It that battleground poll only allowed people to choose betwen liberal and conservative. There were no other ideologies included. Libertarians are neither conservative or liberal.
If we simply allowed competition, purchase of tailored policies instead of one size fits all group plans, and allowed people to deduct their premiums off taxes with a credit of up to $5000 annually, EVERY American would be able to afford insurance coverage. For those who want mental counseling etc, they could buy additional riders separately. And to let all know, 15 million or so of the quoted figures are not legal citizens. Another 15-20 million go without by decision.
I work with medical firms. Reimbursement is reduced that it is barely possible for doctors to remain in business. The insurance companies have state monopolies which don't allow competition. Their policies are loaded with items we all pay for and never use. This raises the premiums. 40% of every policy is for items like fertilization clinics and mental health counseling. These should not be borne by all. If we could buy JUST catastrophic coverage we would pay 10% of what we pay now.
Actually, I am talking about free speech zones that they create whenever big political events come to your town (like George Bush campaigning in 2004?), so that protestors won't actually be able to show their protest to those that they are protesting. You are thinking of a completely different thing.
But they aren't crashing the private events. What they're doing is saying that you only have the right to say certain things in certain parts of the city, town, etc.
If a political figure is driving down a public road, I feel I have a right (Actually, I do have a right according to the constitution) to hope up a sign that says stop the war or whatever. The entire country is supposed to be a free speech zone.
Saying that nobody on the right wants to choose sides about being able to assemble and organize is RIDICULOUS. Free speech zones were invented by the right... I mean, that alone kills your argument (you need to avoid making bold statements like that).
MarxBakuninMe, did you really just pull the Africa question? Advocate1234 has been right on several points. The only one that he needed to cite was his claim that McGovern was against something similar to the Employee Free Choice act. The rest were his opinions!!
James Donald says on his site that the CNT killed more people than Pinochet, which is exactly what you said, was it not? And it is difficult to make an argument when you provide no content for the claims you make about the CNT.
OK: Bollten himself estimates that in the region of Aragon, 70% of the population were in collectives; so 30%, a minority, felt safe enough not to join. So, your talk of "enslavement" is nonsense, at least for the Aragon region.
As for the "20, 000" number: most people were killed in fighting, or in the general confusion it caused. And it is worth noting that every faction, left and right, committed atrocities; but to say the CNT killed 20, 000 is complete bullshit.
The argument is that the collective members could presumably have been mobalised by their "masters" i.e. CNT members who had "enslaved" them. People escaped the gas chambers by hiding; there were 150, 000 non-collective members in Aragon. 300, 000 were in the collectives.
LOL, so I take it you have no real rebuttal. And the property they "stole" belonged to an oppressive landowning class. But I won't argue with you any longer; you are clearly an intellectual lightweight. Perhaps it explains your hostility towards college professors.
Yeah, stealing other's property by definition is enslaving them.
You who doesn't believe in private property, ignore the oppression that results from it every time it is tried.
And your backtracking is laughable. Your greatest concern was that I didn't give you a cite. Then I give you a cite...and you change the tune to "stealing property" isn't really stealing.
Just wake up to the fact that socialism never worked.
They "owned" their property in so far as they could back up their "ownership" with force; enter General Franco. When it was taken from them by the people who actually worked the land, so what? Besides, the idea was to set up a society based on voluntarism in which everyone had a say in how their jobs etc. were done i.e. a freer society. And before the fascists and communists destroyed it, the experiment worked not too badly.
Just stop your nonsense. If I have private property, there is a difference between self-defense and force. Force must be exerted. There is no force defending your own property.
You cannot have voluntary socialism. It never existed. Not even in your Statist Spanish anarchism.
Wow . . . so how do you think private property came into existence in the first place? The exertion of force. So I see no problem with the taking of industry etc. into common ownership.
But continue with your fetid moralising if you wish.
If I build a home, there was no force involved. If I pay someone to paint that house, there is no force involved. If you come to my home and claim it is yours, only you are using force.
I agree, however it is not that kind of property that concerns me. It is private ownership of the means of life. People are employed and thus must take orders from a boss. Of course, you can quit, but you can also move to Somalia, a real "libertarian" paradise, if you dislike Obama's tax plan. Private ownership of the means of production leads to coercion, and as a libertarian, I find this unacceptable, along with government. And the Spanish anarchists understood this well.
Thanks for pointing at the EFCA again. It really surprised me it wasn't used more in the election as it would either mean less Union support for BO if he gave up his support for it, or outing BO as 'more radical than McGovern' and basically being an authoritarian bully.
Something to think about: BO spends almost 4 times as much on the election as McCain, BO wins the Presidency. Wow maybe that capitalism thing works for any creed or color. How historic.
most poeple like unions but they don't unionized went they feel that there paid is fair for there work. Now days many companies try to treat there employees fairly because they know if they don't they go on strike. the health care system is complex issule.
Why do you connect getting stumped by your questions to why the Left has never won over the majority of the American people? No majority's judgement can be the standard for political & economic prudence. The Left or the Majority may wish to enact something, but mere human will & governmental force can't trump economic reality and law, and won't prevent them from suffering the "unintended consequences" that come from ignorantly or willfully fighting against them.
Very very good video, I am glad objectivity and honesty is back, 5 stars. Buddha's response was completely ridiculous, and lacking in insight and reasonableness. A shame, really. Keep it up!
Would you please cover obamas new site and his forthcoming slavery of requiring 50 cs hrs for high schoolers and 100 hrs community service hrs for college students and "other requirements" for other age groups-this is a direct violation of compulsory labor constitution laws. They voted this marxist in-
the coming thugocracy-employee freechoice act and the publishing of quick contact info online- He will put our reps under seige by his fans when they vote no or filibuster on leftist bills.Thanks
amazing. glad there is a rational voice still on youtube. Buddhagen is unfortunately a typical representation of the Left....ignorant and full of emotional rhetoric.
world population: 6.8 billion
area of texas: 268,820 sq mi
density = 25,296 ppl / sq mi
avg pop density in europe: 134 ppl / sq mi
[source]
sfh1682 1 year ago
yea mr buddy4gems is just an asshole, easyy
sdr262 2 years ago
It that battleground poll only allowed people to choose betwen liberal and conservative. There were no other ideologies included. Libertarians are neither conservative or liberal.
BWF89 3 years ago
Libertarians are just Republicans who use drugs.
Joszuaprocess 3 years ago
If we simply allowed competition, purchase of tailored policies instead of one size fits all group plans, and allowed people to deduct their premiums off taxes with a credit of up to $5000 annually, EVERY American would be able to afford insurance coverage. For those who want mental counseling etc, they could buy additional riders separately. And to let all know, 15 million or so of the quoted figures are not legal citizens. Another 15-20 million go without by decision.
RichAnc 3 years ago
I work with medical firms. Reimbursement is reduced that it is barely possible for doctors to remain in business. The insurance companies have state monopolies which don't allow competition. Their policies are loaded with items we all pay for and never use. This raises the premiums. 40% of every policy is for items like fertilization clinics and mental health counseling. These should not be borne by all. If we could buy JUST catastrophic coverage we would pay 10% of what we pay now.
RichAnc 3 years ago
That was like 3 questions.
conorhennessey 3 years ago
Actually, I am talking about free speech zones that they create whenever big political events come to your town (like George Bush campaigning in 2004?), so that protestors won't actually be able to show their protest to those that they are protesting. You are thinking of a completely different thing.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
Well, political parties are private events. You don't have a right to crash a private party.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
But they aren't crashing the private events. What they're doing is saying that you only have the right to say certain things in certain parts of the city, town, etc.
If a political figure is driving down a public road, I feel I have a right (Actually, I do have a right according to the constitution) to hope up a sign that says stop the war or whatever. The entire country is supposed to be a free speech zone.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
Right, but you don't have a right to block his car, or disrupt events that people want to hear.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Saying that nobody on the right wants to choose sides about being able to assemble and organize is RIDICULOUS. Free speech zones were invented by the right... I mean, that alone kills your argument (you need to avoid making bold statements like that).
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
omg! Comment war?!
MarxBakuninMe, did you really just pull the Africa question? Advocate1234 has been right on several points. The only one that he needed to cite was his claim that McGovern was against something similar to the Employee Free Choice act. The rest were his opinions!!
Excellent video Advocate!!! 5/5
b0bzm00s3 3 years ago
Nice to see that you still haven't learned to cite all your sources, by the way.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Cite what? You need to be a little bit more specific.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
I don't know whether to take this seriously. You did say that the CNT were the most oppresive regime in history.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Well, I think when a group enslaves the peasants, and summarily executes dissent, that's worth putting in the record books.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
As the most oppressive regime in history? I take it people don't watch your videos to learn from your knowledge of history.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Well, let's see...since they killed more people than Pinochet, and enslaved the Peasants...I would say they fall into one of them. Yes.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Unsubstantiated nonsense. But tell me, as a McCain voter, and as a "intellectual", do you think Africa is a country or a continent? LMAO
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Well, that just didn't happen.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Would your sources be the work of James Donald, by the way? There are articles on blackended (dot) net that completely rip his work apart.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
who the heck is james donald? How about you just make an argument.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
James Donald says on his site that the CNT killed more people than Pinochet, which is exactly what you said, was it not? And it is difficult to make an argument when you provide no content for the claims you make about the CNT.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Well, it just did by shear numbers. CNT killed close to 20,000 people.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Source?
And when you say "20,000 people" does that include the people they were fighting against? You know, the fascists?
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Pinochet were fighting against "the communists" does that not count now?
Advocate1234 3 years ago
That doesn't answer my question.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Burnett Bolloten, The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991).
Advocate1234 3 years ago
OK: Bollten himself estimates that in the region of Aragon, 70% of the population were in collectives; so 30%, a minority, felt safe enough not to join. So, your talk of "enslavement" is nonsense, at least for the Aragon region.
As for the "20, 000" number: most people were killed in fighting, or in the general confusion it caused. And it is worth noting that every faction, left and right, committed atrocities; but to say the CNT killed 20, 000 is complete bullshit.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
What kind of argument is that?! That's like saying 30% of people escaped the gas chambers, so there were no gas chambers.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
The argument is that the collective members could presumably have been mobalised by their "masters" i.e. CNT members who had "enslaved" them. People escaped the gas chambers by hiding; there were 150, 000 non-collective members in Aragon. 300, 000 were in the collectives.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
When you abolish $, steal property, summarily execute people and abolish paying people wages is all involuntary.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
LOL, so I take it you have no real rebuttal. And the property they "stole" belonged to an oppressive landowning class. But I won't argue with you any longer; you are clearly an intellectual lightweight. Perhaps it explains your hostility towards college professors.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Yeah, stealing other's property by definition is enslaving them.
You who doesn't believe in private property, ignore the oppression that results from it every time it is tried.
And your backtracking is laughable. Your greatest concern was that I didn't give you a cite. Then I give you a cite...and you change the tune to "stealing property" isn't really stealing.
Just wake up to the fact that socialism never worked.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
They "owned" their property in so far as they could back up their "ownership" with force; enter General Franco. When it was taken from them by the people who actually worked the land, so what? Besides, the idea was to set up a society based on voluntarism in which everyone had a say in how their jobs etc. were done i.e. a freer society. And before the fascists and communists destroyed it, the experiment worked not too badly.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Just stop your nonsense. If I have private property, there is a difference between self-defense and force. Force must be exerted. There is no force defending your own property.
You cannot have voluntary socialism. It never existed. Not even in your Statist Spanish anarchism.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Wow . . . so how do you think private property came into existence in the first place? The exertion of force. So I see no problem with the taking of industry etc. into common ownership.
But continue with your fetid moralising if you wish.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
If I build a home, there was no force involved. If I pay someone to paint that house, there is no force involved. If you come to my home and claim it is yours, only you are using force.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
I agree, however it is not that kind of property that concerns me. It is private ownership of the means of life. People are employed and thus must take orders from a boss. Of course, you can quit, but you can also move to Somalia, a real "libertarian" paradise, if you dislike Obama's tax plan. Private ownership of the means of production leads to coercion, and as a libertarian, I find this unacceptable, along with government. And the Spanish anarchists understood this well.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
What?! Somalia is a Statist regime.
Look, there is only one type of private property. It doesn't matter whether it is the means of life or a computer.
The fact of the matter is that you support slavery. I don't.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
No, there is exploitive property and personal property. Two different things.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Why because you declare my property exploitative you then have the right to steal it from me with force.
Look, this is why I find anarchist so disingenuous. You are no different from the Marxists.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
What if your dad gave you the money to buy the house and he got the money from a corrupt price fixing business deal?
TofiCrisp 2 years ago
Thanks for pointing at the EFCA again. It really surprised me it wasn't used more in the election as it would either mean less Union support for BO if he gave up his support for it, or outing BO as 'more radical than McGovern' and basically being an authoritarian bully.
Something to think about: BO spends almost 4 times as much on the election as McCain, BO wins the Presidency. Wow maybe that capitalism thing works for any creed or color. How historic.
Obama Bought The Presidency
PeterHaroldErikson 3 years ago
most poeple like unions but they don't unionized went they feel that there paid is fair for there work. Now days many companies try to treat there employees fairly because they know if they don't they go on strike. the health care system is complex issule.
spark300c 3 years ago
Why do you connect getting stumped by your questions to why the Left has never won over the majority of the American people? No majority's judgement can be the standard for political & economic prudence. The Left or the Majority may wish to enact something, but mere human will & governmental force can't trump economic reality and law, and won't prevent them from suffering the "unintended consequences" that come from ignorantly or willfully fighting against them.
bobtassoni 3 years ago
I have no real problem with unions in the private sector. They reap what ever they sow. Public employee unions can get stuffed though.
EasyEs 3 years ago
Buddhagem got owned.
NotThat3 3 years ago
Very very good video, I am glad objectivity and honesty is back, 5 stars. Buddha's response was completely ridiculous, and lacking in insight and reasonableness. A shame, really. Keep it up!
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Would you please cover obamas new site and his forthcoming slavery of requiring 50 cs hrs for high schoolers and 100 hrs community service hrs for college students and "other requirements" for other age groups-this is a direct violation of compulsory labor constitution laws. They voted this marxist in-
the coming thugocracy-employee freechoice act and the publishing of quick contact info online- He will put our reps under seige by his fans when they vote no or filibuster on leftist bills.Thanks
canditaylor68 3 years ago
Majority? Not anymore...
dingusmungus 3 years ago
Buddhagem got owned.
Hogbeast6 3 years ago
amazing. glad there is a rational voice still on youtube. Buddhagen is unfortunately a typical representation of the Left....ignorant and full of emotional rhetoric.
davidngo4415 3 years ago 4
Buddhagen is full of FAIL!
5/5
MadBadVoodo 3 years ago 2
Agreed. He also for some reason considers unionization (which comes under freedom to associate) and ending the war... leftist? I wonder how.
Moragauth 3 years ago