Its the difference between FDRs New Deal approach to the depression, versus Hoover and todays do-nothing Congress now that we're facing a worse depression today.
No there were crisis' before there was a Fed Reserve. Mostly after periods of loose money and wild speculation or if the British empire was successful in their economic warfare.
Fine, stop using the internet and electricity for a start. Give away all your possesions and live like Robinson Crusoe on some desert island if you feel that way.
Contrary to popular belief, voluntary interaction is exactly about working together to reach common and mutually beneficial goals; whereas involuntary interaction is about the opposite.
I've no problem with common action to benefit ourselves and our posterity. Trouble is, when empires like the British exist, you are in danger of loosing everything through their efforts at destroying our nation economically and militarily.
States inherently dangerous? No. Thats just paranoid. Its when financial interests dominate and enforce debt collection from their speculation when states are subverted. Worse is when the ruling generation is infected by the idiology of free trade like the current one.
us humans are left to the mercy/benevolence of whatever is stronger than us, whether its an unfair social system, classism, politics, beauracracy, cultural/racial/gender image perceptions, rule of the masses, elitism, disfunctionalism etc..
I have one question for the Anarchists (agree you own your body and labor, 100%.... that's the libertarian in me)...but specifically for you American Anarchists, how did you acquire your land property.... is there a statue of limitation on how that acquistion has been passed down the centuries... or am I being too idealistic for Anarchists (LOL)!
Nies, specifically where should all the non-native americans go back to ?
Nozick had the same dilemma as you have. Ownership of goods and land have been transferred over time and many times through coercion. Therefore, he advocated a one time egalitarian redistribution of land and goods, for we cannot truly correct all these cases of coercion. After this redistribution libertarianism could exist without being biased by previous coercion.
Look, I know it is wrong... But thinking in such terms is totally unworkable. Every piece of land on earth has been fought of tenfold times. I didn't take anyones land. I am innocent, it is not right to punish me for what some dead since long person did. Government dissapears and we retain the property we currently have. What could be an easier transition?
Ah, the Ayn Rand followers speak! The problem with objectivism is it's an ideal proposal. If there are 1000 people who do not follow objectivism and 10 who do not, guess what? Those 10 are going to be living in the 1000's government. So until objectivism answers the question of reality, I'll remain a realist.
Its the difference between FDRs New Deal approach to the depression, versus Hoover and todays do-nothing Congress now that we're facing a worse depression today.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Recessions and depressions are created by the federal reserve system and the banking cartel. Then and now.
Go to mises dot org and search for 'reserve'.
Nielsio 4 years ago
No there were crisis' before there was a Fed Reserve. Mostly after periods of loose money and wild speculation or if the British empire was successful in their economic warfare.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Fine, stop using the internet and electricity for a start. Give away all your possesions and live like Robinson Crusoe on some desert island if you feel that way.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Contrary to popular belief, voluntary interaction is exactly about working together to reach common and mutually beneficial goals; whereas involuntary interaction is about the opposite.
Nielsio 4 years ago
I've no problem with common action to benefit ourselves and our posterity. Trouble is, when empires like the British exist, you are in danger of loosing everything through their efforts at destroying our nation economically and militarily.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
So you are saying that states are inherently dangerous and should not exist? Well, then we agree.
Nielsio 4 years ago
States inherently dangerous? No. Thats just paranoid. Its when financial interests dominate and enforce debt collection from their speculation when states are subverted. Worse is when the ruling generation is infected by the idiology of free trade like the current one.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Ideology of free trade? What is that? And whatever it is, I am 100% sure is has nothing to do with the current situation.
Maybe you can check out mises dot org for more economical backgrounds.
Nielsio 4 years ago
trying to add mine as a video response but it keeps telling me I have no videos uploaded... arg
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Hi. Nice vid, I saw it.
Maybe wait a little and try again. The system has some time-lapses sometimes.
Nielsio 4 years ago
individuality, truth and freedom is for God
us humans are left to the mercy/benevolence of whatever is stronger than us, whether its an unfair social system, classism, politics, beauracracy, cultural/racial/gender image perceptions, rule of the masses, elitism, disfunctionalism etc..
cool70200 4 years ago
I have one question for the Anarchists (agree you own your body and labor, 100%.... that's the libertarian in me)...but specifically for you American Anarchists, how did you acquire your land property.... is there a statue of limitation on how that acquistion has been passed down the centuries... or am I being too idealistic for Anarchists (LOL)!
Nies, specifically where should all the non-native americans go back to ?
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
Nozick had the same dilemma as you have. Ownership of goods and land have been transferred over time and many times through coercion. Therefore, he advocated a one time egalitarian redistribution of land and goods, for we cannot truly correct all these cases of coercion. After this redistribution libertarianism could exist without being biased by previous coercion.
funkmasterswede 4 years ago
Interesting, except that one time redistribution would itself have to be performed (undoubtedly) with coersion....
But Funkmaster, thanks for recognizing the dilemma.
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
Look, I know it is wrong... But thinking in such terms is totally unworkable. Every piece of land on earth has been fought of tenfold times. I didn't take anyones land. I am innocent, it is not right to punish me for what some dead since long person did. Government dissapears and we retain the property we currently have. What could be an easier transition?
lordmetroid 4 years ago
Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
S0n0fMan 5 years ago
Ah, the Ayn Rand followers speak! The problem with objectivism is it's an ideal proposal. If there are 1000 people who do not follow objectivism and 10 who do not, guess what? Those 10 are going to be living in the 1000's government. So until objectivism answers the question of reality, I'll remain a realist.
Truedi 5 years ago
What the fuck did you say? So you're saying it's okay to impose the will of the majority upon the minority?
demonique666 5 years ago
That wasn't very clear. Maybe you can make a video explaining your objections to self-ownership a little better.
Nielsio 5 years ago
Hardaceownyou, is that you?
neutrinoide 4 years ago
excellent.
jasonhoblin 5 years ago
Sorry Nielsio, but I've already pledged my life to my wife. Maybe we could jointly declare our ownership of ourselves though . . .
wogsland 5 years ago
Do it!
Nielsio 5 years ago