hey I watched the videos, thanks for having courtesy should I answer your comments with a slimy quote and a line below, that was a personal story with real examples that I've went through, well I suppose watching videos and thinking the world different would solve everything, but then again we aren't even doing that. We are dancing around an argument :)
"it's not that I couldn't call the police, it's just that I don't think violence solves problems, "
you could view police as a protection racket, but then government is the problem, so we agree there, keep in mind that even capitalists say what is said in the video, they only claim there will be more efficiencies in the future to combat the decline, which we know won't solve a problem rather just perpetuate it, it was why I've watched a lot of "conspiracies" on the current financial system and was a fan of the Venus project a few years back, they were the first to do something and show actual progress rather than the violent and "progressive" actually regressive in my view actions from the American "opposition" well two part rule isn't that different from a one party rule.
oh you got me there :) the second video, then zombies lulled me to sleep. I didn't read the Stefan Molyneux on universal ethics. Yes the Non-Aggression principle is a principle and it's stupid to apply it when the other "party" doesn't have the same beliefs. Preferably people will have morals to feed people and see the good in them, where there is some hope, educate, work together and stop the exploitation of natural resources over the top to produce material gains in the moment and profits in the quarterly term or whatnot. That is as close to happening(2000 years +++ of exploitation weigh in the other end) as the non aggression principle is to make it's way and make a great capitalistic society where the above mentioned scenario can occur.
Yes I'm a idealist i some sense as in I'd like to see stupid stuff to stop happening, but I'm also a realist in the sense that it's easier to cut corners and sweep shit under the rug.
also on that last line again, yeah writers that don't agree with how the country is run, how workers are exploited even after that is what should have stopped, those rascals, politicising their opinion..
on violence and military, I'd get back at you since you aren't really giving examples rather just trying to stomp on me, military is a part of the world for again millennia, prayers have normally gone with the military. I don't see you proposing solutions other than invest more into military budget to combat the military budget investments. Technically you don't need military if everyone is capable of defending themselves, you could have a small reserve in case of a major crisis, but that would be police and would hopefully not beat random people on the street, that in a socialist state would be peacefully disrupting the means of production ie. the roads. What would you have different than a state in a democracy? How would you have a country built if not on the past looting and pillaging of others (culture, traditions, heritage ..) In case your history is lacking Imperialism tends to be expansive (you want to have military that tends to put the generals in power) some tribal societies have mostly fought defensive wars and most of the smaller states have fought bloody wars to defend their heritage from the bloody capitalists(feudalism is probably capitalistic) still military is something pervasive during the ages because there is violence. How violence can solve that, I don't know I know that the military is being kept in check with fear. The whole modern world is a different breed and private armies are a different topic, yes that probably wouldn't exist in a socialist state, but then that's a topic on politics of power.