like you said, everything government touches turns to shit. the government isn't necessary at all. the constitution is like the bible of statism. people will always be fighting over how to interpret this document. the answer is to realize that the document and government were always immoral to begin with. the government fails at ethics and it fails when the scientific method is applied to it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have a question for you, it maybe another videos worth..
How about child support?
Should a child be entitled to thousands of dollars a month simply because their father is a millionare?
Example- Eddie murphy knocked up one of the spice girls. That child is getting 50k a month from eddie murphy..
imo, child support seems like it is now about punishment, not about making sure the child is financially safe. Like a conservative and a liberals wet dream..
I really wish they would institute instint voter run off..
Right now it feels like i have to either vote for the government to take away my money(liberals), or legisliate my mind and body (conservatives).. and right now I am voting for them to take away my money
On the subject of the bank bailouts themselves, websnarf is entirely correct. The banks are the backbone of any country's economy: if the banks had failed, you'd all be royally fucked, and that's why the collective hands were tied when it came to begrudgingly handing over civilian money to pay for bonuses and spa trips of bank execs.
Wasn't civilian money. It was newly printed money. The debt has been monetized. What the government did is even worse than if they had taken the money directly. Unless the US is very lucky, the dollar will lose favor in the world market, prices will inflate immensely, and the savings of every dollar holder will be utterly worthless. The backbone is not the bank, it's capital, and capital is only valuable where there is trade, which is only possible when there is a sound way to do so.
Right, but if we had a controlling interest in the banks, we could have stopped any excessive bonuses. Why are the banks not feeling any sort of regret or mea culpa over this mess? The retired Greenspan saying "whoops!" in front of congress? That doesn't cut it. One last Bush blunder.
Now we have to do the rest of the work without any leverage over those who put us in this mess.
For you capitalists out there, don't poo poo Obama's stimulus package. Its the way back to your comfort zone.
"Right, but if we had a controlling interest in the banks, we could have stopped any excessive bonuses."
Websnarf, I didn't know that you were a politician!
If you really want to know my comfort zone, it is contained (for the most part, with a few idealogical differences) in the pages of "Atlas Shrugged." My comfort zone involves holding personal liberty as sacrosanct and self-evident. It is in an emergency when you should hold to reason-based morality the tightest.
Theft is defined by the government. Remember that this country's borders were secured by people representing ideas that are in continuity with this government.
Hence the system set up by us has behaviors. The fact that the government is eating through billions from us and handing it all to banks that fucked up is part of that.
And its not irrational. The fact is, if the banks went under we would *ALL* be in trouble. If we didn't bail them out, all our bank accounts would be $0.
Giving the banks money didn't save us from the economic crisis. It just prevented a run on all our banks which allowed us to maintain balances. The alternative of not giving them money would have triggered all the FDIC guarantees, which are backed by the federal reserve which would be forced to print the money turning our currency into worthless paper and destroying our economy.
It sucks, but we really had very little choice. The real crime is that we didn't get anything for it.
Capitalism was in the midst of complete collapse. Collapse = going back to being cave men and starting over. But I don't understand why we didn't simply get public ownership of the banks, or at least a controlling interest.
In any event, that's the best Bush could do. Obama is trying to jump start the economy; having balances is not enough, we need to have jobs.
Think of it this way -- if it works, it will be worth every penny. If it doesn't, not trying it would have been worse.
"Think of it this way -- if it works, it will be worth every penny. If it doesn't, not trying it would have been worse. "
I can see where you are coming from. Have you ever read 1984? Quite a good book, for those planning on going down the path of government control (especially when they are to control something with such a powerful impact, as you so correctly pointed out).
I've read all three (F415, BNW & 1984). 1984 is about thought control and fascism through propaganda. We have some of the latter, but not much of the former in this country so far.
"The alternative of not giving them money would have triggered all the FDIC guarantees which are backed by the federal reserve... destroying our economy."
There is another alternative. Dismantle the federal reserve, and allow individuals to place there money where they see fit. If they put their money in a bank and it runs, it was a bad investment. Solid banks would emerge, as no one would dare deposit otherwise.
How would you define money, without the federal reserve? (Note: The GNP of the US in dollars is larger than the total amount of gold in the world.) Banks in the US (and consequently the rest of the world) don't even have a basis for basic functioning without the federal reserve.
@AshMangus: I'm not sure what that means. If a bunch of banks got together, do you think they could make a solid foundation for what money was outside of a federal reserve system? (Keep in mind that they, in fact, *DID* do this, but concluded that the F.R. was the right solution.)
Do you think there should be a private reserve or did you have something else in mind?
Rather than getting into squabbles over the legitimacy of taxation (and I will lay down the law here: as taxation is the removal of money from the worker by the government for its own agenda, it is inherently wrong by extension of being used by our governments, the authoritarian institutions that destroy liberty under the pretense of protection), I would rather hear a justification of capitalism, or even, a glowing recommendation of capitalism; aim to somehow convince me that it is not malign.
Then I would highly recommend the book "in defence of global capitalism" by Johan Norberg, rather than having someone impossibly summarize the answer in a few rows in this comment field.
That book is not so much a defense of capitalism as a defense of the globalisation of capitalism in the instance that capitalism is the prevalent ideology, it is a rebuttal of anti-globalists rather than anti-capitalists, I think.
Well the two kind of goes hand in hand doesn't it? He addresses the anti-globalists myths about capitalism. To quote from his website:
"They say that free trade and free markets make the world a more unequal place, that capitalism holds people in poverty, that economic growth harms the environment, that multinational corporations keep wages and labour standards on a low level, and that free financial markets cause crises."
So in essence it's a defense of capitalism as a whole.
If you want a glowing justification for capitalism, read a book titled "Economics in One Lesson." There is a free link to it in the info section of my last video, "Why America is Sinking."
Your professor was condescending, as are you by your choice of quotes. Youth is the source of ever-changing ideas, and the claim could be made that old people have lived their lives in an outdated world, and that they are set in their ways. Again, either argument would be fallacious.
I simply cannot understand people like Praxxus55712 living under the pretense that their morality is superior to others? If it was superior why do you have to force it onto others by the point of a gun? Shouldn't the superior morality allow each individual to decide what's his/her moral as long as they do not hurt others? How can you justify your moral and your alleged compassion for your fellow men when you have to use force to sustain it? It just doesn't add up.
"Wrong, flat wrong. The right of "Life" supercedes the right of property ownership in our country's listing of "rights" and in our morality....and if it doesn't, what a sad world you and likeminded people would have created."
Personal liberty is the precious gem of human logic that makes life worth living. Just because you need something does NOT give you the right for it to be forcefully taken from someone else. If I need a kidney, does it justify kidnapping you and stealing it?
If you take something from someone without their express permission, it is theft. Period. If you feel so compassionately about it, you feed them. Just keep your hands out of my pockets and your parasitic ideas away from my liberty.
"And the whole idea of a society is to insure the survival of the individual people"
No, it isn't. Societies develop simply as a result of the *consensual* interaction of the individuals.
"And incidentally, your "liberty" is a fantasy not enjoyed by anybody except in their own closed minds."
That has to be the most delusional thing I've heard in quite some time. The cost of liberty is vigilance and conviction, not the willingness to surrender it to anyone who claims that they have a need.
".It's not stealing when a society exercises their collective compassion, which is very much a part of what binds a society."
"Society" isn't some sort of self-aware organism. There is no such thing as collective compassion. Societies are made up strictly of individuals, and nothing else.
If there are four people in a room, and one of them is hungry, it is not right for three of them to forcefully take food from the fourth without his consent, whether or not they claim "collective compassion".
"...which you should know is not always given freely. "
I will quote something to you, and I suggest that you read it more than once. Wiser words were never written:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property."
Note that it does not read "Life, liberty and the right to someone else's property based on need."
Yes. No one has the right to take away your life, and you can do with it as you see fit. That does not, however, give you the right to violate someone else's liberty.
That is not to say that I am not compassionate, or that I think charity doesn't make sense (as I have already addressed in both comments and the video that you happen to be commenting on). Need doesn't entitle you to steal. If you want to "chip in", then you do that. That is your right, as it is your property.
Just because you are old does not make you right. That argument is called "The Argument from Authority", and it is one of the oldest and most tired arguments ever used, and oft-refuted.
Logic and reason. They are timeless formulas that are impervious to the weathering of time.
Actually, the argument of authority is self-evidently fallacious. The reason of "I said so" is no reason at all.
"I've played it from your side of the fence."
How do you know that you simply haven't given up a reasonable position for a foolish one? That argument is absolutely unsupportable, and I would expect all of your experience to give you the soundness of mind to be aware of that.
"You fail to consider that YOU may be wrong, instead you assume anyone who differs from your limuted perspective is wrong."
Your entire comment reeks of generalizing, self-righteous judgment of others. I trust in logic and reason, and not someone else's opinion, to figure out what is true. Through all of your condescension, however, you defeat yourself- even your statement itself is haunted by "What if I am wrong?" How do you know that you aren't just as wrong as you imagine me to be?
If you believe that my position is wrong, then you are entitled to refute it. Simply continuing on with the ridiculously childish and irrational assertion to undemonstrated superiority will get you nowhere.
If you have something to say, by all means say it. Claiming that age leads you to think that you never knew anything at all makes the fact that you are attempting to argue any point whatsoever unsupportable. Knowledge is gained by thinking; that is how man survives. Anything else is folly.
If you want to make you case, then make it. Do not simply attempt to generate for yourself a veneer of intellectual respectability based on your alleged claims to experience. You are as aware of my position as I am of yours, and I have the same tools at my disposal (the evidence of your comments) as you do.
Not to mention how unflatteringly condescending that position makes you appear. I am more than willing to hear you out, as well as share my ideas on the subject. I will not, however, accept a logical fallacy to glide by unchallenged, as any student of science or debate worth their salt would tell you.
I didn't claim that it was strong; I let my positions speak for themselves. There was only one unsupported assertion made, and it was by you. And yes, sadly, I do see how that works.
No, there are unsupported. You provided nothing to support them with. Reality is not a matter of opinion.
What if you had the wrong experiences? You could (and some people do) learn to act inappropriately. Unless you have proof that your experience is relevant, you are simply making an argument from authority.
I don't need 25 years; I don't even need five minutes. Your argument is full of shit, I have demonstrated it, and the only response to it that you have is that theft is justifiable if the person doing the robbing feels that it is a need.
Praxxus55712 has replied to your comment on Government Bailout is Theft:
And lastly, your blustering and distasteful name calling of my position as "shit" is as base and high school as it gets. You lose all position points for failing to maintain civility in a debate. You apparently did not do well in debate class. lol
In summation, you're simply an angry pseudo-intellectual......well...idiot. You've proven that beyond any doubt. Congrats on your stupidity, you wear it well. :)
"People should never starve or die of the elements."
I agree, but they and people who are willing to take care of them without stealing from others (tax-sponsored "welfare") are responsible. No need or emergency gives someone the right to violate the property rights of another.
Very glad to hear that. Survival of the fittest doesn't quite apply exactly to business, but only on Darwinian technical grounds. Overall I definitely agree with you.
When people do not have a JOB, then they do not have any money, then they can not support themselves...Where do they turn? The government. Right now, million of people have lost their jobs and the government can not afford to take care of them all...So government does have an interest when so many people are not working.
Or they could be used to help prop up inefficient businesses that are failing because they successfully lobbied congress to freely give away your hard earned money.
"When people do not have a JOB, then they do not have any money, then they can not support themselves."
Then they get a job. If they cannot find a job, they start their own venture. Even if they go without electricity and simply grow or forage to subsist (assuming that some understanding fellow of theirs doesn't help them out), at least they aren't demanding a sacrifice of the personal liberties of others.
Nothing justifies the sort of theft involved here.
Then they should have saved money. They should have made sound investments. They should have hedged their money against unemployment possibilities. It is not the fault of your neighbor that you lose your job.
No one is blaming the neighbor. Just know, life might be going great for you now, but the future may not be just as kind and you can find yourself in the eyes of neighbor needing assisting too.
"No one is blaming the neighbor. Just know, life might be going great for you now, but the future may not be just as kind and you can find yourself in the eyes of neighbor needing assisting too."
Very true. I would never, however, accept money that was stolen to support me.
Well, with the knowledge we have now and the belief we have to take responsibility for our own lives, I doubt that would happen. We've found it to be an intelligent move to prepare for things like that so we do not have to depend on other people's earnings.
In the case that we did need financial aid, it wouldn't be forcefully taken from your pocket, or anyone else's. If we get turned down, then that is on us. We should've been more prepared with our money and our lives. That is liberty.
realistically, our government is a quasi aristocracy; similar to China. The same entities (i.e. corporations, financial elites, etc.) control the country no matter who is president or in the senate; because these politicians are bought and paid for. So we are not a democracy. It's bullshit, just like organized religion. we the people have no voice; as evidenced by the bailouts. taxpayer revolts are certainly called for. we exist in a class warfare society; not racial, religious, or party based.
we did give our consent. We elected people who voted on laws that gave the government the right ti take it. when we elect officials we are giving them the right to represent us and to legislate for us so we are de facto consenting.
I didn't give my consent. It is the same thing by saying "This block elected the mobsters to take care of it with their protection racket; they picked them and chose to pay them, so therefore they have a right to violate your liberty."
"De facto consenting" is not consenting, and that is assuming that they are carrying out their duties according to a system that is just, which of course is not happening.
Levying taxes isn't illegal. Our elected representatives are levying taxes just like the constitution says they can. Now they may be doing retarded things or taking more than we like, but that is the fault of stupid people voting.
Also, by defacto consent i meant that by living in this country you are essentially giving your right to legislate to your elected rep. whether you voted for them or not.
That is a horrible fallacious argument. I did not give my consent to anyone to take my money. The social contract is an invalid concept. The "collective" is made up of individuals. The collective is a conceptual framework that is not able to make decisions. The individual makes decisions that are contractually binding. So how can a social contract bind a conceptual framework? All that exists is the individual, I don't even vote, so by what right are these people taking my money? It's theft.
Sure you did. by living in your congressional district and not leaving the country you are consenting to allow your elected officals to represent you whether you vote or not. they voted for taxes so you voted for taxes. If you don't want them to represent you move to another congressional district or country. the collective can indeed make decisions, sir. That's how a republic works. By living here you are agreeing to be bound by the constitution and congress and taxes are defined therein.
"Also, by defacto consent i meant that by living in this country you are essentially giving your right to legislate to your elected rep. whether you voted for them or not."
You are incorrect. Again, I reference the mob protection racket example.
They write the laws. Illegal is simply what the government is willing to stop people from doing. Legal, as almost anyone with half of a brain can agree, doesn't mean right.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you have an alternative to a democratic system? I don't disagree with all of your ideas, I do question what happens if you loose your wealth and your job and need medical help, do we let you suffer in the street and die? I couldn't let that happen, would you count on other peoples empathy? Everyone deciding what and how they pay; I like the concept, but I have yet to hear a solution that works in real world. Dead bodies laying around... "don't take my money to haul them off!" Who's then?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"do we let you suffer in the street and die?"
Would you rather be held responsible for taking care of the hordes of the unwell and unworking? Should their need entitle them to some of your rights? Or, even worse, do your needs make you feel entitled to the belongings of other people?
And also, no amount of democracy justifies a vote that violates my right to own my own property. There is no such thing as a right to vote away the rights of others. Period.
we limit it all the time. You don't have the right to refuse service to black people. You don't have the right to grow pot. That may be the way we want it to work, but the US doesn't and hasn't ever worked that way.
Illegitimate according to what set of rules? It seems like you guys are just making up your own set of what is "right" or "wrong", as if they aren't just made up terms anyway, and then using them to explain why the rules in another system are wrong. You can do that with anything. Saying you don't like the way our government works is fine, saying it is "illegitimate" is meaningless like saying "rap isn't music".
I suggest that you pick up your dictionary and read the entry for "illegitimate" and see if you still think that the word is meaningless. Right and wrong, as moral concepts, can be defended only when clearly defined in support of liberty and justice. Taking something from someone without their express consent is theft. Period.
Corruption and theft are not up to any form of personal interpretation; there is nothing morally relative about theft. Theft, unlike music, isn't subject to opinion.
So should we be able to imprison, fine, or punish people in any way? I mean if it is always wrong to take anyone's property or freedom for any reason than you can't. If person A steals from person C, can person B take it and give it back or would that be stealing? Once you start adding unless or buts then who who gets to decide where the line is? You might not like where our line is but that doesn't make it "wrong".
In law (synonymous to ethics), legitimacy is a term which describes whether something preforms legally (ethically). In logic it describes whether something is non-contradictory or valid.
If right and wrong are indeed made up terms, why does the government invoke such concepts as reason for it's existence? If right and wrong are indeed non-concepts, what justification can there be for government? In that, there can be no legitimacy.
Let me ask you, is calling rape bad or unethical the same as calling a genre of music bad? It seems you've opted for some sort of relativist conundrum which validates any form of barbarity.
No but they are both matters of opinion. Thats why people form societies and governments to help prop up their shared ideas of what is right and wrong. Unforunately for people who think rape is ok there aren't enough people to go form a society with so they are fucked. Just like our government. A bunch of people got together who decided that the government could levy taxes and they formed a society.
"Unforunately for people who think rape is ok there aren't enough people to go form a society with so they are fucked."
No, they can just go and rape people and force their social preferences on others just like those who want taxation do. Those who object are only expressing a matter of opinion, nothing more.
"A bunch of people got together who decided that the government could levy taxes and they formed a society."
Yeah, if 54 men +9 state legislatures is a bunch of people.
But luckily we live in a society that doesn't give a shit what they think and we will put them in jail because our elected representatives decided that rape = prison a long time ago.
Why is it "lucky"? It's a simply a difference of opinion but the government has more firepower so it forces rapists into jails. There's no reason to be thankful for it, it's arbitrary. There's no Good Will behind it to be thankful for, it's simply a display of preference. You can't be emotive if you're going to be descriptive.
Sure i can. I admit my feelings are arbitrary, systemic, or whatever, but that doesn't mean i couldn't be born in a country that disagrees. Im sure there are plenty of people who think rape is wrong that live in third world societies that don't really care or care very little. i disagree with our society about a shit load of things, that just isn't one of them. I don't think arbitrary lines and rules are a bad thing. it is just human nature to me.
It seems like you're saying there's no rationale behind criticizing such acts (rape), or at least that all rationales are insufficient. So the only justification the government has for imprisoning people is an opinion. So now I ask you, why do you criticize me calling the government illegitimate? Since it's you're belief that the only basis for right and wrong is individual opinion, is it not valid that I have and express an opinion?
first, I never criticized you or called you stupid, i just disagreed. Disagreeing isn't criticism, i was just discussing the video.
You can hold the opinion that anrchy is the best option and that individual freedoms are to be honored above all things, i just disagree. My personal opnion is that a representative government is a much better solution to a problem that doesn't have a perfect answer.
"You can hold the opinion that anrchy is the best option and that individual freedoms are to be honored above all things, i just disagree."
My problem is not that you disagree with me, it's that you would use force to make me agree with you. If you want a representative government, go at it. I don't, yet you insist I do by supporting the US, a government which assumes my citizenship.
The Federal Reserve is a separate entity, and the government doesn't control. They loan money to the government at interest. Debt = Slavery. They want us to be in debt to them, cause it enslaves us to them.
deserves more views
cTdolo 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
so taxes = robbery. ok. so if you want, you can re-locate to somalia. see ya there!
prodigee411 1 year ago
@prodigee411
Because that's exactly what I was saying. Fucking idiot...
abortedsoul 1 year ago
Wow, the statists are really giving you a lot of flak, abortedsoul :/
Mastikator 2 years ago
That's usually how it goes. There isn't anything you can say that won't have some group or another up in arms about it.
abortedsoul 2 years ago
R.I.P
AndyKiid 2 years ago
P.I.R.
abortedsoul 2 years ago
like you said, everything government touches turns to shit. the government isn't necessary at all. the constitution is like the bible of statism. people will always be fighting over how to interpret this document. the answer is to realize that the document and government were always immoral to begin with. the government fails at ethics and it fails when the scientific method is applied to it.
Sean2046 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You say you are not trying to take anything from me, yet you waste my time with a disjointed, dogmatic, remedial, libby bash.
Read Hobbes, Rawls, Nozick, and Locke and then make your rants.
LordLargo37 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You look like venomfangx .....really
damagejackal10 3 years ago
who cares... really
depmuc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fag.
starkeisha4real 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's just another five stars for you, shush. BiSensua is all knowing and all giving. Bow.
BiSensua 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
One can never have too many channels when they're up to something clever.
JohnAsInJohn 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ciao
TheLoveNazi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I want to comment and add something or reiterate, but I can't think of anything other than "hi".
Hi.
DlVlNATl0Nx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yea n wadda we gonna doooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
bossofthenight 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and is a result of being stalked by nazi xtian fuckers so you'll forgive the multiplicity.
DlVlNATl0Nx is the main base.
Great vid. Thanks again. You'd think people would know this much but few do. Hmmm.
BiSensual 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a question for you, it maybe another videos worth..
How about child support?
Should a child be entitled to thousands of dollars a month simply because their father is a millionare?
Example- Eddie murphy knocked up one of the spice girls. That child is getting 50k a month from eddie murphy..
imo, child support seems like it is now about punishment, not about making sure the child is financially safe. Like a conservative and a liberals wet dream..
thefakeyeti 3 years ago
I've been thinking about this quite a bit. I'll get around to replying, in video or in text, when I figure out exactly where I stand.
Thanks for the thought-raising question; I do appreciate it.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
I really wish they would institute instint voter run off..
Right now it feels like i have to either vote for the government to take away my money(liberals), or legisliate my mind and body (conservatives).. and right now I am voting for them to take away my money
thefakeyeti 3 years ago
Good to see you and Ash finally making videos again!
PhildotheGreat 3 years ago
What is your work?
drewskione 3 years ago
On the subject of the bank bailouts themselves, websnarf is entirely correct. The banks are the backbone of any country's economy: if the banks had failed, you'd all be royally fucked, and that's why the collective hands were tied when it came to begrudgingly handing over civilian money to pay for bonuses and spa trips of bank execs.
RichardBeddard 3 years ago
Wasn't civilian money. It was newly printed money. The debt has been monetized. What the government did is even worse than if they had taken the money directly. Unless the US is very lucky, the dollar will lose favor in the world market, prices will inflate immensely, and the savings of every dollar holder will be utterly worthless. The backbone is not the bank, it's capital, and capital is only valuable where there is trade, which is only possible when there is a sound way to do so.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Right, but if we had a controlling interest in the banks, we could have stopped any excessive bonuses. Why are the banks not feeling any sort of regret or mea culpa over this mess? The retired Greenspan saying "whoops!" in front of congress? That doesn't cut it. One last Bush blunder.
Now we have to do the rest of the work without any leverage over those who put us in this mess.
For you capitalists out there, don't poo poo Obama's stimulus package. Its the way back to your comfort zone.
websnarf 3 years ago
"Right, but if we had a controlling interest in the banks, we could have stopped any excessive bonuses."
Websnarf, I didn't know that you were a politician!
If you really want to know my comfort zone, it is contained (for the most part, with a few idealogical differences) in the pages of "Atlas Shrugged." My comfort zone involves holding personal liberty as sacrosanct and self-evident. It is in an emergency when you should hold to reason-based morality the tightest.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Theft is defined by the government. Remember that this country's borders were secured by people representing ideas that are in continuity with this government.
Hence the system set up by us has behaviors. The fact that the government is eating through billions from us and handing it all to banks that fucked up is part of that.
And its not irrational. The fact is, if the banks went under we would *ALL* be in trouble. If we didn't bail them out, all our bank accounts would be $0.
websnarf 3 years ago
Giving the banks money didn't save us from the economic crisis. It just prevented a run on all our banks which allowed us to maintain balances. The alternative of not giving them money would have triggered all the FDIC guarantees, which are backed by the federal reserve which would be forced to print the money turning our currency into worthless paper and destroying our economy.
It sucks, but we really had very little choice. The real crime is that we didn't get anything for it.
websnarf 3 years ago
Capitalism was in the midst of complete collapse. Collapse = going back to being cave men and starting over. But I don't understand why we didn't simply get public ownership of the banks, or at least a controlling interest.
In any event, that's the best Bush could do. Obama is trying to jump start the economy; having balances is not enough, we need to have jobs.
Think of it this way -- if it works, it will be worth every penny. If it doesn't, not trying it would have been worse.
websnarf 3 years ago
"Think of it this way -- if it works, it will be worth every penny. If it doesn't, not trying it would have been worse. "
I can see where you are coming from. Have you ever read 1984? Quite a good book, for those planning on going down the path of government control (especially when they are to control something with such a powerful impact, as you so correctly pointed out).
abortedsoul 3 years ago
I've read all three (F415, BNW & 1984). 1984 is about thought control and fascism through propaganda. We have some of the latter, but not much of the former in this country so far.
websnarf 3 years ago
"The alternative of not giving them money would have triggered all the FDIC guarantees which are backed by the federal reserve... destroying our economy."
There is another alternative. Dismantle the federal reserve, and allow individuals to place there money where they see fit. If they put their money in a bank and it runs, it was a bad investment. Solid banks would emerge, as no one would dare deposit otherwise.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
How would you define money, without the federal reserve? (Note: The GNP of the US in dollars is larger than the total amount of gold in the world.) Banks in the US (and consequently the rest of the world) don't even have a basis for basic functioning without the federal reserve.
websnarf 3 years ago
Privatize money.
AshMangus 3 years ago
@AshMangus: I'm not sure what that means. If a bunch of banks got together, do you think they could make a solid foundation for what money was outside of a federal reserve system? (Keep in mind that they, in fact, *DID* do this, but concluded that the F.R. was the right solution.)
Do you think there should be a private reserve or did you have something else in mind?
websnarf 3 years ago
Rather than getting into squabbles over the legitimacy of taxation (and I will lay down the law here: as taxation is the removal of money from the worker by the government for its own agenda, it is inherently wrong by extension of being used by our governments, the authoritarian institutions that destroy liberty under the pretense of protection), I would rather hear a justification of capitalism, or even, a glowing recommendation of capitalism; aim to somehow convince me that it is not malign.
RichardBeddard 3 years ago
Then I would highly recommend the book "in defence of global capitalism" by Johan Norberg, rather than having someone impossibly summarize the answer in a few rows in this comment field.
webaluba 3 years ago
That book is not so much a defense of capitalism as a defense of the globalisation of capitalism in the instance that capitalism is the prevalent ideology, it is a rebuttal of anti-globalists rather than anti-capitalists, I think.
RichardBeddard 3 years ago
Well the two kind of goes hand in hand doesn't it? He addresses the anti-globalists myths about capitalism. To quote from his website:
"They say that free trade and free markets make the world a more unequal place, that capitalism holds people in poverty, that economic growth harms the environment, that multinational corporations keep wages and labour standards on a low level, and that free financial markets cause crises."
So in essence it's a defense of capitalism as a whole.
webaluba 3 years ago
If you want a glowing justification for capitalism, read a book titled "Economics in One Lesson." There is a free link to it in the info section of my last video, "Why America is Sinking."
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
You were acting condescending. Direct quote:
"teens=thinks they know it aall
20's=knows they know it all
30's=wonders if they know enough
40=realizing they never knew it all
older=accepts that they never knew a damn thing.
You will learn in time. "
con·de·scend (kŏn'dĭ-sěnd') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends 1. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
Your professor was condescending, as are you by your choice of quotes. Youth is the source of ever-changing ideas, and the claim could be made that old people have lived their lives in an outdated world, and that they are set in their ways. Again, either argument would be fallacious.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
I simply cannot understand people like Praxxus55712 living under the pretense that their morality is superior to others? If it was superior why do you have to force it onto others by the point of a gun? Shouldn't the superior morality allow each individual to decide what's his/her moral as long as they do not hurt others? How can you justify your moral and your alleged compassion for your fellow men when you have to use force to sustain it? It just doesn't add up.
webaluba 3 years ago
"If it was superior why do you have to force it onto others by the point of a gun?"
I believe that is one of the tell-tale signs of an inferior and illegitimate moral claim.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
"Wrong, flat wrong. The right of "Life" supercedes the right of property ownership in our country's listing of "rights" and in our morality....and if it doesn't, what a sad world you and likeminded people would have created."
Personal liberty is the precious gem of human logic that makes life worth living. Just because you need something does NOT give you the right for it to be forcefully taken from someone else. If I need a kidney, does it justify kidnapping you and stealing it?
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
If you take something from someone without their express permission, it is theft. Period. If you feel so compassionately about it, you feed them. Just keep your hands out of my pockets and your parasitic ideas away from my liberty.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
"And the whole idea of a society is to insure the survival of the individual people"
No, it isn't. Societies develop simply as a result of the *consensual* interaction of the individuals.
"And incidentally, your "liberty" is a fantasy not enjoyed by anybody except in their own closed minds."
That has to be the most delusional thing I've heard in quite some time. The cost of liberty is vigilance and conviction, not the willingness to surrender it to anyone who claims that they have a need.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
".It's not stealing when a society exercises their collective compassion, which is very much a part of what binds a society."
"Society" isn't some sort of self-aware organism. There is no such thing as collective compassion. Societies are made up strictly of individuals, and nothing else.
If there are four people in a room, and one of them is hungry, it is not right for three of them to forcefully take food from the fourth without his consent, whether or not they claim "collective compassion".
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
"...which you should know is not always given freely. "
I will quote something to you, and I suggest that you read it more than once. Wiser words were never written:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property."
Note that it does not read "Life, liberty and the right to someone else's property based on need."
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
Yes. No one has the right to take away your life, and you can do with it as you see fit. That does not, however, give you the right to violate someone else's liberty.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
That is not to say that I am not compassionate, or that I think charity doesn't make sense (as I have already addressed in both comments and the video that you happen to be commenting on). Need doesn't entitle you to steal. If you want to "chip in", then you do that. That is your right, as it is your property.
Just because you are old does not make you right. That argument is called "The Argument from Authority", and it is one of the oldest and most tired arguments ever used, and oft-refuted.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
Logic and reason. They are timeless formulas that are impervious to the weathering of time.
Actually, the argument of authority is self-evidently fallacious. The reason of "I said so" is no reason at all.
"I've played it from your side of the fence."
How do you know that you simply haven't given up a reasonable position for a foolish one? That argument is absolutely unsupportable, and I would expect all of your experience to give you the soundness of mind to be aware of that.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
"You fail to consider that YOU may be wrong, instead you assume anyone who differs from your limuted perspective is wrong."
Your entire comment reeks of generalizing, self-righteous judgment of others. I trust in logic and reason, and not someone else's opinion, to figure out what is true. Through all of your condescension, however, you defeat yourself- even your statement itself is haunted by "What if I am wrong?" How do you know that you aren't just as wrong as you imagine me to be?
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
If you believe that my position is wrong, then you are entitled to refute it. Simply continuing on with the ridiculously childish and irrational assertion to undemonstrated superiority will get you nowhere.
If you have something to say, by all means say it. Claiming that age leads you to think that you never knew anything at all makes the fact that you are attempting to argue any point whatsoever unsupportable. Knowledge is gained by thinking; that is how man survives. Anything else is folly.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
If you want to make you case, then make it. Do not simply attempt to generate for yourself a veneer of intellectual respectability based on your alleged claims to experience. You are as aware of my position as I am of yours, and I have the same tools at my disposal (the evidence of your comments) as you do.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
How do you know what I have and have not experienced?
How do you know what I feel? I don't remember you ever asking me.
I am not angry. I simply refuse, as a matter of logical integrity, to let the unreasonable remain unchallenged.
"You're pretty much just tossing out insults now and not topic. "
I am responding directly to things that you have said.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
You know, I don't appear at all angry in that video.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
It isn't anger that I was feeling, or displaying.
"I am not angry. I simply refuse, as a matter of logical integrity, to let the unreasonable remain unchallenged."
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Not to mention how unflatteringly condescending that position makes you appear. I am more than willing to hear you out, as well as share my ideas on the subject. I will not, however, accept a logical fallacy to glide by unchallenged, as any student of science or debate worth their salt would tell you.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
As a student of debate, I would expect you not to forget one of the greatest lessons, which is to watch out for any argument made from authority.
Simply asserting that my position is weak does not make it so. I am against anyone who takes something without getting consent to take it.
I've directly addressed your opinions; the only things that I have brushed aside were your unsupported assertions.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
I didn't claim that it was strong; I let my positions speak for themselves. There was only one unsupported assertion made, and it was by you. And yes, sadly, I do see how that works.
No, there are unsupported. You provided nothing to support them with. Reality is not a matter of opinion.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
What if you had the wrong experiences? You could (and some people do) learn to act inappropriately. Unless you have proof that your experience is relevant, you are simply making an argument from authority.
I don't need 25 years; I don't even need five minutes. Your argument is full of shit, I have demonstrated it, and the only response to it that you have is that theft is justifiable if the person doing the robbing feels that it is a need.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago 2
Praxxus55712 has replied to your comment on Government Bailout is Theft:
And lastly, your blustering and distasteful name calling of my position as "shit" is as base and high school as it gets. You lose all position points for failing to maintain civility in a debate. You apparently did not do well in debate class. lol
In summation, you're simply an angry pseudo-intellectual......well...idiot. You've proven that beyond any doubt. Congrats on your stupidity, you wear it well. :)
abortedsoul 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i approve of this message
silentwhistle 3 years ago
nice vid as usual good quotes.
ssj4goku100million 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
"People should never starve or die of the elements."
I agree, but they and people who are willing to take care of them without stealing from others (tax-sponsored "welfare") are responsible. No need or emergency gives someone the right to violate the property rights of another.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
Praxxus55712 3 years ago
Very glad to hear that. Survival of the fittest doesn't quite apply exactly to business, but only on Darwinian technical grounds. Overall I definitely agree with you.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Wow I'm surprise you didn't even bleep the video out! You use to do just that! Your very calm right now!
Seriously I live in this 3rd world countries filled with corruption and debt! I'm still alive RELAX!
Kalamolng 3 years ago
Well, I'm glad you are still alive.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Why thank you! I'm glad your much calmer now! You use to yell alot of obscenities back then!
You still in Japan?
Kalamolng 3 years ago
I still do use obscenities, but it always depends on my mood.
I'm actually back in the beautiful United States of America; and man, are they beautiful.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
When people do not have a JOB, then they do not have any money, then they can not support themselves...Where do they turn? The government. Right now, million of people have lost their jobs and the government can not afford to take care of them all...So government does have an interest when so many people are not working.
thickblkpa 3 years ago
"Where do they turn? The government."
Where does the government get that money?
abortedsoul 3 years ago
The government get the money from the people. I pay taxes and my taxes money could be used to assist me when I am out of a job.
thickblkpa 3 years ago
Or they could be used to help prop up inefficient businesses that are failing because they successfully lobbied congress to freely give away your hard earned money.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
"When people do not have a JOB, then they do not have any money, then they can not support themselves."
Then they get a job. If they cannot find a job, they start their own venture. Even if they go without electricity and simply grow or forage to subsist (assuming that some understanding fellow of theirs doesn't help them out), at least they aren't demanding a sacrifice of the personal liberties of others.
Nothing justifies the sort of theft involved here.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Then they should have saved money. They should have made sound investments. They should have hedged their money against unemployment possibilities. It is not the fault of your neighbor that you lose your job.
teewillis1981 3 years ago
No one is blaming the neighbor. Just know, life might be going great for you now, but the future may not be just as kind and you can find yourself in the eyes of neighbor needing assisting too.
thickblkpa 3 years ago
"No one is blaming the neighbor. Just know, life might be going great for you now, but the future may not be just as kind and you can find yourself in the eyes of neighbor needing assisting too."
Very true. I would never, however, accept money that was stolen to support me.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Comment removed
AshMangus 3 years ago
Well, with the knowledge we have now and the belief we have to take responsibility for our own lives, I doubt that would happen. We've found it to be an intelligent move to prepare for things like that so we do not have to depend on other people's earnings.
In the case that we did need financial aid, it wouldn't be forcefully taken from your pocket, or anyone else's. If we get turned down, then that is on us. We should've been more prepared with our money and our lives. That is liberty.
AshMangus 3 years ago
realistically, our government is a quasi aristocracy; similar to China. The same entities (i.e. corporations, financial elites, etc.) control the country no matter who is president or in the senate; because these politicians are bought and paid for. So we are not a democracy. It's bullshit, just like organized religion. we the people have no voice; as evidenced by the bailouts. taxpayer revolts are certainly called for. we exist in a class warfare society; not racial, religious, or party based.
psbyowner 3 years ago
we did give our consent. We elected people who voted on laws that gave the government the right ti take it. when we elect officials we are giving them the right to represent us and to legislate for us so we are de facto consenting.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
I didn't give my consent. It is the same thing by saying "This block elected the mobsters to take care of it with their protection racket; they picked them and chose to pay them, so therefore they have a right to violate your liberty."
"De facto consenting" is not consenting, and that is assuming that they are carrying out their duties according to a system that is just, which of course is not happening.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Levying taxes isn't illegal. Our elected representatives are levying taxes just like the constitution says they can. Now they may be doing retarded things or taking more than we like, but that is the fault of stupid people voting.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
Also, by defacto consent i meant that by living in this country you are essentially giving your right to legislate to your elected rep. whether you voted for them or not.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
That is a horrible fallacious argument. I did not give my consent to anyone to take my money. The social contract is an invalid concept. The "collective" is made up of individuals. The collective is a conceptual framework that is not able to make decisions. The individual makes decisions that are contractually binding. So how can a social contract bind a conceptual framework? All that exists is the individual, I don't even vote, so by what right are these people taking my money? It's theft.
teewillis1981 3 years ago
Sure you did. by living in your congressional district and not leaving the country you are consenting to allow your elected officals to represent you whether you vote or not. they voted for taxes so you voted for taxes. If you don't want them to represent you move to another congressional district or country. the collective can indeed make decisions, sir. That's how a republic works. By living here you are agreeing to be bound by the constitution and congress and taxes are defined therein.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
Wait, so if I force my way into your house and take over, and you don't move, you are consenting?
abortedsoul 3 years ago
"Also, by defacto consent i meant that by living in this country you are essentially giving your right to legislate to your elected rep. whether you voted for them or not."
You are incorrect. Again, I reference the mob protection racket example.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
"Levying taxes isn't illegal."
They write the laws. Illegal is simply what the government is willing to stop people from doing. Legal, as almost anyone with half of a brain can agree, doesn't mean right.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you have an alternative to a democratic system? I don't disagree with all of your ideas, I do question what happens if you loose your wealth and your job and need medical help, do we let you suffer in the street and die? I couldn't let that happen, would you count on other peoples empathy? Everyone deciding what and how they pay; I like the concept, but I have yet to hear a solution that works in real world. Dead bodies laying around... "don't take my money to haul them off!" Who's then?
Bayhuntr 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"do we let you suffer in the street and die?"
Would you rather be held responsible for taking care of the hordes of the unwell and unworking? Should their need entitle them to some of your rights? Or, even worse, do your needs make you feel entitled to the belongings of other people?
AshMangus 3 years ago
And also, no amount of democracy justifies a vote that violates my right to own my own property. There is no such thing as a right to vote away the rights of others. Period.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
we limit it all the time. You don't have the right to refuse service to black people. You don't have the right to grow pot. That may be the way we want it to work, but the US doesn't and hasn't ever worked that way.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
Then the US is an illegitimate institution. Case closed.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago 3
"Then the US is an illegitimate institution. Case closed. "
Very well said.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Illegitimate according to what set of rules? It seems like you guys are just making up your own set of what is "right" or "wrong", as if they aren't just made up terms anyway, and then using them to explain why the rules in another system are wrong. You can do that with anything. Saying you don't like the way our government works is fine, saying it is "illegitimate" is meaningless like saying "rap isn't music".
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
I suggest that you pick up your dictionary and read the entry for "illegitimate" and see if you still think that the word is meaningless. Right and wrong, as moral concepts, can be defended only when clearly defined in support of liberty and justice. Taking something from someone without their express consent is theft. Period.
Corruption and theft are not up to any form of personal interpretation; there is nothing morally relative about theft. Theft, unlike music, isn't subject to opinion.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
So should we be able to imprison, fine, or punish people in any way? I mean if it is always wrong to take anyone's property or freedom for any reason than you can't. If person A steals from person C, can person B take it and give it back or would that be stealing? Once you start adding unless or buts then who who gets to decide where the line is? You might not like where our line is but that doesn't make it "wrong".
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
In law (synonymous to ethics), legitimacy is a term which describes whether something preforms legally (ethically). In logic it describes whether something is non-contradictory or valid.
If right and wrong are indeed made up terms, why does the government invoke such concepts as reason for it's existence? If right and wrong are indeed non-concepts, what justification can there be for government? In that, there can be no legitimacy.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Let me ask you, is calling rape bad or unethical the same as calling a genre of music bad? It seems you've opted for some sort of relativist conundrum which validates any form of barbarity.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
No but they are both matters of opinion. Thats why people form societies and governments to help prop up their shared ideas of what is right and wrong. Unforunately for people who think rape is ok there aren't enough people to go form a society with so they are fucked. Just like our government. A bunch of people got together who decided that the government could levy taxes and they formed a society.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
"Unforunately for people who think rape is ok there aren't enough people to go form a society with so they are fucked."
No, they can just go and rape people and force their social preferences on others just like those who want taxation do. Those who object are only expressing a matter of opinion, nothing more.
"A bunch of people got together who decided that the government could levy taxes and they formed a society."
Yeah, if 54 men +9 state legislatures is a bunch of people.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
But luckily we live in a society that doesn't give a shit what they think and we will put them in jail because our elected representatives decided that rape = prison a long time ago.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
Why is it "lucky"? It's a simply a difference of opinion but the government has more firepower so it forces rapists into jails. There's no reason to be thankful for it, it's arbitrary. There's no Good Will behind it to be thankful for, it's simply a display of preference. You can't be emotive if you're going to be descriptive.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Sure i can. I admit my feelings are arbitrary, systemic, or whatever, but that doesn't mean i couldn't be born in a country that disagrees. Im sure there are plenty of people who think rape is wrong that live in third world societies that don't really care or care very little. i disagree with our society about a shit load of things, that just isn't one of them. I don't think arbitrary lines and rules are a bad thing. it is just human nature to me.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
It seems like you're saying there's no rationale behind criticizing such acts (rape), or at least that all rationales are insufficient. So the only justification the government has for imprisoning people is an opinion. So now I ask you, why do you criticize me calling the government illegitimate? Since it's you're belief that the only basis for right and wrong is individual opinion, is it not valid that I have and express an opinion?
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
first, I never criticized you or called you stupid, i just disagreed. Disagreeing isn't criticism, i was just discussing the video.
You can hold the opinion that anrchy is the best option and that individual freedoms are to be honored above all things, i just disagree. My personal opnion is that a representative government is a much better solution to a problem that doesn't have a perfect answer.
IAteYourTV 3 years ago
Perhaps you're not understanding my use of "criticize". It's a term used to describe the fact that you disagreed, nothing more.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
"You can hold the opinion that anrchy is the best option and that individual freedoms are to be honored above all things, i just disagree."
My problem is not that you disagree with me, it's that you would use force to make me agree with you. If you want a representative government, go at it. I don't, yet you insist I do by supporting the US, a government which assumes my citizenship.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
The Federal Reserve is a separate entity, and the government doesn't control. They loan money to the government at interest. Debt = Slavery. They want us to be in debt to them, cause it enslaves us to them.
pixelatedxdeath 3 years ago