@OzzyBMG sorry but about that last one it has been human nature to do both things, gravitate toward government because they dont like the mobs and gravitate to anarchy and mobs because they dont like thel government. Humans by nature feel they should do what makes them happy, and thats different for everone. so yes anarchy and mob rule are natural human behaviors, sorry :P
Keep in mind that history of civilization is not on your side. Examine the longest-lasting empires (hint: not europe) and find out what type of government brought them the most success: centralized or decentralized (feudal)?
@OzzyBMG The feudal construct failed because citizenry were not able to move about. There were significant exit barriers that prevented things from working as they should.
what exactly happens when one state decides to kill all black people? or indeed when one person decides to do so?
this entire video only works because it's about something stupid and trivial. of course people can crack their eggs however they want, we knew that already.
We shared this on our Facebook page, Liberty 3VOLution!!! Please check us out and subscribe to our youtube channel! We've got a lot more content planned!
If 'egg-cracking' in one manner produces an undesired biproduct that is carried by the wind or water, then should not oppposing Lilliputians, who are consequentally effected by this biproduct, have a say in the 'egg cracking' strategy of other Lilliputians in other areas? Uh...simple arguments work for simple minds, you Lilliputians.
@OzzyBMG You have extended the argument to the point of absurdity. The video did not address inter-state issues. Lilliput does have a national government, and could be used to regulate inter-state issues such as your toxic egg-cracking method.
@OzzyBMG if egg-cracking in one manner (Proposal X) produces an undesired byproduct, and all liliputians are in agreement that poisoning other liliputians is bad, then the Proposal X will simply be rejected. I don't think you will find a tiny majority of people who will legislate rape, poisoning, murder or assault anywhere in the world, and certainly not in Liliput.
@RuddODragonFear - You assume all liliputians are in agreement that poisoning is bad? Really? You don't think that lobbying and bribes from lilputian industries can successfully convince a majority to accept that they're not at fault, or at least theirs is a necessary evil? Booooo...lame response. Try harder.
@OzzyBMG if you believe that there will be a group of thoroughly perverse and powerful people who intentionally want to poison people, well then, you should be AGAINST creating a group of people with OVERWHELMING POWER (a GOVERNMENT), because then these perverse people could take over it, and do much, much worse than poisoning. Such as, oh, for example, murdering a quarter of a million civilians in the space of a century.
Obviously you didn't foresee the endgame of my previous comment...
@RuddODragonFear - What weird assumptions you jump to. This has nothing to do with some sociopathic desire to kill, but everything to do with the lack of desire to take responsibility for indirect polution if it is going to make their business unprofitable. If you can't find the parallels in reality, then you are truly a lost liliputian.
@OzzyBMG if you believe that there will be a group of thoroughly perverse and powerful people who intentionally want to poison people, well then, you should be AGAINST creating a group of people with OVERWHELMING POWER (a GOVERNMENT), because then these perverse people could take over it, and do much, much worse than poisoning. Such as, oh, for example, murdering a quarter of a million civilians in the space of a century.
Obviously you didn't foresee the endgame of my previous comment...
Right...anarchy and mob rule are natural human behaviors. Oh wait! Humans have naturally gravitated towards centralized goverment throughout all observable history? Weird! We should definitely try to come up with a competing philosophy that goes against human nature and then force this square peg into the round hole of our collective asses!
The thing you have to keep in mind is that privately owned resources are NOT routinely abused in the free market because they are very valuable when kept in a healthy state. This is why farmers and loggers re-plant and maintain soil quality. Also, even non-renewable resources like metals are managed wisely on the free market when private owned since the scarcer they become the more expensive they become and consumers will tend to conserve, recycle, and replace them.
@chinito0604 Actually it IS more efficient to keep the government out of social programs and regulation because of the overhead involved. Government overhead is the amount of money lost within the bureaucracy of the state. In the article "The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity," Dr James Edwards references an estimate that two thirds of every dollar is lost to overhead in the state. This is because the government does not compete and has no incentive to be efficient.
@YALibertyatUVA Well first of all thanks for responding. Now i do agree the government should stay out of social programs( except for education). But on the regulation part i don't agree. Imagine this in europe we have fish quota, (this mean a fishboat can catch an X amount) Well why do we have this fishing quota?
That's an excellent point about the fishing regulation, the tendency for publicly owned resources to be abused is called the "tragedy of the commons" and is nearly inevitable, even with government regulation. This is because politicians, who must always do what gets them the most votes in order to stay in office, have incentives to allow over-use of public property. The TRUE solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization of the resource in question. I might just make a video on that.
@YALibertyatUVA Because if you follow the principles of the market it would be logic that fisher would try to maximize the use of his boat. The consequence of this was that some fish population were on the brink of extinction.
In this case the regulation are good in my opinion. Everbody wins in the long run
@chinito0604 "In this case the regulation are good in my opinion."
Rather than trying to regulate the use of a commons (it's not working so far--see declining fish stocks, water pollution etc), how about we remove the restrictions to establishing ownership of bodies of water? Property rights and norms, discovered by emergent law, would do the job regulation currently fails to do.
@YALibertyatUVA said [[Dr James Edwards references an estimate that two thirds of every dollar is lost to overhead in the state. This is because the government does not compete & has no incentive to be efficient.]]
If memory serves, only 17 cents of every dollar allocated for welfare actually gets to the welfare recipient and 83%, 5 out of every 6 dollars, is bloated bureaucratic overhead. So the "redistribution" plan really moves wealth from the producers to the control of wealthy bureaucrats.
@franksmellman Well there's an idiot if I've ever seen one.
obviously if every individual lilliputian can decide which method they prefer 100% will be happy. Hence don't let government tell individuals how to do things.
Penn Jillette's rule: Ask, "Is this something that can be solved with more liberty".
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
@OzzyBMG sorry but about that last one it has been human nature to do both things, gravitate toward government because they dont like the mobs and gravitate to anarchy and mobs because they dont like thel government. Humans by nature feel they should do what makes them happy, and thats different for everone. so yes anarchy and mob rule are natural human behaviors, sorry :P
HellKitsune69 4 months ago
Keep in mind that history of civilization is not on your side. Examine the longest-lasting empires (hint: not europe) and find out what type of government brought them the most success: centralized or decentralized (feudal)?
OzzyBMG 5 months ago
@OzzyBMG The feudal construct failed because citizenry were not able to move about. There were significant exit barriers that prevented things from working as they should.
Malinaccier 3 months ago
this shows too why local government is better than centralised!
triathl33t 7 months ago
bitches don't know about my ineffable rights
what exactly happens when one state decides to kill all black people? or indeed when one person decides to do so?
this entire video only works because it's about something stupid and trivial. of course people can crack their eggs however they want, we knew that already.
gorgolyt 7 months ago
Fascists don't want people to decide for themselves.
They will inform you if you will pay for other people's abortions, or other people's retirement, or other people's health care.
InternetDisciple 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
levere1856 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We shared this on our Facebook page, Liberty 3VOLution!!! Please check us out and subscribe to our youtube channel! We've got a lot more content planned!
LibertyEvolution 8 months ago
If 'egg-cracking' in one manner produces an undesired biproduct that is carried by the wind or water, then should not oppposing Lilliputians, who are consequentally effected by this biproduct, have a say in the 'egg cracking' strategy of other Lilliputians in other areas? Uh...simple arguments work for simple minds, you Lilliputians.
OzzyBMG 10 months ago
@OzzyBMG You have extended the argument to the point of absurdity. The video did not address inter-state issues. Lilliput does have a national government, and could be used to regulate inter-state issues such as your toxic egg-cracking method.
mhoyer01 7 months ago
@OzzyBMG if egg-cracking in one manner (Proposal X) produces an undesired byproduct, and all liliputians are in agreement that poisoning other liliputians is bad, then the Proposal X will simply be rejected. I don't think you will find a tiny majority of people who will legislate rape, poisoning, murder or assault anywhere in the world, and certainly not in Liliput.
RuddODragonFear 5 months ago
@RuddODragonFear - You assume all liliputians are in agreement that poisoning is bad? Really? You don't think that lobbying and bribes from lilputian industries can successfully convince a majority to accept that they're not at fault, or at least theirs is a necessary evil? Booooo...lame response. Try harder.
OzzyBMG 5 months ago
@OzzyBMG if you believe that there will be a group of thoroughly perverse and powerful people who intentionally want to poison people, well then, you should be AGAINST creating a group of people with OVERWHELMING POWER (a GOVERNMENT), because then these perverse people could take over it, and do much, much worse than poisoning. Such as, oh, for example, murdering a quarter of a million civilians in the space of a century.
Obviously you didn't foresee the endgame of my previous comment...
RuddODragonFear 5 months ago
@RuddODragonFear - What weird assumptions you jump to. This has nothing to do with some sociopathic desire to kill, but everything to do with the lack of desire to take responsibility for indirect polution if it is going to make their business unprofitable. If you can't find the parallels in reality, then you are truly a lost liliputian.
OzzyBMG 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OzzyBMG if you believe that there will be a group of thoroughly perverse and powerful people who intentionally want to poison people, well then, you should be AGAINST creating a group of people with OVERWHELMING POWER (a GOVERNMENT), because then these perverse people could take over it, and do much, much worse than poisoning. Such as, oh, for example, murdering a quarter of a million civilians in the space of a century.
Obviously you didn't foresee the endgame of my previous comment...
RuddODragonFear 5 months ago
@OzzyBMG correction, I meant a quarter of a BILLION. Cuz that's how many people governments in the 20th century have killed.
You are advocating for actual sociopathic murderers to protect you from hypothetical "poisoners". Do you realize the insanity of your position?
I bet you don't...
RuddODragonFear 5 months ago
@RuddODragonFear - Oh brother...
Right...anarchy and mob rule are natural human behaviors. Oh wait! Humans have naturally gravitated towards centralized goverment throughout all observable history? Weird! We should definitely try to come up with a competing philosophy that goes against human nature and then force this square peg into the round hole of our collective asses!
OzzyBMG 5 months ago
Awesome! Would you mind if I mirror this video?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Sure, go for it.
YALibertyatUVA 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma also give credit to Stefan Molyneux who is speaking here
nurbSoldier 6 months ago in playlist Against the Cult of the Omnipotent State
The thing you have to keep in mind is that privately owned resources are NOT routinely abused in the free market because they are very valuable when kept in a healthy state. This is why farmers and loggers re-plant and maintain soil quality. Also, even non-renewable resources like metals are managed wisely on the free market when private owned since the scarcer they become the more expensive they become and consumers will tend to conserve, recycle, and replace them.
YALibertyatUVA 1 year ago 6
@YALibertyatUVA Well i do agree on the privatization in theory, but yet again a point of criticism.
Well the practical part. 1° who will give the "title to ownership" (don't know the correct word), 2° who will buy it?
3° And who will buy european fish now that the external cost has been added?
chinito0604 1 year ago
A point of criticism what about efficiency and practical aspect?
chinito0604 1 year ago
@chinito0604 Actually it IS more efficient to keep the government out of social programs and regulation because of the overhead involved. Government overhead is the amount of money lost within the bureaucracy of the state. In the article "The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity," Dr James Edwards references an estimate that two thirds of every dollar is lost to overhead in the state. This is because the government does not compete and has no incentive to be efficient.
YALibertyatUVA 1 year ago
@YALibertyatUVA Well first of all thanks for responding. Now i do agree the government should stay out of social programs( except for education). But on the regulation part i don't agree. Imagine this in europe we have fish quota, (this mean a fishboat can catch an X amount) Well why do we have this fishing quota?
chinito0604 1 year ago
That's an excellent point about the fishing regulation, the tendency for publicly owned resources to be abused is called the "tragedy of the commons" and is nearly inevitable, even with government regulation. This is because politicians, who must always do what gets them the most votes in order to stay in office, have incentives to allow over-use of public property. The TRUE solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization of the resource in question. I might just make a video on that.
YALibertyatUVA 1 year ago 4
@YALibertyatUVA can't wait for that video
chinito0604 1 year ago
@YALibertyatUVA Because if you follow the principles of the market it would be logic that fisher would try to maximize the use of his boat. The consequence of this was that some fish population were on the brink of extinction.
In this case the regulation are good in my opinion. Everbody wins in the long run
chinito0604 1 year ago
@chinito0604 "In this case the regulation are good in my opinion."
Rather than trying to regulate the use of a commons (it's not working so far--see declining fish stocks, water pollution etc), how about we remove the restrictions to establishing ownership of bodies of water? Property rights and norms, discovered by emergent law, would do the job regulation currently fails to do.
bitbutter 10 months ago
@YALibertyatUVA said [[Dr James Edwards references an estimate that two thirds of every dollar is lost to overhead in the state. This is because the government does not compete & has no incentive to be efficient.]]
If memory serves, only 17 cents of every dollar allocated for welfare actually gets to the welfare recipient and 83%, 5 out of every 6 dollars, is bloated bureaucratic overhead. So the "redistribution" plan really moves wealth from the producers to the control of wealthy bureaucrats.
LucisFerre1 3 weeks ago
Tremendous!
downsizedc 1 year ago
w00t
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
Clever, clever!
loszhor 1 year ago
Great! Great! Great! BRAVO!!!
sandersondavis 1 year ago 8
Well there's an incomplete analogy if I've ever seen one.
franksmellman 1 year ago
@franksmellman
What do you mean?
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@franksmellman Well there's an idiot if I've ever seen one.
obviously if every individual lilliputian can decide which method they prefer 100% will be happy. Hence don't let government tell individuals how to do things.
pauly230678 1 year ago
Comment removed
pauly230678 1 year ago
Great video!
Malinaccier 1 year ago 9