This comment has received too many negative votesshow
One flaw, The government provides you with services: When you get old the government will pay you back your social security, when you drive on a road, the government supplied that to you, the government gave you the pipes carrying the water to you, and the pipes taking the waste away. The government provides protection from people who want to harm you for no good reason, and you don't want to pay for that, or follow the terms of service? Well I do.
idiot, it would be cheaper and more efficient if provided by PRIVATE. anyways you do pay for the pipes anyways through taxes! much more than you would if it were private! if government is so good why doesnt FEMA make cell phones and the gov sell you your milk, retard!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Put the Ayn Rand down, she's bad for you. Privatization is neither cheaper nor is it more efficient. Private companies want to turn a profit, and they should, My complaint against privatization is there are some things people should not be making a profit on. Do you think people should be able to profit from slavery, murder, or extortion? How is exploitation of workers, not slavery? How are private military firms, not murderers? How is manipulating markets not extortion?
Are you a member of FEMA? Profiting from murde slavery and extortion is not a free market as you can see that is breaking fundamental laws which is you cannot harm/kill/etc anyone. Exploitation of workers? What does that mean? A worker picks a job and can leave at ANY time, there is no exploitation, only exploitation of a government because you don't have a choice. Private military is not privatisation, that is government run because it all depends on government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
very much of this is naught but over literalization and pure semantics, although yes government should be disinvolved from buiness, part of what has run our nation into the ground, when a trust or monopoly rises, they can extort the populace with nothing they can do about it, and faitasi37 the maker of this video, also states, paraphrased, that businessmen doing business because it between them, consentious and on their property, they must not be able to hurt third parties wich is wrong
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is miserably invalid because, although these businessmen do not IMMEDIATLY threaten anyone, if a trust, or a monopoly is allowed to rise in a nation, and have complete control over a business, they can have those prices wherever they want, thus extorting the citizenry, while business should be allowed freedom, it shuld be kept small, big business is part of what ruined america...part of it...
You're wrong Vivalarocknroll. Capitalism prohibits the use of force. That means the government must keep its hands off business. Its either capitalism or totalitarianism. Its either freedom or slavery.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The regulations were put in place to protect the public. Business can not be trusted to regulate itself, it has been proven time and again to only serve it's bottom line, not the common good. Read "The Jungle." it gives the best reason for regulations. It's all fun and games until a worker is sold as sausage, because he fell into the rendering vat. Look at the Salmonella in the peanut butter incidents this year as proof deregulation sounds good, but is not.
I love the pithy, point-making nature of calling this The Invisible Gun.
I like to make this point by citing P.J.O'Rourke's quote...which is too large to fit in the comment area, so I'm going to reply to my comment with the quote, in two parts:
...remember that all tax revenue is the result of holding a gun to somebody's head. Not paying taxes is against the law. If you don't pay taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. Thus I
- in my role as citizen and voter
- am going to shoot you
- in your role as taxpayer and ripe suck
- if you don't pay your fair share of the national tab...
"BTW the law has changed since Stuart K. Hayashi's essays, people aren't arrested or imprisoned for owing debts."
Wrong. Bankruptcy protection provides PROCEDURAL safeguards; procedural law provides that they have more time to get their affairs in order so that they can eventually pay off their creditors. For the collection of debts to be legally enforced, the government has to escalate penalties for those who consciously evade payment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I said NOTHING about bankrupt.
As for government escalation, your property can be taken away and your wages garnished (up to 30%) but someone will NOT be imprisoned for owing debts.
"As for government escalation, your property can be taken away and your wages garnished (up to 30%) but someone will NOT be imprisoned for owing debts."
The video doesn't say that if some1 owes debts, the gov. will immediately jail him for just that. The video says that if some1 continually evades government punishment, the severity of the government's punishment escalates, & the gov.'s gun is the final argument.
If Fanatic4FreeThought's insinuation is that this video says that people are immediately imprisoned for owing debts - to the gov. or any1 else - then, on Fanatic's part, that is a misunderstanding at best, or it is a straw man. The fact is that if a scofflaw consistently refuses to pay his fines, & private parties don't cooperate w/ gov. in punishing him, the scofflaw & these financial institutions can be subpoenaed, & these subpoenas are backed by gov. force.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's not my insinuation. All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences.
As for the subpoenas, the government doesn't go to third parties to punish somebody. What exactly are you talking, whatever it is it sounds like a ridicules scenario.
A1. "All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
Indeed your comments have evaded the issue. A person can't be directly, immediately imprisoned upon incurring a bad debt. Your remarks evade the video's point. When some1 incurs a debt, there R legal safeguards so that a debtor has time to pay off debts. In the long term, gov. force is on the creditor's side. cont'd
A2. If I can't make my car payments, the creditor need not ask the gov. to come after me. The creditor can ask a private Repo Man to repossess the car. But what if I say, "It's MY car & U can't take it back," & I get into a fist fight w/ the Repo man? Under normal circumstances, the gov. will find that the law was on the Repo Man's side & not my side. Laws are ultimately backed by gov. force, cuz when things escalate, the gov.'s gun is the final argument.
"As for the subpoenas, the government doesn't go to third parties to punish somebody. What exactly are you talking, whatever it is it sounds like a ridicules scenario."
I didn't say that. U're talking nonsense. U said that if I don't pay my gov. fines, the gov. can subtract money from my paycheck. That subtraction is backed by gov. force. What if my employer, in defiance of gov. rules, DOESN'T subtract it from my paycheck? My employer is then subject to prosecution. Gov. force again.
"All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
That's another strawman U've used here: the video didn't say that some1 would be killed or arrested as a direct result of not paying fines. The video said that some1 can be killed when dangerously resisting arrest, & that some1 can be arrested for defying subpoenas. Subpoenas can be issued to deal w/ people who persistently engage in minor legal offenses.
"All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
& what are these "other consequences"? There R other LEGAL consequences. The legal consequences of not paying one's fines is that there will be other legal punishments, & if the scofflaw resists them as well, the penalties escalate. Your posts haven't acknowledged that scofflaws who consistently evade these punishments can be subpoenaed to show up in court.
E1. Fanatic4 writes, "All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
ALL he said? Fanatic4 earlier: "So that pretty much makes this whole video irrelevant."
That's not a minor correction; it's a sweeping dismissal of the video's theme - a dismissal based on the false accusation that the video said that a person can be imprisoned as a direct result of owing debts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This theme = anarchy.
Besides you've completely missed what I was saying. I never said the video claimed there was immediate lethal force, I said not everything can escalate to lethal force.
Besides even if it did its the crazy's fault for continuing to resist over trivial things to the point were the government has to use lethal force to uphold justice for all.
E2. Contrary 2 Fanatic4's inaccurate characterization of this video, its point is that gov. ultimately has physical force on its side in disputes against private citizens, & that people should could consequently avoid passing laws against peaceful acts.
If some1 could avoid paying accumulating gov. fines, & the gov. could never subpoena scofflaws who persisted in evading fines, those fines would, in practice, not b enforceable by law. The "other consequences" R also ultimately backed by force.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is insane. Legalizing all non-violent behavior would be the ruin of civilization. Please tell me I don't have to explain this obvious and fundamental aspect of civilization.
"BTW the law has changed since Stuart K. Hayashi's essays, people aren't arrested or imprisoned for owing debts.
"So that pretty much makes this whole video irrelevant."
Another straw man. The video's point is obviously not that some1 who's fined by the gov., or owes debts, will be immediately imprisoned as a result. The point of the video is that laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint, & that the gov.'s guns should only be pointed at those who START the violence.
"If you don't pay fines willingly, then they just automatically subtract the money from your paycheck. If you CAN'T pay your fines, you can either appeal the fines or just not pay them."
For the State to garnish ur money, other private parties have to comply w/ the State. What if those other private parties consistently refrain from such compliance? What happens if 10 yrs. go by w/o Ur paying the fine or even showing up in court to appeal them? 4 the law 2b enforced, punishment worsens.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If these private parties don't send your debt to collections (which I assume that's what your talking about when you say "when they don't comply with the sate") then they don't get paid. Its as simple as that.
Besides if they didn't comply with the state how would the government react in anyway including sending somebody to prison like the maker of this video mistakenly believes.
Besides this isn't a matter of if the law is a good one. That's just the law, I'm not saying I disagree with him.
"If these private parties don't send your debt to collections (which I assume that's what your talking about when you say 'when they don't comply with the state') then they don't get paid."
Wrong. The gov. has the power of subpoena. If the scofflaw doesn't show up in court, he is subpoenaed. If these parties refrain from compliance with police, they can be charged with obstructing justice. When people ignore subpoenas to show up in court, armed police are sent after them.
This is where your story breaks down. If you don't pay fines willingly, then they just automatically subtract the money from your paycheck. If you CAN'T pay your fines, you can either appeal the fines or just not pay them. Regardless people are not sent to prison for owing money.
Well if you have no income or an income that's under the table then you don't pay have to pay it.
Do you think a homeless man would be sent to prison because he couldn't pay a fine? Anyways the law (in the U.S.) states that people can't go to jail for owing debts.
It's not a matter of opinion its a matter of fact. Its not a perfect law but its better then what the maker of this video thinks is the law.
"Anyways the law (in the U.S.) states that people can't go to jail for owing debts."
That is a straw man against the video's point. The video doesn't say that if some1 owes debts, he will be immediately imprisoned. The video says that if some1 refrains from paying gov. fines - including the increased fines for refusing to pay the initial fine - the gov. can only enforce the fines if it subpoenas the scofflaw.
B1. "But as I said before tasers and automatically withdrawn fines can often times prevent the need for lethal force."
That's another straw man U've used. I didn't say that gov. will necessarily use lethal force. I said lethal force is the gov.'s last resort, & that it's authorized to use lethal force when the situation escalates enough.
B2. If Mr. Brown evades paying taxes for years, the gov. will send armed men after him. If he guards himself with a gun, & the gov. agents use violence against him, people will say that the violence was justified on the grounds that Brown was being a danger to the community by carrying a gun to ward off tax collectors.
The question that this video asks is: Who INITIATED the ultimate threat of physical force in the 1st place?
B3. Gov. can use lethal force as a last resort in stopping a murderer. This video argues that that is justifiable, as the murderer initiated force, so the fact that the gov. can resort to lethal force against a relentless murderer means the gov. is only using retaliatory force. But if some1 smokes pot in his own house, he's not initiating force. But if he fights against police who try to arrest him, the pot smoker is the 1 retaliating against force initiated against him.
B4. This video argues that the gov. is authorized to use lethal force as a last resort, but whether killing some1 is considered appropriate for the gov. is based upon the extent of his resistance. If the pot-smoker minds his own business, & then armed policemen come after him, & the pot-smoker uses a gun to defend himself, then the police might be considered legally right to shoot the pot-smoker if they believe he poses an immediate physical danger.
B5. Hence, the gov.'s guns are the final argument in a potentially-escalating scuffle between the pot-smoker & the police. For that reason, this video asks the question of whether it is appropriate for the gov. to pass laws - laws ultimately enforced at gunpoint - against the person or property of private parties who engage in actions that don't initiate force against person or property in the form of violence, theft, property damage, contract breach, & fraud.
C1. "It is not a straw man argument I'm just refuting the analogy used in the video."
This use of the word "analogy," on your part, is incorrect. An analogy is a comparison, such as a metaphor. This video doesn't use an analogy; it uses a hypothetical example of a scenario - a scenario that, despite your persistent and arbitrary dismissals, can plausibly occur in the real world.
D1. It looks like Fanatic4FreeThought has repeatedly made the false accusation that this video stated that if some1 doesn't pay his debts them - BOOM! - he goes to prison. What the video said was that if a scofflaw consistently evades paying fines, it is plausible to expect the scofflaw to be subpoenaed to show up in court to xplain himself. For the subpoena to be enforced, policemen R sent to detain scofflaws who disobey subpoenas.
D2. The excuse that Fanatic4FreeThought made early on - that if the scofflaw doesn't pay his gov. fines, the gov. "can just" have the money subtracted from the scofflaw's paycheck - doesn't fly. If the gov. requests that the employer subtract the money, & the employer doesn't, the gov. can punish the employer. If the gov. wants to seize the scofflaw's bank account, & the bank resists, the gov. can punish the bank. If private parties fight back against gov. punishment, gov. force escalates.
"I don't get paid by check, or by electronic transfer. What happens to me?
"You know.
"We all know."
Fanatic4FreeThought has posted several pedantic comments that assume that just because there are procedural safeguards to prevent immediate punishment of delinquent debtors, it somehow follows that the police can never escalate the level of force to collect money from those who don't pay taxes or gov. fines. Pedantic mentions of legal procedure can't change the facts about gov. force.
"Yes in some cases refusing to obey the law escalates things, but thanks to tasers and fines it rarely escalates to lethal fore."
The video doesn't say that things normally escalate. It says that the more some1 resists following the law, the more the gov. has to escalate the severity of punishment if the law is to be enforced.
Very few tax evaders are killed by gov. But most people pay taxes knowing that if they consistently refuse to pay their taxes, armed men can be sent after them.
I agree with almost everything you said but I'm not so sure I agree that breach of contract is a violation of privet property. If so, should we bring back debtors prison? Do you think making the act of thinking in your head that you're not going to pay someone back makes the difference. How do we know what people are thinking and do we really want to police people's thoughts?
I sort of agree, but I don't think it's too relevant. Breach of contract is a form of theft.
Proving premeditation might be important in determining a proper punishment.(a person who neglected to pay a magazine subscription is different from someone who subscribed to 300 publications with no intention of paying) Not all contract violations are planned like that but all of them involve harming another by obtaining property without the agreed compensation.
diggingpitt-In a moral sense I agree that it is theft but form a legal standpoint something can't be stolen if you voluntarily part with it. I think the use of force should be limited to going after people who take without ever being given access. publishers can protect them selves by only giving subscriptions to people with good credit and the subscribers can protect themselves by only subbing to a reputable company
Obviously one parted with the good, service or money on the assumption that the other party would deliver the agreed exchange.
Your policy would result in any transactions with new immigrants, young people or anyone else with a thin credit history being severely limited which is the common situation in countries with poor and corrupt legal systems.
libertyerian: breach of contract is a violation of property rights. In most trades A gives something to B immediately. A gives a bag of apples to B and B gives A some money. A contract caters for exchanges which must occur over time. A builds 10% of a house for B and then B must pay A $X. When A then builds 20% of the house B must pay A $X again. If A builds otherwise than B has directed then A is not giving B what he wants in exchange for the payment and vice versa if B refuses to pay
I see your point and I know that's the law but fulfilling a contract is often a matter of opinion and people often bite off more than they can chew. I don't think this meets the bar for the "the invisible gun". If you break a contract it will hurt your credit and reputation. It's unfortunate for the looser but that's life. Without government involved we would have a les litigious society and credit and reputation would be far more impotent than they are today
libertyerian: contracts, not sure I follow you. Yes, fulfilling a contract may be a matter of interpretation, especially for ambiguous contracts. That is a valid function of government, resolving contract disputes. It can also be done by private arbitration. It's the court's job to determine if a breach is due to accident, negligence, criminal intent or even whether both parties share responsibility and determine a just settlement/punishment.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Canada's planning to ban plastic bags cause they take over a 100 years to decompose. and with all the pollution it's a good law to put up. Canada rocks ass
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
...rely on its huge profit basin and temporarily sell its products below cost and below the competitor's price, thus forcing the competitor to either lower its prices until it runs out of funds or lose all of its costumers. Either way, the innovative organization is stifled by monopoly. Thus the government needs to provide for anti-trust measures.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Government needs to regulate industry to promote innovation. Say ShopRite obtains a complete monopoly on the food market. It would be in ShopRite's best interest then to jack up prices of food, since the price elasticity of demand for food is most likely pretty inelastic. ShopRite would thus build up an enormous profit basin. Then, if another organization tries to get a foothold on the food market, and this industry can legitimately produce food at a lower cost then ShopRite, ShopRite can...
Read 'Markets Don't Fail' by Brian Simpson. This example is so wrong. ShopRite can only get a monopoly on the food market if GOVT gives it an exclusive licence, preventing any competitors to sell food. It's the govt killing innovation in the first place. On a free market, even with 99% market share if ShopRite tries to jack up prices, numerous competitors would enter the field in all the various different food products and make a profit below SR's sell price.
threading weird, above reply wsa to omalinator410 and his 'reasons' for gov't regulations.
To add: because ShopRite has 99% market share if it then has to drop it's prices and take a loss to cut out competitors, it loses tons more cash than any small competitors and there's no way it can maintain that loss when the small guys might be making even a small profit.
One has seen this process happen many times in the Airline industry for example. Old line mega carriers often would drop prices to kill off upstart competitors but the moment they raised the prices back up, new competition would appear. Since most of these companies never made a lot of progress towards having the lowest costs and eficiency levels, almost all are in trouble today.
Hi, this is Stuart - the speaker from the "Invisible Gun" video. I'm reading *Markets Don't Fail!* right now and I'm loving it. I also enjoyed Andrew Bernstein's *The Capitalist Manifesto*. :-)
Hi Stuart. Is the 'invisible gun' your own idea? I really like it. If we mix it with the elephany in the room metaphor we've got the invisible elephant gun in the room that most people just can't see no matter how clearly you explain it. The next worst thing is those people who equate economic power with force. For them, the dollar is a gun. Try convincing one of them otherwise!! sheesh Good Premises.
The fact that the government escalates the physical severity of lawbreaking, according to the extent to which the lawbreaker resists the government, was something I first read about in the 2nd edition of Ken Schoolland's "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible." I'm the one who coined "The Invisible Gun" in this context, though. Prof. Schoolland has a character named "Officer Stuart" discuss it in the 3rd edition. :-)
Oooo! careful there boys and girls. Laws and Freedom work in inverse proportion.
): more laws = less Freedom :(
Where we want to go is toward decontrolling legislation. Yes, to zero if possible and that's achieved through projection of Ideas and informative videos like this fine effort by the 'hand with the golden gun'. Nice first effort Mr.legendre007 but why the 'telephoto' perspective - handsome dude like you should be on a close-up. Go for it...Banzai!
On point! I'm excited you're finally on YouTube and look forward to seeing/hearing more from you! Could you ask faitasi37 about that voice/picture synchronization problem I was having? Thanks bud.
People seem to forget that it was by a majority vote of 280 to 220 that Ancient Athens's democracy decided to kill Socrates based merely on his speech.
A truly just government will always prioritize the individual's inalienable Lockean rights to life and private property above majority votes.
how much for a coffin, Mr. imbecile?
GreatLoverFriendTM 4 months ago
"Every threat is a threat of death" Stephan Molyneux
ronpaulspanish 1 year ago
What is all this about freedom!? Do you think people should be able to profit from slavery, murder, or extortion?!? (!?!)
qtronman 2 years ago
I agree. Income tax is a fee we pay avoid imprisonment. So sad :(
But he's a terrible actor, "There should be a law against this..." always sounds bad
bpowell0024 2 years ago
the question should be to "there should be a law" is "am I willing to pull a gun out and enforce that law?"
greenghost2008 2 years ago 5
excellent, the government's job is to protect our rights. and that's it.
SlaughterTheFallen 2 years ago 2
Great Video, some people will never understand, that government is violence!
There are even stupid people mocking you here, well Lemmings are everywhere but they have a self destructive tendency.
t029248 2 years ago 4
This is the 100th comment. Hooray! :-D
legendre007 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
One flaw, The government provides you with services: When you get old the government will pay you back your social security, when you drive on a road, the government supplied that to you, the government gave you the pipes carrying the water to you, and the pipes taking the waste away. The government provides protection from people who want to harm you for no good reason, and you don't want to pay for that, or follow the terms of service? Well I do.
Jadguy24 3 years ago
"When you get old the government will pay you back your social security"
No they don't, watch IOUSA
"when you drive on a road"
I'll just as quickly and easily drive on private roads, I already do and they're much better
"the government gave you the pipes carrying the water to you, and the pipes taking the waste away"
...and gave monopoly power to the utility that screws me every day, gee thanks
"The government provides protection"
That's the only job they're actually supposed to do
17Spartacus76 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never said it was a perfect system, but name one system that is perfect?
Jadguy24 3 years ago
That's a loaded question. Just because freedom isn't perfect, doesn't mean we should wreck freedom.
17Spartacus76 3 years ago 8
Here here!!
Aristotle100 2 years ago 4
a free market!
milan20 3 years ago 6
idiot, it would be cheaper and more efficient if provided by PRIVATE. anyways you do pay for the pipes anyways through taxes! much more than you would if it were private! if government is so good why doesnt FEMA make cell phones and the gov sell you your milk, retard!
milan20 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Put the Ayn Rand down, she's bad for you. Privatization is neither cheaper nor is it more efficient. Private companies want to turn a profit, and they should, My complaint against privatization is there are some things people should not be making a profit on. Do you think people should be able to profit from slavery, murder, or extortion? How is exploitation of workers, not slavery? How are private military firms, not murderers? How is manipulating markets not extortion?
Jadguy24 2 years ago
Are you a member of FEMA? Profiting from murde slavery and extortion is not a free market as you can see that is breaking fundamental laws which is you cannot harm/kill/etc anyone. Exploitation of workers? What does that mean? A worker picks a job and can leave at ANY time, there is no exploitation, only exploitation of a government because you don't have a choice. Private military is not privatisation, that is government run because it all depends on government.
milan20 2 years ago 10
Favorite, YEAH THAT IS RIGHT!
Xandirfan 3 years ago 4
Over 2,000 views. Woohoo! :-D
legendre007 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
very much of this is naught but over literalization and pure semantics, although yes government should be disinvolved from buiness, part of what has run our nation into the ground, when a trust or monopoly rises, they can extort the populace with nothing they can do about it, and faitasi37 the maker of this video, also states, paraphrased, that businessmen doing business because it between them, consentious and on their property, they must not be able to hurt third parties wich is wrong
Vivalarocknroll 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is miserably invalid because, although these businessmen do not IMMEDIATLY threaten anyone, if a trust, or a monopoly is allowed to rise in a nation, and have complete control over a business, they can have those prices wherever they want, thus extorting the citizenry, while business should be allowed freedom, it shuld be kept small, big business is part of what ruined america...part of it...
Vivalarocknroll 3 years ago
You're wrong Vivalarocknroll. Capitalism prohibits the use of force. That means the government must keep its hands off business. Its either capitalism or totalitarianism. Its either freedom or slavery.
Signofthedollar 3 years ago 6
The only way such a monopoly can exist is if it holds legal power over competition.
In a free market, no one can 'take control' of a business.
GamblerJustice 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The regulations were put in place to protect the public. Business can not be trusted to regulate itself, it has been proven time and again to only serve it's bottom line, not the common good. Read "The Jungle." it gives the best reason for regulations. It's all fun and games until a worker is sold as sausage, because he fell into the rendering vat. Look at the Salmonella in the peanut butter incidents this year as proof deregulation sounds good, but is not.
Jadguy24 3 years ago
you are an idiot
milan20 3 years ago 7
I love the pithy, point-making nature of calling this The Invisible Gun.
I like to make this point by citing P.J.O'Rourke's quote...which is too large to fit in the comment area, so I'm going to reply to my comment with the quote, in two parts:
KAZVorpal 3 years ago 3
...remember that all tax revenue is the result of holding a gun to somebody's head. Not paying taxes is against the law. If you don't pay taxes, you'll be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you'll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you'll be shot. Thus I
- in my role as citizen and voter
- am going to shoot you
- in your role as taxpayer and ripe suck
- if you don't pay your fair share of the national tab...
KAZVorpal 3 years ago 4
Therefore, every time the government spends money on anything, you have to ask yourself, "Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?"
- P.J.O'Rourke
KAZVorpal 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BTW the law has changed since Stuart K. Hayashi's essays, people aren't arrested or imprisoned for owing debts.
So that pretty much makes this whole video irrelevant.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"BTW the law has changed since Stuart K. Hayashi's essays, people aren't arrested or imprisoned for owing debts."
Wrong. Bankruptcy protection provides PROCEDURAL safeguards; procedural law provides that they have more time to get their affairs in order so that they can eventually pay off their creditors. For the collection of debts to be legally enforced, the government has to escalate penalties for those who consciously evade payment.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I said NOTHING about bankrupt.
As for government escalation, your property can be taken away and your wages garnished (up to 30%) but someone will NOT be imprisoned for owing debts.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"As for government escalation, your property can be taken away and your wages garnished (up to 30%) but someone will NOT be imprisoned for owing debts."
The video doesn't say that if some1 owes debts, the gov. will immediately jail him for just that. The video says that if some1 continually evades government punishment, the severity of the government's punishment escalates, & the gov.'s gun is the final argument.
legendre007 3 years ago
If Fanatic4FreeThought's insinuation is that this video says that people are immediately imprisoned for owing debts - to the gov. or any1 else - then, on Fanatic's part, that is a misunderstanding at best, or it is a straw man. The fact is that if a scofflaw consistently refuses to pay his fines, & private parties don't cooperate w/ gov. in punishing him, the scofflaw & these financial institutions can be subpoenaed, & these subpoenas are backed by gov. force.
legendre007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's not my insinuation. All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences.
As for the subpoenas, the government doesn't go to third parties to punish somebody. What exactly are you talking, whatever it is it sounds like a ridicules scenario.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
A1. "All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
Indeed your comments have evaded the issue. A person can't be directly, immediately imprisoned upon incurring a bad debt. Your remarks evade the video's point. When some1 incurs a debt, there R legal safeguards so that a debtor has time to pay off debts. In the long term, gov. force is on the creditor's side. cont'd
legendre007 3 years ago 2
A2. If I can't make my car payments, the creditor need not ask the gov. to come after me. The creditor can ask a private Repo Man to repossess the car. But what if I say, "It's MY car & U can't take it back," & I get into a fist fight w/ the Repo man? Under normal circumstances, the gov. will find that the law was on the Repo Man's side & not my side. Laws are ultimately backed by gov. force, cuz when things escalate, the gov.'s gun is the final argument.
legendre007 3 years ago
"As for the subpoenas, the government doesn't go to third parties to punish somebody. What exactly are you talking, whatever it is it sounds like a ridicules scenario."
I didn't say that. U're talking nonsense. U said that if I don't pay my gov. fines, the gov. can subtract money from my paycheck. That subtraction is backed by gov. force. What if my employer, in defiance of gov. rules, DOESN'T subtract it from my paycheck? My employer is then subject to prosecution. Gov. force again.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
"All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
That's another strawman U've used here: the video didn't say that some1 would be killed or arrested as a direct result of not paying fines. The video said that some1 can be killed when dangerously resisting arrest, & that some1 can be arrested for defying subpoenas. Subpoenas can be issued to deal w/ people who persistently engage in minor legal offenses.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
"All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
& what are these "other consequences"? There R other LEGAL consequences. The legal consequences of not paying one's fines is that there will be other legal punishments, & if the scofflaw resists them as well, the penalties escalate. Your posts haven't acknowledged that scofflaws who consistently evade these punishments can be subpoenaed to show up in court.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
E1. Fanatic4 writes, "All I was saying is that nobody will EVER be imprisoned or arrested for not paying his fines, though they're other consequences."
ALL he said? Fanatic4 earlier: "So that pretty much makes this whole video irrelevant."
That's not a minor correction; it's a sweeping dismissal of the video's theme - a dismissal based on the false accusation that the video said that a person can be imprisoned as a direct result of owing debts.
legendre007 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This theme = anarchy.
Besides you've completely missed what I was saying. I never said the video claimed there was immediate lethal force, I said not everything can escalate to lethal force.
Besides even if it did its the crazy's fault for continuing to resist over trivial things to the point were the government has to use lethal force to uphold justice for all.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
E2. Contrary 2 Fanatic4's inaccurate characterization of this video, its point is that gov. ultimately has physical force on its side in disputes against private citizens, & that people should could consequently avoid passing laws against peaceful acts.
If some1 could avoid paying accumulating gov. fines, & the gov. could never subpoena scofflaws who persisted in evading fines, those fines would, in practice, not b enforceable by law. The "other consequences" R also ultimately backed by force.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
E3. "...people should could consequently avoid passing laws against peaceful acts."
I meant to type "...people should consequently avoid passing laws against peaceful acts."
legendre007 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is insane. Legalizing all non-violent behavior would be the ruin of civilization. Please tell me I don't have to explain this obvious and fundamental aspect of civilization.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's a ridicules scenario. Banks physically fighting government agents because they don't want do some simply paperwork.
No, that's not a straw man argument, as I through explained their is no need to have physical contact with financial debt.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"BTW the law has changed since Stuart K. Hayashi's essays, people aren't arrested or imprisoned for owing debts.
"So that pretty much makes this whole video irrelevant."
Another straw man. The video's point is obviously not that some1 who's fined by the gov., or owes debts, will be immediately imprisoned as a result. The point of the video is that laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint, & that the gov.'s guns should only be pointed at those who START the violence.
legendre007 3 years ago
"If you don't pay fines willingly, then they just automatically subtract the money from your paycheck. If you CAN'T pay your fines, you can either appeal the fines or just not pay them."
For the State to garnish ur money, other private parties have to comply w/ the State. What if those other private parties consistently refrain from such compliance? What happens if 10 yrs. go by w/o Ur paying the fine or even showing up in court to appeal them? 4 the law 2b enforced, punishment worsens.
legendre007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If these private parties don't send your debt to collections (which I assume that's what your talking about when you say "when they don't comply with the sate") then they don't get paid. Its as simple as that.
Besides if they didn't comply with the state how would the government react in anyway including sending somebody to prison like the maker of this video mistakenly believes.
Besides this isn't a matter of if the law is a good one. That's just the law, I'm not saying I disagree with him.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"If these private parties don't send your debt to collections (which I assume that's what your talking about when you say 'when they don't comply with the state') then they don't get paid."
Wrong. The gov. has the power of subpoena. If the scofflaw doesn't show up in court, he is subpoenaed. If these parties refrain from compliance with police, they can be charged with obstructing justice. When people ignore subpoenas to show up in court, armed police are sent after them.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
This is where your story breaks down. If you don't pay fines willingly, then they just automatically subtract the money from your paycheck. If you CAN'T pay your fines, you can either appeal the fines or just not pay them. Regardless people are not sent to prison for owing money.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"If you don't pay fines willingly, then they just automatically subtract the money from your paycheck."
I don't get paid by check, or by electronic transfer. What happens to me?
You know.
We all know.
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
Well if you have no income or an income that's under the table then you don't pay have to pay it.
Do you think a homeless man would be sent to prison because he couldn't pay a fine? Anyways the law (in the U.S.) states that people can't go to jail for owing debts.
It's not a matter of opinion its a matter of fact. Its not a perfect law but its better then what the maker of this video thinks is the law.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"Anyways the law (in the U.S.) states that people can't go to jail for owing debts."
That is a straw man against the video's point. The video doesn't say that if some1 owes debts, he will be immediately imprisoned. The video says that if some1 refrains from paying gov. fines - including the increased fines for refusing to pay the initial fine - the gov. can only enforce the fines if it subpoenas the scofflaw.
faitasi37 3 years ago
It is not a straw man argument I'm just refuting the analogy used in the video. Obviously refusing to obey the law escalates things.
But as I said before tasers and automatically withdrawn fines can often times prevent the need for lethal force.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
B1. "But as I said before tasers and automatically withdrawn fines can often times prevent the need for lethal force."
That's another straw man U've used. I didn't say that gov. will necessarily use lethal force. I said lethal force is the gov.'s last resort, & that it's authorized to use lethal force when the situation escalates enough.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
B2. If Mr. Brown evades paying taxes for years, the gov. will send armed men after him. If he guards himself with a gun, & the gov. agents use violence against him, people will say that the violence was justified on the grounds that Brown was being a danger to the community by carrying a gun to ward off tax collectors.
The question that this video asks is: Who INITIATED the ultimate threat of physical force in the 1st place?
legendre007 3 years ago 2
B3. Gov. can use lethal force as a last resort in stopping a murderer. This video argues that that is justifiable, as the murderer initiated force, so the fact that the gov. can resort to lethal force against a relentless murderer means the gov. is only using retaliatory force. But if some1 smokes pot in his own house, he's not initiating force. But if he fights against police who try to arrest him, the pot smoker is the 1 retaliating against force initiated against him.
legendre007 3 years ago 3
B4. This video argues that the gov. is authorized to use lethal force as a last resort, but whether killing some1 is considered appropriate for the gov. is based upon the extent of his resistance. If the pot-smoker minds his own business, & then armed policemen come after him, & the pot-smoker uses a gun to defend himself, then the police might be considered legally right to shoot the pot-smoker if they believe he poses an immediate physical danger.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
B5. Hence, the gov.'s guns are the final argument in a potentially-escalating scuffle between the pot-smoker & the police. For that reason, this video asks the question of whether it is appropriate for the gov. to pass laws - laws ultimately enforced at gunpoint - against the person or property of private parties who engage in actions that don't initiate force against person or property in the form of violence, theft, property damage, contract breach, & fraud.
legendre007 3 years ago
C1. "It is not a straw man argument I'm just refuting the analogy used in the video."
This use of the word "analogy," on your part, is incorrect. An analogy is a comparison, such as a metaphor. This video doesn't use an analogy; it uses a hypothetical example of a scenario - a scenario that, despite your persistent and arbitrary dismissals, can plausibly occur in the real world.
legendre007 3 years ago
D1. It looks like Fanatic4FreeThought has repeatedly made the false accusation that this video stated that if some1 doesn't pay his debts them - BOOM! - he goes to prison. What the video said was that if a scofflaw consistently evades paying fines, it is plausible to expect the scofflaw to be subpoenaed to show up in court to xplain himself. For the subpoena to be enforced, policemen R sent to detain scofflaws who disobey subpoenas.
legendre007 3 years ago
D2. The excuse that Fanatic4FreeThought made early on - that if the scofflaw doesn't pay his gov. fines, the gov. "can just" have the money subtracted from the scofflaw's paycheck - doesn't fly. If the gov. requests that the employer subtract the money, & the employer doesn't, the gov. can punish the employer. If the gov. wants to seize the scofflaw's bank account, & the bank resists, the gov. can punish the bank. If private parties fight back against gov. punishment, gov. force escalates.
legendre007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Face it the government has to balance justice and liberty. If they have to use force against crazy bankers, which hasn't happened yet, then so be it.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"I don't get paid by check, or by electronic transfer. What happens to me?
"You know.
"We all know."
Fanatic4FreeThought has posted several pedantic comments that assume that just because there are procedural safeguards to prevent immediate punishment of delinquent debtors, it somehow follows that the police can never escalate the level of force to collect money from those who don't pay taxes or gov. fines. Pedantic mentions of legal procedure can't change the facts about gov. force.
legendre007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Delinquent Debtors? No ALL Debtors. You don't go to jail for owing money.
Yes in some cases refusing to obey the law escalates things, but thanks to tasers and fines it rarely escalates to lethal fore.
Fanatic4FreeThought 3 years ago
"Yes in some cases refusing to obey the law escalates things, but thanks to tasers and fines it rarely escalates to lethal fore."
The video doesn't say that things normally escalate. It says that the more some1 resists following the law, the more the gov. has to escalate the severity of punishment if the law is to be enforced.
Very few tax evaders are killed by gov. But most people pay taxes knowing that if they consistently refuse to pay their taxes, armed men can be sent after them.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
;-)
legendre007 3 years ago 3
I agree with almost everything you said but I'm not so sure I agree that breach of contract is a violation of privet property. If so, should we bring back debtors prison? Do you think making the act of thinking in your head that you're not going to pay someone back makes the difference. How do we know what people are thinking and do we really want to police people's thoughts?
libertyerian 3 years ago
I sort of agree, but I don't think it's too relevant. Breach of contract is a form of theft.
Proving premeditation might be important in determining a proper punishment.(a person who neglected to pay a magazine subscription is different from someone who subscribed to 300 publications with no intention of paying) Not all contract violations are planned like that but all of them involve harming another by obtaining property without the agreed compensation.
diggingpitt 3 years ago 2
diggingpitt-In a moral sense I agree that it is theft but form a legal standpoint something can't be stolen if you voluntarily part with it. I think the use of force should be limited to going after people who take without ever being given access. publishers can protect them selves by only giving subscriptions to people with good credit and the subscribers can protect themselves by only subbing to a reputable company
libertyerian 3 years ago
Obviously one parted with the good, service or money on the assumption that the other party would deliver the agreed exchange.
Your policy would result in any transactions with new immigrants, young people or anyone else with a thin credit history being severely limited which is the common situation in countries with poor and corrupt legal systems.
diggingpitt 3 years ago 2
libertyerian: breach of contract is a violation of property rights. In most trades A gives something to B immediately. A gives a bag of apples to B and B gives A some money. A contract caters for exchanges which must occur over time. A builds 10% of a house for B and then B must pay A $X. When A then builds 20% of the house B must pay A $X again. If A builds otherwise than B has directed then A is not giving B what he wants in exchange for the payment and vice versa if B refuses to pay
zardozcs 3 years ago 2
I see your point and I know that's the law but fulfilling a contract is often a matter of opinion and people often bite off more than they can chew. I don't think this meets the bar for the "the invisible gun". If you break a contract it will hurt your credit and reputation. It's unfortunate for the looser but that's life. Without government involved we would have a les litigious society and credit and reputation would be far more impotent than they are today
libertyerian 3 years ago
libertyerian: contracts, not sure I follow you. Yes, fulfilling a contract may be a matter of interpretation, especially for ambiguous contracts. That is a valid function of government, resolving contract disputes. It can also be done by private arbitration. It's the court's job to determine if a breach is due to accident, negligence, criminal intent or even whether both parties share responsibility and determine a just settlement/punishment.
zardozcs 3 years ago 2
Forsooth.
FloodingMayhem 3 years ago
Awesome. I hope everyone on YouTube sees this and learns something.
reneekatz 3 years ago 7
This video has received over 1,000 views. Hooray! :-D
legendre007 3 years ago 6
In Canada, they're now talking about outlawing plastic bags. When will people start to think in principle?!?
qtronman 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Canada's planning to ban plastic bags cause they take over a 100 years to decompose. and with all the pollution it's a good law to put up. Canada rocks ass
sStands4s 3 years ago
Interesting points for real. 5 stars.
gorikuri 4 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...rely on its huge profit basin and temporarily sell its products below cost and below the competitor's price, thus forcing the competitor to either lower its prices until it runs out of funds or lose all of its costumers. Either way, the innovative organization is stifled by monopoly. Thus the government needs to provide for anti-trust measures.
omalinator410 4 years ago
Lets get even more anti-trust laws, so we can all work in the rice patties together!
Signofthedollar 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Government needs to regulate industry to promote innovation. Say ShopRite obtains a complete monopoly on the food market. It would be in ShopRite's best interest then to jack up prices of food, since the price elasticity of demand for food is most likely pretty inelastic. ShopRite would thus build up an enormous profit basin. Then, if another organization tries to get a foothold on the food market, and this industry can legitimately produce food at a lower cost then ShopRite, ShopRite can...
omalinator410 4 years ago
Read 'Markets Don't Fail' by Brian Simpson. This example is so wrong. ShopRite can only get a monopoly on the food market if GOVT gives it an exclusive licence, preventing any competitors to sell food. It's the govt killing innovation in the first place. On a free market, even with 99% market share if ShopRite tries to jack up prices, numerous competitors would enter the field in all the various different food products and make a profit below SR's sell price.
zardozcs 3 years ago 3
threading weird, above reply wsa to omalinator410 and his 'reasons' for gov't regulations.
To add: because ShopRite has 99% market share if it then has to drop it's prices and take a loss to cut out competitors, it loses tons more cash than any small competitors and there's no way it can maintain that loss when the small guys might be making even a small profit.
zardozcs 3 years ago 3
One has seen this process happen many times in the Airline industry for example. Old line mega carriers often would drop prices to kill off upstart competitors but the moment they raised the prices back up, new competition would appear. Since most of these companies never made a lot of progress towards having the lowest costs and eficiency levels, almost all are in trouble today.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
Hi, this is Stuart - the speaker from the "Invisible Gun" video. I'm reading *Markets Don't Fail!* right now and I'm loving it. I also enjoyed Andrew Bernstein's *The Capitalist Manifesto*. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago 2
Hi Stuart. Is the 'invisible gun' your own idea? I really like it. If we mix it with the elephany in the room metaphor we've got the invisible elephant gun in the room that most people just can't see no matter how clearly you explain it. The next worst thing is those people who equate economic power with force. For them, the dollar is a gun. Try convincing one of them otherwise!! sheesh Good Premises.
zardozcs 3 years ago 3
The fact that the government escalates the physical severity of lawbreaking, according to the extent to which the lawbreaker resists the government, was something I first read about in the 2nd edition of Ken Schoolland's "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible." I'm the one who coined "The Invisible Gun" in this context, though. Prof. Schoolland has a character named "Officer Stuart" discuss it in the 3rd edition. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago 2
As of this writing, the View Counter says that this video has been viewed 665 times. I guess this means I get to receive the 666th view.
legendre007 4 years ago 2
Stuart it is so nice to see you! You are so cute, and a wonderful speaker. Make more videos! Yay.
marneedear 4 years ago 3
Me? "Cute"? What do you mean by "cute"? @_@
"Cute" can mean "adorable like a naive, chubby little four-year-old boy." Or it can mean "damn sexy."
I prefer the latter meaning. :-P
legendre007 4 years ago 3
This is some good stuff.
Ron paul for the president :)
yadranko 4 years ago 5
some great points made could not agree more!
boogaloo80 4 years ago 3
There ought to be a law against the invisible gun!!!
Mathewmatic 4 years ago 5
Yes, there should be. That law would only be retaliatory force against the initiated force that is the Invisible Gun. :-)
legendre007 4 years ago 3
Oooo! careful there boys and girls. Laws and Freedom work in inverse proportion.
): more laws = less Freedom :(
Where we want to go is toward decontrolling legislation. Yes, to zero if possible and that's achieved through projection of Ideas and informative videos like this fine effort by the 'hand with the golden gun'. Nice first effort Mr.legendre007 but why the 'telephoto' perspective - handsome dude like you should be on a close-up. Go for it...Banzai!
LaissezFaireCapital 4 years ago
Did you actually think I was serious?
Mathewmatic 4 years ago 3
absolutely
LaissezFaireCapital 4 years ago
Congratulations, you really are retarded.
Run along and create some more fake accounts, f*tard
Mathewmatic 4 years ago 4
):$ do not resuscitate $8(
LaissezFaireCapital 4 years ago
On point! I'm excited you're finally on YouTube and look forward to seeing/hearing more from you! Could you ask faitasi37 about that voice/picture synchronization problem I was having? Thanks bud.
PirateSamGrrr 4 years ago 2
My ex-girlfriend and I read Johnathan Gullible together and afterward colored in all of the pictures.
aaron0883 4 years ago 2
Really? Was it the 2nd or 3rd edition? The 3rd edition mentions "Officer Stuart" using the term "Invisible Gun."
Which chapter was your favorite? :-)
legendre007 4 years ago
It says third, revised and expanded edition. I haven't read it in like 3 years ... so I don't remember my favorite chapter.
aaron0883 4 years ago
Completely agree.
IItothe222345helomot 4 years ago 4
Thanks for the speech. Interesting stuff! Many are unaware of the unalienable rights that have been violated by mob-rule democracy.
operationmongoose 4 years ago 4
You're welcome, man. :-)
People seem to forget that it was by a majority vote of 280 to 220 that Ancient Athens's democracy decided to kill Socrates based merely on his speech.
A truly just government will always prioritize the individual's inalienable Lockean rights to life and private property above majority votes.
legendre007 4 years ago 3
Hooray! My face is finally on YouTube. :-)
legendre007 4 years ago 4
:-)
faitasi37 4 years ago