I am a fan of Stef, but I find it frustrating that he paints physicists in the light he does here. Not only does he lose focus on what he's actually trying to advocate, he's stereotyping a group of people who essentially paved the way to the modern world. His frustration is at the government, I think it is kinda sad that he vents it on the brains who work for the government (hard to find physics research work in the private sector I imagine).
Your earlier attacks on him were not only an oversimplifcation, but utterly illogical, as demonstrated by other posters here. I agree that he often does oversimplify and generalise, but your claim of him being a misogynist is a stretch. If you define it loosely enough, I might agree with you to be honest, but with such a loose definition your reaction is way too hyped (remember how you said you essentially wanted his show wiped from the internet).
I think Tek members can disagree without flaming. The original topic has nothing to do with men/womens rights though, that was a digression.
"If you're a guy, you don't get paid for having a dick (if you're a woman, you get paid for having a vagina)."
Your reasoning here is flawed. It does not follow from what he said at all.
"(you don't want to be a woman, because women are vagina parasites that inhale wallets up their cooches. They are some sort of reverse vacuum cleaners that hoover coins out of penises)"
I have already stated he is talking about 2 specific women, not women in general. Your interpretation is fabricated. I've asked you to state where he explicitly states he is referring to all women and you can't do it, you just rehash the same quote again. Feel free to hate the man, but I'm not going to accept faulty reasoning or ad nauseam. If you have nothing more to add let's just end this here.
Your logic does not follow. You are a propagandist without even realising it. Here's an equivalent statement and analysis:
If you're a guy you don't experience childbirth. (or otherwise said if you're a woman you experience childbirth.)
We know that not all women experience childbirth, thus this form of reasoning is fallacious. The same kind you used to criticise him for being a misogynist.
I know what you mean. I can find value in his words. Sometimes, I think he oversteps reason. It becomes more about pushing the political ideology, rather than looking at observed fact. Or additionally, he might make assertions that nobody can really make. That's really what I was getting at in the other thread.
One half of economics is "markets are amazing". The other half is "why don't markets work?", "why are we irrational?", "why are we not self-interested?". I don't believe we can have it too much of one way. That's really the underlying reason why I can't completely agree with him, or disagree.
If you look at any piece of technology, you will struggle to find something that was developed entirely by private enterprise. Much of what we have has been produced by space programs, universities and so on. Graphene is a product of Manchester University. So I don't really understand why he devalues it so much. I don't believe private enterprise has the same incentives to pursue some of these things.
The only thing Stef is really against is the theft by the government. I think it is an important thing to be worried about and makes the question of science without government a great one and one I don't think enough scientists are interested in. Private enterprise doesn't necessarily have to be for personal profit, it could well be a charity or foundation funded by people who want to see progress. None of this is conveyed by Stef here though, he just displays moral outrage. I think he should use his approach to parenting more in his approach to reaching people philosophically.
Oh god, someone forgot to "double tap" this thread
Sounds like a nice idea, but I don't see it happening. It's like a "perfect" system that is unattainable. I know Ron Paul insisted that the church can take place of welfare. It seems silly to make too many assumptions, but we should experiment. Changes will introduce new problems, that goes without saying. I'm not quite sure that zero government is optimal.
I'm not against moving closer and closer to it. Lower taxes are always welcome. However, I do place value on things like... universal healthcare. Economic benefits that are most people wouldn't know, like acting as an automatic stabliser in a downturn. It's hard to argue with the non-aggression principle, in philosophical terms. For me, I want to think about economics, rather than philosophy.
Not sure how you feel about universal healthcare, that sort of thing? I just wish the government was more of a tool. If we could participate in the democratic process a little more, more transparency, it would be less... shit. But that's quite distant, too.
Supporting universal healthcare equates to trusting politicians to make good decisions about how I should be healthy. Perhaps some politicians do have the right idea, but will they succeed in their implementation? Politicians have to be replaced too, which opens the doors for more chances at corruption. It's the monolithic nature of these systems that invites weakness through corruption.
The reason I support a free market system is because it means I choose who provides my healthcare. No matter what system is implemented the providers of healthcare need to get paid and that money has to come from somewhere. I don't believe that it is a rich person's responsibility to pay for the poor. I believe it is the government's fault for preventing the poor from achieving social mobility.
As for the "perfect system" I don't believe anarchy is a perfect system, but rather a simple adoption of the non aggression principal in a society. I think Stefan's prescription of better parenting is a great start, but I accept it is an ideal. The danger of "practical thinking" is that it often means choosing the lesser of two evils without exploring how to avoid evil at all. If I can take 2 things from Stef's channel it's NAP and his parenting advice.
If I said something like
There's a weird thing if you're a white person. If you're a white person, you don't rape people. You don't kill people, and you don't steal. White people don't do these things. Fortunately. God, do you want to be that kind of person? Be a non white person that kills others, rapes them, and steals from them? That's not what you want, right? You don't want to be that.
Would you consider that statement racist, and me a racist person for speaking such a thing with sincerity?
I'm glad you wrote that last paragraph. I was thinking to myself, "this is trading one thing for another". A healthcare system run by corrupt politicians, or one run by accountants that discriminate? I actually think the NHS is run mostly by medical professionals, more so than the American system.
While I do have a healthy respect for individual property rights, I do feel it can over-compensate people. It is conflicting for me. Of course, I think lower classes can be over-compensated, in other ways. I'm sure we wouldn't agree on any of that. It comes down to what each person is willing to accept, if that makes sense?
His parenting is appealing. I am not a parent, myself. However, I have taken an interest into some of his ideas.
My parents work for the NHS and fully support it as a concept. They do complain a lot about the people high up though. It reminds me a lot of working in the IT industry, people making decisions about things they know nothing about, whilst ignoring what the professionals advise them on. I will agree that the NHS is better than the American system, purely on the fact that in the UK we spend less per capita on healthcare than the US and that's from tax payers alone.
Yeah, that's the only objective way to really compare. By that I mean, one system is not noticeably better than the other, by any analysis of given figures.
I would point out that government involvement in the US health system seems to be a very mixed bag. I can understand why libertarian values are on the rise, state-side, for related reasons.
I skimmed over this thread. I'm glad that there are other Stephan Molyneux fans out there. He might not get everything right, but there is a lot of truth to what he says. I don't necessarily think that Anarchy would work, but I definitely think that it is closer to the right direction than heavy government control and the like.
I'm against universal health care, because I think that politicians can't be in control of our bodies. I'm a type one diabetic and I need insulin. I can't imagine how the government would handle that. I already have a hard time with insurance companies. One time I got a form that I had to submit to the government. It asked me when I was last "afflicted" by diabetes. /rollseyes
I think there should be universal rights given by the federal government. Such as non-discriminatory statutes; however, I think that states should be able to decide some things. So we could chose what states that we could live on based on some of the values that we hold.
I do support the universal healthcare system, for the time being. It's not perfect, and we probably won't need it in the future. People do have the option to use private health insurance/ private hospitals, if they so choose.
I'll be honest, some of your concerns sound strange, or alien to me. I've never used the American healthcare system, but it seems much more bureaucratic. People making decisions for you. If I am sick, I go to the doctor, he prescribes me something. It's as simple as that. It's much more complimentary to the doctor-patient relationship, in my opinion. It's not rationed based on wealth, nobody is discriminated. It doesn't matter if you're a visitor to the country. If you break your arm, while you're on holiday here, you don't have out-of-pocket expenses.
The doctor just gives you what you need, or will tell you to go to the hospital and they will examine you/treat you. It is free at the point of use. Or there may be a very small fixed charge e.g £10 prescription fee. I would recommend that you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" (yes, I knowwww. That guy that is always complaining about everything and hates America). Only as an eye-opener about other systems, in other countries.
I've never had to fill out a form, never been refused treatment, never had to wait for any treatment (there are waiting times for some things, usually), never had any out-of-pocket expenses. Obviously, it comes out of taxes, it isn't free. It's only $3-4,000 per capita, in comparison to $8-9,000 on average out-of-pocket US expenses.
Touching on the issues; some things do have waiting times, and we are probably less able to deliver specialised care. It's still good, though. Cancer sufferers are probably better off in the US, if they can afford it. The bottom line, is if you need insulin, you get insulin. There's no reason to refuse it. Then there's the larger issue of how this is all funded, where the top 5%, or corporations are funding much of what we have.
I actually agree with some of the things you touched on, I just wanted to answer some concerns. Universal rights, non-discriminatory statues. Give people the right to purchase healthcare, basically. I know that's what you were saying. Also, if universal healthcare was implemented in the US, you can guarantee 1. big pharma will create upset 2. an opposing party will deliberately under-fund it. The government is a revolving door of changes being made, and you don't need your healthcare changing every term. Governments across Europe are all pretty committed to universal healthcare, so it works out.
American opinion of the UK healthcare system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiMMCD3ec4
One comment I will make, is that he says "pay up to 40% taxes". This does not mean we all pay 40%. Everyone gets £10,000 tax free, then it's a progressive system with low earners paying 25% tax. It often confuses people, who believe we all pay 40% to have this system.40% is applicable to earnings over £150,000. So if someone earns £155,000, they pay 40% on the xx5,000, not the entirety of the earnings. This is an issue in itself. Some people would argue a very good case for a flat rate.
There's a lot of false information about universal healthcare. I guess the big looming question for most is "how much should everyone pay/contribute". I hope FrogE believes I have been fair in the write-up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHttjLoRcQ
You are the prime reason that I like discussing things on TekSyndicate rather than on YouTube or random blogs. Your post was thoughtful and very well versed.
I like the idea that was on the show Futurama. It was where all of the diseases and pathogens had been cured long ago. In their universe, all pathogens were eliminated just like Small Pox is today. I don't think that is going to happen ever, but Science is pretty cool. Maybe they will figure something out.
I think that it is interesting how easy it is for you to get a prescription drug or visit the doctors. I've always been told that it is a nightmare, but you live it so you have a much better first hand experience.
I haven't lived outside of the U.S. so I only have experience with private insurance and hospitals. That is a nightmare. If I don't have insurance or if I am changing insurance I might have to pay for insulin out of pocket. It's like $90 per 3 days worth of insulin. Wait times are a bit alarming, but cancer is (in some circumstances not all) slow moving. I assume that if you have an emergency hospitals respond as fast as ours. There is a theory that pharma companies are stopping the development for cures of diabetes, because of how profitable it is. I'm not sure whether or not to believe that, it does seem plausible.
I plan on moving outside of the US, because of how terrible our government has become. (not to mention the ridiculous prices for fast internet! I pay $12 per 1MB down.) I might consider moving to a country with universal healthcare if it is better than the healthcare here.
I'll give "Sicko" a try. I'm not a huge fan of Micheal Moore. He makes movies about anti-capitalism, but then uses capitalism to make his money. I find it very hypocritical. He's also obese, which is the staple of US. I know the last one is a bit petty, but it bothers me for some reason. I have great respect for people like Christopher Hitchens. He was also anti-capitalist, but he was much more tactile and, while a bit brash, got his point across effectively.
That's interesting about the tax rate. You might actually end up paying less tax overall than in the US. Our tax system is progressive right from the start and keeps increasing. I think that the lowest tax that we pay is 20%. That is for people who are making less than $11,000. (5980.54 pounds)
Also, is it true that you don't have to pay for University?
Misogynist means a hatred of women. He doesn't hate women. If you listened to his show, you would know. He just hates bad people, male or female.
He never once said "all women".