Oh and by the way, atheism is the most pathetic fantasy of all, -believing- god doesn't exist is as irrational as believing he exists, the only difference is that religion doesn't pretend to be rational.
It's obvious for fucking retards like you, just like christianity is obvious for 2 billion people.
Have you seen yourself in the mirror lately ?
You look like a fucking reject in just about every meaning of the word. I bet when you go into shops people start whispering and wondering what's wrong with your brain.
You're the closest thing to a troll I've ever seen, and it truely must suck being you.
I'm a capitalist and I believe that both religion and homosexuality are two little social fantasies based on nothing, however they're mostly harmless, unlike the economic fantasies of socialism / communism.
For people with a brain what he mentioned is the disincentive of private entrepreneurialism by taxing people to death and thus opening the door to bongos like you to start yelling: "See ? Capitalism just failed."
@seppsters Name one person taxed to death? How do taxes provide a disincentive? Also I'm a capitalist, & this video still doesn't actually say anything about socialism, so yeah, you're stupid. maybe what you wanted to say is "For people with a small brain...".
No, I think you're pretty stupid, but it's obvious you think you're smart so I'll try to tell this without making you look too bad.
You raise taxes, people end up with less money, they are much less likely to get a loan or to accumulate capital that would allow them to finance new entrepreneurial initiatives, this is 101 business.
"taxed to death", "bored to death" aren't literal expressions, you fucking retard.
I disagree completely. The problem isn't Christianity per se, it's irrationality and lack of critical thinking skills. That being said, you are an objectivist, and that philosophy (which tends to border on religion IMO) is not a champion of rationality, it's an emotional philosophy.
Capitalism always has and always will rely on compulsion. It is a compulsory system. Why do you think, in reality, the capitalists came up with the policy of "containment" concerning any and all pure socialist systems? Ironically capitalism cannot exist with competition. It cannot exist in reality if people truly have a choice.
Wrap your head around that objective truth. Wrap your head around reality. Anarchism water/capitalism oil.
Anarchism is a part of the broader socialist movement. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist. You're a right wing American libertarian. Please stop confusing young Americans with your revisionism. Please admit the fact that objectivism/capitalism and anarchism are diametrically opposed philosophies. Anarchism is not compatible with capitalism or anything Ayn Rand promoted. Free market capitalism is tyranny. Anarchism is the reaction to tyranny. Anarchism seeks to create a classless society.
The govt isn't stealing your money. We are a community, especially in America, where we have a govt of the people, for the people and by the people. If you don't want to participate in the community and give part of your pay check to the govt, go live in Somalia. That place is as Free Market Libertarian as you could want. No govt to take your money. Of course, there are no decent roads, safe food, civil safety, or any other nice things we take for granted in our "Socialistic" western democracy.
@dLimboStick thats funny you should say that--this was written in 2001--"Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.---y'know why somalia is incredibly impovershed and America is a land of mass wealth? maybe its because it extracts somalias own resources and sells it back for HUGE exploitive profits
Do you drive or use public transpertation. Do you eat food which has not been grown localy, or drink water not from a local well... do you use the sewage system...
Yes alot of the things the government spends money on is stupid, but to claim that we are socialist becouse the government takes a large amount of tax money from you...socialism is a bit different. It's in how they use the money and ownership rights...and several other issues.
So your argument is that, if the government steals money from me to pay for services, and I use services I am FORCED to pay for, then I am a hypocrite if I say I would rather keep my money and pay for them voluntarily?
Sure. And if someone is opposed to being raped, but wants to have normal voluntary sex, she's being a hypocrite too, if you're going to be logically consistent with your judgment.
that has to be jus about the stupides rebuttal i've ever read.
as for gay marrage vs war as an example, they are not compairable issues and are not dictated by the same person. except ofcourse in a dictatorship, but im assumeing you are from America, which is a democracy.
I'd like to see you survivie a month without a government funded good and/or service, until you do, stfu about taxes, yes they are annoying, but they are also nessisary.
Yes, Actually it does make you a hypocrit. No one forces you to use public roads. You choose to do so.
The reason I didn't bother to refute anything in your comment is because quite frankly I don't think you could ever understand what is so wrong about it. Not sure if that is because you are just a troll, or you really are that stupid, either way makes no difference.
by the way, guess who funded the research and development of the internet, which you now use to spread your stupidity?
Point me to the office where I can retrieve my tax money, and then point me to the private roads I can use to get from place to place.
I have to use the roads to live any semblance of a normal life. To say I have a "choice" is ridiculous, and to say I am a hypocrite in a situation where I essentially have no choice is absurd.
A private road would have been paid for and maintained by someone else, and yet you want to use it for free? if there were private roads for you to use they would almost certainly have a maintanance toll. either that or someone somewhere is loseing money. either way asking to use a road that you did not pay for what so ever is just plain selfish.
Or you could choose to buy your own land and make a private road of your own to where ever you need to go.
"A private road would have been paid for and maintained by someone else, and yet you want to use it for free?"
I never made that claim. Of course I'd pay for the service (assuming it wasn't a road maintained by a group of stores for the use of their customers or something.)
I object to rape, not sex.
At this point I'm going to conclude that you've already decided that you think what you think and that this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
Still I really think you should think about what you are saying. basically you want to only pay for things when you need them? aside from being extremely inefficient, and resulting in everything being more expensive, it's also entirely likely you will have to save vast amounts of money "incase" anything happens. take Medicine as an example. if you suddenly found out you had cancer, without government funded health care, do you think you could afford chemo? I know I couldn't.
If someone points a gun at you and says to give him your money or he'll shoot you, you have a "choice" right? And if you're against theft, are you a hypocrite for giving him your money? After all, you had a "choice."
This notion that, because I have the option of living as some kind of subsistence farmer disconnected from the whole of society, I am a hypocrite if I use roads I am forced to pay for, is absurd for the same reasons.
You're failing to grasp the fundamental issue, which is that a violent third party is forcing a particular series of choices that would not naturally occur, and that someone is not a hypocrite for acting within those options.
What is your goal here, exactly? Do you actually have an argument that there would be no way to have roads without a state, or is your entire argument that I am a hypocrite?
Even if I am a hypocrite, that wouldn't actually invalidate my points.
actually being a hypocrit does invalidate your arguement, because you need, what you say we don't need.
I have no goal in replying, I found your video via stumbleupon and you expressed view that is spreading in America right now. I had hoped perhaps by debateing it atleast a little you might see some of the errors in your view, but I suppose in the end, as you said, we both think what we thing and no amount of back and forth will change that.
If someone says one thing and does another, it's still logically possible that what they said is true, and that its their actions, not their claims, that are wrong.
Look up hypocrisy on Wwikipedia and read about it. Then go take a logic class. Then get back to me :P
Any other hypocritical action, yes that could be true, and more often then not it is true,
In THIS case, you not being able to live without government facilities and whilst claiming we don't need it makes you a hypocrite and proves your point wrong.
I chalanged you to go 1 month without government infrastructure if you can, then you have some solid evidence that you are right but again, you're chooseing not to. It's ok to hate the government, you are chooseing the wrong reason to do so.
And somehow in your theoretical world people voluntarily subject themselves to wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. There are also some string theories that sound good on paper but fall apart under the scientific method [empiricism]. What's the empirical reality of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury [capitalism]? The reality is none of it has EVER been voluntary and all of the Rothbardian theories cannot hide or change this fact. No one would choose wage slavery/usury. No one ever has.
Depression and suicides because being gay is still not accepted around the world, greatly outnumber the deaths of all the people in the war. So gay marrige is a great step towards acceptance
you should be more concerned with plutocrats taking the surplus wealth that your labor power produces than taxes which go to make society function on a few steps higher than feudalism.
labor extracted as tax. so leave all infrastructive to private manufacturing? check out ezra pound. its fine to be against heavy taxes... but you are forgetting about wage slavery.
"When I look my paycheck..and I see a third of that gone..I am not thinking about oh those fuckings Christians and their god. No I am thinking about that fucking government stealing my money." LOL! Awesome.
Did you ever ask yourself why the government is taking your money? It isn't for the sake of it. They are motivated by altruism, which CHristianity advocates.
These are inter-related topics. Christians elected Bush. Religion fuels the wars in the Mid-East. Without Islamo-Christianity we wouldn't have either the conflicts in the Middle-East or an administration that lied us into a war over there.
The sooner we can create a more rational world, the sooner we can have rational approaches to our problems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
PROLETARIANS OF ALL NATIONS, UNITE!
I figured that anyone smart enough to figure out religion is bullshit would be able to figure out that Communism is the best way to go. though we are not ready for that transition yet
Well, im glad we pay for our healthcare and social care here in Norway, although its alot of money, it means that people with less money or ability isn't gonna be left out becouse of that.
The tax in USA though is another matter.
What you are paying tax it goes directly into the pockets of wealthy bankers, not to the people as it shuld.
The thing is that the Federal Reserve is owned by private interest and not by your goverment, and still they force you to pay, even though there's no law
Saying that one is not as important as the other without discussing the details at all?
For shame...
In many ways, socialism is a great thing. I don't hear anyone bitching about libraries or the way water is distributed. That being said, I think I know what you're trying to say.
However, I think the two are linked issues, to be honest. We have to break free of non-thought before society as a whole can even address the negative aspects of socialism in any intelligent manner.
After living in a Socialist country, and the USA I am completely against socialism. Social healthcare is a great idea as long as there is competition, and the quality remains. However there is not a single other aspect that i can even consider. Freedom both economically and socially is far more important. If you like socialism, move to a socialist country, we in America like to be free, and unless you are promoting freedom, or condeming what you consider wrong, quit wasting your breath.
I can not see why anyone would tout atheism or a religion. What difference does it make? If God had intended for us to argue about it, he would have told us so muahahahahahaahaaa
To understand democracy or liberalism(the way how i call it),people just need to watch the latest shows on television,read some magazines or other sex related stuff.Yes,Sex is what they call freedom!In the other hand,their minds are slaves.Democratic life in 21st century is easy,support a football team,search for girls to seduce,amuse your organ(your mind)..
I completly agree with you.That's why democracy exist,a way to steal money or labor.A very easy way to make the important ideas much more complicated.I mean democracy spreads many ideas,and it could be hard to choose the one is needed to be argued.Theese can be gay mariage,religion,football,fashion etc.But never freedom,wisdom,equality or justice.
Christianity and Judaism have been declawed for the past 100 years or so. So I do agree with you, but Islam has been gaining support lately and I have my doubts on whether it can co-exist with democracy. I have my eye on Turkey, things are tense there.
Religion is pretty harmless, for the most part. Plus, it'll be diluted to less than 50% of the population within a couple of generations. But big government is on the rise. We work in serfdom from January to April. It's time for a change, well said.
Lives lost to the HIV/AIDS virus is more important than some fuckin' money. I think people talk about socialism because it's an easier subject than talking about a cure for HIV/AIDS.
Nuclear winters encompassing the world affects more people than HIV/AIDS. I think people like talking about a cure for HIV/AIDS because it's an easier subject than the issue of how to deal with North Korea.
I don't have AIDS and there's not a nuclear war going on :P
I'm not saying every person who talks about religion does so because it's easy, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS easy to show the lunacy of religion compared to, say, socialism. Plus, socialism directly impacts my life in a negative way every time I get a paycheck, something that religion doesn't do.
Taxes pay for police, the roads, streetlights, and schools. You get a cut in taxes and those programs are the first to go.
Taxes pay government salaries as well. However, as long as we have the system we do, the government officials will never cut their own salary, since they have no motivation.
There's always taking out politicians and making every bill petition and referendum style. That's TRUE democracy.
"Taxes pay for police, the roads, streetlights, and schools. You get a cut in taxes and those programs are the first to go."
Why are those automatically the first to go? Why not the welfare state? Why not the ridiculous number of regulatory agencies we have?
True democracy (as in, direct democracy) is mob rule. To quote Ben Franklin (I think he said this), direct democracy is like having a vote between two wolves and a sheep over what's for dinner.
Uh, the Welfare state gives the politicians voters. They'll never cut it as long as the poor are around.
The regulatory agencies know their way around the legal systems, hell, they built the damned things. They can weasel out of pay cuts by re-classifying themselves or something.
Direct democracy isn't so bad. I'd like to have a vote on whether or not we should legalize the death penalty, instead of what my representative thinks, thank you very much. A big flaw of representative democracy is that the representative will never be able to see exactly your point of view. That's what direct democracy is appealing to me.
Or some kind of third system we've never tried. How bout we make a fourth branch of government that deals with hot-button, cultural issues. We poll EVERYONE to see what their stances are and appoint politicians (or at least actors) to represent those attitudes. One politician for every view. Then, the one who gets the most votes is the lawmaker. Representation by ideals we could call it.
How about a constitutional republic, where the government is limit fundamentally by a constistution, like we have?
The problem isn't the system, it's that it's not run properly. The constitution is violated CONSTANTLY; when the government is not violating it outright, it's doing things that are not powers granted to it by the constitution.
I lived in Germany for 13 years, I paid lower taxes, no one lives on the street, and everyone has health care, Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion, and don't attempt to explain it to me I know all about it, I'm over 50 years old, and I can assure you most people are to stupid to live without a government controling them.
I'm not even refering to people who can't take care of themselves, I'm refering to the hoards of virtually retarded people who'll have more freedom than they can handle, of course those who can't take care of themselves will be a problem as well when they form gangs to take what you have, if we could exterminate 60% of the population the other 40% might be able to form a successful Libertarian government.
As I said it's not an issue I have any interest in discussing, we have a much better chance of seeing the end of religion than we do of seeing Libertarianism happen, and it will never happen when 80% of the country wants to enforce it's religious beliefs on the other 20%.
The overwhelming majority are sheep and therefore give nothing to anyone (in the way of guidance and the direction of society). They more or less go along with the strongest dog, the winner of the battle. It is always a minority that decides the way of a people, whoever is the victorious majority within the tiny willful minority carries the day.
More freedom than they can handle - meaning they'd do stupid shit and end up dead or broken in some way - meaning they can't take care of themselves. This is how I meant it, not in the narrow sense of just the people that can't get their shit together in a free-economic society.
More freedom than they can handle - meaning they'd do stupid shit, and OTHERS end up dead, and broken, unless you have a police force three times larger than it is now, and that would be the antithesis of freedom, you or I might be intelligent enough or able enough to get our shit together, most people need or want a Daddy who they think is there to take care of them, even is he's a drunk who beats them.
Did you just post a comment in my video disagreeing with it, then ask people to NOT debate it with you? And on top of that, you used your AGE to try to put yourself on a pedestal above everyone else? "Don't try to tell me why I'm wrong. I'm over 50, so I automatically understand the situation more correctly than you." How many people over 50 believe in God?
No I'm over 50 so I have 50 years of first hand experience with human nature in the military in several foreign countries. I was a young idealist once, I probably even went through a Libertarian phase, in fact I recal my father labeleing me as one before I was old enough to really know what I was.
"Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion, and don't attempt to explain it to me I know all about it, I'm over 50 years old"
Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but it certainly reads like you're not interested in debating/defending your point.
I mentioned my age to emphasize the futility of trying to debate the issue with me, I've known there is no god for nearly 40 years, I'm been convinced that a Libertarian government will never work, for nearly as long, and absolutely convinced that it will never work in America as long as people's minds are controlled by religion, if you want to beat your head against a wall trying to convince me otherwise you're free to do so.
To clarify, I've had this debate a thousand times over the course of 40 years, I've read nearly everything I could on the subject, and that combined with my personal life experience had solidified my opinion to the point that it is as unchangable as my lack of a belief in god, I'm sorry if you find the rigidness of my opinion on the subject a problem. Peace
"Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion", what I mean is many atheists who are libertarians are wasting their time on Libertarianism, in my opinion it's putting the cart before the horse, the Christian majority of America will never allow people that much freedom.
People need to be able to think for themselves on issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, legalizing drugs, and others, before Libertarianism is even worth discussing as anything more than an intellectual pursuit.
Comment removed
seppsters 7 months ago
Oh and by the way, atheism is the most pathetic fantasy of all, -believing- god doesn't exist is as irrational as believing he exists, the only difference is that religion doesn't pretend to be rational.
seppsters 7 months ago
@seppsters Obvious troll is obvious.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality
It's obvious for fucking retards like you, just like christianity is obvious for 2 billion people.
Have you seen yourself in the mirror lately ?
You look like a fucking reject in just about every meaning of the word. I bet when you go into shops people start whispering and wondering what's wrong with your brain.
You're the closest thing to a troll I've ever seen, and it truely must suck being you.
seppsters 7 months ago
Good video.
I'm a capitalist and I believe that both religion and homosexuality are two little social fantasies based on nothing, however they're mostly harmless, unlike the economic fantasies of socialism / communism.
seppsters 7 months ago
Great video. You're reasoning and emotional insights are spot on.
KeepGoing11235 1 year ago
I tend to agree with you. - I'm a Libertarian-Socialist. No, this is not a contradiction of terms
MrShenaniganz 1 year ago
I tend to agree with you. - as a Libertarian Socialist
MrShenaniganz 1 year ago
I tend to agree with you. - from a Libertarian Socialist
MrShenaniganz 1 year ago
You mention a few things in this video, but none of them are related to socialism. Other than the actual word socialism.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality
For people with a brain what he mentioned is the disincentive of private entrepreneurialism by taxing people to death and thus opening the door to bongos like you to start yelling: "See ? Capitalism just failed."
seppsters 7 months ago
@seppsters Name one person taxed to death? How do taxes provide a disincentive? Also I'm a capitalist, & this video still doesn't actually say anything about socialism, so yeah, you're stupid. maybe what you wanted to say is "For people with a small brain...".
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality
No, I think you're pretty stupid, but it's obvious you think you're smart so I'll try to tell this without making you look too bad.
You raise taxes, people end up with less money, they are much less likely to get a loan or to accumulate capital that would allow them to finance new entrepreneurial initiatives, this is 101 business.
"taxed to death", "bored to death" aren't literal expressions, you fucking retard.
I feel like I'm talking to communists.
seppsters 7 months ago
I disagree completely. The problem isn't Christianity per se, it's irrationality and lack of critical thinking skills. That being said, you are an objectivist, and that philosophy (which tends to border on religion IMO) is not a champion of rationality, it's an emotional philosophy.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded I'll just take your name at face value and not bother to argue to the contrary.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
Great video, XOmniverse. You are 100% correct in your reasoning and the points you made.
avshaman 1 year ago
Wrong. Socialism is the system that by necessity precludes competition or any kind of economic freedom.
avshaman 1 year ago
@avshaman You don't know what socialism is do you?
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
Capitalism always has and always will rely on compulsion. It is a compulsory system. Why do you think, in reality, the capitalists came up with the policy of "containment" concerning any and all pure socialist systems? Ironically capitalism cannot exist with competition. It cannot exist in reality if people truly have a choice.
Wrap your head around that objective truth. Wrap your head around reality. Anarchism water/capitalism oil.
crud4 2 years ago
Anarchism is a part of the broader socialist movement. Please stop calling yourself an anarchist. You're a right wing American libertarian. Please stop confusing young Americans with your revisionism. Please admit the fact that objectivism/capitalism and anarchism are diametrically opposed philosophies. Anarchism is not compatible with capitalism or anything Ayn Rand promoted. Free market capitalism is tyranny. Anarchism is the reaction to tyranny. Anarchism seeks to create a classless society.
crud4 2 years ago
People like this should be able to seceed and form their own country where they let each other die in the street like dogs.
badmuffy 2 years ago
The govt isn't stealing your money. We are a community, especially in America, where we have a govt of the people, for the people and by the people. If you don't want to participate in the community and give part of your pay check to the govt, go live in Somalia. That place is as Free Market Libertarian as you could want. No govt to take your money. Of course, there are no decent roads, safe food, civil safety, or any other nice things we take for granted in our "Socialistic" western democracy.
dLimboStick 2 years ago
@dLimboStick thats funny you should say that--this was written in 2001--"Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.---y'know why somalia is incredibly impovershed and America is a land of mass wealth? maybe its because it extracts somalias own resources and sells it back for HUGE exploitive profits
TheGreatDeciever55 1 year ago
Do you drive or use public transpertation. Do you eat food which has not been grown localy, or drink water not from a local well... do you use the sewage system...
Yes alot of the things the government spends money on is stupid, but to claim that we are socialist becouse the government takes a large amount of tax money from you...socialism is a bit different. It's in how they use the money and ownership rights...and several other issues.
Why don't people seem to understand this?
beefygoblin 2 years ago
So your argument is that, if the government steals money from me to pay for services, and I use services I am FORCED to pay for, then I am a hypocrite if I say I would rather keep my money and pay for them voluntarily?
Sure. And if someone is opposed to being raped, but wants to have normal voluntary sex, she's being a hypocrite too, if you're going to be logically consistent with your judgment.
XOmniverse 2 years ago 2
that has to be jus about the stupides rebuttal i've ever read.
as for gay marrage vs war as an example, they are not compairable issues and are not dictated by the same person. except ofcourse in a dictatorship, but im assumeing you are from America, which is a democracy.
I'd like to see you survivie a month without a government funded good and/or service, until you do, stfu about taxes, yes they are annoying, but they are also nessisary.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
Nothing you said refuted the case I presented in my comment.
The fact that I use roads that are monopolized by the government and am forced to paid for does not make me a hypocrite.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Yes, Actually it does make you a hypocrit. No one forces you to use public roads. You choose to do so.
The reason I didn't bother to refute anything in your comment is because quite frankly I don't think you could ever understand what is so wrong about it. Not sure if that is because you are just a troll, or you really are that stupid, either way makes no difference.
by the way, guess who funded the research and development of the internet, which you now use to spread your stupidity?
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
Point me to the office where I can retrieve my tax money, and then point me to the private roads I can use to get from place to place.
I have to use the roads to live any semblance of a normal life. To say I have a "choice" is ridiculous, and to say I am a hypocrite in a situation where I essentially have no choice is absurd.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
A private road would have been paid for and maintained by someone else, and yet you want to use it for free? if there were private roads for you to use they would almost certainly have a maintanance toll. either that or someone somewhere is loseing money. either way asking to use a road that you did not pay for what so ever is just plain selfish.
Or you could choose to buy your own land and make a private road of your own to where ever you need to go.
Character Cap.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
"A private road would have been paid for and maintained by someone else, and yet you want to use it for free?"
I never made that claim. Of course I'd pay for the service (assuming it wasn't a road maintained by a group of stores for the use of their customers or something.)
I object to rape, not sex.
At this point I'm going to conclude that you've already decided that you think what you think and that this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Fair enough.
Still I really think you should think about what you are saying. basically you want to only pay for things when you need them? aside from being extremely inefficient, and resulting in everything being more expensive, it's also entirely likely you will have to save vast amounts of money "incase" anything happens. take Medicine as an example. if you suddenly found out you had cancer, without government funded health care, do you think you could afford chemo? I know I couldn't.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
you could also choose to grow everything you need at home, and never leave, never useing any government comodities you claim you don't need..
or you could choose to have everything you need delivered to you, again, personally not useing government property.
so there's a few choices, and im sure there are many more. to say you have no choice but to use public roads is far from true.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
If someone points a gun at you and says to give him your money or he'll shoot you, you have a "choice" right? And if you're against theft, are you a hypocrite for giving him your money? After all, you had a "choice."
This notion that, because I have the option of living as some kind of subsistence farmer disconnected from the whole of society, I am a hypocrite if I use roads I am forced to pay for, is absurd for the same reasons.
Why can't you grasp that?
XOmniverse 2 years ago
the difference is no one is pointing a gun at your head, no one is forceing you to do anything.
infact compairing being robbed and haveing a choice between shopping or makeing your own produce isn't even remotely similar.
Why can't you grasp that?
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
You're failing to grasp the fundamental issue, which is that a violent third party is forcing a particular series of choices that would not naturally occur, and that someone is not a hypocrite for acting within those options.
What is your goal here, exactly? Do you actually have an argument that there would be no way to have roads without a state, or is your entire argument that I am a hypocrite?
Even if I am a hypocrite, that wouldn't actually invalidate my points.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
actually being a hypocrit does invalidate your arguement, because you need, what you say we don't need.
I have no goal in replying, I found your video via stumbleupon and you expressed view that is spreading in America right now. I had hoped perhaps by debateing it atleast a little you might see some of the errors in your view, but I suppose in the end, as you said, we both think what we thing and no amount of back and forth will change that.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
If someone says one thing and does another, it's still logically possible that what they said is true, and that its their actions, not their claims, that are wrong.
Look up hypocrisy on Wwikipedia and read about it. Then go take a logic class. Then get back to me :P
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Any other hypocritical action, yes that could be true, and more often then not it is true,
In THIS case, you not being able to live without government facilities and whilst claiming we don't need it makes you a hypocrite and proves your point wrong.
I chalanged you to go 1 month without government infrastructure if you can, then you have some solid evidence that you are right but again, you're chooseing not to. It's ok to hate the government, you are chooseing the wrong reason to do so.
TheBlackOrchid 2 years ago
Hating the government for violent extortion is the wrong reason to do so?
XOmniverse 2 years ago
And somehow in your theoretical world people voluntarily subject themselves to wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. There are also some string theories that sound good on paper but fall apart under the scientific method [empiricism]. What's the empirical reality of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury [capitalism]? The reality is none of it has EVER been voluntary and all of the Rothbardian theories cannot hide or change this fact. No one would choose wage slavery/usury. No one ever has.
crud4 2 years ago
I agree religion is a stupid subject. We should instead discuss all the benefits to socialism over capitalism.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Depression and suicides because being gay is still not accepted around the world, greatly outnumber the deaths of all the people in the war. So gay marrige is a great step towards acceptance
DariusVoid 3 years ago
Socialism rocks
fonkelster 3 years ago
you should be more concerned with plutocrats taking the surplus wealth that your labor power produces than taxes which go to make society function on a few steps higher than feudalism.
catalineas 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure that systematic theft is not needed to make society function higher than feudalism.
Besides, wasn't the whole feudal system based on taxation?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
labor extracted as tax. so leave all infrastructive to private manufacturing? check out ezra pound. its fine to be against heavy taxes... but you are forgetting about wage slavery.
catalineas 3 years ago
When did I advocate wage labor?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
in the absence of its mentioning
catalineas 3 years ago
good point dude
sillysp8 3 years ago
"When I look my paycheck..and I see a third of that gone..I am not thinking about oh those fuckings Christians and their god. No I am thinking about that fucking government stealing my money." LOL! Awesome.
overmind25 3 years ago
Did you ever ask yourself why the government is taking your money? It isn't for the sake of it. They are motivated by altruism, which CHristianity advocates.
RyanPig 3 years ago
Check out a recent video I did called Christianity Sucks.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
These are inter-related topics. Christians elected Bush. Religion fuels the wars in the Mid-East. Without Islamo-Christianity we wouldn't have either the conflicts in the Middle-East or an administration that lied us into a war over there.
The sooner we can create a more rational world, the sooner we can have rational approaches to our problems.
JohnLArmstrong 3 years ago
hail the fatherland 1488
luxfero 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PROLETARIANS OF ALL NATIONS, UNITE!
I figured that anyone smart enough to figure out religion is bullshit would be able to figure out that Communism is the best way to go. though we are not ready for that transition yet
hornylink 3 years ago
Communism is a form of collectivism, which is a religion in and of itself.
Society-worship.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
moron
hornylink 3 years ago
Well, im glad we pay for our healthcare and social care here in Norway, although its alot of money, it means that people with less money or ability isn't gonna be left out becouse of that.
The tax in USA though is another matter.
What you are paying tax it goes directly into the pockets of wealthy bankers, not to the people as it shuld.
The thing is that the Federal Reserve is owned by private interest and not by your goverment, and still they force you to pay, even though there's no law
Nabo00o 4 years ago
Saying that one is not as important as the other without discussing the details at all?
For shame...
In many ways, socialism is a great thing. I don't hear anyone bitching about libraries or the way water is distributed. That being said, I think I know what you're trying to say.
However, I think the two are linked issues, to be honest. We have to break free of non-thought before society as a whole can even address the negative aspects of socialism in any intelligent manner.
Jinmarui 4 years ago
"I don't hear anyone bitching about libraries or the way water is distributed."
Then allow me to be the first.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
After living in a Socialist country, and the USA I am completely against socialism. Social healthcare is a great idea as long as there is competition, and the quality remains. However there is not a single other aspect that i can even consider. Freedom both economically and socially is far more important. If you like socialism, move to a socialist country, we in America like to be free, and unless you are promoting freedom, or condeming what you consider wrong, quit wasting your breath.
bigsmallfish 4 years ago
I can not see why anyone would tout atheism or a religion. What difference does it make? If God had intended for us to argue about it, he would have told us so muahahahahahaahaaa
jeri4579 4 years ago
As an atheist, I agree with you.
brianreading 4 years ago
To understand democracy or liberalism(the way how i call it),people just need to watch the latest shows on television,read some magazines or other sex related stuff.Yes,Sex is what they call freedom!In the other hand,their minds are slaves.Democratic life in 21st century is easy,support a football team,search for girls to seduce,amuse your organ(your mind)..
Profanumx 4 years ago
I completly agree with you.That's why democracy exist,a way to steal money or labor.A very easy way to make the important ideas much more complicated.I mean democracy spreads many ideas,and it could be hard to choose the one is needed to be argued.Theese can be gay mariage,religion,football,fashion etc.But never freedom,wisdom,equality or justice.
Profanumx 4 years ago
lol since we are talking about looks please LOOK AT MY VID ABOUT CHILDREN AND MARKET ANARCHY
ADIOS
oliviathecanadian 4 years ago
why do all smart people look like nerds.......have you not read we the living.......the main character always tried to look good
oliviathecanadian 4 years ago
Christianity and Judaism have been declawed for the past 100 years or so. So I do agree with you, but Islam has been gaining support lately and I have my doubts on whether it can co-exist with democracy. I have my eye on Turkey, things are tense there.
croat88 4 years ago
Couldn't agree with you more man.
Taors 4 years ago
I agree with you, but I only turned market anarchist like 5 months ago (used to be a leftist), been an atheist all my life.
demonique666 4 years ago
Religion is pretty harmless, for the most part. Plus, it'll be diluted to less than 50% of the population within a couple of generations. But big government is on the rise. We work in serfdom from January to April. It's time for a change, well said.
JessmanChicken86 4 years ago
Lives lost to the HIV/AIDS virus is more important than some fuckin' money. I think people talk about socialism because it's an easier subject than talking about a cure for HIV/AIDS.
Nuclear winters encompassing the world affects more people than HIV/AIDS. I think people like talking about a cure for HIV/AIDS because it's an easier subject than the issue of how to deal with North Korea.
...etc.
MisterConstantine 4 years ago
I don't have AIDS and there's not a nuclear war going on :P
I'm not saying every person who talks about religion does so because it's easy, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS easy to show the lunacy of religion compared to, say, socialism. Plus, socialism directly impacts my life in a negative way every time I get a paycheck, something that religion doesn't do.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Taxes pay for police, the roads, streetlights, and schools. You get a cut in taxes and those programs are the first to go.
Taxes pay government salaries as well. However, as long as we have the system we do, the government officials will never cut their own salary, since they have no motivation.
There's always taking out politicians and making every bill petition and referendum style. That's TRUE democracy.
borat6363 4 years ago
"Taxes pay for police, the roads, streetlights, and schools. You get a cut in taxes and those programs are the first to go."
Why are those automatically the first to go? Why not the welfare state? Why not the ridiculous number of regulatory agencies we have?
True democracy (as in, direct democracy) is mob rule. To quote Ben Franklin (I think he said this), direct democracy is like having a vote between two wolves and a sheep over what's for dinner.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Uh, the Welfare state gives the politicians voters. They'll never cut it as long as the poor are around.
The regulatory agencies know their way around the legal systems, hell, they built the damned things. They can weasel out of pay cuts by re-classifying themselves or something.
borat6363 4 years ago
Direct democracy isn't so bad. I'd like to have a vote on whether or not we should legalize the death penalty, instead of what my representative thinks, thank you very much. A big flaw of representative democracy is that the representative will never be able to see exactly your point of view. That's what direct democracy is appealing to me.
borat6363 4 years ago
Direct democracy is mob rule. It is the majority stealing rights from minorities.
Jefferson & Franklin both described it in different ways resembling "Two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for supper".
It is anarchy.
rkzenrage 4 years ago
LOL! Mob rule is not anarchy. X0minverse is a free market anarchist now btw.
overmind25 3 years ago
Or some kind of third system we've never tried. How bout we make a fourth branch of government that deals with hot-button, cultural issues. We poll EVERYONE to see what their stances are and appoint politicians (or at least actors) to represent those attitudes. One politician for every view. Then, the one who gets the most votes is the lawmaker. Representation by ideals we could call it.
borat6363 4 years ago
How about a constitutional republic, where the government is limit fundamentally by a constistution, like we have?
The problem isn't the system, it's that it's not run properly. The constitution is violated CONSTANTLY; when the government is not violating it outright, it's doing things that are not powers granted to it by the constitution.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
100% right on.
Christianity is not a huge problem... our unwillingness to deal hoestly with Islam however....
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
I lived in Germany for 13 years, I paid lower taxes, no one lives on the street, and everyone has health care, Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion, and don't attempt to explain it to me I know all about it, I'm over 50 years old, and I can assure you most people are to stupid to live without a government controling them.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Then they can die, I want my freedom. Fuck losers who can't take care of themselves.
By the way, how do you think people got that way? We came from people that had more freedom and more peril in their lives than we can imagine.
Those with the reigns have worked to strangle the human soul. They've done a good job.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
I'm not even refering to people who can't take care of themselves, I'm refering to the hoards of virtually retarded people who'll have more freedom than they can handle, of course those who can't take care of themselves will be a problem as well when they form gangs to take what you have, if we could exterminate 60% of the population the other 40% might be able to form a successful Libertarian government.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
As I said it's not an issue I have any interest in discussing, we have a much better chance of seeing the end of religion than we do of seeing Libertarianism happen, and it will never happen when 80% of the country wants to enforce it's religious beliefs on the other 20%.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
The overwhelming majority has no incentive to give freedom to people when they are perfectly happy in their blissfull ignorance.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
The overwhelming majority are sheep and therefore give nothing to anyone (in the way of guidance and the direction of society). They more or less go along with the strongest dog, the winner of the battle. It is always a minority that decides the way of a people, whoever is the victorious majority within the tiny willful minority carries the day.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
More freedom than they can handle - meaning they'd do stupid shit and end up dead or broken in some way - meaning they can't take care of themselves. This is how I meant it, not in the narrow sense of just the people that can't get their shit together in a free-economic society.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
More freedom than they can handle - meaning they'd do stupid shit, and OTHERS end up dead, and broken, unless you have a police force three times larger than it is now, and that would be the antithesis of freedom, you or I might be intelligent enough or able enough to get our shit together, most people need or want a Daddy who they think is there to take care of them, even is he's a drunk who beats them.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Are you aware that you are an elitist?
rkzenrage 4 years ago
Did you just post a comment in my video disagreeing with it, then ask people to NOT debate it with you? And on top of that, you used your AGE to try to put yourself on a pedestal above everyone else? "Don't try to tell me why I'm wrong. I'm over 50, so I automatically understand the situation more correctly than you." How many people over 50 believe in God?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
No I'm over 50 so I have 50 years of first hand experience with human nature in the military in several foreign countries. I was a young idealist once, I probably even went through a Libertarian phase, in fact I recal my father labeleing me as one before I was old enough to really know what I was.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
My tongue in cheek definition of a Libertarian is a Social Liberal who still has faith in humanity.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Where did I say not to debate it? I think I said "don't attempt to explain it to me", but I just woke up, and I can't focus, so I might have.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
"Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion, and don't attempt to explain it to me I know all about it, I'm over 50 years old"
Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but it certainly reads like you're not interested in debating/defending your point.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I mentioned my age to emphasize the futility of trying to debate the issue with me, I've known there is no god for nearly 40 years, I'm been convinced that a Libertarian government will never work, for nearly as long, and absolutely convinced that it will never work in America as long as people's minds are controlled by religion, if you want to beat your head against a wall trying to convince me otherwise you're free to do so.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
To clarify, I've had this debate a thousand times over the course of 40 years, I've read nearly everything I could on the subject, and that combined with my personal life experience had solidified my opinion to the point that it is as unchangable as my lack of a belief in god, I'm sorry if you find the rigidness of my opinion on the subject a problem. Peace
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
"Libertarianism not socialism is more dangerous than religion in my opinion", what I mean is many atheists who are libertarians are wasting their time on Libertarianism, in my opinion it's putting the cart before the horse, the Christian majority of America will never allow people that much freedom.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
People need to be able to think for themselves on issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, legalizing drugs, and others, before Libertarianism is even worth discussing as anything more than an intellectual pursuit.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Good. Freedom should be dangerous. Life is not fair or safe, it should not be.
Live free or die.
rkzenrage 4 years ago
if that is true than the state doesn't solve the problem.
overmind25 3 years ago