I'm a U.S. freedom fighter. I don't have a job, car, or house. I get bye holding signs on the side of the road. I basically got tired of working getting a little ahead, and then having it all taken away from me, over and over again. I started seeing what this guy is talking about. I don't cooperate.
I think a Thaddeus Russell v Stefan Molyneux debate on 'Freedom, Morality/Virtue & Happiness' would be fascinating. I am personally very torn and that debate may help in my gaining clarity and consistency with these things.
to a certain extent and sphere yes .. i agree with that assessment...yet i cant help but think that the role of us self-organizing and self repressing does half the job for those contractual conniving vampires ... .
rctube1958 absolutely.... this guy claims to be lorded as a teacher. He probably is, because his audience is people who are too young to have done anything with their lives. He’s a complete dud. A tosser. A little boy who never grew up.
The problem isn't the work ethic. It is the fact that too many people "believe" in the right for there to be a ruling class to rule over us and treat us like slaves a/k/a government politicians.
+Silicondoc Are the urban poor "elitist and sheltered" because they've never been on a farm? I may have missed your point, but not having ever been on a farm certainly doesn't make you elitist...
Silicondoc I have heard him say in a podcast that he doesn't know a single Republican. I like Thad, but often get the impression that he has indeed spent his life in a California leftist bubble.
Very interesting lecture. I would like though to point out the difference of talking about worker self management under capitalism or under anarchist-communism. I agree with the point Thaddeus Russell makes about worker self management being self enslavement in the capitalist system. But in anarchist-communism that would be a completely different discussion as the economy would be organized in a much different way relieving most of the work from workers. Like argued by Peter Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. That is needs first, production later. Basically not producing bunch of crap, that a lot of money has to spent to make people want and make someone else rich. That way workers would have much more time to engage in other activities of their own choosing. I would also like to note that in the communist system the workers do not all have to be managers, the managers can be elected like was done in the anarchist zones during Spanish Revolution.
Thank you for watching the video and your thoughtful comment. I do think it's important to point out the difference between capitalism in a truly free market without an authoritarian monopoly state and the mercantilist cronyism masquerading as 'capitalism' we have had up to now . While I see no reason to oppose the forming of co-operative groups (call them collectives if you like) among willing participants for their own perceived benefit, I get nervous when 'the communist system, is championed as way of organizing human activity. How do you keep coercion out of that 'system', the word itself implies some form of central planning, this is demonstrably unworkable.
Paul Gibbons Thank you for your response. People both in the East and the West have been raised to believe that communism has to mean central planning and coercion. This is not true though, the original meaning being a stateless, classless, moneyless socioeconomic system based on the common ownership of the means of production. What you are talking about when meaning authoritarianism and central planning is Marxism. The Marxist though having the goal of achieving communism want to do it by taking over the state and gradually progressing into communism. We both know that they have never achieved that and always ended up as tyrants. The Anarchists from the beginning criticized that plan heavily. The heated debates between Marxists and Anarchists lead by Bakunin in the First International being a good example. The anarchist warning about how the power would corrupt them. Anarchist-communism is a whole another approach to this than Marxism. They want to move into communism right away in revolution and destroy the state. Peter Kropotkin explained this approach in great detail in The Conquest of Bread. This has also been implemented in Spain and Ukraine. Being very successful for the time it lasted.
slavik4666 It's good that we both agree that central planning is unworkable. I do believe a stateless society can be achieved once people are no longer conditioned to accept political authority. I also believe that class can be eliminated in a similar fashion once our lives are not tied to the influence peddling and favoritism of the old regime. But how do you prevent the creation of money without coercion? We need a simple and predictable way to measure value that is not arbitrarily assigned by someone else (that just becomes central planning again). Honest money allows an economy to put an accurate value on resources therefore ensuring that they will be rationally allocated. The state prevents the use of honest money, without government honest money would work.
Alright, devil's advocate here. The condemnation against not working here comes because not working implies freeloading, living off of someone else's labor. Someone working allows people to break free of that and become independent. Work ethics should be considered a good thing as they teach self-responsibility and self-discipline, giving it a very civilizing effect.
Judge Bastiat indeed. I get the point of moralizing work, but he comes off here as basically encouraging not working. I wonder if he realizes that the countries he praises are not leaders in innovation like the US or even many Asian countries now are, and so they only have their society enriched by those countries with stronger work ethic.
Thaddeus makes some good points. I think though that it's important to remember that the production that has produced the abundance of modern society has not been that of the groups he champions. They've played an important role but should not be elevated to some kind of role models, which Thaddeus seems to do.
The underlying principle he is championing here is the idea of free markets. If a workplace is too boring and unrewarding, workers have the power to re-negotiate the terms as they see fit. A meeting of the minds is necessary to achieve a valid contract and the employer is free to find other workers. If everyone always accepts the status quo, there would be no human progress, that is the entire point of his book. Nowhere does he support the socialist state or the concept of welfare.
I thought the sex thing was to compel people to make something of themselves (working for the king) to “earn” the right to be with a woman - monogamy being enforced to prop up that framework. If we could just have sex cause we want to, how hard would we work?
"*Every* worker is selling their body" (re: prostitution) Yuuup, if Liberderpians didn't redefine words and phrases at-will, they wouldn't have shit for an argument.
@Toro Scatenato So you respond to my comment on redefining words by comparing a manager or a doctor to a prostitute. Proving all 3 of my conclusions in one swoop. bravo, dumbshit
Yeah, Europeans work less than Americans, not because they are not puritans. It’s because their governments are socialists, and as a result there are laws against compelling employees to work more than a certain number of hours. I guess if this libertarian included that little fact, it would ruin his libertarian argument. This guy also talks about freedom and at the same time argues that slaves in the south didn’t have it so bad. This guy is off his rocker.
Ok, he's a carbon copy parrot on the goatie beard - he's totally owned by society with the BLACK SUIT - it's got to be "BLACK" - hell try to find a non black computer - black is beautiful and black is for the mind slave. I will give him one point for the weak sideburns.
His book would make a great documentary series.
I'm a U.S. freedom fighter. I don't have a job, car, or house. I get bye holding signs on the side of the road. I basically got tired of working getting a little ahead, and then having it all taken away from me, over and over again.
I started seeing what this guy is talking about. I don't cooperate.
Damn shame the room wasn't packed to standing room only. Great talk with many thought provoking points.
One of the most enlightening talks I've heard in a long time.
I think a Thaddeus Russell v Stefan Molyneux debate on 'Freedom, Morality/Virtue & Happiness' would be fascinating. I am personally very torn and that debate may help in my gaining clarity and consistency with these things.
We work more not because of the puritanical work ethic, but because there is constant inflation by central banks, and theft of buying power.
to a certain extent and sphere yes .. i agree with that assessment...yet i cant help but think that the role of us self-organizing and self repressing does half the job for those contractual conniving vampires ... .
A lecture and beliefs best suited to college students.
rctube1958 absolutely.... this guy claims to be lorded as a teacher. He probably is, because his audience is people who are too young to have done anything with their lives. He’s a complete dud. A tosser. A little boy who never grew up.
The problem isn't the work ethic. It is the fact that too many people "believe" in the right for there to be a ruling class to rule over us and treat us like slaves a/k/a government politicians.
This guy is a true SubGenius.
17:02 " I've never really been on a farm but that's what I've heard. "
WOW.
Well, the elitism and sheltered living must be just awesome.
+Silicondoc Are the urban poor "elitist and sheltered" because they've never been on a farm? I may have missed your point, but not having ever been on a farm certainly doesn't make you elitist...
Silicondoc I have heard him say in a podcast that he doesn't know a single Republican. I like Thad, but often get the impression that he has indeed spent his life in a California leftist bubble.
Does that discredit his argument? The man is making a point about our toxic work culture am I right????
Very interesting lecture. I would like though to point out the difference of talking about worker self management under capitalism or under anarchist-communism. I agree with the point Thaddeus Russell makes about worker self management being self enslavement in the capitalist system. But in anarchist-communism that would be a completely different discussion as the economy would be organized in a much different way relieving most of the work from workers. Like argued by Peter Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. That is needs first, production later. Basically not producing bunch of crap, that a lot of money has to spent to make people want and make someone else rich. That way workers would have much more time to engage in other activities of their own choosing. I would also like to note that in the communist system the workers do not all have to be managers, the managers can be elected like was done in the anarchist zones during Spanish Revolution.
Thank you for watching the video and your thoughtful comment. I do think it's important to point out the difference between capitalism in a truly free market without an authoritarian monopoly state and the mercantilist cronyism masquerading as 'capitalism' we have had up to now . While I see no reason to oppose the forming of co-operative groups (call them collectives if you like) among willing participants for their own perceived benefit, I get nervous when 'the communist system, is championed as way of organizing human activity. How do you keep coercion out of that 'system', the word itself implies some form of central planning, this is demonstrably unworkable.
Paul Gibbons Thank you for your response. People both in the East and the West have been raised to believe that communism has to mean central planning and coercion. This is not true though, the original meaning being a stateless, classless, moneyless socioeconomic system based on the common ownership of the means of production.
What you are talking about when meaning authoritarianism and central planning is Marxism. The Marxist though having the goal of achieving communism want to do it by taking over the state and gradually progressing into communism. We both know that they have never achieved that and always ended up as tyrants.
The Anarchists from the beginning criticized that plan heavily. The heated debates between Marxists and Anarchists lead by Bakunin in the First International being a good example. The anarchist warning about how the power would corrupt them.
Anarchist-communism is a whole another approach to this than Marxism. They want to move into communism right away in revolution and destroy the state. Peter Kropotkin explained this approach in great detail in The Conquest of Bread. This has also been implemented in Spain and Ukraine. Being very successful for the time it lasted.
slavik4666 It's good that we both agree that central planning is unworkable. I do believe a stateless society can be achieved once people are no longer conditioned to accept political authority. I also believe that class can be eliminated in a similar fashion once our lives are not tied to the influence peddling and favoritism of the old regime. But how do you prevent the creation of money without coercion? We need a simple and predictable way to measure value that is not arbitrarily assigned by someone else (that just becomes central planning again). Honest money allows an economy to put an accurate value on resources therefore ensuring that they will be rationally allocated. The state prevents the use of honest money, without government honest money would work.
Alright, devil's advocate here. The condemnation against not working here comes because not working implies freeloading, living off of someone else's labor. Someone working allows people to break free of that and become independent.
Work ethics should be considered a good thing as they teach self-responsibility and self-discipline, giving it a very civilizing effect.
Judge Bastiat indeed. I get the point of moralizing work, but he comes off here as basically encouraging not working. I wonder if he realizes that the countries he praises are not leaders in innovation like the US or even many Asian countries now are, and so they only have their society enriched by those countries with stronger work ethic.
Thaddeus makes some good points. I think though that it's important to remember that the production that has produced the abundance of modern society has not been that of the groups he champions. They've played an important role but should not be elevated to some kind of role models, which Thaddeus seems to do.
It's actually ironic because he's defending the bad characteristics of the united states without even acknowledging that he's doing that.
How interesting, a brilliant thinker.
The underlying principle he is championing here is the idea of free markets. If a workplace is too boring and unrewarding, workers have the power to re-negotiate the terms as they see fit. A meeting of the minds is necessary to achieve a valid contract and the employer is free to find other workers. If everyone always accepts the status quo, there would be no human progress, that is the entire point of his book. Nowhere does he support the socialist state or the concept of welfare.
hey Thad,are you up for another "beer" (yes I know 'single malt' ) once again one of these days.. I have the update I have promised you then ?
I thought the sex thing was to compel people to make something of themselves (working for the king) to “earn” the right to be with a woman - monogamy being enforced to prop up that framework. If we could just have sex cause we want to, how hard would we work?
"*Every* worker is selling their body" (re: prostitution)
Yuuup, if Liberderpians didn't redefine words and phrases at-will, they wouldn't have shit for an argument.
@Toro Scatenato
So you respond to my comment on redefining words by comparing a manager or a doctor to a prostitute. Proving all 3 of my conclusions in one swoop. bravo, dumbshit
That was good.
Yeah, Europeans work less than Americans, not because they are not puritans. It’s because their governments are socialists, and as a result there are laws against compelling employees to work more than a certain number of hours. I guess if this libertarian included that little fact, it would ruin his libertarian argument.
This guy also talks about freedom and at the same time argues that slaves in the south didn’t have it so bad.
This guy is off his rocker.
Ok, he's a carbon copy parrot on the goatie beard - he's totally owned by society with the BLACK SUIT - it's got to be "BLACK" - hell try to find a non black computer - black is beautiful and black is for the mind slave.
I will give him one point for the weak sideburns.
He's like a libertarian Louis C.K.
you look a little different than a last saw you ;-)
1337 views, woohoo!