moral system. Money-well that's a pragmatic concern-not because it is good (by that I mean proper currency not determined by the state). I have discussions with younger libertarians who are convinced determining prices for value exchange is not good because you cannot ever know what someone else will value things at. It's a weak argument without addressing value for value exchange in the first place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago
    I do not understand this at all. Eliminating the medium of exchange won't stop people from trading stuff. It just makes it harder. People would barter. Then they would start using something most people use, like gasoline, as a medium of exchange. Then they'd made contracts to deliver gasoline in the near future. As the numbers of goods and services grew, they'd find a way to expand the supply to gasoline contracts to be more than the actual gasoline produced. They'd make them in convenient wallet-sized and electronically tradable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo