The Story of Your Enslavement

[Quantus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t


A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.

[Rudd-O]

Bmup.

[Garr255]

Bmup.

[dank]

We are enslaved by fear and doubt.  It's what makes us human.  We must find love to be free.  We must find the truth.

[Charlie Prime]

Does anyone really watch random Youtube videos posted to forums with no explanation or intoduction?

[myrkul]

Does anyone really watch random Youtube videos posted to forums with no explanation or intoduction?

Well, Let's find out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

In the future, could we at least get a sentence, answering the "5 Ws"? (Who, What, When, Why, & Where) kthx.

[fivemileshigh]

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy conversation in the world. http://www.freedomainradio.com"

Very very good video.

[myrkul]

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. From Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy conversation in the world. http://www.freedomainradio.com"

Very very good video.

Perfect.

OP, take notes. You too, Bitware.

[Haole]

Great clip!  Stefan Molyneux rocks.

[Quantus]

A wise man once said.


"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."

[stochastic]

A wise man once said.


"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."

Nietzche also said

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

[cunicula]

A wise man once said.


"What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself."

Nietzche also said

Morality is herd instinct in the individual.

Nice. I like that.

[memvola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t

A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.

So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?

To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.

Am I being too pessimistic?

[cunicula]

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.

So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?

To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.

Am I being too pessimistic?

No. You are being quite reasonable. Are you sure you are on the right forums?

Just look what happened to land values in the South when the Union won the civil war. Extremely valuable cotton-growing land plummeted in value. You can't pick cotton efficiently without coercive labor arrangements. Same goes for sugar cane.

[stochastic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t

A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

You can focus the whole power of an enslaved group to a single purpose. That's what enslavement is useful for. The "slave owners" don't accumulate the money and convert it to endless happiness in heaven. They are also ordinary agents with arbitrary purposes. I especially dislike the notion of "selfishness" or "greed" being used to explain motivations of the people on the top (or anyone else for that matter). There are no mystical facts about the agents themselves. The main problem threatening freedom in its most abstract form is not what the purpose is, but that very powerful foci are possible. You can even solve a problem of science by throwing educated people at it.

So, how does a free group, which has vectors pointing all over the place, compete with a group with one single vector?

To me, the answer is, at least at this point, "they can't". What we can do is to live among those people, try to push the system to a point we're comfortable with (free speech, cheap computers, etc.). We can't expect the bulk of the population to ever "wake up". We might inspire people to become like us, but we can't expect to get noticed by the system and not get destroyed.

Am I being too pessimistic?

You hit the argument to the video head on.  The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.  The strong try to conquer the weak.  If people can get away with it, they will lie, cheat, and steal.  The weak can assemble to become strong, but then they conquer the new weak players.  This is how the world works.

[myrkul]

You hit the argument to the video head on.  The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence. 

Beneficial to whom?

And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.

[cunicula]

You hit the argument to the video head on.  The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.

Beneficial to whom?

And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.

Beneficial to people living in Singapore who care about getting wealthy above all and don't give a fuck about moral structure of any kind. Convince them that Anarchism will help them get rich and you can convert the whole nation of Arch-Statists in a New York minute. So far they are doing pretty well with Statism of the most extreme kind.

That success makes them a little skeptical of people who criticize the State. After all, how can you exploit third-world peons without State violence. What? You don't want to exploit them. But exploiting them is so profitable.

[stochastic]

You hit the argument to the video head on.  The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence. 

Beneficial to whom?

And the argument isn't nonviolence, it's nonaggression. The nonaggression, or "tit-for-tat" strategy is actually the most effective strategy.

I tried that game with someone else on the other side of the world while I was in an MRI.  The Alice 20 units and said whatever you give Bob will triple and they give back however much they want.  The more units the user had at the end, the more real money they study would give the participants.

I am sure my MRI showed revenge.  If I gave Bob all 20 units they would either keep it all or give me only a small profit, instead of splitting it evenly.

I did this MRI many times and some people could grasp the concept of what to normally but some people had either a steep learning curve or they would not understand at all.  I feel that tit-for-tat has 2 flaws.

1) Some people take offence to different things.  I wanted a 50/50 split of the profits I sent to Bob, so if I sent 20 units and now Bob has 60 units, they better send me back 30 units or I will retaliate (i.e. not give them any units the next round).  I have seen people get angry with overs from what they feel is offensive as they lost face and that offence could become violent.  Humans are emotional creatures, not rational ones.

2.  If there are no repercussions then there is no fear of reprisals.  Anonymity cannot exist.  If reprisals are OK then some kind of surveillance is required to give proof, otherwise anyone can say, "this person stole my things, I get to steal there things."  It is similar to, "this person is a witch, we should burn them," when in reality the accuser is just angry at the accused.

[Rudd-O]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t

A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

Neither is such a hypothesis correct, nor did the video ever suggest it either.  The video just said that propaganda-based slavery was more efficient than chattel-based slavery -- that's it.  At no point in time did the video claim that slavery was more efficient than non-slavery.

Please, re-watch it and realize this.

[memvola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xbp6umQT58A#t

A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. It will make you feel like shit but you need to watch it.

The problem is, enslaved humanity is more efficient than any proposed free society. We have to face this fact (which is actually adverted in the video possibly unintentionally) head on.

Neither is such a hypothesis correct, nor did the video ever suggest it either.  The video just said that propaganda-based slavery was more efficient than chattel-based slavery -- that's it.  At no point in time did the video claim that slavery was more efficient than non-slavery.

Please, re-watch it and realize this.

I may have used the wrong verb there. The video suggests that the whole ordeal is, not only to create the best exploitation mechanism, but also to cultivate the most efficient set of subjects to be exploited. The video doesn't say that we should expect a free society to be less (or more) efficient, yet I thought it was almost apparent.

I'm more interested in why you think the hypothesis is incorrect though. Also, is a free society that is trying to compete with the production power and military might of the slave society to even preserve its existence would actually count as free?

You hit the argument to the video head on.  The libertarian/anarchistic moral structure is that it is better to solve problems with nonviolence, yet it is sometimes beneficial and more efficient to solve problems with violence.

Beneficial to whom?

Beneficial to the physically stronger one? I'm sure we could agree that there are some things that are more easily attainable through violence, so the question should be about the magnitude of this benefit.