Man must sleep. He wants to be sure that someone is watching-over his treasure as he sleeps. Somehow that evolved into government.
Maybe
Or, Man must rest. Meanwhile, SOMEBODY's got to keep pushing on the world (or else it stops turning, and obviously GOD's not gonna do it lol). And government evolved from that.
No purpose; it just evolved for no reason.
'Justice' is just 'rearranging everything so one can be at-peace with it.' Which one? Depends, Which justice?
Justice is bullshit. Its no point digging deaper down into it. It doesnt exist.
The best possible society is the society that will be preferable for most of the people. Which means that any society that isnt preferable to people, weather it be left or right will eventually loose to the society that IS preferable.
Therefore, political "stands" an un-necesary. What we should be debating are the facts. For example, how can we prevent ourselfe from killing the earth, and so on.
as renewable energy becomes more massly produced (in the future), the cost of alternative renewable energy prices will become cheaper which is basic logic in economics as world oil levels are depleting and won't last forever, TJ's point to invest in alternative energy away from oil before the oil runs out otherwise that would leave us in an energy crisis. so the government is investing in renewable energy (green markets) but is somewhat in its infancy so is expensive, and not cost effective atm
Damn the amazing atheist has some fans! like damn, he has a following - 2 and a half stars? he deserves three just for going up against someone with such a fan base.....
I'm not trying to give you a complex or anything, but well said. You seem to think things through before coming to a conclusion and that's quite rare these days.
i started the vid, read the comments and was thinking "oh geez waste of time", nah man, people posting comments have lost it on this one, this dude is right. ima watch more of your videos.
theres just no such thing as civilization without a state. Without a state (sure, a necessary evil), we become primitive again. states r of course instruments of coercion, no doubt, but thats the price of an organized, orderly society. all we should ask for is a state thats closest 2 represent our broadest interests, e.g. in ur discussion, the environment.
So we should all be dehumanized because blahblah's like yourself enjoy being slaves? How exactly do we become "primitive" under anarchism? Anarchism doesn't rid the human race of it's creativity. You've clearly bought into all the mainstream propaganda. Capitalism is what destroys organization, not anarchy. I think "anarcho" capitalists are fascistic. An anarcho-socialist society is based upon organization and direct democracy, workers councils, etc...
Yeah, maybe people like you are scared by the state into not raping and pillaging, but I'm certainly not going to regress into some sort of animal the moment the state is dispersed.
The illusion you entertain is that people are incapable of functioning without someone telling them how they're supposed to do it.
If you're going to spew philosophical vomit all over the place, I suggest you get a notebook, write it down, read it over, and realize how fucking stupid you are. Please rethink your definitions because they are totally incorrect.
You mention a 'leap of logic'-- here's one of your own: Reducing 'statism' to classism and ignoring the idea that was so eloquently enacted two hundred years ago--The state can be of the people and not a seperate class of people.
Acting as an organization people can use their collective strength to enforce moral advocacy through an instrument you know as 'the law'. You may see this as repression, but our democratic organization allows prosperity and tranquility by formalizing justice.
I tried to post this on How The World Works channel but he blocked me. hmmm. Here it is :::: I nocited that my comment was removed regarding whether or not HTWW was a jewish zionist. First off, I thought he didn't REMOVE ANY comments. I didn't even 1 star the video. Also, I wonder if he understands how one's ideology will always "COLOR" a debate. This is true for everyone. CONTD
In terms of the actual debate itself it is irrelevant. By this I mean you may not be able to discern one's ideology(belief system) by the debate itself. What needs to be understood is that what is CHOSEN to be debated will be a direct reflection of one's ideology as will the words that come out of one's mouth. This is basic psychology 101. CONT'D
Now this is null and void only if one is able to free themselves from beliefs themselves. Remember, you do not have to believe in something in order to debate it. In fact, having a belief in something is a direct impediment to an OBJECTIVE debate. Now this is no easy task but surely one that should be discussed. There is a book that came out around 2000 called The Power of Now that lends a good understanding to this topic.
This vid was indeed pretty wack. This dude thinks he's smarter than he is (like most of us). The fact that there is a huge nuance of view points, rather than simply "the left" or "the right" is not a new concept.
"Justice" is subjective, just like "good". Depending on the context & the ppl involved, "justice" will have a different meaning.
Politics IS NOT morality. It's simply "policy".
And to have cognitive dissonence, u have to be AWARE that your thoughts are contradictory.
Exactly however, politics makes policy morality by saying well it is not okay to smoke weed. Weed is bad for you therefore we ban it. Politics carries the will of the majority (that is the morality of the majority) because if it did not then it would not what people would want and over throw their government.
Weed is actually good for some people. So, it's actually immoral to ban weed completely. But, it's a part of US policy to prohitbit controlled substances, no matter what the benifit.
HOWEVER, if u live in OAksterdam, like I do, then you can still buy weed at the store - legally. ;)
More like them forcing their "policies" on us. If politics had anything to do with morals, the opium wars would have never jumped off. I have to disagree and say politics is more about what's the most convenient and productive "policy" than morals. "Law" is more about morals than politics. Law stops murder. Politics causes it.
I love the way you take the concept of justice, and just repeatedly rape it over and over in the ass until it's nothing but a bloodied mess that you trot out to the people.
and from reading the comments: it seems fairly obvious that people are willing to throw their support behind ANYONE who says anything condescending to TAA.
Oh c'mon. Saying something condescending about TAA is wrong? Let's consider the fact that he DOES do that to about 5 billion other people on this planet...
The Amazing Atheist is also the most Amazingly Idiot.
Luke12000 rulez.
Statists are coercionists. Statism is so irracional and is not based on any historical evidence or scientific proof, statism is just an ex-post facto justification for coercionist, collectivists bigots who want everyone to abide by their own moral rules and standards under the threat and use of violence. Statism is dead.
ROFL WHAT A EGG SUCKING CUNT LOOK AT YOUR FUCKING HAIR, AND ALSO REMEMBER YOUR A FUCKING AMERICAN SO STOP SAYING JUSTICE, ALSO FUCK YOU, OH AND FUCK YOU and did i mention fuck u!
If you're going to get on someone else's shit, you might not want to walk out looking like a dumbass (no offense) then again, I never did like that statement because it's a clear cut case of an oxymoron (go ahead, use any generic pun right here)
Ah-ha-ha. Creative. Amazing Athiest is a great man, and I really love how he seems to be so resilient to your pathetic attacks. You think you have people who believe in you. An example of a sad, but utterly true, sympathetic fallacy. Death sentence is the most pathetic attempt to somehow dismantle the criminal underworld. Rehabilitation is the key. Death does not undo the commited acts. Rehabilitation makes the acts forgivable. Forgiveness, not zeal.
The gov't is a special group of citizens? In what way? We pass laws, we enforce them through our gov't. No one, not even the govt is above those laws. If the gov't thinks so, we toss them out. Environmental laws don't come from the govt, they come from us, acting through our govt, which ALSO comes from us and is replaceable in a democracy. I think its sad that you see the govt as 'violent'. WE are violent, our laws are violent, we knew this when we passed them, and we passed them anyway.
People seem to think "government" is some magical device that somehow bypasses human nature and gets to do things an "ordinary" organization wouldn't. Governments are composed of people; the very same people that compose corporations, with the same petty desires and aspirations. If you claim a private security sector would degenerate into mafias, then you have just shot yourself in the foot there: If companies bound by the free market would do that, then what won't a monopolizing government do?
Jesus is alive Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me. Act 2:21 Lord shall be saved. hah!!!! bull$€{
... so if we switched from "what is affordable" to "what is possible", people would choose logically and pick cleaner energy from a renewable source, but capitalism has prevented them from making such a discision surely, since they are confined to what is merely affordable, and so they are forced to pollute the planet and fund corrupt regimes and corporations world wide. then again maybe people are just arse holes who like doing these things.
There's a difference between government and the state. People can voluntarily decide laws by consensus, that's a form of government. It doesn't always rely on the state.
People don't always buy what is cheapest, they will buy what is cheapest in the short term. Also 'cost' will usually only be measured in terms of money by people whereas governments want to enable people to act in their own self interest by factoring in other costs through dis/incentives without them having to worry about the effects on the environment.
Like Darwin'sHamster said before: people want governments to care on their behalf. (so we can act in our own self interest easily).
You shared some good thoughts. I do, however disagree with your assertion that looking at political issues in a left/right context is incorrect. I recommend you delve into the Eastern philosophy scripts of the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching in order to understand the concept of duality (Yin/Yang, Black/White, True/False, Left/Right) and how the "ten-thousand myriad things" arise from it.
You arguments are sound, but AA is louder and more obnoxious. It is unfortunate that so many people consider AA's ability to talk loudly in any way significant.
excellent video, too bad youre being targeted by theamazingatheist's puppets (i mean subscribers), but you still hold your ground and explain things well
Free market works with goods, and plenty of services (like waiters, taxi cabs ect). But It can't build roads. Capitalism is fucked in many ways, I mean look at our electric lines. They are still fuckin electric lines same as say when electricity was fuckin first distributed. Its a service all must have so it will not progress, same as oil, same as roads, free market is fucked there, it's just to efficient for companies in the as is, and its needed, its fucked.
We need government because they are people who are willing to compromise, exploit and kill other human beings for their own selfish abmitions. Without government, who is in power boils down to the power that comes from a barral of a gun, or more specifically, who has the most guns. If there is no government and i and my buddies have the most guns and ammunition, we can come, shoot you and steal your vaunted "Property" without consequence.
This guy's a fucking moron. Government steps in because free market capitalism doesn't fit the bill. If no government existed the "free market" would make the trade of sex slaves a ubiquitous phenomenon. Government isn't fucking moral imposition. Government serves to do 2 things and in effect 2 things only. Keep me safe from my neighbor and keep me safe from crazy fucks trying to invade from another country. Pollution control falls under the first one.
Wow the TAA fanboys sure can vote a video down! Dats sum real skillz rite thurr! They actually CLICKED THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE ONE STAR RATING. woooooooooooow
can we get an instant replay? can we get a spanish soccer announcer to shout "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAL" over it please? what amazing skills. It's like 50 superbowls in the space of a second!
And you clicked the five stars. You actually CLICKED THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE FIVE STAR RATING.
wooooooooow
can we get an instant replay? can we get a spanish soccer announcer to shout "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAA AAAAL" over it please? what amazing skills. It's like 50 superbowls in the space of a second!
Luke12000: "Welcome to Restaurants for hypocrites. Tonight's special is a delicious plate of bullshit with sides of your choice: irrational thinking, confusion of morality, inconsideration of other peoples ideals, and a special choice but for a limited of time our new "speaking without thinking'" desert. Are you ready to order?"
Nobrain203: well kind sir. how about i serve you dinner for a change where our specialty is SUCK MY DICK!
Yes but you are only paying for the proportion you do use.
Yes but the difference is that in a democracy these common laws can be enforced so that people are safe. Even is an anarchy was possible and these common laws were in place, do you think people would follow them? Do you think that there would be more or less murders? People need to be made responsible for your actions, that is why you need authority.
Without government, society cannot function, have you read Lord of the Flies?
I don't pay taxes in proportion to my use. For example, I continually pay taxes toward public schools, but I don't attend any school.
Common laws were enforced via society. Private security existed before the state, and still does. They will enforce the laws, and it will be competitive unlike the monopolistic state.
Lord of the Flies has a person who claims authority over all based on a seashell, and even kills someone. The absolute randomly given authority of one group is the problem.
Did you try not paying taxes under democracy? You get the same treatment for not paying taxes under a dictatorship. Also, I didn't vote for them, but I must pay them just like a mobster collecting protection money.
you do not get killed in a democratic country for not paying taxes, people are not slaughtered for saying what they think, there is a HUGE difference. you may not have voted for them but it is a majority rules, and do you use electricty and water and public transport and all public infrastructure? Then you get what you are paying for. Would you rather an anarchy?
There's is no difference. If you stop paying taxes they will imprison you, or shoot you if you resist. In prison you will suffer, and could also die. Also, I don't get anything from the roads, schools, electric grids, water systems that I never use. Lastly, I pay taxes out of fear. If anarchy is no state/king/emperor, then I prefer anarchy.
Hahaha you never use water, yep that makes sense. You get electricity from them, how are you typing these comments now?
So you would prefer to live in fear, where there is no structure or rules. No law system, no medical system no education system, Because without levels of authority none of that is possible.
I didn't say that. I pay taxes for items I don't use. All the schools I don't attend, the roads I never drive, water systems I don't drink from, etc.
I live in fear already if I don't pay taxes. State laws all derive from common laws - laws created by society. My food, clothing, medicine comes from private companies.
What do you mean "Before the State?" As long as they were humans, there were those with power and authority, be it a Fuedal Lord, a Tribal Cheiftan or an Alpha Male.
And without government to regulate or ban their activites, what is to prevent said private security from shooting you in the face and taking your stuff or acting as a protection racket, bullying you to pay whatever insane rate they want for protection and shooting you in the face when you dare disagree like any other gang?
A state is just a bigger groups of thug over an entire region. Don't pay your taxes, and the state will put you in a cage for years, or kill you if you resist. A petty thug could never do all of that. I prefer the petty thugs.
If you see no diference between a Constitutional Democratic Government and Crooks that will shoot you and steal your stuff at any time thats your problem.
Humans are social creatures and human activities need to be guided by a central authority to make sure that detremental activities are stopped. In apsence of Government, leadership reforms through force, but it would likely not be a Democratic State with leaders that give two shits about the people or there rights. You can Never Abolish power
There is no difference between thugs and a state because both will harm you if you don't give them money. Everything else is superficial. Label it (e.g. republic, mafia) whatever you want.
There is no 'guidance' when you are threatened with imprisonment or death if you resist in paying taxes. It's just a gun to your head if you don't obey. The solution is as many competing security companies as possible, not a single group with absolute power (e.g. a state).
The distiction that Libertarians always miss is this, what does society get from this?
With thugs: Nothing, the stuff they steal they spend on themselves.
With a Government: You get a Military for Defence, Police, Education for the masses, infastructure (roads, medicine, communications, clean water), property Records (thats right, without the state, property does not exist) and a thousand other things you take for granted even if you don't use them yourself, they benefit society as a whole.
I will not ignore the fact I don't want to give the thugs or government money. It's still theft.
Also, taxes pay for stuff I don't use: public schools I don't attend, roads I don't drive, etc. How am I using the military in Iraq? Lastly, all of that stuff was financed from taxes on people - the people could have bought it themselves. I don't need the state to tax me, and buy food for me.
And this is a key aspect of Libertarianism, Being a selfish prick that thinks only of one's self. You fail to realise that there are plenty of people who can't afford education and would be stuck in an endless cycle of poverty without public schools. You fail to understand that Public Roads are nessisary for the Logistics of a modern city and would be unable to fuction without them. You fail to understand that without government modern society would FALL APART.
It's obvious your logic is weak because you readily resort to insults.
Private companies provide the books, the construction, etc to public schools. All the state does is steal the funds from people, and pay these private companies to make stuff. Private charities could easily fulfill the role of welfare if donors weren't continually robbed by the state. No thug could ever imagine robbing everyone for ~25% every year.
In regards to private companies for building schools, that is a red herring. Public Schools, Roads and so forth are FREE to be used by everyone and are not indented to make money. If a private firm created a highway, there would be a toal booths every kilometer to pay for matinence and to make it profitable. In your Libertopia, no one who was not rich would be able to give their chilren a worthwhile education. The Result, instant class stratification between the uneducated poor and the rich.
well im sure you drive, attended school and have been defended by the american government. hey im conservative but i still think that government does have its jobs like infrastructure, education and national defense. sure there is plenty of wasteful spending but just because u dont use every application that they finance, doesnt mean it shouldnt exist. and if you want to complain about wasteful spending, how about the $787 billion stimulus, $410 billion omnibus and >$3 trillion budget?
If any man/group robs me, and then 'gives' me back a smaller amount in roads, schools, etc., it is still robbery. I dont' care what the thief buys because it's steal thievery. Even the NY Mafia gave out turkeys before Thanksgiving.
Everything the state produces is financed by society outside the state. The state can't really give anything, but only less than what we could have obtained on our own.
i completely agree that the state doesnt actually have any money, they just decide how to spend ours. but the reality is that you cant always end up with more than you give. if that were the case, america would have no education, no infrastructure and no law enforcement. is paying taxes worth transport education and safety? i think so. however it isnt worth a huge tax hike to get socialistic programs which provide services of lesser quality than the services i already have. THAT is my issue
The market already provides education, infrastructure, and law enforcement. Society created the laws (e.g. common laws), and the state originally bases most of its own laws on them. It is the state that wishes to take control over these services, like any gang of thieves.
You don't have a choice of paying taxes or the market. Your only choice is paying taxes or imprisonment with risk of death.
-One (Democracy) you can object to and even try to gain pressure to change if you don't like how it is being run, the other shoots you in the face.
-In one (Thugs), you get nothing in return for giving over your stuff. In the other, you get Defence from invasion, Proper law enforcement, Schools, Infastructure, Regulation and so forth that benifits you directly and benifits the whole of society (you included).
A state republic offers the illusion of options. There are 10 different choices of bread at my local grocery store every day. I have only 2-4 choices out of millions on a vote ballot, given only annually or longer. It's ridiculous to say that's a choice.
Also, where is the choice to pay no taxes? Where is the option to dissolve the state? The state has its own self-interest, and it isn't altruistic.
fragilerealist, your position strikes me as the same as that of a few credit card companies. You know the ones who send out unsolicited credit cards to your address, start charging, and then it's UP TO YOU to cancel them out if you don't want them? Not to mention "cancelling out" from a state actually involves orders of magnitude more trouble than enduring an unresponsive hotline. Let's not reverse things here. I never agreed to be governed. There is no agreement, just force on their part.
"I never agreed to be governed. There is no agreement, just force on their part. "
Maybe not. But your parents did it for you until you were a grown up. And at your coming of age, if you dont agree with the current status, you have to drop down your citizenship. As this point, it will be clear that you dont agree with the current contract. Everyone on the same on the same line as you should do the same. Doing so is really easy, it only takes a form to fill in most cases.
Invisible Emperor, you are the cretin here. Because the author does NOT AGREE with something does NOT mean HE'S UNAWARE of that thing.
"Legitimate" force, alright. What makes it "legitimate" exactly? The fact some "cretin" wrote on a manuscript somewhere that it's legitimate, for as long as it's the government (I.E. a group of people) dishing it out, and named that manuscript "political philosophy"? As far as I'm concerned, *initiated* force ( as opposed to retaliatory force) is wrong, period.
A democratically elected government forcing people to obey the law is unquestionably legitimate, as it is enforcing a decision which has been made fairly and properly. The reason why the government is more than a "group of people" is that they are given mandate to govern through a process we all recognise as fair - elections. And besides, forcing people not to pollute is clearly retaliatory, I'm just saying it can be done through legal means and does not endorse vigilante violence as Luke claims
You're an unbelievable cretin. Have you no understanding of the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force? It's one of the most basic aspects of political philosophy, and the foundation of any society, that the legitimate government has the sole monopoly on legitimate force. This is why your "go and hurt truck drives" quip is stupid.
In the absence of a formal state, an informal one will assume control anyway, only less responsible to the population in general. Get rid of the government, and you will have what is the most realistic consequence: localized tribalism of communities or petty warlordism
A playground itself demonstrates freedom from the 'State" will not result in pretty rainbows and sunshine for everyone. There will be no voluntaryism. Oppression will be more frequent and capricious.
also both of you are wrong because we can only hope to know that human beings are studied by the horde but valued highest in individuality, but if you were to govern in nothing you have chaos if you govern all you have machinery. You must only look at the extremes of both of your logic to find that you are both just fighting and not looking.
Your logic is wrong in many parts, but in one thing I would like to correct you. Government is not a means to an end but a tool to regulate and supply defense, and infrastructure. Also the goal of government is not to control, but to become controlled by the people. At the end of the day both of you are neither wrong or right just conflicting.
Socrates in crito, stated something to the effect of: If a person choose to live in a state (with other viable options available to him); said person then goes into an agreement with the state to either comply with, or work to change the rules he doesn't agree with. I also think you seperate the state and the people a bit too much, both are a product of each other. To get a better but wholly lacking view of what justice is, maybe start by reading The Republic by Plato.
I agree that federal government intervention is completely unnecessary and arguably immoral, whether it is regulating our economy, our education, or the use of drugs.
Kid, just ignore that dumbass. I don't know why you would even respond to his video. You're not the internet white fucking knight. If your reasoning, (which i believe it is), is because you don't want people to get swayed into atheism. Honestly... Anyone who gets swayed into a religion by some dumb ass on the YOUTUBE?! I don't think you want them in your religion. Both of you need to shut the hell up. Be the bigger man and stop.
Oh shut the fuck up, as if Youtube somehow has less integrity or credibility, Youtube is one of the only forums left where COMPLETE freedom of speech is still available, and that makes it a vital source for anyone who wants to find the gods honest truth. Sure theres alot of fucking bullshit on Youtube, but thats just an inconsequential side effect because anyone with a brain can filter that shit out, and not let it take away from all the incredibly informational and resourceful videos here
You still need organization for social behavior, and community would be used as a democratic system, and then you have authority still. Power consumes, people are bought, and you start all over anyway. We are misrepresented, over-idealized by ourselves, and directed from our own knowing. Quite reasonable to leave, but then social structure would take hold and consume. Its evolution of consumption from a less existant model to maintain. We are built for efficiency in a government, as its origin
Of course and that is fine as long as it is voluntary and does not impede on non aggressing people. Governments were formed for a few to control the many. The Romans, Eypgtians, Chinese and European Kingdoms did not form to give justice to the many.
Control is not fair, and there will always be control due to social structuring. So have it however you want, it ends up the same regardless. The revolution was a conflict for evolving public consent in politics, though situations still seem to seep away from its philosophy. Its all just a matter of efficiency and representation. Maybe less conflict, and hopefully less globalism, but still not a lack of authority to what people design from community. You are either at the bottom or at the top.
On statism: We bear less repsonsability for greater happiness, for managable choices, and arguementive securitiies. People could enforce their own divisions in relationships effectively without the state, no doubt, but there is a lack of control that divides individual behavior and social behavior, and government is merely the management of soical systems. A non-social system seems logical, now that we have the resources as being more evolved, culturally, but organization requires authority.
Rating, who cares? The fact was the "argumentation" put in the video is pretty weak. As one noted, the issue dealt with in this video has already been treated in the past and this vid adds nothing to the pot.
I don't think you understood more than 6.7% of what TAA said. You're 'responses' to his points have nothing to do with his points. Rather than respond, you ramble on about pseudo-related points. TAA never said 'poor people should be forced by the govt to use alternative fuels to help them'. What does your point about advocating violence in response to pollution have to do with his video? Your points at 6:50 and 7:10 are ludicrous and unconnected to TAA's video.
Of course government was created for the sake of justice. At it's earliest, lowest level it's the family unit, then we came up with tribes and so on and so on.
Modern involuntary government was created for control. If you think the rich land owning Romans and European nations built countries because they carried about justice instead of mantaining power then you sadly have a naive view of history. Also, look at pyscho history and see how terrible children were treated and thought of.
I've been following General Motors for a long time. GM had an oppurtunity to be a leader in alternative fuel/electric cars but they didnt want to spend the money promoting the technology. GM has made tons of mistakes over the years. GM spent 250 million promoting a car, i think it ws the Malibu and they had another car that they didnt spend any money promoting. The car they didnt advertise sold more cars. Former GM Ceo admitted that recalling all the EV1's and crushing them was a huge mistake.
"The creation of government has NOTHING to do with justice".
applause! home run! bravo! SCORE! touchdown!! ding ding ding...and we have a winner!
AA puts a lot of time and effort into his debates. I don't understand anyone that defends a statism, the same statisms behind many democides then condemn the dealth penalty. People who do that are selective sociopaths.
Lack of regulation of the financial sector is the reason for the global recession.
This is common knowledge.
General Motors made an electric car in the 1990's but lobbied the California Air Resources board to change the law and they trashed the EV1. Lack of regulation.
Very few electric cars and gas got up to $5 a gallon in California recently. People suffered because of Lack of regulation.
GM's Ceo getting fired and the Ev1 were front page news this week.
Yes the corporation (a state made entity) lobbied the state which in turn crushed it. China is a very statist system. There is no state magic and it is not only the state that can regulate (which is a very broad term). Your common knowledge is just a sound bite that is repeated over and over.
The California Air rescouces board was manipulated by General Motors. GM did not want to make Electric vehicles because they werent as profitable(at the time) as combustion engine cars. Electric cars have zero emissions on the road. The law was changed by a company with financial motives. Initially I stated that government was "supposed" to care for citizens. I also stated that this was not a perfect system. It is better than chaos.
As a result: pollution, high gas prices and people suffering.
If you stated this in the beginning it would make the debate shorter. you have already arrived at your conclusion before reading anything. If you are unable to see things from both sides you can not make an informed decision. With anarchy every thing that is cool in the world now would suck unless you like living out doors. Camping would be better becuase most people would be forced to learn how to live outside with out any organized civilization.
No, I understand your position. You do not understand even the basics of anarchism since you think we are for chaos, people suffering, or are against organization.
Man must sleep. He wants to be sure that someone is watching-over his treasure as he sleeps. Somehow that evolved into government.
Maybe
Or, Man must rest. Meanwhile, SOMEBODY's got to keep pushing on the world (or else it stops turning, and obviously GOD's not gonna do it lol). And government evolved from that.
No purpose; it just evolved for no reason.
'Justice' is just 'rearranging everything so one can be at-peace with it.' Which one? Depends, Which justice?
mythmanjay 1 month ago in playlist Watch Later
Justice is bullshit. Its no point digging deaper down into it. It doesnt exist.
The best possible society is the society that will be preferable for most of the people. Which means that any society that isnt preferable to people, weather it be left or right will eventually loose to the society that IS preferable.
Therefore, political "stands" an un-necesary. What we should be debating are the facts. For example, how can we prevent ourselfe from killing the earth, and so on.
gulbirk 4 months ago
u are very smart..
Cinemagraphique 8 months ago
as renewable energy becomes more massly produced (in the future), the cost of alternative renewable energy prices will become cheaper which is basic logic in economics as world oil levels are depleting and won't last forever, TJ's point to invest in alternative energy away from oil before the oil runs out otherwise that would leave us in an energy crisis. so the government is investing in renewable energy (green markets) but is somewhat in its infancy so is expensive, and not cost effective atm
23STEVO23 8 months ago
You're such a dumbass.
DrewGigzter 10 months ago
this is fucking brilliant! THANK YOU LUKE!!!!!!!
controllingaim 1 year ago
You disagree with somebody popular on YouTube. You are, therefore, obviously wrong.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@FlowCell
lolwut? you're not going far enough: you should burn him at the stake!!!
:P
Albukhshi 1 year ago
Awesome video
Esoparagon 1 year ago
Good going!
I wish I could make a reasoned, impassioned and yet patient argument for liberty, the way you do.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
Damn the amazing atheist has some fans! like damn, he has a following - 2 and a half stars? he deserves three just for going up against someone with such a fan base.....
Maximili012m 2 years ago
I'm not trying to give you a complex or anything, but well said. You seem to think things through before coming to a conclusion and that's quite rare these days.
Archais22 2 years ago
justice is "just us"
ASH6977 2 years ago
i started the vid, read the comments and was thinking "oh geez waste of time", nah man, people posting comments have lost it on this one, this dude is right. ima watch more of your videos.
TheHenryPatrick 2 years ago
theres just no such thing as civilization without a state. Without a state (sure, a necessary evil), we become primitive again. states r of course instruments of coercion, no doubt, but thats the price of an organized, orderly society. all we should ask for is a state thats closest 2 represent our broadest interests, e.g. in ur discussion, the environment.
blahblahblah8183 2 years ago
So we should all be dehumanized because blahblah's like yourself enjoy being slaves? How exactly do we become "primitive" under anarchism? Anarchism doesn't rid the human race of it's creativity. You've clearly bought into all the mainstream propaganda. Capitalism is what destroys organization, not anarchy. I think "anarcho" capitalists are fascistic. An anarcho-socialist society is based upon organization and direct democracy, workers councils, etc...
TheAntiAuthoritarian 2 years ago
Yeah, maybe people like you are scared by the state into not raping and pillaging, but I'm certainly not going to regress into some sort of animal the moment the state is dispersed.
The illusion you entertain is that people are incapable of functioning without someone telling them how they're supposed to do it.
TheGameJedi 2 years ago
ur very odd
philliesruleurschool 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck you
PudencePuhlmann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like how you anarchists speak your opinions as though it's fact.
Such arrogance.
AHMADlNEJAD 2 years ago
Sweeping generalization ahoy!
Every single minority will speak their opinion as fact at some point, christians do it all the fucking time.
Don't judge everyone based on one idiots rationale
NoGod519 2 years ago
If you're going to spew philosophical vomit all over the place, I suggest you get a notebook, write it down, read it over, and realize how fucking stupid you are. Please rethink your definitions because they are totally incorrect.
funnyman117 2 years ago
Because you say so?
hydralisk125 2 years ago
why dont you just shit out of your mouth hole.
Junt0000 2 years ago
Are you promoting anarchy? I'm sorry but I didn't want to watch the entire video.
samehl11 2 years ago
I think what TJ said was that the government should create incentives to use cheap fuel, not to use "force" or "violence".
SharpesAccomplice 2 years ago
let TJ speak for himself
Maximili012m 2 years ago
I just remembered, he does in the video response.
SharpesAccomplice 2 years ago
You mention a 'leap of logic'-- here's one of your own: Reducing 'statism' to classism and ignoring the idea that was so eloquently enacted two hundred years ago--The state can be of the people and not a seperate class of people.
Acting as an organization people can use their collective strength to enforce moral advocacy through an instrument you know as 'the law'. You may see this as repression, but our democratic organization allows prosperity and tranquility by formalizing justice.
judgemartiniz 2 years ago
Comment removed
judgemartiniz 2 years ago
I love how ur audio barley works in ur video...good for you =)
moletarbountyhunter 2 years ago
this video is like a when you're reading a book but not paying attention -and you don't know what you read. nonsense
ShaolinViolin 2 years ago
dude...do you mind-fuck ppl like this all the time?!?!?!?
damn...you use bigger words than me!!!!!
but why do you care what TheAmazingAtheist says?
oh and fyi I LOVE TheAmazingAtheist VIDS
motherfuckguy 2 years ago
@motherfuckguy
Why do you care what TheAmazingAtheist says while saying this man should not?
azimuth4570 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I tried to post this on How The World Works channel but he blocked me. hmmm. Here it is :::: I nocited that my comment was removed regarding whether or not HTWW was a jewish zionist. First off, I thought he didn't REMOVE ANY comments. I didn't even 1 star the video. Also, I wonder if he understands how one's ideology will always "COLOR" a debate. This is true for everyone. CONTD
itrainsinoctober 2 years ago
In terms of the actual debate itself it is irrelevant. By this I mean you may not be able to discern one's ideology(belief system) by the debate itself. What needs to be understood is that what is CHOSEN to be debated will be a direct reflection of one's ideology as will the words that come out of one's mouth. This is basic psychology 101. CONT'D
itrainsinoctober 2 years ago
Now this is null and void only if one is able to free themselves from beliefs themselves. Remember, you do not have to believe in something in order to debate it. In fact, having a belief in something is a direct impediment to an OBJECTIVE debate. Now this is no easy task but surely one that should be discussed. There is a book that came out around 2000 called The Power of Now that lends a good understanding to this topic.
itrainsinoctober 2 years ago
This vid was indeed pretty wack. This dude thinks he's smarter than he is (like most of us). The fact that there is a huge nuance of view points, rather than simply "the left" or "the right" is not a new concept.
"Justice" is subjective, just like "good". Depending on the context & the ppl involved, "justice" will have a different meaning.
Politics IS NOT morality. It's simply "policy".
And to have cognitive dissonence, u have to be AWARE that your thoughts are contradictory.
THATMANizzED 2 years ago
"Politics IS NOT morality. It's simply "policy"."
Exactly however, politics makes policy morality by saying well it is not okay to smoke weed. Weed is bad for you therefore we ban it. Politics carries the will of the majority (that is the morality of the majority) because if it did not then it would not what people would want and over throw their government.
D34thSetX 2 years ago
Weed is actually good for some people. So, it's actually immoral to ban weed completely. But, it's a part of US policy to prohitbit controlled substances, no matter what the benifit.
HOWEVER, if u live in OAksterdam, like I do, then you can still buy weed at the store - legally. ;)
THATMANizzED 2 years ago
Exactly why I said it is the law is a person or a majority forcing their morality on you.
D34thSetX 2 years ago
More like them forcing their "policies" on us. If politics had anything to do with morals, the opium wars would have never jumped off. I have to disagree and say politics is more about what's the most convenient and productive "policy" than morals. "Law" is more about morals than politics. Law stops murder. Politics causes it.
THATMANizzED 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHy are you saying that this video is "wack" when you're agreeing with half his statements?
He SAID that "Justice" is subjective, just like "good". Depending on the context & the ppl involved, "justice" will have a different meaning.
He also said that he had cognitive dissonance to give him intellectual credit. It was a nice way of saying he should know better.
The point of this video is also to say that Policy is based off of people's morals.
Without morals there would be no policy.
azimuth4570 2 years ago
I love the way you take the concept of justice, and just repeatedly rape it over and over in the ass until it's nothing but a bloodied mess that you trot out to the people.
and from reading the comments: it seems fairly obvious that people are willing to throw their support behind ANYONE who says anything condescending to TAA.
Maybe I should talk bad about TJ.
It'll jumpstart my popularity.
XeliosX 2 years ago
Oh c'mon. Saying something condescending about TAA is wrong? Let's consider the fact that he DOES do that to about 5 billion other people on this planet...
maggieman 2 years ago
Here's the short version:
What was this video about again?
I really don't care enough to watch it again to defend what I said.
XeliosX 2 years ago
(facepalm)
maggieman 2 years ago 2
The Amazing Atheist is also the most Amazingly Idiot.
Luke12000 rulez.
Statists are coercionists. Statism is so irracional and is not based on any historical evidence or scientific proof, statism is just an ex-post facto justification for coercionist, collectivists bigots who want everyone to abide by their own moral rules and standards under the threat and use of violence. Statism is dead.
tetraedronico 2 years ago 2
Clearly grammar is dead too. Irrational. See that? That's called spelling a word right. Try it some time.
piemanyror 2 years ago
ROFL WHAT A EGG SUCKING CUNT LOOK AT YOUR FUCKING HAIR, AND ALSO REMEMBER YOUR A FUCKING AMERICAN SO STOP SAYING JUSTICE, ALSO FUCK YOU, OH AND FUCK YOU and did i mention fuck u!
ConCon75 2 years ago
The correct term is "You're" not your, by that you imply a possessive noun
maggieman 2 years ago 2
lol i dont care im not writing this formally
ConCon75 2 years ago
If you're going to get on someone else's shit, you might not want to walk out looking like a dumbass (no offense) then again, I never did like that statement because it's a clear cut case of an oxymoron (go ahead, use any generic pun right here)
maggieman 2 years ago 2
He's Canadian you fucktard.
wyattgoettsch 2 years ago
Take your douchy haircut and go fail yourself to sleep.
This video is idiotic and goes nowhere.
AgentsRecord 2 years ago
take your "douchy" personality and your insecurity to someone who gives a shit about your brilliant original fucking advice.
arknihil 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the amazing athiest is one of the smartest people on youtube. i am an athiest.
Halo2halo1Production 2 years ago
not the most smartest, the most blinkered
zaazi123 2 years ago
Ah-ha-ha. Creative. Amazing Athiest is a great man, and I really love how he seems to be so resilient to your pathetic attacks. You think you have people who believe in you. An example of a sad, but utterly true, sympathetic fallacy. Death sentence is the most pathetic attempt to somehow dismantle the criminal underworld. Rehabilitation is the key. Death does not undo the commited acts. Rehabilitation makes the acts forgivable. Forgiveness, not zeal.
HonourBeforeDisgrace 2 years ago
No he isn't . Religion is an easy target.
hydralisk125 2 years ago
lol u suck nikker
MetalBee666 2 years ago
?!?!?!
"Left-wing thinkers" don't call it "COERCION" or "VIOLENCE" EITHER!
That's a STRAW-MAN PORTRAYAL that only the "RIGHT" ever refers to!!!
psychoholicmike 2 years ago
LUKE, I AM YOU FAJJA
zenpher 2 years ago
The gov't is a special group of citizens? In what way? We pass laws, we enforce them through our gov't. No one, not even the govt is above those laws. If the gov't thinks so, we toss them out. Environmental laws don't come from the govt, they come from us, acting through our govt, which ALSO comes from us and is replaceable in a democracy. I think its sad that you see the govt as 'violent'. WE are violent, our laws are violent, we knew this when we passed them, and we passed them anyway.
ubrew12 2 years ago
Foucalt had the same problems with justice.
mitchrix31 2 years ago
You do look a lot like Luke Skywalker.
Tineafa 2 years ago
People seem to think "government" is some magical device that somehow bypasses human nature and gets to do things an "ordinary" organization wouldn't. Governments are composed of people; the very same people that compose corporations, with the same petty desires and aspirations. If you claim a private security sector would degenerate into mafias, then you have just shot yourself in the foot there: If companies bound by the free market would do that, then what won't a monopolizing government do?
AbyssalManta 2 years ago
Jesus is alive Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me. Act 2:21 Lord shall be saved. hah!!!! bull$€{
sagaomringen 2 years ago
... so if we switched from "what is affordable" to "what is possible", people would choose logically and pick cleaner energy from a renewable source, but capitalism has prevented them from making such a discision surely, since they are confined to what is merely affordable, and so they are forced to pollute the planet and fund corrupt regimes and corporations world wide. then again maybe people are just arse holes who like doing these things.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
There's a difference between government and the state. People can voluntarily decide laws by consensus, that's a form of government. It doesn't always rely on the state.
tehpistolpete 2 years ago
STFU.
retart441 2 years ago
People don't always buy what is cheapest, they will buy what is cheapest in the short term. Also 'cost' will usually only be measured in terms of money by people whereas governments want to enable people to act in their own self interest by factoring in other costs through dis/incentives without them having to worry about the effects on the environment.
Like Darwin'sHamster said before: people want governments to care on their behalf. (so we can act in our own self interest easily).
GirlyVoice 2 years ago
You shared some good thoughts. I do, however disagree with your assertion that looking at political issues in a left/right context is incorrect. I recommend you delve into the Eastern philosophy scripts of the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching in order to understand the concept of duality (Yin/Yang, Black/White, True/False, Left/Right) and how the "ten-thousand myriad things" arise from it.
xXLoBaLLXx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism communism what is the difference?
copy and paste into youtube:
Animated American Anti-Communism Propaganda
or
how to battle communism
imbackteslacoils2001 2 years ago
You look like someone who would be in the Hitler Youth...
latinoheatm8 2 years ago
You arguments are sound, but AA is louder and more obnoxious. It is unfortunate that so many people consider AA's ability to talk loudly in any way significant.
chitch1776 2 years ago
excellent video, too bad youre being targeted by theamazingatheist's puppets (i mean subscribers), but you still hold your ground and explain things well
ExMuslimForHumanity 2 years ago 2
let me tell you something about justice..... your hair....... major injustice.......
joeyj2013 2 years ago
Free market works with goods, and plenty of services (like waiters, taxi cabs ect). But It can't build roads. Capitalism is fucked in many ways, I mean look at our electric lines. They are still fuckin electric lines same as say when electricity was fuckin first distributed. Its a service all must have so it will not progress, same as oil, same as roads, free market is fucked there, it's just to efficient for companies in the as is, and its needed, its fucked.
hollywoodelpaso1982 2 years ago
whatever you do, make more jumpcuts
trannybass 2 years ago
We need government because they are people who are willing to compromise, exploit and kill other human beings for their own selfish abmitions. Without government, who is in power boils down to the power that comes from a barral of a gun, or more specifically, who has the most guns. If there is no government and i and my buddies have the most guns and ammunition, we can come, shoot you and steal your vaunted "Property" without consequence.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
This guy's a fucking moron. Government steps in because free market capitalism doesn't fit the bill. If no government existed the "free market" would make the trade of sex slaves a ubiquitous phenomenon. Government isn't fucking moral imposition. Government serves to do 2 things and in effect 2 things only. Keep me safe from my neighbor and keep me safe from crazy fucks trying to invade from another country. Pollution control falls under the first one.
iridethewave 2 years ago
Wow the TAA fanboys sure can vote a video down! Dats sum real skillz rite thurr! They actually CLICKED THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE ONE STAR RATING. woooooooooooow
can we get an instant replay? can we get a spanish soccer announcer to shout "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAL" over it please? what amazing skills. It's like 50 superbowls in the space of a second!
BlackpeopleLOL 2 years ago
And you clicked the five stars. You actually CLICKED THE MOUSE BUTTON OVER THE FIVE STAR RATING.
wooooooooow
can we get an instant replay? can we get a spanish soccer announcer to shout "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAA AAAAL" over it please? what amazing skills. It's like 50 superbowls in the space of a second!
leArchomme 2 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist is better than you...you lose...fail
murderdolls61489 2 years ago
The state is a necessary evil. I'm a liberal minarchist or Libertarian. I can't decide.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Luke12000: "Welcome to Restaurants for hypocrites. Tonight's special is a delicious plate of bullshit with sides of your choice: irrational thinking, confusion of morality, inconsideration of other peoples ideals, and a special choice but for a limited of time our new "speaking without thinking'" desert. Are you ready to order?"
Nobrain203: well kind sir. how about i serve you dinner for a change where our specialty is SUCK MY DICK!
nobrain203 2 years ago 2
Yes but you are only paying for the proportion you do use.
Yes but the difference is that in a democracy these common laws can be enforced so that people are safe. Even is an anarchy was possible and these common laws were in place, do you think people would follow them? Do you think that there would be more or less murders? People need to be made responsible for your actions, that is why you need authority.
Without government, society cannot function, have you read Lord of the Flies?
jinglefish3 2 years ago
I don't pay taxes in proportion to my use. For example, I continually pay taxes toward public schools, but I don't attend any school.
Common laws were enforced via society. Private security existed before the state, and still does. They will enforce the laws, and it will be competitive unlike the monopolistic state.
Lord of the Flies has a person who claims authority over all based on a seashell, and even kills someone. The absolute randomly given authority of one group is the problem.
siggyboss 2 years ago
what an idiot, it is not forced, its called a democracy!
jinglefish3 2 years ago
Try not paying taxes and see what happens to you.
siggyboss 2 years ago
humm try living in a dictatorship and see how much you like it. you voted that person and party in, deal with it.
jinglefish3 2 years ago
Did you try not paying taxes under democracy? You get the same treatment for not paying taxes under a dictatorship. Also, I didn't vote for them, but I must pay them just like a mobster collecting protection money.
siggyboss 2 years ago
you do not get killed in a democratic country for not paying taxes, people are not slaughtered for saying what they think, there is a HUGE difference. you may not have voted for them but it is a majority rules, and do you use electricty and water and public transport and all public infrastructure? Then you get what you are paying for. Would you rather an anarchy?
jinglefish3 2 years ago
There's is no difference. If you stop paying taxes they will imprison you, or shoot you if you resist. In prison you will suffer, and could also die. Also, I don't get anything from the roads, schools, electric grids, water systems that I never use. Lastly, I pay taxes out of fear. If anarchy is no state/king/emperor, then I prefer anarchy.
siggyboss 2 years ago
Hahaha you never use water, yep that makes sense. You get electricity from them, how are you typing these comments now?
So you would prefer to live in fear, where there is no structure or rules. No law system, no medical system no education system, Because without levels of authority none of that is possible.
jinglefish3 2 years ago
I didn't say that. I pay taxes for items I don't use. All the schools I don't attend, the roads I never drive, water systems I don't drink from, etc.
I live in fear already if I don't pay taxes. State laws all derive from common laws - laws created by society. My food, clothing, medicine comes from private companies.
siggyboss 2 years ago
Anarchy also means no one to stop some gang of droogs beyond yourself from comming in, shooting you in the face and taking your stuff.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
Anarchy is the lack of a state. Private security existed before the state, and still exists.
siggyboss 2 years ago
What do you mean "Before the State?" As long as they were humans, there were those with power and authority, be it a Fuedal Lord, a Tribal Cheiftan or an Alpha Male.
And without government to regulate or ban their activites, what is to prevent said private security from shooting you in the face and taking your stuff or acting as a protection racket, bullying you to pay whatever insane rate they want for protection and shooting you in the face when you dare disagree like any other gang?
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
Those weren't states, but petty thugs.
A state is just a bigger groups of thug over an entire region. Don't pay your taxes, and the state will put you in a cage for years, or kill you if you resist. A petty thug could never do all of that. I prefer the petty thugs.
siggyboss 2 years ago
If you see no diference between a Constitutional Democratic Government and Crooks that will shoot you and steal your stuff at any time thats your problem.
Humans are social creatures and human activities need to be guided by a central authority to make sure that detremental activities are stopped. In apsence of Government, leadership reforms through force, but it would likely not be a Democratic State with leaders that give two shits about the people or there rights. You can Never Abolish power
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
There is no difference between thugs and a state because both will harm you if you don't give them money. Everything else is superficial. Label it (e.g. republic, mafia) whatever you want.
There is no 'guidance' when you are threatened with imprisonment or death if you resist in paying taxes. It's just a gun to your head if you don't obey. The solution is as many competing security companies as possible, not a single group with absolute power (e.g. a state).
siggyboss 2 years ago
The distiction that Libertarians always miss is this, what does society get from this?
With thugs: Nothing, the stuff they steal they spend on themselves.
With a Government: You get a Military for Defence, Police, Education for the masses, infastructure (roads, medicine, communications, clean water), property Records (thats right, without the state, property does not exist) and a thousand other things you take for granted even if you don't use them yourself, they benefit society as a whole.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
I will not ignore the fact I don't want to give the thugs or government money. It's still theft.
Also, taxes pay for stuff I don't use: public schools I don't attend, roads I don't drive, etc. How am I using the military in Iraq? Lastly, all of that stuff was financed from taxes on people - the people could have bought it themselves. I don't need the state to tax me, and buy food for me.
siggyboss 2 years ago
And this is a key aspect of Libertarianism, Being a selfish prick that thinks only of one's self. You fail to realise that there are plenty of people who can't afford education and would be stuck in an endless cycle of poverty without public schools. You fail to understand that Public Roads are nessisary for the Logistics of a modern city and would be unable to fuction without them. You fail to understand that without government modern society would FALL APART.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
It's obvious your logic is weak because you readily resort to insults.
Private companies provide the books, the construction, etc to public schools. All the state does is steal the funds from people, and pay these private companies to make stuff. Private charities could easily fulfill the role of welfare if donors weren't continually robbed by the state. No thug could ever imagine robbing everyone for ~25% every year.
siggyboss 2 years ago 2
In regards to private companies for building schools, that is a red herring. Public Schools, Roads and so forth are FREE to be used by everyone and are not indented to make money. If a private firm created a highway, there would be a toal booths every kilometer to pay for matinence and to make it profitable. In your Libertopia, no one who was not rich would be able to give their chilren a worthwhile education. The Result, instant class stratification between the uneducated poor and the rich.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
well im sure you drive, attended school and have been defended by the american government. hey im conservative but i still think that government does have its jobs like infrastructure, education and national defense. sure there is plenty of wasteful spending but just because u dont use every application that they finance, doesnt mean it shouldnt exist. and if you want to complain about wasteful spending, how about the $787 billion stimulus, $410 billion omnibus and >$3 trillion budget?
crazybirddude121 2 years ago
If any man/group robs me, and then 'gives' me back a smaller amount in roads, schools, etc., it is still robbery. I dont' care what the thief buys because it's steal thievery. Even the NY Mafia gave out turkeys before Thanksgiving.
Everything the state produces is financed by society outside the state. The state can't really give anything, but only less than what we could have obtained on our own.
siggyboss 2 years ago
i completely agree that the state doesnt actually have any money, they just decide how to spend ours. but the reality is that you cant always end up with more than you give. if that were the case, america would have no education, no infrastructure and no law enforcement. is paying taxes worth transport education and safety? i think so. however it isnt worth a huge tax hike to get socialistic programs which provide services of lesser quality than the services i already have. THAT is my issue
crazybirddude121 2 years ago
The market already provides education, infrastructure, and law enforcement. Society created the laws (e.g. common laws), and the state originally bases most of its own laws on them. It is the state that wishes to take control over these services, like any gang of thieves.
You don't have a choice of paying taxes or the market. Your only choice is paying taxes or imprisonment with risk of death.
siggyboss 2 years ago
Two key diferences that are very real
-One (Democracy) you can object to and even try to gain pressure to change if you don't like how it is being run, the other shoots you in the face.
-In one (Thugs), you get nothing in return for giving over your stuff. In the other, you get Defence from invasion, Proper law enforcement, Schools, Infastructure, Regulation and so forth that benifits you directly and benifits the whole of society (you included).
Force is a nessisary component of civilization.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
A state republic offers the illusion of options. There are 10 different choices of bread at my local grocery store every day. I have only 2-4 choices out of millions on a vote ballot, given only annually or longer. It's ridiculous to say that's a choice.
Also, where is the choice to pay no taxes? Where is the option to dissolve the state? The state has its own self-interest, and it isn't altruistic.
siggyboss 2 years ago
dude, GET...TO...TEH...POINT. start off by asserting something and then explain it. only explain it better.
all that needs to be said is that TAA is retarded on this b/c you can't have mama government w/o armed thugs.
intercourseman69 2 years ago
fragilerealist, your position strikes me as the same as that of a few credit card companies. You know the ones who send out unsolicited credit cards to your address, start charging, and then it's UP TO YOU to cancel them out if you don't want them? Not to mention "cancelling out" from a state actually involves orders of magnitude more trouble than enduring an unresponsive hotline. Let's not reverse things here. I never agreed to be governed. There is no agreement, just force on their part.
AbyssalManta 2 years ago
"I never agreed to be governed. There is no agreement, just force on their part. "
Maybe not. But your parents did it for you until you were a grown up. And at your coming of age, if you dont agree with the current status, you have to drop down your citizenship. As this point, it will be clear that you dont agree with the current contract. Everyone on the same on the same line as you should do the same. Doing so is really easy, it only takes a form to fill in most cases.
TheCZMan 2 years ago
Invisible Emperor, you are the cretin here. Because the author does NOT AGREE with something does NOT mean HE'S UNAWARE of that thing.
"Legitimate" force, alright. What makes it "legitimate" exactly? The fact some "cretin" wrote on a manuscript somewhere that it's legitimate, for as long as it's the government (I.E. a group of people) dishing it out, and named that manuscript "political philosophy"? As far as I'm concerned, *initiated* force ( as opposed to retaliatory force) is wrong, period.
AbyssalManta 2 years ago
A democratically elected government forcing people to obey the law is unquestionably legitimate, as it is enforcing a decision which has been made fairly and properly. The reason why the government is more than a "group of people" is that they are given mandate to govern through a process we all recognise as fair - elections. And besides, forcing people not to pollute is clearly retaliatory, I'm just saying it can be done through legal means and does not endorse vigilante violence as Luke claims
InvisibleEmperor 2 years ago
I lol'd at how this guy tries so hard to sound thoughtful and intelligent.
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 2 years ago
You're an unbelievable cretin. Have you no understanding of the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force? It's one of the most basic aspects of political philosophy, and the foundation of any society, that the legitimate government has the sole monopoly on legitimate force. This is why your "go and hurt truck drives" quip is stupid.
InvisibleEmperor 2 years ago
In the absence of a formal state, an informal one will assume control anyway, only less responsible to the population in general. Get rid of the government, and you will have what is the most realistic consequence: localized tribalism of communities or petty warlordism
A playground itself demonstrates freedom from the 'State" will not result in pretty rainbows and sunshine for everyone. There will be no voluntaryism. Oppression will be more frequent and capricious.
Technocratic 2 years ago
What are you on man?
Rmissjen9 2 years ago
also both of you are wrong because we can only hope to know that human beings are studied by the horde but valued highest in individuality, but if you were to govern in nothing you have chaos if you govern all you have machinery. You must only look at the extremes of both of your logic to find that you are both just fighting and not looking.
Zatoichi291 2 years ago
Your logic is wrong in many parts, but in one thing I would like to correct you. Government is not a means to an end but a tool to regulate and supply defense, and infrastructure. Also the goal of government is not to control, but to become controlled by the people. At the end of the day both of you are neither wrong or right just conflicting.
Zatoichi291 2 years ago
Socrates in crito, stated something to the effect of: If a person choose to live in a state (with other viable options available to him); said person then goes into an agreement with the state to either comply with, or work to change the rules he doesn't agree with. I also think you seperate the state and the people a bit too much, both are a product of each other. To get a better but wholly lacking view of what justice is, maybe start by reading The Republic by Plato.
fragilerealist 2 years ago
fail
magnus9127 2 years ago
i co-sign and sponsor this comment
pantha266 2 years ago
I agree that federal government intervention is completely unnecessary and arguably immoral, whether it is regulating our economy, our education, or the use of drugs.
LPBguy 2 years ago
Kid, just ignore that dumbass. I don't know why you would even respond to his video. You're not the internet white fucking knight. If your reasoning, (which i believe it is), is because you don't want people to get swayed into atheism. Honestly... Anyone who gets swayed into a religion by some dumb ass on the YOUTUBE?! I don't think you want them in your religion. Both of you need to shut the hell up. Be the bigger man and stop.
AngelOfDeathPK 2 years ago
Oh shut the fuck up, as if Youtube somehow has less integrity or credibility, Youtube is one of the only forums left where COMPLETE freedom of speech is still available, and that makes it a vital source for anyone who wants to find the gods honest truth. Sure theres alot of fucking bullshit on Youtube, but thats just an inconsequential side effect because anyone with a brain can filter that shit out, and not let it take away from all the incredibly informational and resourceful videos here
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
not complete. The British atheist who talked about Islam almost was banned. The film Fitna is banned I think and sexual acts are banned.
aweiss 2 years ago
hey its ugly brendan frasier
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
You still need organization for social behavior, and community would be used as a democratic system, and then you have authority still. Power consumes, people are bought, and you start all over anyway. We are misrepresented, over-idealized by ourselves, and directed from our own knowing. Quite reasonable to leave, but then social structure would take hold and consume. Its evolution of consumption from a less existant model to maintain. We are built for efficiency in a government, as its origin
DLAntti 2 years ago
Of course and that is fine as long as it is voluntary and does not impede on non aggressing people. Governments were formed for a few to control the many. The Romans, Eypgtians, Chinese and European Kingdoms did not form to give justice to the many.
overmind25 2 years ago
Control is not fair, and there will always be control due to social structuring. So have it however you want, it ends up the same regardless. The revolution was a conflict for evolving public consent in politics, though situations still seem to seep away from its philosophy. Its all just a matter of efficiency and representation. Maybe less conflict, and hopefully less globalism, but still not a lack of authority to what people design from community. You are either at the bottom or at the top.
DLAntti 2 years ago
GREAT VID!
gworksnell 2 years ago 2
On statism: We bear less repsonsability for greater happiness, for managable choices, and arguementive securitiies. People could enforce their own divisions in relationships effectively without the state, no doubt, but there is a lack of control that divides individual behavior and social behavior, and government is merely the management of soical systems. A non-social system seems logical, now that we have the resources as being more evolved, culturally, but organization requires authority.
DLAntti 2 years ago
Yes organization would and I don't think most anarchists are against organization. The authority must be voluntary.
overmind25 2 years ago
Great video. Libertarianism is the only moral philosophy.
AminCad 2 years ago
6266 views now, and a lower rating? how is this possible?
oh, i see.. maybe its the brainless drones of the amazingatheist doing his bidding..
i guess this is how he wins arguments when it doesnt involve religion...
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
Rating, who cares? The fact was the "argumentation" put in the video is pretty weak. As one noted, the issue dealt with in this video has already been treated in the past and this vid adds nothing to the pot.
TheCZMan 2 years ago
This guy gets a 1 star rating for many reasons. Mostly for beating around the bush and creating topics within topics.
plasmadice 2 years ago
i bet u have a lovely bottom
2talk2todd 2 years ago
lol
dude you made no sense
NMYJK 2 years ago
Good video.
Shame that TJ's mongrel horde have 1 star spammed it, lol.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
i think this video was best summed up by Shakespeare in R&J A2S2
"She speaks yet she says nothing"
vmoore5176 2 years ago
OR MAYBE you just fail alot.
dragonrider789 2 years ago
solar and wind are more expensive... agreed...
gtq838 2 years ago
The first three seconds of your video made me want to punch you in the face.
Blasphemy4kidz 2 years ago
The Government is not enforcing justice.
There is a seperation of powers.
Government represents merely the legislative.
exfalsoquodlibet 2 years ago
I don't think you understood more than 6.7% of what TAA said. You're 'responses' to his points have nothing to do with his points. Rather than respond, you ramble on about pseudo-related points. TAA never said 'poor people should be forced by the govt to use alternative fuels to help them'. What does your point about advocating violence in response to pollution have to do with his video? Your points at 6:50 and 7:10 are ludicrous and unconnected to TAA's video.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Of course government was created for the sake of justice. At it's earliest, lowest level it's the family unit, then we came up with tribes and so on and so on.
TheDave 2 years ago
Modern involuntary government was created for control. If you think the rich land owning Romans and European nations built countries because they carried about justice instead of mantaining power then you sadly have a naive view of history. Also, look at pyscho history and see how terrible children were treated and thought of.
overmind25 2 years ago
I've been following General Motors for a long time. GM had an oppurtunity to be a leader in alternative fuel/electric cars but they didnt want to spend the money promoting the technology. GM has made tons of mistakes over the years. GM spent 250 million promoting a car, i think it ws the Malibu and they had another car that they didnt spend any money promoting. The car they didnt advertise sold more cars. Former GM Ceo admitted that recalling all the EV1's and crushing them was a huge mistake.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
FIVE STARS!!!
"The creation of government has NOTHING to do with justice".
applause! home run! bravo! SCORE! touchdown!! ding ding ding...and we have a winner!
AA puts a lot of time and effort into his debates. I don't understand anyone that defends a statism, the same statisms behind many democides then condemn the dealth penalty. People who do that are selective sociopaths.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
im just wondering why luke has 5,000 views and the amazingretard has 60,000... they dont even lisn.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago 2
OR this dude's a looney anarchist who doesn't even listen...
steventrouble 2 years ago
"lisn." I'm surprised you can count. Yay, go show your mommy, she must be very proud.
zombieiscool 2 years ago
Another point
Lack of regulation of the financial sector is the reason for the global recession.
This is common knowledge.
General Motors made an electric car in the 1990's but lobbied the California Air Resources board to change the law and they trashed the EV1. Lack of regulation.
Very few electric cars and gas got up to $5 a gallon in California recently. People suffered because of Lack of regulation.
GM's Ceo getting fired and the Ev1 were front page news this week.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
Yes the corporation (a state made entity) lobbied the state which in turn crushed it. China is a very statist system. There is no state magic and it is not only the state that can regulate (which is a very broad term). Your common knowledge is just a sound bite that is repeated over and over.
overmind25 2 years ago
I'm sorry that you have poor reading comprehension.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
Ill make it easier.
The Corporation is a state entity
The California state along with a corporation passed a law that damaged the creation of the electric car.
overmind25 2 years ago
that's not free market capitalism.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
The California Air rescouces board was manipulated by General Motors. GM did not want to make Electric vehicles because they werent as profitable(at the time) as combustion engine cars. Electric cars have zero emissions on the road. The law was changed by a company with financial motives. Initially I stated that government was "supposed" to care for citizens. I also stated that this was not a perfect system. It is better than chaos.
As a result: pollution, high gas prices and people suffering.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
I can see that your agenda is anarchy.
If you stated this in the beginning it would make the debate shorter. you have already arrived at your conclusion before reading anything. If you are unable to see things from both sides you can not make an informed decision. With anarchy every thing that is cool in the world now would suck unless you like living out doors. Camping would be better becuase most people would be forced to learn how to live outside with out any organized civilization.
greatmoves123 2 years ago
No, I understand your position. You do not understand even the basics of anarchism since you think we are for chaos, people suffering, or are against organization.
overmind25 2 years ago