Ben Burgis Debates Stefan Molyneux 2020 (FULL REPLAY)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 янв 2024
- Throwback to the time Ben owned the white nationalist in a lengthy debate. Fortunately the video evidence was preserved by The Serfs since Molyneux's channel no longer exists.
Subscribe to @TheSerfTimes
Follow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgis
Follow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_Show
Become a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:
patreon.com/benburgis
Read the weekly philosophy Substack:
benburgis.substack.com
Visit benburgis.com
At first Stefan was Faux intellectual, later he became a shabby maniac.
Takes me back to the days when my roommate would abuse the coke bowl
Did see some leftover coke on Ben's beard? I think that's probably just donut powder.
Thanks for the free informative video Ben =)
Ben B, thank you so very much for all you do my brotha. Your hard work and dedication is appreciated. 🙌🏿❤️
i lost count of the amount of times stefan said the word 'r*pe'. just to clarify, the topic was basically economics and philosophy.
I like rope!
@@BlackLibertarian I'm getting the impression that you're slightly knots. Just slightly.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 Do you think you're funny? Because you are knot
it's just one example of his v weird behavior
I think is is interesting that Stefan thinks that since Ben took money from the working class through taxation he should give his work away for free. How does he feel about corporate executives? I mean their salaries are a product of the labor of the working class. Should they be working for free? I suppose he would say that is different because Ben's money came from the government which of course was taken by force. However, how many working class people who work for amazon see their relationship with the company as purely voluntary? How many people working for amazon would voluntarily agree to the distribution of resources within the company? Some might say there there is some force involved with that relationship.
3:24 My dear shipdit Libertarians, there _is no_ non aggression principle. I mean that quite literally. You have no such concept, let alone one you can intellectually defend. It's incoherent. It's empty noise.
It means nothing. _Absolutely nothing_ .
Ain't that a double negative? 😛
@@BlackLibertarian I take it you're referring to the clause "there is no non aggression principle"? No, it's not a double negative.
Examine the following two sentences below, one of which is a double negative and one of which is not:
"I can't get no satisfaction."
"He wasn't noncompliant."
Can you discern which is which, and why? Is you is or is you ain't my baby?
@@hadronoftheseus8829 You must be a riot at parties
@@BlackLibertarian Indeed, and I party at riots. Play Mozart like Chopin, and Chopin like Mozart.
And play Sonny Stitt like Charlie Parker.
It seems to me that both sentences contain a “double-negative” in that both are marked twice with negative morphology. I assume you think the “non-compliant” sentence is not a double negative, but I think that prefixes like that-which when attached to the root make the whole word designate the complement of the root term-are treated like negation. In any case, there is no double-negative rule, since there are plenty of languages where stacking negative particles is completely acceptable.
But it doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t be baited by nonsubstantive trolling. Also, I think with respect to the contention that there is no “non-aggression principle” you are right since the “non-aggression principle” appears to occur as a name in the sentence.
Substantively, I think the claim you are saying doesn’t exist-namely, the non-aggression principle- was successfully dismantled by Robert Hale way back in 1923 under the guise of “coercion.” Worth a read if interested in early criticism of libertarian style attempts at first philosophy.
Challenge: Find a phrase more racist and xenophobic than "quality of immigrants"
Difficulty level: impossible
calling something racist and xenophobic is not an argument
@@silentsneek you don't believe a sentence or phrase could be racist?
Stopping corruption to get us to either sides no matter what requires violence so
Stefan 's arguments on corporal punishment upon children is 100% correct. So, I said something nice about him.
Stephan is just Jordan Peterson 1.0 huh
30:11 it'd have been funny if Stefan stole Ben's TV to give to his friend Yaron. That dude NEEDS tvs
Molyneux was the first person I heard who made me think that complete unrestrained freedom of speech and "debate me" culture was kind of suicidal on a societal scale. The problem is, if someone is charismatic enough in how they deliver their argument, if the average intelligence of the people listening to him is not high enough to really catch all the logical or empirical errors he's making that eventually draws you into the same extreme conclusions he has, then you just have a situation where one person is slowly spreading his ideas like a cancer which will at some point severely destablize or even destroy a society.
This is also what worries me about the Joe Rogan experience. Or Brett Weinstein's podcast. Whenever they have their "emergency covid" sessions announcing vitamin cures from crackpot doctors, or spreading misinformation and lies about how the FDA can't be trusted. These people are getting millions of views, and no one is really stopping them. The few times they have someone on to debate (say David Pakman), they are either ineffective, or the audience refuses to listen, because by the time someone gets emotionally invested in an idea "I don't trust pharamceuticals no matter what they make" then its virtually impossible to "debate them out of it". Debate just doesn't work, psychologically speaking. Once someone like Rogan, or Molyneux, or Weinstein plant the seed of insanity in someone's mind it can't really be undone except by literally holding someone's feet to the fire in a one on one session.
All that said Burgis' debate here is really valuable as an antidote to this kind of insane thinking. Its been a while since I heard Molyneux. But that line he said at the 17 minute mark. "China was founded as a communist country...has killed tens of millions of its own citizens, and has spread coronavirus around the world. The idea that we need communism to save us from a virus spread by communism is another one of those brain bending moments..."
Like this is a completely insane statement. I don't even know how its possible to think so illogically. Because coronavirus came out of China, this means it is the fault of communism? And somehow, he thinks all communist countries, like Cuba, if they had the chance, would willingly try to spread a lethal virus around the world just because they share the same political structure? For no apparent reason? Like its mind-bogglingly stupid. And yet, this man had at one point close to a million subscribers. Just think about that. This is just one example out of thousands of completely insane things he has said. Good riddance to this cultist
"These people are getting millions of views..."
Well, yes, but... social media is no more a level playing field than real estate, rail roads or advertising. It's _very_ heavily astroturffed and manipulated by algorithms. You're not seeing just the pure unalloyed results of who has attracted and held the most attention and approval.
Many channels receive startup money and/or sustained funding from undisclosed sources, and I'd bet if you were to were to estimate the number of comments you read by bottz and pade truIIs, you'd be off by _at least_ a factor of fifty.
People like Molyneux and Peterson depend on that ignorance. It's their entire market.
The left can't survive without censorship and even then they fail to make any significant impact on the average person. They believe they're the most clever and moral people in existence and are blind to the fact that they are in an echo chamber like many other political groups, their arrogance and intellectual vanity is hilarious.
The left lost any credibility they had with me when almost all of them supported mandatory lockdowns and forced vaccines and dismissed any expert who advised otherwise.
They think they're creating a post-capitalist socialist utopia when in fact they serve only as useful idiots for the WEF, but I'm sure that's just a conspiracy, right?
I very much doubt that any one of the comment section can even understand what Stephon molyneuxe is saying
Yeah me too
Notice how Stefan has Ben on his back foot the entire debate. Ben is always responding to Stefan's accusations and never the other way around. Stephan is a world class sleaze ball, but he can worm himself into a good position. Ben needs to stop falling for the traps in my opinion and make an affirmative case.
It's very hard to go up against a debater who is so sneaky and intellectually dishonest. In cases like these you need a skilled moderator.
Can you give examples where he was intellectually dishonest?
When discussion of citizenship comes up, these guys always act like citizens spring from the head of zeus as working adults. every adult is allowed to use the system for ~20 years before being expected to start paying back in, and that's usually at least as expensive as what an immigrant uses on arrival.
I’d forgot about little Stevie…
lucky you
That's a name I haven't heard in a while.
Hell yeah!
33:00 body language peeps love this one
Wow, Stefon is hard to bear. Constant ad hominems, long blabberings about things that don't have anything to do with the points of discussion, while he's constantly pressuring Ben 'finally get to the point'.
I think Ben is expressing himself rather concisely here, unlike Stefon. And right now he's repeating his argument for the third time, yet Stefon hasn't been able to comprehend it and I don't know if he's going to be.
You can just tell that Stefan Molyneux is the type of person to get really scared as soon as he enters a room full of black people.
rightfully so
@@silentsneekI see you’re a proud wimp. Being scared of your own shadow seems to be in right now for some reason.
31:47 the moment he gave up
Oh, I'm about to come up on that
Miss you stephan!!
is this guy relevant?
Not for a long time, if he ever was. This debate is from a few years ago.
I only knew Molyneux before this from all the controversial racial stuff. What I saw didn’t make me want to go any further with him. If you put the race questions aside, Molyneux is just another Hayekian libertarian, preaching the same deregulatory gospel that has been proven ineffective. He has no sense of government, as voted into power by the people, protecting people against the rapacious corporations he hates. He says slavery existed because the government enforced slave contracts. Valid point, if incomplete. If only he would apply that to unregulated capitalism-the oppression he criticizes exists because the government, sadly via all three branches regardless of party, comes down on the side of the landlord/employer 90% of the time, at least. Getting rid of all regulation leads to LESS protection for the average person, not more.
I am grateful to Prof. Burgis for all these debates. We part company, though, when he implies all property involves an unjust government enforcement barely better than slavery. Whether you agree with him or not, it is a utopian fantasy to imagine that Americans will ever relitigate Lockean property rights. But then, this brilliant logician is a Marxist, and I’m not.
I’m with you, Professor, until we get to a French social welfare state here. Then I become a conservative, to conserve that welfare state against people like Molyneux and Bannon. Solidarity.
"preaching the same deregulatory gospel that has been proven ineffective" What's your evidence for this? Any books?
Stefan is a clown 🤡
How can Stefan ignore the fact that removing the states power would create a power vacuum that the most violent would fill?
Does he ignore that? Isn't his stance that people would use violence against the most violent people to stop them? Is he a proponent of passivity and non-violence as a rule? I thought he argues that defensive violence is perfectly acceptable, he would just prefer that the state not have a monopoly on violent enforcement of our agreements. In reality "the state" never has any power of its own, it is just a tool for people to gain power, profit and commit crime without accountability, it has no agency. People can and will attempt to gain power, they just won't be able to use government or the state as an excuse or liability shield. No literal "vacuum" is created, power/energy is preserved just transferred to any and all people who act within our agreements.
I think Stefan is provably wrong in other areas, but I don't think he ignored this.
1:20:59 🌳🕶🌳
The byline for this GTAA episode reads, 'Throwback to the time Ben owned the white nationalist in a lengthy debate. Fortunately the video evidence was preserved by The Serfs since Molyneux's channel no longer exists.' Now of course a nationalist is someone who both privileges the state over the free society and privilege's a particular state over all other states. Yet Molyneux went to great pains to advocate against the state, to advocate for the 'stateless society', for the dismantling of political power in preference for the free society. As for the cancellation of Molyneux's RUclips channel, it is not the case that Molyneux is trying to hide the evidence of his nefarious 'white nationalism' as the byline might seem to imply. To the contrary his channel was summarily terminated by a hosting platform militantly intolerant of alternatives to the mainstream media narrative.
Not a white nationalist by technicality was also my high school superlative
@@frankienorthtroptriton4771 lol
Dr. Ben Soyburger is so humble, just like the serfs. That's why everyone likes them.
The state emerges at the end of the medieval era as a strategy to bureaucratize the production of war, killing people efficiently being its primary concern, subjugating them its secondary one. By contrast the market society wants both as many people as possible and as free a people as possible. It is therefore the preferred society even for those who want to form worker cooperatives. Indeed as cooperatives pay management the same as the rest of the workforce, they should be able to quickly dominate in the market as they are able to easily pay the average worker far more than their corporate competitors. Bottom line ? Capitalism is the quickest route to democratic socialism not electoral politics.
"the market society wants both as many people as possible and as free a people as possible. "
Markets don't have desires, sellers do, and what they _in fact_ desire is a customer base in which there's an inverse relation between their spending power and their bargaining leverage (no, these aren't coextensive).
To put it another way, sellers want buyers to have as _little_ freedom as possible while still having disposable income, so they can gouge them to the fullest. They want airport Big Macs that cost nine dollars.
Of course, none of these terms mean anything to you because as always you're just extruding buzzwords from whichever end of your gastrointestinal tract is closest to your keyboard.
The key phrase is "...as free a people as possible." Capitalism allows a specific kind of freedom. In fact, it requires it. Marx referred to it as "free in the double sense." This is the foundation of capitalist relations and the limits of freedom possible under it. The laborer must be free of everything necessary for the realization of his labor power and not merely free to sell his labor power. Capitalism produces the doubly free laborer which sells his labor because of the division of labor within capitalism. The question is: Why should that be the limit of freedom?
Also, worker co-ops do not pay management the same as everyone else. Some may do that but it's not a rule.
@@jemt1631 In the pure market society you could organize a workers cooperative under any agreement you like - even one that is effectively communist.
Oh no not this bot again
@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict How have you been SSD ?
Stefan Molyneux was the first person to get me interested in libertarianism. Those were the good ole days! ❤
"Some say that's white supremacy, well...I'm an empiricist, sooo"
Stephan "totally not a white supremacist" Molyneux.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 I watched a lot of his videos, and I never heard him say "whites are the superior race".
Maybe I simply missed the one video where he said it. 😛
@@BlackLibertarian I'm calling Poe's law here.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 lolz! 😛
@@BlackLibertarian Let me ask you something. Do you think people like Molyneaux and other race fantacists are just following the empirical evidence in disinterested fashion, wherever they perceive it to lead?