I was "debating" shanedk... he was trying to convince me that if a 3rd world person had a choice between starving or a sweatshop job, that if they chose sweatshop, that was a "voluntary choice"... Calling me names for not agreeing with him.
I told him the defining feature of coercion was that you have no choice AND that his Aspergers was showing - he banned me for it.
I should have offered him some Shea butter for his tender, chaffed butthole...
Further to my post 2 hours, just got blocked by ShaneDK because I noted that bigotry includes "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" and so many of his replies consisting of insults are violations of his channel rules 5 and 6. He replied it's a violation to apply his rules to himself (something to that effect). WARNING #2 (WARNING #1 regarding non-medical service in non-life threatening/non-legal cases). WARNING #3 he made up. What a wimp
Yup that's Shane in a nutshell. Declaring his opinion as fact and spewing insults to anyone that even raises a question. What a pathetic debating weakling Shane is.
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
@loveofphysics It's funny how many amateur economists never got past chapter one. They see S&D as some kind of sacred formula that applies to everything all of the time
I agree with Shanedk on politics....But he is a douchebag.....As soon as you throw a fact that does not agree with what he is saying.....Or if you give a direct quote given by him that makes him out to be the douchebag he is....He calls you a LIAR (Always in all caps, ha/ha...) Or that you took him out of context......He once told me that 3 dictionaries, one of which was the Oxford English Dictionary!!!, were wrong because they didn't agree with HIS definition....Ha/ha...What a tool!.....
Why would anyone bother to post on shanedk's videos, when one refuses to allow him to preach the choir, he gets mad, and starts calling you names. If you recipicate, he simply bans your comments. He really hs nothing constructive, or important to say, and what he does say is plaged with errors. I encourage all, not to post on his vids.
I just found out how pointless to debate with Shanedk.
I said,"Non-profits do not exchange their goods or services at the market rate set by the intersection of supply and demand curves"
Shanedk replied,"Of course they do! If they exchanged it at a higher rate, there'd be a surplus; if a lower, there'd be a shortage. Can't get around it!
ANY voluntary exchange is BY DEFINITION part of the free market!"
Somehow he thinks that giving away a $5 sandwich for free is market value...
Heh, Shane is so ignorant about so many things. He was trying to explain that the Clinton surplus was a myth because the national debt was 6 trillion dollars.
When I stated that Clinton balanced the budget and that there ended up being a budget surplus (i.e. no deficit spending) he said, "NO THERE WAS A 6 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT ANYONE CAN LOOK IT UP"... along with the "LIAR" and other stuff.
Bottom line; he doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.
That what is true? that campaign contributions don't exist only bribery does? It doesn't sound like Shanedk is trying to link the two together, bribery and campaign contributions. i think that campaign contributions are a legal aspect of elections. It's still dishonest and unfair though or lining his pockets when ever a corporation gives a candidate millions of dollars to run for election of his or her intended office. that is what i think shanedk is talking about.
@billburns2 Affecting elections is not really relevant. The relevant issue is whether or not shanedk was talking about bribery or a company supporting a candidate when he used the phrase , "Lining his pockets."
Actually, why don't you take a look at your own video.
Um, i don't understand why you think Shanedk has really made any mistake at all in his logic. he seems to be expressing that campaign contributions show favoritism and it sounds like your ignoring that and stretching this debate further than it should have done. What a poor video! :(
@billburns2 Okay, so your saying that if a politician were to get paid campaign contributions by a corporation that it won't influence him or lined his pockets. it's funny that you've based your whole thesis on an Idiom.
"IF" is the key word here. Unless you can prove that something is true, you can't extrapolate any further.
The point of this video is that if I tried the same thing on Shane he would stamp me flat. Shane sets standards for others that he doesn't follow himself. He is a dishonest debater who tries to cover holes in his theory by using false data, bluster, abuse, obfuscation and censorship.
It's a pity because otherwise he's clearly a very clever bloke.
I got accused of racism and blocked after a protracted Shanedk style 'debate.' Worse part is the debate was about Campaign Finance reform and it started with me asking how many corporations actually allowed the majority of their employees to have a say in how or who the corporation donates money to and ended with him demanding I justify some vanilla Ron Paul commercials being restricted from play.
Shanedk is truly the king of the non sequitur duck.
Shanedk is so odd, he seems to be completely sane, hell not just that, very smart when it comes to anything except Economics, Politics, Philosophy and US History. I guess he has fallen for Free Market Fundamentalism.
@thecomputergurukid So you're not intelligent when it comes to economics, politics, philosophy or US history if you're not a statist prick? Libertarianism is the most common ideology in MENSA for a reason.
MENSA?? Wow, then let's forget everything that is so obviously flawed with Libertarian doctrine and just go with what they say. They're just SO smart we don't even have to think it out for ourselves.
BTW you're wrong, it isn't the most common ideology in MENSA.
@billburns2 That's what he basically said, how the hell can you use that as an argument against me?
Fair enough, it's not the most common in the US, but it's close to. Not really important, you managed to make my point for me.
In my experience conformists that call people fundamentalists for believing in something that has an excellent track record and is rational are the ones who has a knowledge-issue. All libertarians started out as something else, then we read books and studied.
@billburns2 The point he was making was that anyone who is libertarian is ignorant of these issues, I responded by saying that then people in MENSA must be idiots, you then responded by saying that we don't have to think for ourselves then as the smart people already have decided for us.
Yeah it does. The tiger economies, US history (late 19th century), industrialization, modern globalization. No track record? Please. Just take the heritage foundation index of economic freedom.
He's not making that point at all. He's addressing shanedk's lack of scientific rigor in these issues - which is funny because Shane is a real hardass when it comes to other people lacking scientific rigor.
The Heritage Foundation is a case in point - it's a right wing think tank whose stated aim is: "To formulate and promote conservative public policies". As with most Libertarian sites, the HF prefers to overlook history that doesn't fit with its ideologies.
@billburns2 Well I disagree. I think Shane understands it very well. And he's definitely done the research in the subjects he are discussing
Look at the people who disagree. It's the stateists. The atheists with religious belief in government
What history does THF overlook? You just said there was no track record! Are you saying you disagree with their methodology for determining what is and isn't a free market?
I gave you an avalanche of examples and refereed you to an index. Respond to that
His research is flawed because he's got some of his facts wrong (this video shows that he's quite happy to just make shit up if it suits him) Instead of addressing his errors he simply tries to shout down anyone who challenges him.
Your Appeals to Popularity are just as bogus as your Appeals to Authority. I could give you an avalanche of examples showing you that God created the earth and that the Apollo moon landing was faked - wouldn't make it true, would it?
@billburns2 Well you're kinda implying dumping prices was the practices of the so called "monopoly" of Standard oil. It wasn't. They had soaring profits and lower prices than any of their competitors. However, when the Sherman Anti-trust law was enacted they merely had a market share of 60%
What appeals to popularity? I said that people who disagree, like you, generally don't have anything other to say in response other than "the state is great"
First rule if you want to debate on this channel is Stick To One Topic. I'm bored of schizophrenic ramblings that flit from one thing to another.
Second rule is: Limit comments per thread. Of you have a lot to say then make a video, comment pingpong is boring.
So please choose your topic - Is it Monopolies? Is it your logical fallacies? shane's logical fallacies? or why research from the HF must be taken with a pinch of salt?
@billburns2 Well he did addressed the errors. You just didn't understand that. I don't think your point is valid. We're still on the same subject.
What logical fallacies? Stop throwing that around, you clearly can't use it with any validity. Here's some rules of civil discourse for you: If you're gonna claim logical fallacy - then point it out. Otherwise you're engaging in the fallacy fallacy.
I'll agree with structured responses but you're telling me I should shut up or make a video? I wont.
@billburns2 At the very least you didn't understand the point. I think shanedk assumes intelligence on your and others part (he calls people liars all the time). I disagree with him on that, I think it's religious stupidity. You've transferred your belief in religious deity over to the state. A sort of state of gaps argument is common. Hey I believed that in the past as well.
What have I said that is the fallacy? You never took the time to point it out. I think you're just being annoying...
Shane assumes that he can get away with the sort of tactics he slams others for using, specifically by citing "facts" that are actually just his own personal opinions. An opinion, however strongly held, doesn't become a fact just because you want it to.
Your fallacies have been pointed out already:
Appeal to Authority - "Libertarianism is the most common ideology in MENSA for a reason."
Appeal to Popularity - "I gave you an avalanche of examples"
So in this case, he is citing a congressional hearing and it's not facts because you didn't understand what was being said? No, I don't get it.
I explained why I said that. Because he was suggesting libertarians are stupid. My point is by the same measure everyone else would be.
That is not an appeal to popularity. I gave you plenty of examples of libertarian track record. You didn't respond to it in any way. Instead you've made up a new theory about economic prosperity which is ridiculous.
Shane fucked up his William Mason quote. Firstly by misrepresenting what he said, then by claiming all sorts of crony capitalist shenanigans that he had no evidence for.
Referencing a list of subjective rankings made by a think tank who make no bones about their political leanings doesn't count as a track record for Libertarianism, especially when many of the higher rankings owe their successes to government. Libertarians can provide no real world examples of their ideology.
@billburns2 Well it is clear it had nothing to do with the intention of the bill, it did nothing to serve consumers, it was written by the competing companies for COL.
That's the only thing I referenced? No. It's the only thing you can even respond to because you don't have any talking points or know what the hell the others things are
How do they owe successes to government? Can you make an argument for that that isn't based in your religious zealotry?
@billburns2 And? You can have a free market anyway. Most nations have far more restrictions. In most African nations they don't even have property rights that are de facto respected much less working currencies.
Why shouldn't I be a dick to you? You want me to serve your subjective interest under the threat of force, and your argument for this is that the heritage foundation index doesn't fit your interpretation of what a free market is. Wtf...
@billburns2 What research? I've not referenced any research, I've referenced an index that frankly if you don't know about I'm not sure you've ever even read anything published on their page. It's what they are most famous for.
I did provide plenty of track-record which you say doesn't exist but is also somehow selected with bias.
I responded to someone suggesting there's no intellectual capital behind libertarianism and I found that comment to absurd. Now I'm giving historical examples.
Er... the Index of Economic Freedom is compiled through their research on the topic, geddit?
There are three central elements of healthy economic development AKA "freedom" - human development, expanding market opportunities and maintaining democracy. The HF only focuses only on the market. Even in this field it provides no real data to qualify its ratings. The HF country analyses is made up of numerous subjective judgements. In short it's psuedo-science.
@billburns2 So you agree with the methodology but not the research? The research is done mostly on public records from these government.
Democracy has nothing to do with economic expansion. Heck, Pinochet was a dictator but he instituted reforms which have ultimately made Chile the richest country in South America, coming from severe hyperinflation and crushing debt.
What do you mean by market opportunities and human development? Isn't that economic development in and of itself.
@billburns2 Okay, but what about the current globalization, which has definitely lead to the poor being richer.
What about the tiger economies?
What about industrialization and history? Like for instance the libertarian period in Swedish history from 1850 to about 1960? What about late 19th century? If I advocated such a society you would call it neoliberalism, though somehow it doesn't qualify?
More over, if by that mean free markets, then isn't your disagreement merely based in semantics?
Slaves in the 1860s were better on in real terms than slaves in the 1770s. That's not a recommendation for slavery, is it?
Not semantics at all. Take an example from the IEF - Bahrain comes in at a healthy #10, however 45% of all consumption spend is determined by the government rather than by its citizens. Bahrain is basically a big, centrally planned, government welfare state financed with oil revenues - oh and it shoots anyone who protests against its leaders. That's FREEEDOM.
@billburns2 Yes it is actually. Slaves that were sold to the US were much better of than those who lived "free" (they didn't) in Africa. What the hell is your point?
There are other things than just public expenditure that go into how free or not a market is. Bahrain has practically no regulation, their open to foreign trade. The fact that they have a lot of third party payer voucher system hardly defuses that. But sure, they would be better of without that spending.
@billburns2 Basically yes. I'm saying that slavery would be better than dying. But then again you're for government servitude so how can you even argue against starvation
I'm saying that it's bad. But if you don't have a restrictive regulatory agency. If you have little regulations on trade. If you let most of the market operate freely. You will still have a mostly free economy and do well. Like we have in the west
Your argument to this is "The government is good". Okay, why? How? Prove it.
@billburns2 Enjoyed reading that comment war thing. Kind of shows me why people are libertarians: They take propaganda shops like Heritage and treat them as if they are academic institution who do serious research. They get their information about the world from them.
Singapore, China, Japan are examples of libertarian economies? US 19th Century a great place to live?
@billburns2 They also seem to assume that people who are not libertarians are as dogmatic as they are, that they 'worship government' in the same way that they worship the free market.
@billburns2 i have run into this a lot. like with d k shadow, and some other libertarians, i make a point, and they cannot answer, and then it is you are a liar, you are making things up. and so on and so on, you get the idea, talking to a libertarian is like talking to a brick wall. even the brick wall sometimes you can get through to.
Shane is much to shallow a person for serious debate. Who is these lapp dogs that huttle around his videos. Virgil0211, johnrainrules, vspqbd, these are his troops, as soon as he is beaten these lapp dogs run to his defense.
Hi I debated the idiot and the "inductive reasoning' comment is hilarious, when he was debating with me, he and another idiot claimed "inductive reasoning" was not "real science" and it was wrong to infer a claim, furthermore he went on to claim that you cannot make an inductive claim based on evidence drawn from the "social sciences" because peoples actions cannot be measured LMFAO, libertarians are no different to the fundies. Now he makes an "inductive claim" without evidence what a looser
@zsylvana having had the fuckers troll my channel I decided to return the favor, you would have thought I was evil, the devil incarnate. It is funny when after 2-3 weeks they just copy and paste straight from the mises website, fuck them to hell
Shane is part genius and part fool. His videos on 9/11, faked moon landings et.al. should earn him a medal. Unfortunately when he gets into the realm economics, all the scientific rigour and objective though seem to go out the window. The slightest challenge to the veracity of his claims turns him into a shrieking, foam-spittled nutcase.
Shane has now banned me from his channel - for the crime of forcing him to admit that Lehman Brothers may have acted irresponsibly. Go figure.
@billburns2 I was just cruious. Because every once on a while I run across hard-charging libertarians who always seem to want govt to regulate their personal opinions into situations.
TBH I've become a little bored with it. Once you know the holes in their dogma it's just a case of seeing how badly or skilfully they avoid addressing these issues.
@billburns2 wrote: "Unfortunately when he gets into the realm economics, all the scientific rigour and objective though seem to go out the window. The slightest challenge to the veracity of his claims turns him into a shrieking, foam-spittled nutcase."
Can you cite any free market monopolies? The only monopolies that have existed during my time have been gov sanctioned monopolies (cable, trash...). Where gov monopolies have gone on to free market principle, the price has gone through the floor.
De Beers, Standard Oil. Although Libbys will smugly state that we don't live in a pure free market, so any example of private enterprise monopoly can't be defined as a "free market monopoly". This is the same get-out clause thay use when praising any business success as capitalism and condoning any business malpractice as coporatism. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy
@billburns2 Standard oil didn't have a monopoly and they had a problem with people opening oil companies for the sole purpose of being bought out by Standard Oil. Standard oil also lowered the price of oil down to a level where the common man could afford it. I am not familiar with De Beers. But notice there really aren't many even being accused. It's just too hard to have a monopoly without state regulation.
Controlling 90% of production is most definitely a monopoly. The artificial lowering of a price to below market levels is not an acceptable excuse for preventing the market from operating as it should.
The reason that not many companies are prosecuted under antitrust is BECAUSE of state regulations.
Your argument is similar to the citizens of a well policed, low crime town arguing that they don't need police because crime is so low.
@billburns2 I disagree with your premise and it certainly hasn't been shown to be true. Even before large scale regulation and anti-trust laws, there weren't very many monopolies and the ones that did exist shrunk on their own. It also depends on why a company has a monopoly. If it is simply because they found more efficient use of land/labor/capital than it's a well earned monopoly. Using your money to corner a market and create monopoly conditions would be an example of a bad monopoly.
History has shown it to be true. Monopolies, oligopolies and trusts were common before regulation. The pork, sugar and steel industries all formed trusts that effectively prevented choice - for workers, consumers and competitors alike. Libertarians have a blind spot for history they don't like.
Remember, the definition of a monopoly is not purely size of market share, but whether the company chooses to use their market share to prevent competition.
@billburns2 But you just said it was in reference to Standard oil? The most successful monopolies are ones caused by government. Have you looked at your cable bill lately? In my area, you can only get Comcast and the bills average over $100 month (my sister pays almost $200).
Libertarianism isn't perfect (like any system), but it seems to me to be the best and fairest. Mind you, I am not talking extreme libertarianism, but moderate.
They are all examples of free market monopoly. It's not simply opinion but proven historical fact.
The thing to remember is that most succesful capitalists HATE the idea of an efficient market. They would much rather have no competition and be free to set whatever price they liked for their product.
I do agree that local governments granting exclusive monopoly on things like cable access goes against the spirit of antitrust laws.
Moderate Libertatianism? That's called Liberalism
@billburns2 Liberals love big government and think everything can be regulated. Take gun control, for example. You can't change things by decree. Governments have shown throughout history that they can't help but abuse power and can't be trusted. Look at what big gov has done to the US. We have had nonstop war since 1941. Once you enlarge the gov/military, it doesn't go away or shrink. Why do you think presidents start new gov depts? So that they never go away. They become entrenched forever.
@christo930 Nixon started the DEA because he knew that once created, thousands of bureaucrats would protect it and keep the war on drugs going, even though most Americans think the war on drugs is a total failure. Look at the dept of agriculture! They are now saying that personal gardens can now be federally regulated because they effect interstate commerce by you not buying from out of state be agri! We may need some functions they perform, but, we don't need what they have become.
"Liberals love big government and think everything can be regulated"
Only according to Glenn Beck.
Governments do attract people who want to abuse power, as does big business. That's not to say that both systems should be destroyed. If your lawn has weeds do you concrete the whole thing?
War on drugs? yes, utter waste of time and money. No argument there.
Regulating gardens sounds like a Fox News story. You need to cite some reliable sources for that one.
@billburns2 LOVE and EVERYTHING are obviously a bit of hyperbole. I don't want to concrete the whole lawn of gov, but it needs to be smaller, much smaller, than it is. America is facing an oil crisis in the form of peak oil and after careful consideration, multi-million dollar studies, they decide to bet the farm on Corn ethanol (an alcohol with a negative EROEI) I saw that on a local news story. I don't ever listen to fox.
@billburns2 And most politicians would love to go unopposed in the election, but it doesn't usually happen (though sometimes it does). Large profits attract competition and is one of the foundational flaws of a monopoly. I admit they sometime were there and I don't 100% oppose regulations, but can you (or anyone else) possibly be happy with the current state of regulation in the US? We have regulated our jobs right out of the country.
Not if another player is big enough to shut out that competition - Standard Oil, De Beers etc. This is back where we started.
Regulations keep the water and air clean, keep filth from being put in our food, keep toys from killing kids. The free market failed to do any of this in the days before such things were regulated. Are all regulations good ideas? No. Should we concrete the lawn? No.
@billburns2 So now it's just size again? Size has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. One of the biggest advantages of a very large corp is their ability to utilize economy of scale to spread regulation costs across the largest number of customers. Small businesses are unable to compete in a highly regulated environment. Am I against sensible regulation, of course not, but the system we have now is crazy. Moving towards more freedom and less headaches is a good start.
Nope, not simply size, but ACTIONS. This is why Standard Oil was forcibly broken up but US Steel wasn't.
There is a difference between using economies of scale to maximise profits and acting in a way that is specifically designed to prevent anyone else from entering your market.
If you believe in SOME form of government (even a small one) and also believe in sensible regulation then you can't call yourself a Libertarian. In fact we can probably agree on lots of this stuff.
@billburns2 Isn't that extreme libertarian (anarchy)? I agree that we most likely agree on most of this stuff, that was my point. Shanedk is not representative of all libertarians.
I am saying that in a high regulation environment, small businesses can't compete with big businesses because of the regulatory costs.
@billburns2 It's consumer advocates and government that insists on more gov. Most consumers couldn't care less. The FAA is way too big, raises the costs of flying as well as the danger. If the pilots on 9/11 had guns it wouldn't have happened. You LIKE the fda? They keep medications off the market for decades while people die. Can bad pills get through? Sure. On the whole, I think they do more damage than good. What they should concentrate on is truth in labeling.
"Most consumers couldn't care less" - Consumer groups represent consumers so you need to qualify that statement. Look at the USA's blame culture, people care very much.
"raises the costs of flying as well as the danger" Airline prices have been falling since 2008. I certainly don't want idiots with guns at 30,000 ft
@billburns2 Jet fuel price has been the primary driver of falling airline tickets as well as under utilization. But that is kind of pointless, they would be cheaper still. if you consider airline pilots to be "idiots", then I don't know what to say. Not untested drugs, there are/were drugs avail in Europe for decades before we get them. Maybe you will die because the FDA didn't get around to approving the drug you need.
The pro gun lobby want airline passengers to be able to carry guns. Libertarians call that "freedom".
You need to sort out your priorities. On the one hand you seem to value all the safety measures that regulation brings but on the other hand you condemn it as being intrusive. You can't have it both ways. Again, we've HAD eras of no regulation - great for business but shit for consumers.
@billburns2 I've never heard that. Even if the fed gov allowed it, no airline co would allow it. BUT the captain or pilots should be able to have a gun to protect the passengers from loons with box cutters.
NO... SOME regulation is good, too much is terrible. You can have it both ways. Having 10s of thousands of pages of regulations is insane. For example the FDA should force companies to list all ingredients on the label. BTW... I use caps for emphasis, not shouting:)
I am leaning towards the Libertarian side of things but its good to see a little clarity and intelligence on this side of the argument too. Keep it up, look forward to going back and forth between these ideologies until I am content with one..or neither.
you do know that shanedk says that same things and also gets upset when arguing with creationists. I bring this up now after seeing that general comments he makes when arguing with other people. even if he did lose his cool, it doesn't mean that you are on to something or stumped him any more that any creationist did.
I think this is why your video has only 273 hits.
Yes, shane and jacob are morons who don't understand the points they are trying to make and get angry when proven wrong. Their MO is repeat errors in an attempt to make them true and deny facts. Pathetic. I don't think they even understand the meaning of the word nuance.
I don't know much about shanedk but as for the single word caps I do the same thing quite often as an equivalent of thumping my finger on a podium I do NOT shout if I can help it THINGS GET LOST IN THE NOISE however we all punctuate certain words to drive home a point and trying to express THAT in text is rather difficult perhaps you have a better solution?
In this particular instance, a better solution would be to have some supporting evidence for your claims. Shane has none, so he tries to use the caps key as a form of intimidation and diversion
WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO GRASP THE SIMPLE FACT THAT I KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAT YOU DO AND MY OPINION IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS?
:)
He pretends it represents exasperation at my stupididty when really he's just trying to cover the holes in his argument through bluster.
Careful. Much more of this talk and all of science will be invalid.
Shane likes to play fast and loose with things like dates
1890 was the date of the Sherman act. The Standard Oil legal case started in 1909, which was 8 years after Texaco was founded.
However William Mason had retired as Senator for Illinois six years BEFORE the trial started. He wouldn't serve as a member of the US House of Representatives until 1917.
Looks like you had the same kind of experience with Shane I did. I unsubbed him almost a year ago because he is just bat shit crazy idiot that thinks he's commedian.
I made a comment once on one of his videos in which he tried to prove that traditional left-right division of the political spectrum is incomplete by posting link to some misleading "are you a libertarian" quiz. I said that quiz is a piece of crap because it completely neglects half of the political spectrum by leaving out traditional left wing ideologies. I scored liberal and I'm pretty sure I'm no liberal so it was a legitimate objection.
I said that I'm an anarchist (libertarian socialist) and he responded to my comment by saying that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. I responded to his comment by saying that anarchists used to call themselves libertarians for more than a century before classical liberals started using the term and then we got into an argument over a bunch of pointless bullshit that had absolutely nothing to do with my complaint about his misleading political quiz.
Whenever I tried to go back to the issue of his stupid video he kept doing exactly the same bullshit you described in this video.
He kept evading it by changing the topic and making me defend my political views.
The whole time he kept accusing me of all sorts of informal logical fallacies while he made shitload of formal fallacies in the process and when I called him out on it he "refuted" me by accusing me of more logical fallacies which he pulled out of his ass.
He kept calling me a fascist because I said that I'm anti market and anti-capitalist, which is ridiculous since I'm an anarchist.
After a while I just gave up since I could not make him answer my original question because he kept evading it by throwing the ball into my court and making me defend my views.
Yes, I enjoyed that exchange: "Shane says the NHS is a failure and all contrary evidence is LIES" LMFAO
My biggest annoyance is that most of his comments are not designed to progress an argument, but to to confuse and divert attention from areas where he knows his position is weak. He's very effective too. I've labeled him the David Copperfield of debating.
If he didn't despise the State so much I'm sure he would have a great career in politics.
Heh.
I was "debating" shanedk... he was trying to convince me that if a 3rd world person had a choice between starving or a sweatshop job, that if they chose sweatshop, that was a "voluntary choice"... Calling me names for not agreeing with him.
I told him the defining feature of coercion was that you have no choice AND that his Aspergers was showing - he banned me for it.
I should have offered him some Shea butter for his tender, chaffed butthole...
Nihm420 2 weeks ago
shanedk just made me cry for not liking Ron Paul. I hope he feels like a man, now.
zEropoint68 1 month ago
Further to my post 2 hours, just got blocked by ShaneDK because I noted that bigotry includes "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" and so many of his replies consisting of insults are violations of his channel rules 5 and 6. He replied it's a violation to apply his rules to himself (something to that effect). WARNING #2 (WARNING #1 regarding non-medical service in non-life threatening/non-legal cases). WARNING #3 he made up. What a wimp
ZangaroZen 2 months ago
Yup that's Shane in a nutshell. Declaring his opinion as fact and spewing insults to anyone that even raises a question. What a pathetic debating weakling Shane is.
ZangaroZen 2 months ago
Awesome thumbnail.
StatelessLiberty 2 months ago
If it's invalid... all of science is invalid and THE ENTIRE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM WILL UNRAVEL!
This guy's a stitch!
leopoldvonhabsburg 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
as told by shanedk
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
as told by shanedk
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@loveofphysics It's funny how many amateur economists never got past chapter one. They see S&D as some kind of sacred formula that applies to everything all of the time
billburns2 6 months ago
I agree with Shanedk on politics....But he is a douchebag.....As soon as you throw a fact that does not agree with what he is saying.....Or if you give a direct quote given by him that makes him out to be the douchebag he is....He calls you a LIAR (Always in all caps, ha/ha...) Or that you took him out of context......He once told me that 3 dictionaries, one of which was the Oxford English Dictionary!!!, were wrong because they didn't agree with HIS definition....Ha/ha...What a tool!.....
ninjacatmagic 7 months ago 3
Why would anyone bother to post on shanedk's videos, when one refuses to allow him to preach the choir, he gets mad, and starts calling you names. If you recipicate, he simply bans your comments. He really hs nothing constructive, or important to say, and what he does say is plaged with errors. I encourage all, not to post on his vids.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater Amen to that. He doesn't even know the difference between pure criticism of his inaccuracy and libel.
iseeallforme 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just found out how pointless to debate with Shanedk.
I said,"Non-profits do not exchange their goods or services at the market rate set by the intersection of supply and demand curves"
Shanedk replied,"Of course they do! If they exchanged it at a higher rate, there'd be a surplus; if a lower, there'd be a shortage. Can't get around it!
ANY voluntary exchange is BY DEFINITION part of the free market!"
Somehow he thinks that giving away a $5 sandwich for free is market value...
loveofphysics 7 months ago
Heh, Shane is so ignorant about so many things. He was trying to explain that the Clinton surplus was a myth because the national debt was 6 trillion dollars.
When I stated that Clinton balanced the budget and that there ended up being a budget surplus (i.e. no deficit spending) he said, "NO THERE WAS A 6 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT ANYONE CAN LOOK IT UP"... along with the "LIAR" and other stuff.
Bottom line; he doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.
malignantpoodle 7 months ago 10
Comment removed
iseeallforme 5 months ago
That what is true? that campaign contributions don't exist only bribery does? It doesn't sound like Shanedk is trying to link the two together, bribery and campaign contributions. i think that campaign contributions are a legal aspect of elections. It's still dishonest and unfair though or lining his pockets when ever a corporation gives a candidate millions of dollars to run for election of his or her intended office. that is what i think shanedk is talking about.
islamiscrap8888 8 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
Without proof it's nothing more than speculation.
Shane doesn't allow speculation from others - he demands proof.
There is no more to say on this topic
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 did you not just read what i wrote?
islamiscrap8888 8 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
I sure did. If you want to ruminate on what does or doesn't affect elections and the nature of corruption per-se, that's one thing.
If you want to follow Shane's lead by throwing around accusations at a specific individual then you need PROOF. Speculation won't cut it.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Affecting elections is not really relevant. The relevant issue is whether or not shanedk was talking about bribery or a company supporting a candidate when he used the phrase , "Lining his pockets."
Actually, why don't you take a look at your own video.
islamiscrap8888 7 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
I'll let you know when I want your opinion on which part of my video is relevant thanks.
I think you'd be more comfortable in the shanedk fan club - raise the double standard and shout LIAR.
billburns2 7 months ago
Um, i don't understand why you think Shanedk has really made any mistake at all in his logic. he seems to be expressing that campaign contributions show favoritism and it sounds like your ignoring that and stretching this debate further than it should have done. What a poor video! :(
islamiscrap8888 8 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
Um, he has stated an opinion and tried to pass it off as fact by inventing supporting evidence. No logic there at all.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Okay, so your saying that if a politician were to get paid campaign contributions by a corporation that it won't influence him or lined his pockets. it's funny that you've based your whole thesis on an Idiom.
islamiscrap8888 8 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
"IF" is the key word here. Unless you can prove that something is true, you can't extrapolate any further.
The point of this video is that if I tried the same thing on Shane he would stamp me flat. Shane sets standards for others that he doesn't follow himself. He is a dishonest debater who tries to cover holes in his theory by using false data, bluster, abuse, obfuscation and censorship.
It's a pity because otherwise he's clearly a very clever bloke.
billburns2 8 months ago
I got accused of racism and blocked after a protracted Shanedk style 'debate.' Worse part is the debate was about Campaign Finance reform and it started with me asking how many corporations actually allowed the majority of their employees to have a say in how or who the corporation donates money to and ended with him demanding I justify some vanilla Ron Paul commercials being restricted from play.
Shanedk is truly the king of the non sequitur duck.
Jermbot15 8 months ago
I feel a little sorry for him.
MrNevertime 9 months ago
It seems to me that shanedk speculated that such-and-such politician was being bribed. It also seems to me that he didn't have any evidence.
That being said, I don't feel like this makes him lose the debate.
His original point was that anti-trust laws were intended to protect fellow competitors and not consumers and his quote proves that point quite well.
donttreadonmyass 9 months ago 2
LOL funny as hell
thesparitan 9 months ago
Shanedk is so odd, he seems to be completely sane, hell not just that, very smart when it comes to anything except Economics, Politics, Philosophy and US History. I guess he has fallen for Free Market Fundamentalism.
thecomputergurukid 11 months ago
@thecomputergurukid So you're not intelligent when it comes to economics, politics, philosophy or US history if you're not a statist prick? Libertarianism is the most common ideology in MENSA for a reason.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
MENSA?? Wow, then let's forget everything that is so obviously flawed with Libertarian doctrine and just go with what they say. They're just SO smart we don't even have to think it out for ourselves.
BTW you're wrong, it isn't the most common ideology in MENSA.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 That's what he basically said, how the hell can you use that as an argument against me?
Fair enough, it's not the most common in the US, but it's close to. Not really important, you managed to make my point for me.
In my experience conformists that call people fundamentalists for believing in something that has an excellent track record and is rational are the ones who has a knowledge-issue. All libertarians started out as something else, then we read books and studied.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
The only point I've made for you is showing your Appeal to Authority and the fact that your numbers are wrong.
Libertarianism has no track record - that's its biggest failing.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 The point he was making was that anyone who is libertarian is ignorant of these issues, I responded by saying that then people in MENSA must be idiots, you then responded by saying that we don't have to think for ourselves then as the smart people already have decided for us.
Yeah it does. The tiger economies, US history (late 19th century), industrialization, modern globalization. No track record? Please. Just take the heritage foundation index of economic freedom.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
He's not making that point at all. He's addressing shanedk's lack of scientific rigor in these issues - which is funny because Shane is a real hardass when it comes to other people lacking scientific rigor.
The Heritage Foundation is a case in point - it's a right wing think tank whose stated aim is: "To formulate and promote conservative public policies". As with most Libertarian sites, the HF prefers to overlook history that doesn't fit with its ideologies.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Well I disagree. I think Shane understands it very well. And he's definitely done the research in the subjects he are discussing
Look at the people who disagree. It's the stateists. The atheists with religious belief in government
What history does THF overlook? You just said there was no track record! Are you saying you disagree with their methodology for determining what is and isn't a free market?
I gave you an avalanche of examples and refereed you to an index. Respond to that
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
His research is flawed because he's got some of his facts wrong (this video shows that he's quite happy to just make shit up if it suits him) Instead of addressing his errors he simply tries to shout down anyone who challenges him.
Your Appeals to Popularity are just as bogus as your Appeals to Authority. I could give you an avalanche of examples showing you that God created the earth and that the Apollo moon landing was faked - wouldn't make it true, would it?
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Well you're kinda implying dumping prices was the practices of the so called "monopoly" of Standard oil. It wasn't. They had soaring profits and lower prices than any of their competitors. However, when the Sherman Anti-trust law was enacted they merely had a market share of 60%
What appeals to popularity? I said that people who disagree, like you, generally don't have anything other to say in response other than "the state is great"
Yet again you didn't respond to the track record
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
First rule if you want to debate on this channel is Stick To One Topic. I'm bored of schizophrenic ramblings that flit from one thing to another.
Second rule is: Limit comments per thread. Of you have a lot to say then make a video, comment pingpong is boring.
So please choose your topic - Is it Monopolies? Is it your logical fallacies? shane's logical fallacies? or why research from the HF must be taken with a pinch of salt?
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Well he did addressed the errors. You just didn't understand that. I don't think your point is valid. We're still on the same subject.
What logical fallacies? Stop throwing that around, you clearly can't use it with any validity. Here's some rules of civil discourse for you: If you're gonna claim logical fallacy - then point it out. Otherwise you're engaging in the fallacy fallacy.
I'll agree with structured responses but you're telling me I should shut up or make a video? I wont.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
Shouting LIAR a lot and lame attempts at obfuscation don't count as addressing errors.
Once you stop using logical fallacies then I'll stop calling you on them. Deal?
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 At the very least you didn't understand the point. I think shanedk assumes intelligence on your and others part (he calls people liars all the time). I disagree with him on that, I think it's religious stupidity. You've transferred your belief in religious deity over to the state. A sort of state of gaps argument is common. Hey I believed that in the past as well.
What have I said that is the fallacy? You never took the time to point it out. I think you're just being annoying...
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
Shane assumes that he can get away with the sort of tactics he slams others for using, specifically by citing "facts" that are actually just his own personal opinions. An opinion, however strongly held, doesn't become a fact just because you want it to.
Your fallacies have been pointed out already:
Appeal to Authority - "Libertarianism is the most common ideology in MENSA for a reason."
Appeal to Popularity - "I gave you an avalanche of examples"
billburns2 9 months ago
So in this case, he is citing a congressional hearing and it's not facts because you didn't understand what was being said? No, I don't get it.
I explained why I said that. Because he was suggesting libertarians are stupid. My point is by the same measure everyone else would be.
That is not an appeal to popularity. I gave you plenty of examples of libertarian track record. You didn't respond to it in any way. Instead you've made up a new theory about economic prosperity which is ridiculous.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
Shane fucked up his William Mason quote. Firstly by misrepresenting what he said, then by claiming all sorts of crony capitalist shenanigans that he had no evidence for.
Referencing a list of subjective rankings made by a think tank who make no bones about their political leanings doesn't count as a track record for Libertarianism, especially when many of the higher rankings owe their successes to government. Libertarians can provide no real world examples of their ideology.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Well it is clear it had nothing to do with the intention of the bill, it did nothing to serve consumers, it was written by the competing companies for COL.
That's the only thing I referenced? No. It's the only thing you can even respond to because you don't have any talking points or know what the hell the others things are
How do they owe successes to government? Can you make an argument for that that isn't based in your religious zealotry?
I just did. You just ignored it.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
The popular government of the day thought otherwise.
Bahrain - 45% GOVERNMENT spend = high ranking on IEF (that's more than any former soviet bloc country BTW)
I see no other references. Please repeat them. And give up on this "religious zealotry" crap, it just makes you look like a dick.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 And? You can have a free market anyway. Most nations have far more restrictions. In most African nations they don't even have property rights that are de facto respected much less working currencies.
Why shouldn't I be a dick to you? You want me to serve your subjective interest under the threat of force, and your argument for this is that the heritage foundation index doesn't fit your interpretation of what a free market is. Wtf...
Tiger economies, industrialization, globalization
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
"Why shouldn't I be a dick to you?" - Because I won't allow it. Blocked.
billburns2 9 months ago
@Visfen LOL you are a wacko. You are everywhere
thesparitan 9 months ago
@billburns2 What research? I've not referenced any research, I've referenced an index that frankly if you don't know about I'm not sure you've ever even read anything published on their page. It's what they are most famous for.
I did provide plenty of track-record which you say doesn't exist but is also somehow selected with bias.
I responded to someone suggesting there's no intellectual capital behind libertarianism and I found that comment to absurd. Now I'm giving historical examples.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
Er... the Index of Economic Freedom is compiled through their research on the topic, geddit?
There are three central elements of healthy economic development AKA "freedom" - human development, expanding market opportunities and maintaining democracy. The HF only focuses only on the market. Even in this field it provides no real data to qualify its ratings. The HF country analyses is made up of numerous subjective judgements. In short it's psuedo-science.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 So you agree with the methodology but not the research? The research is done mostly on public records from these government.
Democracy has nothing to do with economic expansion. Heck, Pinochet was a dictator but he instituted reforms which have ultimately made Chile the richest country in South America, coming from severe hyperinflation and crushing debt.
What do you mean by market opportunities and human development? Isn't that economic development in and of itself.
Visfen 9 months ago
@billburns2 Okay, but what about the current globalization, which has definitely lead to the poor being richer.
What about the tiger economies?
What about industrialization and history? Like for instance the libertarian period in Swedish history from 1850 to about 1960? What about late 19th century? If I advocated such a society you would call it neoliberalism, though somehow it doesn't qualify?
More over, if by that mean free markets, then isn't your disagreement merely based in semantics?
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
Slaves in the 1860s were better on in real terms than slaves in the 1770s. That's not a recommendation for slavery, is it?
Not semantics at all. Take an example from the IEF - Bahrain comes in at a healthy #10, however 45% of all consumption spend is determined by the government rather than by its citizens. Bahrain is basically a big, centrally planned, government welfare state financed with oil revenues - oh and it shoots anyone who protests against its leaders. That's FREEEDOM.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Yes it is actually. Slaves that were sold to the US were much better of than those who lived "free" (they didn't) in Africa. What the hell is your point?
There are other things than just public expenditure that go into how free or not a market is. Bahrain has practically no regulation, their open to foreign trade. The fact that they have a lot of third party payer voucher system hardly defuses that. But sure, they would be better of without that spending.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
So you're saying slavery is a good thing because slaves were better off financially?
And you're saying that a repressive, centrally planned welfare state is OK as long as it doesn't have regulation or trade restrictions?
Seriously? And you wonder why so few people buy into this bullshit?
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Basically yes. I'm saying that slavery would be better than dying. But then again you're for government servitude so how can you even argue against starvation
I'm saying that it's bad. But if you don't have a restrictive regulatory agency. If you have little regulations on trade. If you let most of the market operate freely. You will still have a mostly free economy and do well. Like we have in the west
Your argument to this is "The government is good". Okay, why? How? Prove it.
Visfen 9 months ago
@Visfen
"I'm saying that slavery would be better than dying"
That's not the question though. Your comment was that slaves were better off financially.
Do you consider that slavery is acceptable on the basis that a slave is better off financially than a free man?
My argument has never been "The government is good" - strawman fallacy and strike three.
billburns2 9 months ago
@billburns2 Enjoyed reading that comment war thing. Kind of shows me why people are libertarians: They take propaganda shops like Heritage and treat them as if they are academic institution who do serious research. They get their information about the world from them.
Singapore, China, Japan are examples of libertarian economies? US 19th Century a great place to live?
Absurd.
thecomputergurukid 9 months ago
@billburns2 They also seem to assume that people who are not libertarians are as dogmatic as they are, that they 'worship government' in the same way that they worship the free market.
thecomputergurukid 9 months ago
@billburns2 i have run into this a lot. like with d k shadow, and some other libertarians, i make a point, and they cannot answer, and then it is you are a liar, you are making things up. and so on and so on, you get the idea, talking to a libertarian is like talking to a brick wall. even the brick wall sometimes you can get through to.
whedonfreak976 8 months ago
Hey Bill what a great video you put together. Shane should just call and apologize he is completely outclassed.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Shane is much to shallow a person for serious debate. Who is these lapp dogs that huttle around his videos. Virgil0211, johnrainrules, vspqbd, these are his troops, as soon as he is beaten these lapp dogs run to his defense.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Hi I debated the idiot and the "inductive reasoning' comment is hilarious, when he was debating with me, he and another idiot claimed "inductive reasoning" was not "real science" and it was wrong to infer a claim, furthermore he went on to claim that you cannot make an inductive claim based on evidence drawn from the "social sciences" because peoples actions cannot be measured LMFAO, libertarians are no different to the fundies. Now he makes an "inductive claim" without evidence what a looser
franks2732 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
it's quite obvious that shanedk is just a little coward that can't handle a debate
sfiorare 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana having had the fuckers troll my channel I decided to return the favor, you would have thought I was evil, the devil incarnate. It is funny when after 2-3 weeks they just copy and paste straight from the mises website, fuck them to hell
franks2732 1 year ago
Bill. Help me understand. Was Shane 1) a Libertarian and 2) relying on govt to solve an issue of monopolies?
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
@EdgemanLL2 totally, not sarcastic, btw.
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
@EdgemanLL2
Shane is part genius and part fool. His videos on 9/11, faked moon landings et.al. should earn him a medal. Unfortunately when he gets into the realm economics, all the scientific rigour and objective though seem to go out the window. The slightest challenge to the veracity of his claims turns him into a shrieking, foam-spittled nutcase.
Shane has now banned me from his channel - for the crime of forcing him to admit that Lehman Brothers may have acted irresponsibly. Go figure.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I was just cruious. Because every once on a while I run across hard-charging libertarians who always seem to want govt to regulate their personal opinions into situations.
Its good for a chuckle.
EdgemanLL2 1 year ago
@EdgemanLL2
TBH I've become a little bored with it. Once you know the holes in their dogma it's just a case of seeing how badly or skilfully they avoid addressing these issues.
billburns2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billburns2 wrote: "Unfortunately when he gets into the realm economics, all the scientific rigour and objective though seem to go out the window. The slightest challenge to the veracity of his claims turns him into a shrieking, foam-spittled nutcase."
yes, i'm starting to see how true this is
sfiorare 1 year ago
@billburns2 Genius!!!!! you mean part monkey, one of those he believes he evolved from.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Can you cite any free market monopolies? The only monopolies that have existed during my time have been gov sanctioned monopolies (cable, trash...). Where gov monopolies have gone on to free market principle, the price has gone through the floor.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Can you cite any free market monopolies?"
De Beers, Standard Oil. Although Libbys will smugly state that we don't live in a pure free market, so any example of private enterprise monopoly can't be defined as a "free market monopoly". This is the same get-out clause thay use when praising any business success as capitalism and condoning any business malpractice as coporatism. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Standard oil didn't have a monopoly and they had a problem with people opening oil companies for the sole purpose of being bought out by Standard Oil. Standard oil also lowered the price of oil down to a level where the common man could afford it. I am not familiar with De Beers. But notice there really aren't many even being accused. It's just too hard to have a monopoly without state regulation.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
Controlling 90% of production is most definitely a monopoly. The artificial lowering of a price to below market levels is not an acceptable excuse for preventing the market from operating as it should.
The reason that not many companies are prosecuted under antitrust is BECAUSE of state regulations.
Your argument is similar to the citizens of a well policed, low crime town arguing that they don't need police because crime is so low.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I disagree with your premise and it certainly hasn't been shown to be true. Even before large scale regulation and anti-trust laws, there weren't very many monopolies and the ones that did exist shrunk on their own. It also depends on why a company has a monopoly. If it is simply because they found more efficient use of land/labor/capital than it's a well earned monopoly. Using your money to corner a market and create monopoly conditions would be an example of a bad monopoly.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
History has shown it to be true. Monopolies, oligopolies and trusts were common before regulation. The pork, sugar and steel industries all formed trusts that effectively prevented choice - for workers, consumers and competitors alike. Libertarians have a blind spot for history they don't like.
Remember, the definition of a monopoly is not purely size of market share, but whether the company chooses to use their market share to prevent competition.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 But you just said it was in reference to Standard oil? The most successful monopolies are ones caused by government. Have you looked at your cable bill lately? In my area, you can only get Comcast and the bills average over $100 month (my sister pays almost $200).
Libertarianism isn't perfect (like any system), but it seems to me to be the best and fairest. Mind you, I am not talking extreme libertarianism, but moderate.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
They are all examples of free market monopoly. It's not simply opinion but proven historical fact.
The thing to remember is that most succesful capitalists HATE the idea of an efficient market. They would much rather have no competition and be free to set whatever price they liked for their product.
I do agree that local governments granting exclusive monopoly on things like cable access goes against the spirit of antitrust laws.
Moderate Libertatianism? That's called Liberalism
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Liberals love big government and think everything can be regulated. Take gun control, for example. You can't change things by decree. Governments have shown throughout history that they can't help but abuse power and can't be trusted. Look at what big gov has done to the US. We have had nonstop war since 1941. Once you enlarge the gov/military, it doesn't go away or shrink. Why do you think presidents start new gov depts? So that they never go away. They become entrenched forever.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 Nixon started the DEA because he knew that once created, thousands of bureaucrats would protect it and keep the war on drugs going, even though most Americans think the war on drugs is a total failure. Look at the dept of agriculture! They are now saying that personal gardens can now be federally regulated because they effect interstate commerce by you not buying from out of state be agri! We may need some functions they perform, but, we don't need what they have become.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Liberals love big government and think everything can be regulated"
Only according to Glenn Beck.
Governments do attract people who want to abuse power, as does big business. That's not to say that both systems should be destroyed. If your lawn has weeds do you concrete the whole thing?
War on drugs? yes, utter waste of time and money. No argument there.
Regulating gardens sounds like a Fox News story. You need to cite some reliable sources for that one.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 LOVE and EVERYTHING are obviously a bit of hyperbole. I don't want to concrete the whole lawn of gov, but it needs to be smaller, much smaller, than it is. America is facing an oil crisis in the form of peak oil and after careful consideration, multi-million dollar studies, they decide to bet the farm on Corn ethanol (an alcohol with a negative EROEI) I saw that on a local news story. I don't ever listen to fox.
christo930 1 year ago
@billburns2 And most politicians would love to go unopposed in the election, but it doesn't usually happen (though sometimes it does). Large profits attract competition and is one of the foundational flaws of a monopoly. I admit they sometime were there and I don't 100% oppose regulations, but can you (or anyone else) possibly be happy with the current state of regulation in the US? We have regulated our jobs right out of the country.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Large profits attract competition"
Not if another player is big enough to shut out that competition - Standard Oil, De Beers etc. This is back where we started.
Regulations keep the water and air clean, keep filth from being put in our food, keep toys from killing kids. The free market failed to do any of this in the days before such things were regulated. Are all regulations good ideas? No. Should we concrete the lawn? No.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 So now it's just size again? Size has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. One of the biggest advantages of a very large corp is their ability to utilize economy of scale to spread regulation costs across the largest number of customers. Small businesses are unable to compete in a highly regulated environment. Am I against sensible regulation, of course not, but the system we have now is crazy. Moving towards more freedom and less headaches is a good start.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
Nope, not simply size, but ACTIONS. This is why Standard Oil was forcibly broken up but US Steel wasn't.
There is a difference between using economies of scale to maximise profits and acting in a way that is specifically designed to prevent anyone else from entering your market.
If you believe in SOME form of government (even a small one) and also believe in sensible regulation then you can't call yourself a Libertarian. In fact we can probably agree on lots of this stuff.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Isn't that extreme libertarian (anarchy)? I agree that we most likely agree on most of this stuff, that was my point. Shanedk is not representative of all libertarians.
I am saying that in a high regulation environment, small businesses can't compete with big businesses because of the regulatory costs.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
OK, but the industries that are highly regulated are the ones where there are serious consequences of messing up.
Do you want to get in an aircraft that isn't airworthy?
Put you kid in a car seat that might not protect him?
Take a drug company's word that their pills won't kill you?
Are you happy to take a risk on everything you buy just because that makes it easier for someone else to make money? I'm not.
It's not government that insist on regulation, it's consumers.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 It's consumer advocates and government that insists on more gov. Most consumers couldn't care less. The FAA is way too big, raises the costs of flying as well as the danger. If the pilots on 9/11 had guns it wouldn't have happened. You LIKE the fda? They keep medications off the market for decades while people die. Can bad pills get through? Sure. On the whole, I think they do more damage than good. What they should concentrate on is truth in labeling.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Most consumers couldn't care less" - Consumer groups represent consumers so you need to qualify that statement. Look at the USA's blame culture, people care very much.
"raises the costs of flying as well as the danger" Airline prices have been falling since 2008. I certainly don't want idiots with guns at 30,000 ft
"They keep medications off the market "
Want to take untested drugs? Go to Mexico
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Jet fuel price has been the primary driver of falling airline tickets as well as under utilization. But that is kind of pointless, they would be cheaper still. if you consider airline pilots to be "idiots", then I don't know what to say. Not untested drugs, there are/were drugs avail in Europe for decades before we get them. Maybe you will die because the FDA didn't get around to approving the drug you need.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
The pro gun lobby want airline passengers to be able to carry guns. Libertarians call that "freedom".
You need to sort out your priorities. On the one hand you seem to value all the safety measures that regulation brings but on the other hand you condemn it as being intrusive. You can't have it both ways. Again, we've HAD eras of no regulation - great for business but shit for consumers.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I've never heard that. Even if the fed gov allowed it, no airline co would allow it. BUT the captain or pilots should be able to have a gun to protect the passengers from loons with box cutters.
NO... SOME regulation is good, too much is terrible. You can have it both ways. Having 10s of thousands of pages of regulations is insane. For example the FDA should force companies to list all ingredients on the label. BTW... I use caps for emphasis, not shouting:)
christo930 1 year ago
I am leaning towards the Libertarian side of things but its good to see a little clarity and intelligence on this side of the argument too. Keep it up, look forward to going back and forth between these ideologies until I am content with one..or neither.
jcontraros 1 year ago
This was entertaining.
27johnny 1 year ago
you do know that shanedk says that same things and also gets upset when arguing with creationists. I bring this up now after seeing that general comments he makes when arguing with other people. even if he did lose his cool, it doesn't mean that you are on to something or stumped him any more that any creationist did.
I think this is why your video has only 273 hits.
jonLukasC 1 year ago
there are many libertarians who are very smart. your comment is just a broad based attack. so I suppose milton freidman wasnt smart. jack ass
jonLukasC 1 year ago
@jonLukasC
Milton Friedman may well be smart. Shane isn't.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I think shane is smart although I dont agree with him on every point, in particular the gold standard. point taken though.
jonLukasC 1 year ago
@billburns2 I will apolise for calling you a jackass, however, im sure we dont see eye to eye on economic issues.
jonLukasC 1 year ago
I laugh at his covering of what he just said and tries to make a question for you just fucking wow...
warlord2080 1 year ago
Yes, shane and jacob are morons who don't understand the points they are trying to make and get angry when proven wrong. Their MO is repeat errors in an attempt to make them true and deny facts. Pathetic. I don't think they even understand the meaning of the word nuance.
dsglop 1 year ago
@dsglop The big man speaks!
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago
@TheDudefromSomewhere As it does with each and everyone of us.
GumbaMasta 1 year ago
@GumbaMasta
The best comment I ever read was:
"It's only YouTube. Even if you win, you're still a retard"
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Allright, you win.
GumbaMasta 1 year ago
Shadizar666 1 year ago
@Shadizar666
In this particular instance, a better solution would be to have some supporting evidence for your claims. Shane has none, so he tries to use the caps key as a form of intimidation and diversion
WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO GRASP THE SIMPLE FACT THAT I KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAT YOU DO AND MY OPINION IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS?
:)
He pretends it represents exasperation at my stupididty when really he's just trying to cover the holes in his argument through bluster.
billburns2 1 year ago
Sure. I mean we can all speculate.
Try making and argument with Shane based purely on speculation and see what happens...
billburns2 1 year ago
@TheDudefromSomewhere
Careful. Much more of this talk and all of science will be invalid.
Shane likes to play fast and loose with things like dates
1890 was the date of the Sherman act. The Standard Oil legal case started in 1909, which was 8 years after Texaco was founded.
However William Mason had retired as Senator for Illinois six years BEFORE the trial started. He wouldn't serve as a member of the US House of Representatives until 1917.
billburns2 1 year ago
Looks like you had the same kind of experience with Shane I did. I unsubbed him almost a year ago because he is just bat shit crazy idiot that thinks he's commedian.
beechgrovejoe 1 year ago
wow bill, looks like he totally pwned you ;-) hehe
Sepero1 1 year ago
I made a comment once on one of his videos in which he tried to prove that traditional left-right division of the political spectrum is incomplete by posting link to some misleading "are you a libertarian" quiz. I said that quiz is a piece of crap because it completely neglects half of the political spectrum by leaving out traditional left wing ideologies. I scored liberal and I'm pretty sure I'm no liberal so it was a legitimate objection.
Grindermetalhead 1 year ago
I said that I'm an anarchist (libertarian socialist) and he responded to my comment by saying that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. I responded to his comment by saying that anarchists used to call themselves libertarians for more than a century before classical liberals started using the term and then we got into an argument over a bunch of pointless bullshit that had absolutely nothing to do with my complaint about his misleading political quiz.
Grindermetalhead 1 year ago
Whenever I tried to go back to the issue of his stupid video he kept doing exactly the same bullshit you described in this video.
He kept evading it by changing the topic and making me defend my political views.
The whole time he kept accusing me of all sorts of informal logical fallacies while he made shitload of formal fallacies in the process and when I called him out on it he "refuted" me by accusing me of more logical fallacies which he pulled out of his ass.
Grindermetalhead 1 year ago
He kept calling me a fascist because I said that I'm anti market and anti-capitalist, which is ridiculous since I'm an anarchist.
After a while I just gave up since I could not make him answer my original question because he kept evading it by throwing the ball into my court and making me defend my views.
The guy is a major douchebag.
Grindermetalhead 1 year ago
@Grindermetalhead
OH, the Nolan Test is some top rate comedy.
It's the very definition of "framing bias" - over simplistic questions without any margin for a "but...".
Scientologists have a similar quiz to indoctinate noobs into their cult too.
Long winded arguments over pointless bullshit?
Nothing to do with the primary topic??
With SHANE???
Why am I not surprised?
billburns2 1 year ago
@TheElMoIsEviL
Yes, I enjoyed that exchange: "Shane says the NHS is a failure and all contrary evidence is LIES" LMFAO
My biggest annoyance is that most of his comments are not designed to progress an argument, but to to confuse and divert attention from areas where he knows his position is weak. He's very effective too. I've labeled him the David Copperfield of debating.
If he didn't despise the State so much I'm sure he would have a great career in politics.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Do you have a screencap of that, cause you know that would be substantial.
GumbaMasta 1 year ago
merh
RevDevilin 1 year ago