HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: Stefan Molyneux

Barack Obama: Get Off Julia!

641 ratings | 14504 views
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, dissects the recent Democrat licking of the single woman's ear - the Julia slideshow! Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (224)
Elsie H Martinez (4 months ago)
When i need i good laugh, i always click the life of Julia from Barry's days🤣. Gets me out of my bad funk😂.
30 Seven (2 years ago)
I bet they picked the name Julia as a sick joke. An allusion to 1984.
TIMOTHY.BURKE LINES (2 years ago)
IT,S NOT LIKE,WE DONT KNOW THE SOUTH IS EVIL,WITH JIMCROWISM.AND BLUE EYED FLUZIES.
Fiftycalibur (4 years ago)
Fantasy world success of central planning. It's like watching somebody play doll house with a god damn economy. 
Rasta Mon (4 years ago)
Lmao 14:50
CHistrue (4 years ago)
It is not the fault of the teacher unions that people from out of District go to jail for "lying."  That is the fault of the American class system. There are, by the way, critiques of public education from the left that focus on its role in perpetuating the class system.  There are a lot of valid points there.  The problem is that we would not want to return to child labor and all that happened before public education (well, I wouldn't).  The Prussian system is bad, but so was that.  I am not sure as to the way forward, but I know the directions I would not want to go.
CHistrue (4 years ago)
As for the first part of what you are saying, if you can point to a teacher union that has backed homicide in schools or the campaigns of homocidal maniacs, I will be the first to condemn that action. As for the second part, I am not sure what you are saying.
nustada (4 years ago)
"It is not the fault of the teacher unions" It absolutely is, because they fight against non-homicidal schools. And back the campaigns of homicidal maniacs. "we would not want to return to child labor" That is a function of abject poverty, if a family is starving the kid is going to work regardless of what the government decrees. When the value of a child laborer is less than that of them doing something else, is when change occurs. Before outlawing employing children, the rate of employment was dropping, afterword, there was no change in rate of decrease either.
garage arts (5 years ago)
thankyou for your time knowledge is power keep spreading the truth , please do more on Australias problems and glad you do your dvds
whackedout! (5 years ago)
Because of you, whenever I hear "under Obama" I begin snickering. LOL
thekangarooboxer (5 years ago)
single personhood(for women) under the provision of the one patriarch, the state. feminists... you aren't victims of "the patriarchy", you ARE "the patriarchy"!
lysergicgirll (5 years ago)
The day I realized governments have no money of their own was a really amazing epiphany.
Michael Lawson (5 years ago)
It's sad to think the amount of people who get off on reading this kind of emotional pandering that Stef is critiquing .. the power of words I suppose.
HarryGreb1000 (6 years ago)
Brilliant Stefan.
Hugo Rodriguez (6 years ago)
Julia is totally being pimped!
iseeyou1312 (6 years ago)
Your comment made me think of this video (check out the top comment): /watch?v=Rvy5xP83Syc It's not just Obama's vision, all Western countries are collapsing under bureaucracy and socialism (and a few other isms and the associated self entitlement). It's weird to think about what impression our civilisation will leave upon the world, but will probably be one autocrats and nationalist governments use to justify their reign.
AwayFromTheWorld (6 years ago)
If Julia is supposed to be 'any/every person', it sounds like 'they' have got a human farming plan. Free will? Nah, don't worry yourself with that you can just pay 'us' to take care of it.
wootfiles (6 years ago)
The only things I remember from going to headstart is 1. Missing the bus 2. Running around a really big looking room 3. Shitting in my pants and trying to pretend I didn't : / Oh well, I did make my first friend at headstart though. Wonder what he's doin nowadays
pipem4n (6 years ago)
He didn't say that, did he?No he didn't - straw man. And you are disohnest here - you were saying: "But I believe you were in IT? Then I guess you were the kind of employer who hired the sort of losers who build the majority of websites out there. And we all know they are really great..." Right? Say what you want to say. What am I to do with this? Assume that there is a genuine need for webmasters to learn for years in government school to make a web page you like? I don't see such a need ..
QuatFax (6 years ago)
Just curious: where did you get the figure that 80% of welfare goes to bureaucrats? I believe you, but I'd like to see where you got it.
QuatFax (6 years ago)
Do it to Julia!
KzoneDD (6 years ago)
It can be done. I was referring to his suggestion that webdesign doesn't require learning at all.
Liberty Warrior (6 years ago)
Stefan is not against college, he is again government funded college. By the way, I am a very good computer programmer and I didn't go to university, I learned everything on my own and on the job.
KzoneDD (6 years ago)
Well, Stefan, you've gone seriously off the bend here, as a 'Webdesigner' I can tell you that there IS easilly four years of college learning required to do the job well. But I believe you were in IT? Then I guess you were the kind of employer who hired the sort of losers who build the majority of websites out there. And we all know they are really great...
ManiTati (6 years ago)
i couldn't understand any of that
Visfen (6 years ago)
I think what is most scary is that Obama will be president for life.
ManiTati (6 years ago)
What "mistakes" are you referring to? Getting pregnant?
Mary (6 years ago)
I love this guy! He is so right on. Feminism is garbage and as a woman I feel embarrassed by all those entitlement whores, expecting everyone else to pay for their mistakes and take care of them. I subscribed!
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
For 'her' work? Hmmm, well, she sings the song, but she didn't write it, so she's not the sole contributor to the end product. If you were a lemonade maker (instead of a tv station) and lemons became widely available and free, would you then pay the sugar plant owner the money you would have given to the lemon farmer? I doubt it. So i doubt a tv station would pay the singer the money it would have been sending in the direction of the songwriter, that would make poor business sense.
Daniel Gjörwell (6 years ago)
@SpaceGoatFart no, the singer pays through not being able to get the full compensation for her work. That money is sent to the IP owner. The fact that the singer doesn't directly pay doesn't mean that she doesn't indirectly pays.
SaM52461 (6 years ago)
who cares, personally I'm not going to do anything, I'm going to go eat my hotdogs and watch baseball
hep48 (6 years ago)
Good stuff. Oh BTW you should re-do the interview with Bill Gaede. Everyone knows about it now bruh. Don't buckle under pressure not to. It'll ruin your rep or whatever.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
I don't have to defend anything... i'm merely giving you FACTS. Y'know... reality...? Does one need to defend reality in your world?
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"If I sing a copyrighted song for money on TV, I can be compelled to not sing it again, and/or pay them a portion of MY earnings" Under IP law, you get earnings for the work that YOU have done (ie, your version- the performance) and the writer gets earnings for the portion of work that they have done, which are THEIR earnings... at no point do YOU pay THEM anything. The tv company pays. They pay you for your contribution to the performance, and they pay the writer for theirs. Go read up on it...
613 (6 years ago)
Just keep stroking your ego, it's much easier then defending your points. "There is no compulsion whatsoever to not sing a song." If I sing a copyrighted song for money on TV, I can be compelled to not sing it again, and/or pay them a portion of MY earnings. You are simply wrong, despite all your posturing and insults.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
My position? Sorry, DO point out to me where i explained to you what my position is? :-) I interjected in your conversation with someone else to point out that every time that you use an example of IP law to defend your position, you delve into an imaginary world that has no basis in reality, and doesn't reflect IP law in practice. (Not found an incarcerated busker yet then?) You insist on carry on with using fallacies to back yourself up, so i consider it pointless, to be frank.
613 (6 years ago)
For the last time, this isn't "my logic". You agreed that laws must have underlying logic, they don't come down to us from the heavens. If you can't articulate the logic of the laws you are supporting maybe you should reconsider your position on them. Instead of writing irrational for the hundredth time and attempting to talk down to me for the third comment in a row, us e your oh so valuable time to actually defend the principles of the laws you support.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Nothing to do with ego. It's more about me valuing my time. I've tell you your examples of IP law are completely wrong and nonsensical and that they undermine your supposed logic. Now you think its my role to argue with your 'logic' in order to change your mind, (a mind which is irrational, because you compare someone singing a song to being a slave, ffs) I think what you should be most concerned about is why you appear to have swallowed an ideology wholesale without looking at some fact
613 (6 years ago)
K go stroke your ego somewhere else, I'm tired of trying to get a rational argument or description of what is so vital for me to know but so worthless you can't seem to find the time to explain or defend.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
It's like... talking to someone who hates cake... but he's never eaten cake... so how i can discuss cake with you? Your animosity towards cake would be irrational. Your descriptions of cake being bad wouldn't make any sense to me because they wouldn't describe cake. Yeah... and i'm bored... i need to find someone who understands IP law, but is a supporter of AnCap ideas... and you need to go read IP law, or find me a locked up busker. :-D
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
I actually haven't 'admitted' to anything, i've gotten bored of talking to someone who doesn't understand the subject matter, ie IP law. lol. Go... find me an incarcerated busker, then we can talk. Fact is, i would LIKE to understand why AnCap ppl are so against IP laws, but unfortunately you're not the person to speak to, because your reasoning as to why you're against IP laws had you descending into an imaginary world where buskers are incarcerated. Sadly, this is not reality.
613 (6 years ago)
Way to attempt to over complicate things and muddy the waters. An insane person isn't allowed to enter into contractual arrangements, and children can only enter into non-criminal contracts with the consent of their parents. "he is clearly portraying his lack of decision-making abilities." This is exactly the reason for what I stated above. Now try arguing that a poor sane man shouldn't accept a job in a sweat shop, when he feels it is the BEST offer he is given.
613 (6 years ago)
Okay so you have finally admitted that there is an underlying logic to laws, that is a good start. We are here meeting in the comments section of the biggest philosophical conversation in the world. Instead of attempting to talk down to me why don't you try explaining the logic of IP?
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Have you found me an incarcerated busker yet? Hmm? Otherwise you're just upholding a supposed 'logic' which denies reality... What would be the use of explaining the logic behind the law to you if you refuse to try to understand the law itself. You wouldnt be able to grasp it.
613 (6 years ago)
*claps* You will be looked upon by future generations as an intellectual giant capable of swaying any person with the force of your arguments inescapable logic! Did my bulletproof argument hurt your feelings? You sure seem to be acting like someone who has been wronged. Maybe it was me wholly and undeniably justly answering your question.
613 (6 years ago)
What an argument you presented! I've been immediately and irrevocably swayed by the force of your astoundingly rational argument! There wasn't even a single fallacy involved! Certainly none of the most common, basic and childish fallacy of them all, the ad hominem.
613 (6 years ago)
Who has the right to buy central park? I think it is currently under the domain of the city of New York, so my idea for privatizing it is giving every citizen of New York an even share of ownership. A new company, not corporation, will be created: The Central Park company. Each share owner gets an equal say. Maybe they have differing views and would prefer to split up the park, maybe by dividing it up in a grid and drawing lots. Maybe they agree and will either keep it together or sell it.
613 (6 years ago)
So you sit there lecturing morality, putting some poor people out of a job they voluntarily accepted and the guy who offered them a better alternative then ALL OTHER OPTIONS is the immoral one? You take the money out of the pockets of poor people, limiting their options and offering no real alternatives, but you are the morally just person here. Is your definition of "up": "moving towards the ground."?
blmonkey (6 years ago)
In my world, at 18, Julia started work in the mail room of a large tech company, 2 years later had web design courses with tuition assistance and CBT programs (all employee benefits), applies internally for a junior web design slot and gets it. At 28 BS degree completed, paying her own way thru her salary and corp TI. A senior designer now. Then head of web design group. Onward to CTO. In my world, without effect of taxation along the way Julia had amassed a fortune earlier than under Obama.
613 (6 years ago)
Is offering someone a crappy deal morally wrong when they are free to turn it down or accept another offer? No. So no, voluntary "sweat shops" aka low wage jobs with poor working conditions aren't morally wrong. If your moral crusade against poor working conditions ends up with a poor person out of a job they voluntarily accepted who is morally wrong?
613 (6 years ago)
"So you are saying once a person relaizes their ideas as a material product they are a part of the Earth - so why can they not be made private property?" Well that isn't the most clearly worded sentence I've ever read, but I'll take a stab. If you write a book, and print 1000 of those books. You absolutely do own those books. If you sell me one of those books, I absolutely own that book. You still own the other 999 books. Now since I own a book I can copy MY BOOK or sell MY BOOK or BOTH.
613 (6 years ago)
So you pull numbers and fictitious examples directly out of your ass and attempt to use them as evidence? Nice try. Hypothetical arguments and examples are used to prove a point or show an underlying logic. I hope making bold claims and spouting catch phrases makes you feel good, because it isn't helping your argument any.
613 (6 years ago)
"if you don;t pay us you might have a mysterious fire... or one of your workers might fall down and land on my dick..." Funny how you mention loss of property and rape, because that is exactly what is waiting for anyone who disobeys the government goons. Ah the luxuries of being forced to pay for something at the point of a gun. Its wrong for the mafia to do it but when the government does it you cheer them on then huh? To actually accuse an-caps of supporting extortion is laughable.
613 (6 years ago)
You are the person who called ME obtuse? Laws don't spring forth from nothing. Or are you really defending laws just because they are laws? Is an illogical law still worth defending because it was written down? No? Then defend the LOGIC BEHIND THE LAW. Instead of spending half your time attempting to insult me, try thinking about what YOU are defending. Is it a law or is it a principle? If you are defending law for laws sake then you are a model citizen, in the eyes of a dictator at least.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Comparing copyright to slave ownership isn't just daft, its downright offensive. Singing a successful cover version of a song (which both you and the song writer get handsomely rewarded for) - YOU WANT TO COMPARE THAT TO SLAVERY? Whatttt? So Elvis was a slave then? Most, if not ALL of his songs were written by someone else. I rather think Graceland is a touch more roomy than the digs at the cotton plantations. You're out of touch with reality my friend, you sound brainwashed.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"... then the busker should logically require permission..." What i find most strange is your insistence in calling your point of view "logic". All your supposed "logical thought" is actually reverse engineered to arrive at your firmly held opinion. That isn't logic, its irrational, it's thinking in a vacuum, refusing real facts. You refuse to read & understand IP law because you'd rather be completely irrational & cling to misinfo in order to not undermine your "opinion". Quite worrying.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Have you found me an incarcerated busker to back up your fictional and frankly ludicrous account of IP laws yet? :-D You're still arguing from a place of pure & utter fiction. You can't take an example of trespass laws and then claim it to be the same for IP laws(without provoking amusement) They're legislation, not laws of nature. Do you really think that listening to a song means that it is trespassing your ears & you have the right to shoot a song in self defense... hilarious!
Collin Li (6 years ago)
at 22:00 I thought the more obvious contradiction was "free" stuff after contributing to social security.
Dick Schultz (6 years ago)
Moron.
613 (6 years ago)
part 2 "Absolute self-ownership with the exception of your own ideas..." So you have no argument I see. You own your ideas as much as anyone else owns any ideas, slightly more since you can claim to be the originator. Losing the right to coerce someone into paying you for an idea is like losing the right to own slaves, sure you lost something but what you lost was the right to coerce non-violent people who haven't taken anything from you. You still have your idea!
613 (6 years ago)
"Stateless-capitalism already exists, it's called the Criminal Underworld. " Really so when we an-caps get rid of the government somehow there will still be government agents chasing us and trying to throw us in jail? Or are you forgetting the very first thing about the criminal underworld, that they are criminals being threatened with jail-time or worse? "you just spoke of the Government's current capabilities under the Patriot Act" Growing certain plants was illegal long before that.
613 (6 years ago)
I wasn't being obtuse, I was informing you that your narrow definition of profit and IP only seems to apply when lots of money can be hosed from people. If its property the bounds aren't "making money" they are any and all use. Is it trespassing if you walk into my house but don't make money from it? Of course. So if you can OWN ideas, then the busker should logically require permission, same with cover bands or me singing to my friends for money or ANY REASON AT ALL. Property is property.
613 (6 years ago)
No I was being hypothetical, there probably was a farm like that in my family's past, but not now. Not all current property owners, if someone has a better claim to your land they should have it. Anyone like a queen, who owns tons of land that they effectively stole, should give it back. If my house is on land that was stolen from the natives, they should get it back and the government should pay me, as they were the ones who stole it and sold it. Communism claims to own your body, so yea.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"...and anyone who uses it for profit without your consent is committing a crime." I'll refer you back to my busker example. Does a busker gain permission from the copyright holder to sing a song? Can you find me ONE that has, or who has been locked up for singing? Honestly, your grasp of IP law is poor. I truly suggest you read up on IP and its applications before formulating opinion on it, because it sounds like you are basing your opinions around someone else's opinion of it, rather than fact
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"The logic of IP states..." Sorry, IP logic? IP is a law... a finite law... its not a school of thought... "...that you own an idea..." Not quite... It has to EXIST in order to be awarded copyright. You cannot copyright an IDEA for a book... you have to actually create the book, you have to actually create the song, you have to actually produce a prototype or a methodology that works... you follow? I can't walk into a patent office and say "I had an idea..." You copyright the fruit of an idea.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Did you really struggle that much to understand what i MEANT by enrichment/profit that you needed a dictionary? I think you understand PERFECTLY well what i meant. Please, you're just being obtuse. I'm referring to financial profit. I'm referring to other modes of enrichment- study, for example. Can you follow?
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
" its entirely irrational and nothing but a state enforced extortion mechanism." Your lack of comprehension of IP law doesnt make IT irrational ... however your vehement hatred of IP laws without being able to properly give examples of them in practice does make you look quite irrational yourself.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"If I sing a song where my friends pay me money to do it, its illegal" Please, give me an example of someone being sued by a state for singing a song for their FRIENDS in return for money? Because, again, you're arguing from fiction. Have you ever seen a busker being sued? I strongly suspect that you yourself don't own the intellectual property rights of anything because your knowledge of it (which you're basing your opposition to IP law upon) is highly faulty.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
"Everything we do, we do for profit, in one sense of the word or another." Thats a very strange statement. What about things that we do for entertainment, or enrichment? Or fun? "You are effectively trying to tell me that singing a song for money isn't singing a song!" I can't even begin to make sense of that sentence. lol It is certainly not what i said. I said it is not illegal to sing a song. What is illegal is to turn it into a commercial activity at the expense of the copyright holder.
613 (6 years ago)
"Status Quo remains except everyone loses their rights. Basically." Instead of arguing against straw men, try arguing against absolute self ownership, its hard huh? Justifying enslaving people, even partially, doesn't come easy now does it? Your quote here is a complete joke, and shows how little you understand about libertarianism, or the world as it is now. The government can steal from and imprison you for non-violent or nonsensical crimes, so yea I'm for losing the right to be subjugated.
613 (6 years ago)
"(they remain without private property)" You JUST finished mentioning my reference to a body and then the very next sentence ignore everything I said about them! Poor people OWN THEIR BODY! The most valuable thing most people will ever own, rich or poor! "people who's years of hereditary theft (aristocrats, royals) keep all their ill-gotten gains." Never mentioned, referenced or even hinted at this being the case, because I don't hold that view AT ALL.
613 (6 years ago)
Commercially singing a song? I'm not misinformed at all, you are just obsessing over nonsensical categories. Everything we do, we do for profit, in one sense of the word or another. You are effectively trying to tell me that singing a song for money isn't singing a song! If I sing a song where my friends pay me money to do it, its illegal, but if I sing it for praise its legal, its entirely irrational and nothing but a state enforced extortion mechanism.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Sorry, i don't mean to knock you, but you really, really don't understand IP laws. Again, you are arguing your points from a place of pure fiction. There is no compulsion whatsoever to not sing a song. Its not illegal to sing a song. Again, you seem completely misinformed that IP laws go beyond commercial activity. They have everything to do with sales. In fact, under IP laws, as a singer, you get protected too, so no-one can surreptitiously record you and then sell it.
SpaceGoatFarts (6 years ago)
Hope you don't mind me interjecting. Its an interesting conversation. You are actually basing your argument on fiction, not law- its not actually illegal under current IP laws to copy from a book under certain circumstances. There are many situations where this happens and is perfectly legal. What IS illegal is to sell it, or to benefit from it commercially in other ways. You cannot argue about IP laws while trying to ignore the commercial aspect. The cabin argument is similarly flawed.
613 (6 years ago)
So because any one individual might potentially deny you property you need to survive, we should create a group that has the right to take property at will, has a monopoly on force, commits unbelievable violence to innocent people and regards dictating how any and all property is to be used as it's right? I'm much less frightened of ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH collectively denying me gainful employment, or even basic needs then I am of the governments of the world.
613 (6 years ago)
Whoever gets there first and puts it to use. If someone is already at a place how could you possibly claim any rights to it? If my family cleared land and started farming what right do you have to own ANYTHING to do with that farm? Similarly you were by fact of nature the first person to occupy your body, so how could anyone claim to have more say over it then you? Unless you sign a contract diminishing your rights, no individual would ever claim such a thing, governments do it routinely.
613 (6 years ago)
Just claiming anything as a "right" is ridiculous. There are two types of rights, the traditional, negative rights, which libertarians support as they are individualistic, FOR BOTH THE WORKERS AND THE EMPLOYERS AND EVERYONE ELSE. Then there are the new socialist's idea of what a right is, positive rights, which REQUIRE FORCING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS FOR YOU. Negative rights protect individuals from aggression, positive rights aggress against individuals, see the difference?
Alyssa Mayhut (6 years ago)
Romney only has 350 delegates not 800
jlopena (6 years ago)
"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else." - Dr. Adrian Rogers
John Doe (6 years ago)
Excellent, thanks for bringing attention to the people the misanric agenda of the government
613 (6 years ago)
You would rather be drafted by the government then work for a businessman? You can quit a job, try quiting the army.
613 (6 years ago)
part 2 "In AnCap society, if you aren't an owner, you're a wage-slave without rights - in fact your only right is to quit - just like in a sweat-shop. So you NEED to be an owner. " This is laughable. For one thing "wage-slave" is a communist critique of 19th century Britain, AND COMMUNISTS DON'T SUPPORT IP! Secondly, you are born into arguably the most valuable thing anyone will ever own, their own body. Thirdly, "without rights"? What the hell are you talking about?
613 (6 years ago)
"and sell as his own work" Pro-IP people seem to have a very tough time separating concepts and principles. Nobody said you could lie, claiming something as your own work is fraud, which has its own law. I was talking about copying a book, never even mentioned selling it. My voluntarily copying a book that you sold my friend is supposedly an illicit act. Nobody lost anything THEY PREVIOUSLY OWNED OR HAD ANY TITLE TO. You don't own future profits, your book could fall out of favour.
SeekingSanctity (6 years ago)
Words don't describe how angry I am at the Obama goons for producing something like this. And to think ,a dinky little flash app is their way to wow the feminist audience?
kroovyandcal (6 years ago)
So bad you would suspect the opposition made the video so we could all hate big govt stupidity
jeffiek (6 years ago)
Then you are either dishonest or you have no morals ( but I repeat myself ). Either way you cannot tell anyone they are wrong. I am both honest and I have morals. I can and will tell you that you are wrong, that you have written nothing but crap, that YOU are part of what is holding back the progress of society.
jeffiek (6 years ago)
The problem with subsidies is that it is money taken by the government from the people under threat of force. Stop right there. No need to go any farther.
jeffiek (6 years ago)
It's a good book. Not perfect, but good.
jeffiek (6 years ago)
Every man is entitled to the sole ownership of the product of his labor, either mental or physical. It necessarily follows that no man can be required to perform any labor on behalf of another. IP law requires payment for enforcement by non-involved parties. It is therefore self-contradictory and invalid. NDA's and secrets work just fine. The IP creator has no justification to require people to act as their personal unpaid police force.
jeffiek (6 years ago)
Argument from effect disregards morality BY DEFINITION.
613 (6 years ago)
How about you voluntarily sell me a book, then I voluntarily allow my friend to copy it? It was voluntarily sold by you, how do you still get to say what its used for? If I sell you an apple do I get a portion of the proceeds of any tree you grow from it? You growing an apple tree WILL diminish the value of apples slightly! You have no right to violate other people's property. IP violates real property ergo IP has to go. You don't have any right to tell me what to do with my property.
Justin (6 years ago)
Excellent video as always
brandon hartline (6 years ago)
stef out!!!! haha...awesome.
613 (6 years ago)
part 2 "So why should you have any OWNERSHIP of it?" This is backwards thinking. An idea is infinitely reproducible, if you have it and I copy it, YOU STILL HAVE IT. The whole reason we have ownership is because things are scarce. If I have an apple, you can't have that same apple! If I copy your log cabin design, it doesn't diminish your log cabin or design in any direct way. It is illegitimate to extort people who are only interacting with each other voluntarily.
613 (6 years ago)
It's a fundamental violation of my property! You can't sing happy birthday in a for profit enterprise without permission from some person, shows mock it all the time. "can you make a profit from it without paying royalties to the composer/writer" Of course you can, there are artist who do that specifically. People have this idea that IP just is and has always been, its under 300-400 years old. All the most famous old works of art were without IP. If there is a need, it will be provided.
19missi59 (6 years ago)
stefbot.i am not living in the u.s and like the way stefan points out where theat country is headed...but i kinda miss his propositions or alternatives.i love thinking outside the box and am for way less regulations in all western countries-but how to do? is my question
John Luzzi (6 years ago)
lol social security!!!!
megatherium100 (6 years ago)
It does concern me if a have to pay for other peoples entertainment. I dont have a problem with other people fucking around. What I have a problem with is that other people make adult decisions, like fucking around, but dont have the balls and/or the money to pay for their own contraception or the consequences of having sex, and those same irresponsible people want other people to take the burden of providing them with the means for having fun and the responsibility of their own actions.
Skyler827 (6 years ago)
what's with the video quality?
W P (6 years ago)
It won't be a disaster without IP laws, simply because teachers would still want their students to come up with original material. You disregard morality because your argument stems from what would happen under X circumstances, not from moral principles. The moral principle I use is simply that it is wrong to initiate force against others, nothing special about it. Offence never has anything to do with the veracity or morality of an argument, period.
W P (6 years ago)
I suppose they could claim they wrote it, and they could also just copy and paste. But claiming they wrote it would just be a lie, and teachers still wouldn't want kids to c&p research papers. Kids can do both of those things very easily right now, with a low chance of repercussions, but we're not experiencing a scholastic disaster. My arguments are from the point of view of self-ownership; you seem to be arguing from effect, which is intellectually sloppy and disregards morality.
613 (6 years ago)
Nobody said anything about selling, IP doesn't require selling. A built a better cabin and B copied it. Who was robbed and of what? Using an idea isn't reprehensible at all! You speak a language which was invented by other people. Every single bit of IP is "stealing" ideas from those who were around before IP. Ideas don't just pop into existence, they build up over time. There would be no guitar riffs if the guitar weren't invented, does that mean Mr. Guitar owns all guitar riffs?

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.