The Story of Your Enslavement

[Arion45]

The irony of that video is that Stefan Molyneux wants us to be enslaved by his ideas as to what freedom should entail. It sort of reminds me of the people who tell us to question authority, but then they never consider someone who replies, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" Yeah. Molyneux, for all his criticisms against civil authority, is still no better when he claims to be the authoritative voice for escaping enslavement.

Are you saying that being offered the truth is forcing you to stop being a slave? Are you saying that you resent Stefan for forcing you to see the truth? Would you rather take the blue pill, take a bite of that imaginary steak and think, "ignorance is bliss"?

If you think he is incorrect, then persuade others to see your point. Do not falsely accuse someone of being authoritarian, when that person does not have the power to do so.

 

[Arion45]

The Constitution didn't fail. WE FAILED.

The constitution doesn't grant us rights. Politicians don't grant us rights. Our rights come from God / Natural law. They are inalienable. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government which reminds the government of our rights and their obligation to protect them. If we rip it up and throw it away, we still have those rights. But you just shredded the contract that lists the rights which the government is bound to protect.

"Inalienable" From Wikipedia:
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Why do you collective everyone into failure? Using "WE" like I had to do anything with the current growth of this government. Do you think I have any control over what a governmental body three thousand miles away from me does? Do you think that the congressmen or senator that supposedly "represents" 700,000 thousand people can effectively represent me?

 

[Arion45]

Wake up to what ?

I agree with 90% of the libertarian platform, but I find this kind of rhetoric to be pointless and self-aggrandizing .

I find the attitude that everyone would become a libertarian/anarchist if only they could be awaken from their ignorance reminiscent of Democrats who believe that everyone would support Obama if they just could get over their racism.

Just as there are legitimate reasons to oppose Obama, there are good reasons not be a libertarian.

The world is not so simple that it can be explained in a 15min video.

It really is this simple. Answer one question for me. Do you support violence and coercion?

My problem with the "we need to wake people up to ______" attitude is that I don't like any group claiming their political or philosophical stance to be the objective truth.

It annoys me when communists, socialists, theists and conspiracy theorists do it, and it annoys when libertarians follow suit in and use that arrogant train of thought.

There isn't one objective point of view of the world and everyone is already awake to their own perception. There's a big difference between trying to get someone to look in your direction and calling them blind if they don't see things the way you do.

Once you understand the ideas of the non-aggression principle and self ownership then you will realize that what voluntaryists advocate is their morality. So people who believe these concepts believe it to be the truth. It is not arrogance to state the fact that I own myself and no one has a higher claim to my life. It is not arrogance to state the fact that forcing another to do their will is morally wrong. It is not arrogance to state that taxation is theft and is just as immoral when a group of people commit the crime as one person. Taxation is not made moral by writing it down on paper and calling it a law or an amendment. Once you understand these concepts this is what the liberty movement calls "waking up" . But it is difficult to break those 12 years of indoctrination camp the children of this country have to endure.

 

[free1]

Do you think that the congressmen or senator that supposedly "represents" 700,000 thousand people can effectively represent me?

We need to go back to the way it was, they changed it back sometime ago so there were less house members.

You are right, we are not properly represented. These guys are like celebrity status and they shouldn't be.

You should be able to talk directly to your representative. You can't do that now, they basically ignore most people.

It would also solve the lobbying situation, there would be too many representatives to try to sway.

 

[Theocrat]

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Are you saying that being offered the truth is forcing you to stop being a slave? Are you saying that you resent Stefan for forcing you to see the truth? Would you rather take the blue pill, take a bite of that imaginary steak and think, "ignorance is bliss"?

If you think he is incorrect, then persuade others to see your point. Do not falsely accuse someone of being authoritarian, when that person does not have the power to do so.

Stefan Molyneux is not offering truth. He is offering his personal perspective on what he considers to be slavery. Yet, he speaks as if any disagreement to his views is an act towards being an advocate for slavery. In that sense, he is making himself the authoritative voice for escaping enslavement.

He is not offering anyone the "red pill." His pill is laced with cyanide for the mind. He inherently rejects a civil institution which is ordained by God to punish civil wickedness and protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the righteous. What Molyneux wants is a world without rules (unless the rules agree with his views as an anarchist). Most importantly, he doesn't want God to be acknowledged anywhere therein, seeing that as ultimate slavery.

So, yes, I reject Molyneux's entire worldview, and he is not waking anyone up to truth. He is just a wolf in sheep's clothes.

 

[Fredom101]

Stefan Molyneux is not offering truth. He is offering his personal perspective on what he considers to be slavery. Yet, he speaks as if any disagreement to his views is an act towards being an advocate for slavery. In that sense, he is making himself the authoritative voice for escaping enslavement.

He is not offering anyone the "red pill." His pill is laced with cyanide for the mind. He inherently rejects a civil institution which is ordained by God to punish civil wickedness and protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the righteous. What Molyneux wants is a world without rules (unless the rules agree with his views as an anarchist). Most importantly, he doesn't want God to be acknowledged anywhere therein, seeing that as ultimate slavery.

So, yes, I reject Molyneux's entire worldview, and he is not waking anyone up to truth. He is just a wolf in sheep's clothes.

You think you're not a slave?
Ok, it's a simple test to prove this.
Simply do not pay your taxes.
See what happens.
If you continue paying & obeying, you are proving to be a slave.
If you stop, and eventually have men with guns and badges knocking at your door, you are proving to be a slave.

Try it. Forget about all this theory and put it to the test!

BTW, you clearly have not listened much at all to Molyneux; your statement that he wants "a world without rules" is just a bullshit ad hominem attack created out of thin air. At least do your research before slamming someone.

 

[MelissaWV]

You think you're not a slave?
Ok, it's a simple test to prove this.
Simply do not pay your taxes.
See what happens.
If you continue paying & obeying, you are proving to be a slave.
If you stop, and eventually have men with guns and badges knocking at your door, you are proving to be a slave.

Try it. Forget about all this theory and put it to the test!

BTW, you clearly have not listened much at all to Molyneux; your statement that he wants "a world without rules" is just a bullshit ad hominem attack created out of thin air. At least do your research before slamming someone.

Your logic, honestly, does not follow. If that is the case then everyone is a slave, because there are laws you cannot break (even in nature) or else you will face consequences. You are using consequences as the test of whether or not someone is a slave. If you kill someone, you will have people with guns and badges knocking at your door or, in anarchy, you'd have that person's friends and family at your door with guns (they won't need badges). Does that also make you a slave?

Navel-gazing and contemplating whether or not one falls into this category or that isn't very productive. Going out and knowing the "rules" and making one's lot better (or the lot of others, if you're so inclined) involves more than watching videos.

 

[NiceGoing]

Good post, thanks!

 

[Arion45]

Stefan Molyneux is not offering truth. He is offering his personal perspective on what he considers to be slavery. Yet, he speaks as if any disagreement to his views is an act towards being an advocate for slavery. In that sense, he is making himself the authoritative voice for escaping enslavement.

He is not offering anyone the "red pill." His pill is laced with cyanide for the mind. He inherently rejects a civil institution which is ordained by God to punish civil wickedness and protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the righteous. What Molyneux wants is a world without rules (unless the rules agree with his views as an anarchist). Most importantly, he doesn't want God to be acknowledged anywhere therein, seeing that as ultimate slavery.

So, yes, I reject Molyneux's entire worldview, and he is not waking anyone up to truth. He is just a wolf in sheep's clothes.

I see now. Thank you.

 

[Fredom101]

Your logic, honestly, does not follow. If that is the case then everyone is a slave, because there are laws you cannot break (even in nature) or else you will face consequences. You are using consequences as the test of whether or not someone is a slave. If you kill someone, you will have people with guns and badges knocking at your door or, in anarchy, you'd have that person's friends and family at your door with guns (they won't need badges). Does that also make you a slave?

Navel-gazing and contemplating whether or not one falls into this category or that isn't very productive. Going out and knowing the "rules" and making one's lot better (or the lot of others, if you're so inclined) involves more than watching videos.

You're right, everyone is a slave in the system.
Nature, however, does not force one at gunpoint to pay half of your income to it.

You're a slave because if you do not obey, you face consequences.
"Not killing" does not mean you are obeying, it means you are following a code of morality.

If you are not a slave, try not paying your taxes. Or just withhold a portion of them. It's really a simple test.

 

[MelissaWV]

You're right, everyone is a slave in the system.
Nature, however, does not force one at gunpoint to pay half of your income to it.

You're a slave because if you do not obey, you face consequences.
"Not killing" does not mean you are obeying, it means you are following a code of morality.

If you are not a slave, try not paying your taxes. Or just withhold a portion of them. It's really a simple test.

Nature does in fact bring about consequences for particular action or inaction. You're a slave to breathing If you're not a slave, try not breathing. Just see what happens!

 

[Fredom101]

Nature does in fact bring about consequences for particular action or inaction. You're a slave to breathing If you're not a slave, try not breathing. Just see what happens!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I voluntarily breathe to stay alive. I do not voluntarily give up half my income to the government. I'm not seeing the parallel at all. One is an example of a voluntary action, the other is an example of coercion.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I voluntarily breathe to stay alive. I do not voluntarily give up half my income to the government. I'm not seeing the parallel at all. One is an example of a voluntary action, the other is an example of coercion.

The fallacy you've put forth is that one is only a slave because if one takes a certain course of action, there are consequences. That has nothing to do with slavery. The arrangement itself is what defines it as one of slavery. Twisting definitions around to pretend it's only consequences that make it slavery is ridiculous. We are owned, and that's the problem. Most people don't own their homes outright. That's a problem. Even if not paying your mortgage did not carry a huge price and consequences, you would be living on someone else's land.

In this particular case, you can choose to live outside of the tax system, but it would be incredibly difficult and ultimately you'd be living on someone else's land.

Saying "Oh try not paying your taxes and see what happens!" and taking that as evidence that we're all slaves misses the point entirely. In fact, it is more fear-mongering. If we're to fear the consequences of our action, then the result is widespread inaction, the consequences of which are far worse.

One of the ways in which people stew in their inaction is these damned videos. Let's sit around and discuss it for weeks and months and years. In the meantime, those on this board out in the world doing things get hardly a whisper. The fearful deal in the theoretical because of the "consequences."

Slavery? People are slaves to fear. If the Government vanished tomorrow, those who are easily enslaved by it would enslave themselves in a heartbeat, and probably couldn't stand to step out the door. The funny part is, there is no consequence to not being unduly afraid.

 

[Fredom101]

The fallacy you've put forth is that one is only a slave because if one takes a certain course of action, there are consequences.

No. The difference is voluntary vs. involuntary. That's the key point that you are missing.

That has nothing to do with slavery. The arrangement itself is what defines it as one of slavery.

That is the point I am making. The arrangement with government is involuntary. It is slavery because of this. Can I choose to opt-out of the system? If not, then I am a slave. Think of slaves as we know them. Could they simply walk away from the plantation?

Twisting definitions around to pretend it's only consequences that make it slavery is ridiculous.

Never said only consequences.

We are owned, and that's the problem. Most people don't own their homes outright. That's a problem. Even if not paying your mortgage did not carry a huge price and consequences, you would be living on someone else's land.

Owning a home is a choice. Paying the gov't is not. It's very simple.

In this particular case, you can choose to live outside of the tax system, but it would be incredibly difficult and ultimately you'd be living on someone else's land.

If you choose this, you will eventually be either taken to jail or shot. And no, you would not be living on "someone else's land" unless you chose to.

Saying "Oh try not paying your taxes and see what happens!" and taking that as evidence that we're all slaves misses the point entirely. In fact, it is more fear-mongering. If we're to fear the consequences of our action, then the result is widespread inaction, the consequences of which are far worse.

How is the truth fear mongering? We already have widespread inaction, and 9 out of 10 people will SWEAR to you that there is no violence in the system, even though this is not the truth. So education is key here.

One of the ways in which people stew in their inaction is these damned videos. Let's sit around and discuss it for weeks and months and years. In the meantime, those on this board out in the world doing things get hardly a whisper. The fearful deal in the theoretical because of the "consequences."

Ok, but if people aren't educated, what is going to motivate them to take action? Most people think they live in the land of the FREE! Who needs to take action when you are FREE?!

Slavery? People are slaves to fear. If the Government vanished tomorrow, those who are easily enslaved by it would enslave themselves in a heartbeat, and probably couldn't stand to step out the door. The funny part is, there is no consequence to not being unduly afraid.

Possibly, but this is speculation. Someone would have to rebuild gov't, and that couldn't physically happen overnight. Hopefully we can continue to educate people that they are slaves, so that if gov't does collapse, what we rebuild is not another system that is the same or worse than the one before.

 

[dmitchell]

Pretty good video, but not as good as some of his others. The Money That is Sold Abroad is You is better.

 

[Theocrat]

Neux Problem

You think you're not a slave?
Ok, it's a simple test to prove this.
Simply do not pay your taxes.
See what happens.
If you continue paying & obeying, you are proving to be a slave.
If you stop, and eventually have men with guns and badges knocking at your door, you are proving to be a slave.

Try it. Forget about all this theory and put it to the test!

BTW, you clearly have not listened much at all to Molyneux; your statement that he wants "a world without rules" is just a bullshit ad hominem attack created out of thin air. At least do your research before slamming someone.

I don't accept your notion that taxation should be the litmus test of slavery. Some taxes are very necessary to ensure services provided by our civil governments are funded. Those services would be things such as providing security from foreign enemies and executing justice to civil evildoers (i.e. rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.). I do agree that most taxes in our country are unjust, but that is only so because they go towards things which our civil governments have no business being involved in, contradicting Biblical law.

The world that Molyneux wants us to move towards is only a paradise but for the few. It inherently allows the strongest in society to enslave the weak, without any civil restraints. You seem to take issue with my saying Molyneux wants a world without rules, but you forgot that I stated parenthetically "unless those rules agree with his views. If you listen to his views on private courts, environmental issues, and a host of other social issues, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. He is not being neutral about what a "just" society should look like.

Molyneux is an intelligent guy, but unfortunately, all of his premises and theories are wrong. He can make all the videos in the world, but none of them will contribute to real solutions facing our problems today. His calls for political inaction are naive and unrealistic. His logic used to explain his theories are all based on fallacies and unwarranted assumptions.

So, I see no reason why he gets so much credit on these forums, unless those people are enslaved to his ideals.

 

[Fredom101]

I don't accept your notion that taxation should be the litmus test of slavery. Some taxes are very necessary to ensure services provided by our civil governments are funded. Those services would be things such as providing security from foreign enemies and executing justice to civil evildoers (i.e. rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.). I do agree that most taxes in our country are unjust, but that is only so because they go towards things which our civil governments have no business being involved in, contradicting Biblical law.

The world that Molyneux wants us to move towards is only a paradise but for the few. It inherently allows the strongest in society to enslave the weak, without any civil restraints. You seem to take issue with my saying Molyneux wants a world without rules, but you forgot that I stated parenthetically "unless those rules agree with his views. If you listen to his views on private courts, environmental issues, and a host of other social issues, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. He is not being neutral about what a "just" society should look like.

Molyneux is an intelligent guy, but unfortunately, all of his premises and theories are wrong. He can make all the videos in the world, but none of them will contribute to real solutions facing our problems today. His calls for political inaction are naive and unrealistic. His logic used to explain his theories are all based on fallacies and unwarranted assumptions.

So, I see no reason why he gets so much credit on these forums, unless those people are enslaved to his ideals.

Fine, then, make it taking your shoes off at the airport. It doesn't matter, taxation is just the biggest one that we all face.

We are slaves and you haven't listened to Molyneux based on your comments. What you are doing is just using an ad hominem attack, which is wasting everyone's time here.

 

[Teaser Rate]

It really is this simple. Answer one question for me. Do you support violence and coercion?

That’s like asking me if I support scarcity and corruption. Those things exist in society because they are a part of our nature; in the same way you can get rid of scarcity by passing a law, you can’t get rid of violence and coercion by getting rid of government. In fact, I’d wager you’d have a lot more of it without a state.

I find that anarchist and communists share the same flaw in that they both have things backwards. Scarcity and corruption don't exist because of capitalism; capitalism exists there is scarcity and corruption; in the same way, violence and coercion don't exist because of a state; the state exists because there is violence and coercion.

If you can understand why abolishing capitalism won't destroy scarcity, you should be able to see why abolishing the state won't end coercion.

Once you understand the ideas of the non-aggression principle and self ownership then you will realize that what voluntaryists advocate is their morality. So people who believe these concepts believe it to be the truth. It is not arrogance to state the fact that I own myself and no one has a higher claim to my life. It is not arrogance to state the fact that forcing another to do their will is morally wrong. It is not arrogance to state that taxation is theft and is just as immoral when a group of people commit the crime as one person. Taxation is not made moral by writing it down on paper and calling it a law or an amendment. Once you understand these concepts this is what the liberty movement calls "waking up" . But it is difficult to break those 12 years of indoctrination camp the children of this country have to endure.

If I understand your point correctly, you’re basically saying that one person robbing you under the threat of violence is no different than a group of individuals getting together and deciding, through a democratic process to set up a system of collective defense of property rights through the collection of limited taxation ?


The reason why you can’t opt out of taxation without living in the wilderness is because you perpetually consume government services when in you're in a civilized area. If you use roads, electricity, water, have a bank account, have contracts, or even eat food you don’t grow yourself without paying taxes, then you’re making someone else pay for your expenses, and that's without bringing the police and military protection in the picture.

If you want to bring about anarchism, you have to convince enough people that they don’t need government in the areas of building infrastructure, subsidizing food, providing security, providing dispute resolution, etc.etc. And then have them support a candidate who wants to legalize all those areas to competition.

It's a slow process, but it's the only way to reduce the power of the state in the long run; if you want to get rid of the state, you have to get rid of the idea that people need it first.

(It also might be helpful to be a little less smug, using terms like "12 years of indoctrination camp" doesn't do anything besides antagonize people don't already who share your narrow viewpoint of education.)

 

[Arion45]

That’s like asking me if I support scarcity and corruption. Those things exist in society because they are a part of our nature; in the same way you can get rid of scarcity by passing a law, you can’t get rid of violence and coercion by getting rid of government. In fact, I’d wager you’d have a lot more of it without a state.

You did not answer the question. Do you support the initiation of force and coercion by the state? I think you do not answer the question because you know that you will contradict your beliefs down this road. This is called cognitive dissonance.

I find that anarchist and communists share the same flaw in that they both have things backwards. Scarcity and corruption don't exist because of capitalism; capitalism exists there is scarcity and corruption; in the same way, violence and coercion don't exist because of a state; the state exists because there is violence and coercion.

You have it all wrong. Violence will always exist with or without the state. The state has the monopoly on violence in a given geographic area. There is no competition and thus they are unaccountable. Leave these essential services, that you think need to be forced upon people, to the free market and they will be provided more efficiently and with customer service in mind.

If you can understand why abolishing capitalism won't destroy scarcity, you should be able to see why abolishing the state won't end coercion.

I never ever stated that abolishing the state would end all violence. That is ridiculous.

If I understand your point correctly, you’re basically saying that one person robbing you under the threat of violence is no different than a group of individuals getting together and deciding, through a democratic process to set up a system of collective defense of property rights through the collection of limited taxation ?

Yes. Democracy is just the rule of the majority.

The reason why you can’t opt out of taxation without living in the wilderness is because you perpetually consume government services when in you're in a civilized area. If you use roads, electricity, water, have a bank account, have contracts, or even eat food you don’t grow yourself without paying taxes, then you’re making someone else pay for your expenses, and that's without bringing the police and military protection in the picture.

I do not force anyone to to do anything by just existing. This is just ridiculous to state. I pay gasoline tax when I purchase gasoline. I will be happy to pay this, no one forces me to buy gasoline. I pay for electricity and water, these are services that if not paid for I do not receive. Bank account? How would having a bank account have anything to do with taxes? I get a service from a bank for letting them use my money for investments. You are all over the place here.

If you want to bring about anarchism, you have to convince enough people that they don’t need government in the areas of building infrastructure, subsidizing food, providing security, providing dispute resolution, etc.etc. And then have them support a candidate who wants to legalize all those areas to competition.

It's a slow process, but it's the only way to reduce the power of the state in the long run; if you want to get rid of the state, you have to get rid of the idea that people need it first.

(It also might be helpful to be a little less smug, using terms like "12 years of indoctrination camp" doesn't do anything besides antagonize people don't already who share your narrow viewpoint of education.)

[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what voluntaryists are doing. When I speak of governmental schools, I am not being smug, this what I believe. I am forced to pay for other peoples children to have an education. I have no children of my own and would never send my children to these schools.

 

[Vessol]

The world that Molyneux wants us to move towards is only a paradise but for the few. It inherently allows the strongest in society to enslave the weak, without any civil restraints. You seem to take issue with my saying Molyneux wants a world without rules, but you forgot that I stated parenthetically "unless those rules agree with his views. If you listen to his views on private courts, environmental issues, and a host of other social issues, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. He is not being neutral about what a "just" society should look like.

Have you even watched his videos?

I don't accept your notion that taxation should be the litmus test of slavery. Some taxes are very necessary to ensure services provided by our civil governments are funded. Those services would be things such as providing security from foreign enemies and executing justice to civil evildoers (i.e. rapists, murderers, thieves, etc.)

Why can't I opt out of those taxes and thus not gain access to those services?

Also a military, or 'security' as you cutely call it, is not to protect you from foreign enemies. Foreign enemies are the boogeyman that give the power to every state. Armies are the tools that the State uses to enforce its expanse of power. Afterfall, how else would a government expand without the force of arms on its side.

Also, why can't local communities take care of justice? I'd trust a local community far more then I would then giving the State the power of legally killing someone or imprisoning them.