@seededfury Hey, no need for the hostilities. I did not call you anything derogatory did I?
LOL. I just got the entire convo. Sorry, I thought this was a global warming debate, but he actually thought CO2 was CO (didn't realize they made people like that lol).
@unameitltd Of course some people are abused under a capitalist system, but people are also abused under all systems where their is any power differential. If you can name a system that has no power differential then I will be impressed. As far as I am concerned, the free market and an individual rights philosophy provides the highest level of power dispersion, and by that token is the best system. Cheers.
I received an Associates Degree in Electronics to be an Electronics Technician in 2009. Its funny how my plan wasn't in Barrack Obama's centralized stimulus plans to create temporary construction jobs to rebuild infrastructure. Does my plan of being an Electronics Technician count Barrack Obama?
@daobagua I primarily love digital electronics in all of the inventions it has advanced. I loved how TTL chips advanced computer history then microcontrollers, assembly code, embedded c, then microprocessors. also how digital technology branched out into SPLDs, CPLDs and FPGAs and also how the electrical and electronics sort of merged with PLCs being computer networked, etc. Plus, I love National Instrument's LabVIEW and its applications. Digital electronics went far from TTL chips!
@MrConservative608 Wow, brings me back to university (labview was pretty sweet). I have had my time with all of what you listed except for SPLDs and CPLDs. But sadly (or not depending on the day) now I am in the power field.
Good luck with your future career. I hope it is a bright one.
this is insulting however im sure it makes sense to non-thinkers. china is more capitalistic than america and its not capitalistic. this is corporatism and there is no such thing as true competition or freedom to choose. there are too many examples to prove this but i will use two. first, companies have laws constructed in their favor and have redistributed wealth through law. Second, in capitalism, companies would not have the longevity they do which is due to laws prohibiting competition.
@autofill67 you make a compelling case for laissez-faire capitalism, that without government regulation. It is government regulations which allows corporations to use the force of government, through paid politicians, to defeat competition and give favoritism to their industry (tariffs, subsidies, etc.). What we need is a true separation of government and economics. What we have in the U.S. now is crony capitalism where politicians seek to pick winners rather than leaving it to customer demand.
Sweet video, but... WHY was Obama shown as an example of Socialism?! Keynesianism is fundamentally market-oriented, it just posits that government should help guide the process, thus making it an example of Centrism. "Socialism" would be more akin to Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-il and so fourth - people who advocate a fundamentally centrally planned system, with maybe a few market elements to it.
@Hayleyfire929 seems to me that Obama is a perfectly good example of someone who believes that government elites should guide economics rather than consumer demand. Whereas capitalism allows the individual to be the dealer of dollars, directing resources to their most efficient usage, Obama wants commissions, czars and bureaucrats to direct resources to their chosen favorites. I think it would be hard to argue that he has not earned status as an icon for a planned economy.
THis piece doesn't take effort to distance Capitalism form Corporatism, something many critics of Capitalism confuse. For example, the banksters on Wallstreet: the result of Corporatism and blatant corruption
No dice. This vid would make good sense, IF it weren't for international hedge funds that have destroyed the American economy & the middle class. If this is what is meant by the "free" market, I'll pass. Undo the international monetary-market system as it exists, get rid of the monopolistic banksters, the fractional reserve system, the control of the FED over our government & you will get the "freedom of choice" & the "free" market that you ardently desire. If not, prosperity is ended for us.
@BrotherWoody1 the free market, at its essence, is simply voluntary exchange. most of the things you complain about (and I agree with you) are interferences in the free market. Of course, liberty to make agreements (like buy hedge funds) does not insure people make good ones. But such liberty does provide an incentive to rationality, which would not otherwise exist. That life is not fair is a reality that transcends any economic system.
The term, "free market" only has relative meaning & always falls far short of any purist, absolute ideal derived from all utopian philosophers of economics. If we want to practice rational economics, we need to rid ourselves of the corruption of the international banking & corporate conglomerates which are funded by the respective national banks (the FED) & the encroaching totalitarian economic Empire. With the robots running the show, the middle class becomes useless & ready for destruction.
@BrotherWoody1 Actually, in a free market, the current stock markets wouldn't even exist since the speculative power of such enterprises depend upon a controlling mechanism as to the dispersion of information and knowledge. As it stands today, knowledge and information is concentrated in the fewest hands possible (so-called experts and bureaucrats). The Internet itself is a great example of breaking free of that concentration and allowing consumers to choose freely.
Indeed, the internet is a great example & that's why it must be kept outside the control of governments & monolithic corporations. Otherwise, it will cease to remain free in any significant sense. You're also correct about the fewest hands running the entire show from the MSM to Wall St. banks, the political parties, the FED, the POTUS who works for them using the forces of Western Civilization to achieve this elites' global gangsterization of the world's capital. Ron Paul will end this rape.
Some left-wing writer at some point must have called libertarianism neo-feudalism, because this is the charge I keep hearing from left-leaning people particularly on the internet. I don't know the rationale behind this "neo-feudal" charge. But it might serve leftists well to know that capitalism ended feudalism. It's ironic that everything they charge libertarians with, neo-feudalism, neo-nazism (because obviously fascism=free market), it was classical liberals who fought these things.
@bluefootedpig You can't destroy my land without permission because I own it. This is one of the few honest roles of government. Protect one man from another. Under the laws in most countries, you can destroy my land because land ownership is illegal, except by government, see most of Africa. This is one of the reasons Haiti has not recovered at all from the quake. No incentive. If I build a house, the government will give it to someone else. So why build? Capitalism = Property Rights
@Brantoc I think the deeper question is something like this: Is there such a thing as absolute private property rights? Can I truly do whatever I want with my land/property, even if it starts causing demonstrable harm to others? At what point can force be applied to me or my property to protect other people? If not, for what reasons? What criteria? If yes, by what standards? And what criteria? And what type of force?
@gustjorodedheo those are all amazingly good questions, but the sad thing is that you will find that there are two other factors. Time it took for event to finish, and the do the courts support you or the big multi billion dollar business they get taxes from?
On the first one, think of this. If I feed you poison over the course of 20 years, and you die from said poison, am i guilty? but if I poison you at once, killing you instantly, is that any different? Cigs killed many, just took longer.
@Brantoc You own the land? try to not pay property taxes for a few years and see if you "own" the land. You will quickly find out you own nothing, you rent it from the government. The USA owns all the land under their protection, and you as a citizen rent it from them. I agree capitalism is good, but my property rights are violated daily, with no recourse. My water is polluted, my air is polluted, and yet I did none of it. I am downwind from a refinery, but I can't sue them.
@bluefootedpig That is because the US is not a capitalist society. We are a crony capitalist society. Since the 17th amendment, Senators are purchased like any other commodity, and government wields power no differently than a bully on the playground.
As for the refinery, which one? I been to a big one outside Houston, and Galveston beach is downwind. the soil there is fine, and the air is great. I think you may be referring to the 1950s before we knew so much chemistry.
@Brantoc nah, the cancer ally, you can look it up. It is in the south. As for yours, i did a quick google search, and the top results are about how the air pollution in Gaveston is one of the worst air in the country.
"Children living in the Houston-Galveston area are breathing possibly the worst air in the United States." ~Citizens League for Environmental Action Now
"Houston Area Lung Cancer Rates Higher Than Average" ~Brent Coon & Associates
@bluefootedpig That's precisely not what capitalism say. It is capitalism that provides the property rights to your land. If anyone tries to violate the guaranteed rights the capitalist system gives you the right to stop it, get compensation for damage, and even prevent it (you don't have to let the trucks on your loan). that is ONLY possible with private property rights. That's why the soviet environment went to the crapper. CO2 is a natural trace gas, necessary for most life on earth.
@scepticsteve Okay, there are drugs in my well water. I did not put them there, and I do not use drugs on my plants. So why is there drugs in my water system? If my water is polluted, which it is, then where is my compensation for it? Who do I sue for that? What about the high level of cancer causing gas (as I live near a refinery). This has been shown to cause cancer, and yet the company pays me nothing. If i tried to sue, would i even get anything? cont...
@bluefootedpig You wouldn't because you have to proof that harm was done to you (it clearly isn't just because our methods of measurement are extremely good.). You have a life expectancy higher than any of your ancestors, where is the damage to you? although I'll say that there are cases where we should have better means of enforcement (i.e. smelly biofuel plants etc.). Capitalism is the priciple, the concrete adaption is a different story. Still, in the Soviet Union you wouldn't even ask that..
@scepticsteve life expectancy is lower this generation than previous, fyi. I am by no means saying any other form of government is better. I am merely saying, in the pursuit of money, it if often put ahead of the property that a small person owns. It is very easy to see a direct relationship between size of company and rights violations. Why do we not see mom and pop stores being sued for toxic waste? why only large companies? maybe because they can afford it?
@bluefootedpig FYI life expectancy is going up constantly for generations now, until proven otherwise (50 - 100 years in the future) there is no reason to expect otherwise. That's why social security WILL go bust. Even the Greek get older and older. You will likely die from old age or an illness that one hundred years ago nobody could even identify. There is no scientifically sound way you can claim that this generation suddenly dies earlier. Again, capitalism is a principle, not a cnoncrete sit
@scepticsteve well, the lower life expectancy isn't due to death at old age, it is heart problems. Clogged arteries from eating meat and dairy. 1 in 2 men will suffer an injury due to this very reason. Something like 1 in 3 women. Back 50 years, it was much lower chances of heart attacks. The diet has changed, kids are getting type 2 diabetes (normally reserved for 55+) at age 12. This is mainly true only in america. I should mention that, most other countries aren't as unhealthy.
@bluefootedpig That's definitely BS.We know that the hunter/gatherer cultures that ate mainly meat were in much better shape than we are. The civilisatory "epidemics" began with eating too much carbon-hydrates from agriculture. Cultures that eat much more meat than Americans (Australia, Norway) have less of a problem.The diabetes is a genetic problem, carbon-hydrate rich diet just shows up the symptoms much earlier. Still we have no real epidemic in the west.We still outlive our ancestors by far
@scepticsteve And if we look at cancer rates in areas that eat lots of meat and dairy, we can see a significant rise in cancer rates. Even in cultures with low cancer rates, like the Japanese, when given a western diet will develop cancer at the same rate.
More meat than Americans? Norway eats 61 kilos per person per year. America eats 126. Over twice the amount of meat per person. I would say nice try, but that wasn't even close. Australia is even lower.
@bluefootedpig No they won't. We die from cancer because we live much longer and die from nothing else. There is no epidemic. Remember, social security was introduced in the midst 20th century when few peopel lived long enough to cash it in! Today most make it easily over 60 or 70!!!! Life expectancy goes UP constantly!!!! Nice theory. If there was an epidemic, nobody would have problems with retirement by definition! you'r right, Denmark has the highest consumption, Norway has more fish...
@bluefootedpig The correlation is: The healthier you are, the more you die from cancer because you don't die from anything else. and the more meat you consume, the healthier your population (ceteris paribus). That's not an epidemic, that's progress. Sure some cancers go up if you change your diet, but by how many? Not very many per 100000. You see life expectancy go up in developing countries as meat consumption goes up. Animals are the best source for everything another animal needs.
@scepticsteve cont... the problem is in how fast. If something happens over a long period of time, there is nothing you can do about it. If it is all of a sudden, then you can. Take toxic waste. If you drain off toxic waste at a slow rate, no one will notice for 5 years or more. Then once they notice, you pay for only a few years, making the first few years free. But if you dumped 5 years worth on my lawn, I would have a case. If this seems odd, this is taken from a case against Boeing.
Marvelous video. If only we could get this sort of thing more often heard by the young, before they are completely indoctrinated to the point where they can no longer think.
@bluefootedpig unregulated capitalism does not equate to a lack of a justice system. Individuals always have the option of suing those who have caused them damage.
@fzqlcs Possibly what he's thinking is that unregulated capitalism is inexorably linked with unregulated government. That is, private courts, private police etc. is there truly justice if you potentially have to go to the court of Walmart to sue Walmart for destroying the viability of your land?
@gustjorodedheo I disagree with the "inexorably linked" bit. The court system falls within the proper role of a limited government. Capitalism does not equate with anarchy, but instead requires the rule of law to protect life, liberty and property.. Regulation beyond that provides the opportunity for politicians to favor one business over another. That means advantage for big companies and is why Walmart has far more power and control in a regulated market than in a laissez-faire arraignment.
@fzqlcs laissez-faire, while i agree with it, does require a fair and balanced court. I would even say it should side with the poor / little guy over the big business. But is difficult for a judge to not rule harshly against walmart when they donate a million for the guy to get elected or put into that position. For libertarian, which I want so very badly, requires a way to assess damages, and a very strong court system.
@bluefootedpig For me, the best court is one blind regarding whether the plaintiff or defendant are strong or weak, but instead concerned only with the proper application of the prevailing law. Justice should be like a baseball field, the foul lines don't change depending on who is at bat.
@fzqlcs that does seem nice, but often times the little guy does not have the money to buy the research or to look into things as much as a large company. If you went to court to prove ground water contamination, the big walmart company would pay millions in research and quick studies to prove what they do does no harm. Meanwhile, myself whom scrapped together enough money to sue, cannot afford to do such research. So I am at a disadvantage.
@bluefootedpig Yes, in that way you would be in a disadvantage. But if you had no compelling evidence of damage from the outset, what would motivate you to sue?
@fzqlcs maybe i have some. Maybe I have one report that shows contamination in my water, and then they pull up 15 studies that say otherwise, all produced by their labs (this is sadly more common than I would like). We know that justice is based on two opinions, and truth is rarely discovered. So in a trail settings, we can see how a good legal defense will protect you. Hell, look at OJ Simpson.
@bluefootedpig You are right in that it is easy to get a so-called "expert" to testify to almost anything. But that knife cuts both ways, making the case why your one isolated report should perhaps not carry that much weight. Guilt should be hard to prove, and as a result, travesties of justice can occur. But the alternative of punishing the wrong party is worse. Those who make allegations should have compelling evidence, not just a sneaking suspicion, before they decide to sue.
@fzqlcs Sure, I can see that, but there is still the matter the large companies can afford to hire expensive lawyers, which a little person cannot. Example: a lady bought a piece of land, turns out some endangered bird lived there. Mind you it is not endangered world wide, only in that one area. She was denied to build on it, and the value of the property dropped and she couldn't sell it. Meanwhile, walmart bought the property that backs her. Was able to donate 1 million and build.
@gustjorodedheo You make a good point. Corruption in unregulated government can be an issue. When a company can pay X millions to have them look away. But the direct thinking is that pollution is happening. I breath it, I drink it, I eat it. Yet I am not compensated one penny for the pollution that is caused. At one point, a factory had to pay citizens because soot would fall on their houses. Well if they had to pay for soot falling on a house, why not pay for damages to my water?
@fzqlcs True, but under current capitalism, that is not the case. I was more directing at how he was saying that environmentalists hate capitalism. I actually do not care that much about capitalism, but what I do care about is protecting my land. Even with the current court system, I do not have anyone I can sue for the pollution or damages to my land. I am for unregulated capitalism, with a very strong court system that favors the little man over the big company.
@bluefootedpig Yes, I would agree that politicians have perverted our capitalist system away from its purest function. People who revere the environment may or may not like capitalism, but the environmental movement is clearly an anti-private property one, which seeks to have government elites dictate property usage. Capitalism is our engine for prosperity, so we need to be careful about clogging it with regulations that are a detriment to our standard of living and provide a minimal gain.
@fzqlcs I agree, but I say that we need damages to be paid for. I don't care about regulation saying "you cannot do this or that", I hate that kind of crap. But what I do like is that, "you are damaging the environment, so you owe X in extra money to produce that product". This would allow you to still do thing, just there is an agreed upon price. If we knew for a fact that Nestle bottles were 99% of all plastic in the ocean, should they have to pay for their ill designed product?
@bluefootedpig In my view, the problem is with the party that deposited the bottles in the ocean. If Nestle did not do that, I would not be for punishing them. That would be like prosecuting Smith and Wesson when their product is used in a murder, no?
@fzqlcs you raise a good question... should they be held responsible for distrusting arms. Should it be illegal to sell nuclear technology to terrorists? It is them who will use it. But you raise a good point, but how do you punish those who litter, the only way I can see is via a tax on bottled water to help offset the ecological damages. Plastic in generally should have an environmental tax on it, imo. But we cannot deny that bottles end up in the ocean, and no one pays.
@s0beit You should look into it more. Property by definitino is the land below and the air above. Is my air polluted? by co2 that I did not produce? Is my ground water from my well polluted by drugs, drugs that I don't use, nor have ever bought. So my ground is being contaminated, by someone else, and I have to pay for it. How is that justice? Same with co2, I am forced to breath the pollution of others, even when I do not pollute.
@bluefootedpig So you want to assign property rights to the air? Who dictates what goes into the air and what doesn't? You? The government? Who owns the air?
The air is non-exclusionary, and you're just being silly with CO2, I think you must be a troll if you're treating CO2 as some deadly chemical you breathe every day, or just a total idiot. As for groundwater, no, that is your property and if other are not able to pollute it unless the government allows them to do so.
@s0beit My apologizes, i mean CO. But that doesn't really matter as I am talking about pollution in general.
Who owns the air? i would say the commons. Everyone owns the air. Likewise, if damage is done to the air or air quality, then the person who did the damage should owe money to the commons.
As for ground water pollution, it happens, often. Boeing did it for years without getting into any trouble. After they got caught, they did it for years again! you can youtube it easy enough.
@bluefootedpig Who are "the commons"? The government does not represent me and I would not like any money to be paid to them on my behalf. So who, then, is the commons? Should they cut a check to everyone on the planet to the sum of a fraction of a penny?
Even so, air pollution is irrelevant. Your kind have been trying to justify some legislation without much luck and I do wish the best of luck to you, if only because you will have to live with the consequences as I do.
@bluefootedpig Simple: Would you move into a neighbourhood that allows anyone to spew out whatever they feel like? No, you would insist that such protection be included in your contract. If you don't, then obviously you're not really that concerned about the matter.
And don't ever forget, governments are the biggest polluters in the world by far, even if you don't count wars. To EVER argue that govco is a champion for the environment is a betrayal of ignorance.
@lordthawkeye I agree, i think government is total crap. But I think that the courts should be there to punish companies to an agreeable amount for damages that they do. Boeing for example, near portland, was found to be dumping toxic waste for YEARS. Their fine was so small, the company didn't even flinch. I am for strong property rights, and even in the case of clean air, I would expect to be paid, via gas tax, for polluting my air. I don't use a car, yet I get to breath pollution all day long
@bluefootedpig Never forget, who was it who gave themselves a monopoly on courts? So if companies do wrong and get away with it, who's fault is that?
The DRO model appeals to me personally. Works like insurance, you pay for protection and if someone wrongs you, the DRO compensates you then goes after the perp to pay them back. If the perp refuses, they get their credit rating shot. This way, the focus is on compensation and not on crude revenge.
@bluefootedpig Stands for Dispute Resolution Organization. It's one possible model for how we could have courts without a governments.
watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw This vid provides details and he has a free book you can check out if you wish to read it in even more detail.
The main point is, when courts have competitors, they actually have a vested interest in being fair and keeping good relations with the public. The government is a violent monopoly which lends itself to abuse and exploitation.
@lordthawkeye As i Capitalist, i wouldn't move into that neighborhood. You have no right to go into an established neighborhood and tell them what they can and can't do anymore than you have the right to move next to an airport and tell them they have to keep the noise. down.
@bluefootedpig The video hasn't finished processing and already you have a comment? I looked up to see if you were trolling and the 1st comment of yours I found was..."The other thing is that I personally represent green products, and it is amazing how 50 cent difference on a 20 dollar item will cause someone to not buy". So it looks like you have an ulterior motive? With property rights you have the legal right to sue your neighbor for damage to your property w/o the need for any regulation
@justintempler Well, the video was finished playing for me. So not sure on that. As far as sueing someone.. um... i can't. My ground water in my well has toxins that have prescription drugs in it. I didn't put it there, and no way did my garden put them there. So who do I sue? Or what about cancer ally? where people have sued the oil companies but lost, when we have study after study showing cancer rates being abnormally high near processing plant. My motive is only to protect my land.
@bluefootedpig It's nice to know you are so worried about all those toxins from pharmaceuticals in your ground water. Maybe you should go after the biggest source of pollution of all. The GOVERNMENT.
People flush those drugs into the wastewater and sewage system which your government kindly provides us all with for sanitation purposes, and then introduces those toxins into the water cycle that pollutes your ground water.
@justintempler yup, both are to blame. But the simple fact is no one is held responsible to pay for the damages. Instead, each person is expected to take it and say, "yes sir, thank you sir". I am against government regulation, but for government suing on behalf of the people against these big companies. I personally think government should be the peoples representatives to sue such companies for these violations. But right now, we can see these violations, and nothing being done.
@StudentOfObjectivism Capitalism, but with heavy regulations on derivatives such as futures contracts and on banking, without a fractional reserve system (should be illegal for all countries) where money is backed by gold (or another stable commodity that is not consumed, if any...land?) and a persons right to life, no matter how poor, is not dictated by money. So a healthcare for all citizens, but privatized/subsidized to keep prices competitive. Other than that, less big gov! more community!
@mattyelle1 I don't intend to get in an argument here, but if you think that subsidizing healthcare helps to keep prices competitive, you are grossly mistaken. All it does it to redistribute money from people who earned it in order to give it to a company that doesn't earn it so that it can continue 'competing' with a company that would have earned it.
@daobagua Um, no. No FEMA, CIA, small FBI, no monopolized NASA, no TSA, a tenth of the military, etc, etc, cuts are everywhere. Power is returned to individual states, the federal government is essentially abolished except it reinforces a common constitution and collective laws to protect liberty (freedom in the future). As for healthcare, it should be the states although imo they should all offer healthcare. A person's life is not worth more just because they have more money. Can you disagree?
@mattyelle1 I pretty much agree with everything on your list except for the healthcare. Some people are worth more then others to the world. Was Einstein or Hawkins worth more then my dad. Yes. It is sad, but it is true, some people are more valuable then others. That being said, I believe that charity and compassion should be shown to all people (we can't all be rock stars :)). I would agree with state chosen health care, but would hope for 1 state with pure capitalistic healthcare.
Do you believe the state should have the right to force you to go to war and fight in their name? No? Congratulations, you've just tasted freedom.
quantumG 1 day ago
capitalism means no forests, and devil take the hindmosts.
MrFattyfatfatboy 1 week ago
Capitalism is exploitation of man by man. Socialism is for the rich, which means they line their pockets with your money when they lose theirs.
badeldorado 1 month ago
Can you fix the audio?
tyshekka 2 months ago
Thank you so much for this. I am going to use it in my high school history class.
65679497 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th*
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+5500 pledges so far!!
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
Comment removed
seededfury 6 months ago
Michael Moore is a moralist? That sure is news to me. The Unabomber is a Ludditte though.
Aegius 6 months ago
@Aegius I think he meant to say "opportunist" during that slide.
HamsterFueledRocket 6 months ago
God you just can't argue with common sense.. Thank you Robert Murphy, you are brilliant writer and a brilliant man..
SuperGuitarman69 6 months ago
Comment removed
seededfury 6 months ago
@seededfury Hey, no need for the hostilities. I did not call you anything derogatory did I?
LOL. I just got the entire convo. Sorry, I thought this was a global warming debate, but he actually thought CO2 was CO (didn't realize they made people like that lol).
Well Cheers, my bad.
daobagua 6 months ago
Only morons cant conger some capitalism as preditory and wrong while most is benificial to all people.
unameitltd 6 months ago
@unameitltd morons can't conger. what the hell does that mean? tell us more about your people.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@unameitltd Of course some people are abused under a capitalist system, but people are also abused under all systems where their is any power differential. If you can name a system that has no power differential then I will be impressed. As far as I am concerned, the free market and an individual rights philosophy provides the highest level of power dispersion, and by that token is the best system. Cheers.
daobagua 6 months ago
I received an Associates Degree in Electronics to be an Electronics Technician in 2009. Its funny how my plan wasn't in Barrack Obama's centralized stimulus plans to create temporary construction jobs to rebuild infrastructure. Does my plan of being an Electronics Technician count Barrack Obama?
MrConservative608 6 months ago
@MrConservative608 Digital electronics or analog? PLC, DSP or FPGA's? I LOVE ELECTRONICS AHHHH.
daobagua 6 months ago
@daobagua I primarily love digital electronics in all of the inventions it has advanced. I loved how TTL chips advanced computer history then microcontrollers, assembly code, embedded c, then microprocessors. also how digital technology branched out into SPLDs, CPLDs and FPGAs and also how the electrical and electronics sort of merged with PLCs being computer networked, etc. Plus, I love National Instrument's LabVIEW and its applications. Digital electronics went far from TTL chips!
MrConservative608 6 months ago
@MrConservative608 Wow, brings me back to university (labview was pretty sweet). I have had my time with all of what you listed except for SPLDs and CPLDs. But sadly (or not depending on the day) now I am in the power field.
Good luck with your future career. I hope it is a bright one.
daobagua 6 months ago
this is insulting however im sure it makes sense to non-thinkers. china is more capitalistic than america and its not capitalistic. this is corporatism and there is no such thing as true competition or freedom to choose. there are too many examples to prove this but i will use two. first, companies have laws constructed in their favor and have redistributed wealth through law. Second, in capitalism, companies would not have the longevity they do which is due to laws prohibiting competition.
autofill67 6 months ago
@autofill67 you make a compelling case for laissez-faire capitalism, that without government regulation. It is government regulations which allows corporations to use the force of government, through paid politicians, to defeat competition and give favoritism to their industry (tariffs, subsidies, etc.). What we need is a true separation of government and economics. What we have in the U.S. now is crony capitalism where politicians seek to pick winners rather than leaving it to customer demand.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
was this a quote from Ayn Rand, or did prof. Murphy write this?
Dadutta 6 months ago
@Dadutta only from 5:11 was a quote from Rand.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
Sweet video, but... WHY was Obama shown as an example of Socialism?! Keynesianism is fundamentally market-oriented, it just posits that government should help guide the process, thus making it an example of Centrism. "Socialism" would be more akin to Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-il and so fourth - people who advocate a fundamentally centrally planned system, with maybe a few market elements to it.
Hayleyfire929 6 months ago
@Hayleyfire929 seems to me that Obama is a perfectly good example of someone who believes that government elites should guide economics rather than consumer demand. Whereas capitalism allows the individual to be the dealer of dollars, directing resources to their most efficient usage, Obama wants commissions, czars and bureaucrats to direct resources to their chosen favorites. I think it would be hard to argue that he has not earned status as an icon for a planned economy.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
In other words, don't draw attention to the imperfections of capitalism, all while ignoring how much worse the alternatives are.
jklolbrblmfao 6 months ago
THis piece doesn't take effort to distance Capitalism form Corporatism, something many critics of Capitalism confuse. For example, the banksters on Wallstreet: the result of Corporatism and blatant corruption
jccusell 6 months ago
No dice. This vid would make good sense, IF it weren't for international hedge funds that have destroyed the American economy & the middle class. If this is what is meant by the "free" market, I'll pass. Undo the international monetary-market system as it exists, get rid of the monopolistic banksters, the fractional reserve system, the control of the FED over our government & you will get the "freedom of choice" & the "free" market that you ardently desire. If not, prosperity is ended for us.
BrotherWoody1 6 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 the free market, at its essence, is simply voluntary exchange. most of the things you complain about (and I agree with you) are interferences in the free market. Of course, liberty to make agreements (like buy hedge funds) does not insure people make good ones. But such liberty does provide an incentive to rationality, which would not otherwise exist. That life is not fair is a reality that transcends any economic system.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
The term, "free market" only has relative meaning & always falls far short of any purist, absolute ideal derived from all utopian philosophers of economics. If we want to practice rational economics, we need to rid ourselves of the corruption of the international banking & corporate conglomerates which are funded by the respective national banks (the FED) & the encroaching totalitarian economic Empire. With the robots running the show, the middle class becomes useless & ready for destruction.
BrotherWoody1 6 months ago
@BrotherWoody1 Every problem you just listed was caused by government. Corporations and national banks aren't free market at all.
Hashishin13 6 months ago 7
@BrotherWoody1 Actually, in a free market, the current stock markets wouldn't even exist since the speculative power of such enterprises depend upon a controlling mechanism as to the dispersion of information and knowledge. As it stands today, knowledge and information is concentrated in the fewest hands possible (so-called experts and bureaucrats). The Internet itself is a great example of breaking free of that concentration and allowing consumers to choose freely.
ladyattis 6 months ago
Indeed, the internet is a great example & that's why it must be kept outside the control of governments & monolithic corporations. Otherwise, it will cease to remain free in any significant sense. You're also correct about the fewest hands running the entire show from the MSM to Wall St. banks, the political parties, the FED, the POTUS who works for them using the forces of Western Civilization to achieve this elites' global gangsterization of the world's capital. Ron Paul will end this rape.
BrotherWoody1 6 months ago
that's actually correct, that's why capitalism is a good system.
Barry62152 6 months ago
This is great!
bocanutz 6 months ago
Some left-wing writer at some point must have called libertarianism neo-feudalism, because this is the charge I keep hearing from left-leaning people particularly on the internet. I don't know the rationale behind this "neo-feudal" charge. But it might serve leftists well to know that capitalism ended feudalism. It's ironic that everything they charge libertarians with, neo-feudalism, neo-nazism (because obviously fascism=free market), it was classical liberals who fought these things.
BobGeorgeAU 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig You can't destroy my land without permission because I own it. This is one of the few honest roles of government. Protect one man from another. Under the laws in most countries, you can destroy my land because land ownership is illegal, except by government, see most of Africa. This is one of the reasons Haiti has not recovered at all from the quake. No incentive. If I build a house, the government will give it to someone else. So why build? Capitalism = Property Rights
Brantoc 6 months ago
@Brantoc I think the deeper question is something like this: Is there such a thing as absolute private property rights? Can I truly do whatever I want with my land/property, even if it starts causing demonstrable harm to others? At what point can force be applied to me or my property to protect other people? If not, for what reasons? What criteria? If yes, by what standards? And what criteria? And what type of force?
gustjorodedheo 6 months ago
@gustjorodedheo those are all amazingly good questions, but the sad thing is that you will find that there are two other factors. Time it took for event to finish, and the do the courts support you or the big multi billion dollar business they get taxes from?
On the first one, think of this. If I feed you poison over the course of 20 years, and you die from said poison, am i guilty? but if I poison you at once, killing you instantly, is that any different? Cigs killed many, just took longer.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@Brantoc You own the land? try to not pay property taxes for a few years and see if you "own" the land. You will quickly find out you own nothing, you rent it from the government. The USA owns all the land under their protection, and you as a citizen rent it from them. I agree capitalism is good, but my property rights are violated daily, with no recourse. My water is polluted, my air is polluted, and yet I did none of it. I am downwind from a refinery, but I can't sue them.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig That is because the US is not a capitalist society. We are a crony capitalist society. Since the 17th amendment, Senators are purchased like any other commodity, and government wields power no differently than a bully on the playground.
As for the refinery, which one? I been to a big one outside Houston, and Galveston beach is downwind. the soil there is fine, and the air is great. I think you may be referring to the 1950s before we knew so much chemistry.
Brantoc 6 months ago
@Brantoc nah, the cancer ally, you can look it up. It is in the south. As for yours, i did a quick google search, and the top results are about how the air pollution in Gaveston is one of the worst air in the country.
"Children living in the Houston-Galveston area are breathing possibly the worst air in the United States." ~Citizens League for Environmental Action Now
"Houston Area Lung Cancer Rates Higher Than Average" ~Brent Coon & Associates
Those are just a few I quickly found.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Great sources.. Ambulance chasers, and a group that called for the UN to reduce global population to 1 Billion a couple years ago.
Brantoc 6 months ago
Comment removed
Brantoc 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig That's precisely not what capitalism say. It is capitalism that provides the property rights to your land. If anyone tries to violate the guaranteed rights the capitalist system gives you the right to stop it, get compensation for damage, and even prevent it (you don't have to let the trucks on your loan). that is ONLY possible with private property rights. That's why the soviet environment went to the crapper. CO2 is a natural trace gas, necessary for most life on earth.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve Okay, there are drugs in my well water. I did not put them there, and I do not use drugs on my plants. So why is there drugs in my water system? If my water is polluted, which it is, then where is my compensation for it? Who do I sue for that? What about the high level of cancer causing gas (as I live near a refinery). This has been shown to cause cancer, and yet the company pays me nothing. If i tried to sue, would i even get anything? cont...
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig You wouldn't because you have to proof that harm was done to you (it clearly isn't just because our methods of measurement are extremely good.). You have a life expectancy higher than any of your ancestors, where is the damage to you? although I'll say that there are cases where we should have better means of enforcement (i.e. smelly biofuel plants etc.). Capitalism is the priciple, the concrete adaption is a different story. Still, in the Soviet Union you wouldn't even ask that..
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve life expectancy is lower this generation than previous, fyi. I am by no means saying any other form of government is better. I am merely saying, in the pursuit of money, it if often put ahead of the property that a small person owns. It is very easy to see a direct relationship between size of company and rights violations. Why do we not see mom and pop stores being sued for toxic waste? why only large companies? maybe because they can afford it?
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig FYI life expectancy is going up constantly for generations now, until proven otherwise (50 - 100 years in the future) there is no reason to expect otherwise. That's why social security WILL go bust. Even the Greek get older and older. You will likely die from old age or an illness that one hundred years ago nobody could even identify. There is no scientifically sound way you can claim that this generation suddenly dies earlier. Again, capitalism is a principle, not a cnoncrete sit
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve well, the lower life expectancy isn't due to death at old age, it is heart problems. Clogged arteries from eating meat and dairy. 1 in 2 men will suffer an injury due to this very reason. Something like 1 in 3 women. Back 50 years, it was much lower chances of heart attacks. The diet has changed, kids are getting type 2 diabetes (normally reserved for 55+) at age 12. This is mainly true only in america. I should mention that, most other countries aren't as unhealthy.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig That's definitely BS.We know that the hunter/gatherer cultures that ate mainly meat were in much better shape than we are. The civilisatory "epidemics" began with eating too much carbon-hydrates from agriculture. Cultures that eat much more meat than Americans (Australia, Norway) have less of a problem.The diabetes is a genetic problem, carbon-hydrate rich diet just shows up the symptoms much earlier. Still we have no real epidemic in the west.We still outlive our ancestors by far
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve And if we look at cancer rates in areas that eat lots of meat and dairy, we can see a significant rise in cancer rates. Even in cultures with low cancer rates, like the Japanese, when given a western diet will develop cancer at the same rate.
More meat than Americans? Norway eats 61 kilos per person per year. America eats 126. Over twice the amount of meat per person. I would say nice try, but that wasn't even close. Australia is even lower.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig The great thing about a free market is that you don't have to eat meat or dairy if you don't want to. Problem solved.
HamsterFueledRocket 6 months ago 2
@bluefootedpig No they won't. We die from cancer because we live much longer and die from nothing else. There is no epidemic. Remember, social security was introduced in the midst 20th century when few peopel lived long enough to cash it in! Today most make it easily over 60 or 70!!!! Life expectancy goes UP constantly!!!! Nice theory. If there was an epidemic, nobody would have problems with retirement by definition! you'r right, Denmark has the highest consumption, Norway has more fish...
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig The correlation is: The healthier you are, the more you die from cancer because you don't die from anything else. and the more meat you consume, the healthier your population (ceteris paribus). That's not an epidemic, that's progress. Sure some cancers go up if you change your diet, but by how many? Not very many per 100000. You see life expectancy go up in developing countries as meat consumption goes up. Animals are the best source for everything another animal needs.
scepticsteve 6 months ago
@scepticsteve cont... the problem is in how fast. If something happens over a long period of time, there is nothing you can do about it. If it is all of a sudden, then you can. Take toxic waste. If you drain off toxic waste at a slow rate, no one will notice for 5 years or more. Then once they notice, you pay for only a few years, making the first few years free. But if you dumped 5 years worth on my lawn, I would have a case. If this seems odd, this is taken from a case against Boeing.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
Marvelous video. If only we could get this sort of thing more often heard by the young, before they are completely indoctrinated to the point where they can no longer think.
Panpiper 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig unregulated capitalism does not equate to a lack of a justice system. Individuals always have the option of suing those who have caused them damage.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs Possibly what he's thinking is that unregulated capitalism is inexorably linked with unregulated government. That is, private courts, private police etc. is there truly justice if you potentially have to go to the court of Walmart to sue Walmart for destroying the viability of your land?
gustjorodedheo 6 months ago
@gustjorodedheo I disagree with the "inexorably linked" bit. The court system falls within the proper role of a limited government. Capitalism does not equate with anarchy, but instead requires the rule of law to protect life, liberty and property.. Regulation beyond that provides the opportunity for politicians to favor one business over another. That means advantage for big companies and is why Walmart has far more power and control in a regulated market than in a laissez-faire arraignment.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs laissez-faire, while i agree with it, does require a fair and balanced court. I would even say it should side with the poor / little guy over the big business. But is difficult for a judge to not rule harshly against walmart when they donate a million for the guy to get elected or put into that position. For libertarian, which I want so very badly, requires a way to assess damages, and a very strong court system.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig For me, the best court is one blind regarding whether the plaintiff or defendant are strong or weak, but instead concerned only with the proper application of the prevailing law. Justice should be like a baseball field, the foul lines don't change depending on who is at bat.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs that does seem nice, but often times the little guy does not have the money to buy the research or to look into things as much as a large company. If you went to court to prove ground water contamination, the big walmart company would pay millions in research and quick studies to prove what they do does no harm. Meanwhile, myself whom scrapped together enough money to sue, cannot afford to do such research. So I am at a disadvantage.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Yes, in that way you would be in a disadvantage. But if you had no compelling evidence of damage from the outset, what would motivate you to sue?
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs maybe i have some. Maybe I have one report that shows contamination in my water, and then they pull up 15 studies that say otherwise, all produced by their labs (this is sadly more common than I would like). We know that justice is based on two opinions, and truth is rarely discovered. So in a trail settings, we can see how a good legal defense will protect you. Hell, look at OJ Simpson.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig You are right in that it is easy to get a so-called "expert" to testify to almost anything. But that knife cuts both ways, making the case why your one isolated report should perhaps not carry that much weight. Guilt should be hard to prove, and as a result, travesties of justice can occur. But the alternative of punishing the wrong party is worse. Those who make allegations should have compelling evidence, not just a sneaking suspicion, before they decide to sue.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs Sure, I can see that, but there is still the matter the large companies can afford to hire expensive lawyers, which a little person cannot. Example: a lady bought a piece of land, turns out some endangered bird lived there. Mind you it is not endangered world wide, only in that one area. She was denied to build on it, and the value of the property dropped and she couldn't sell it. Meanwhile, walmart bought the property that backs her. Was able to donate 1 million and build.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@gustjorodedheo You make a good point. Corruption in unregulated government can be an issue. When a company can pay X millions to have them look away. But the direct thinking is that pollution is happening. I breath it, I drink it, I eat it. Yet I am not compensated one penny for the pollution that is caused. At one point, a factory had to pay citizens because soot would fall on their houses. Well if they had to pay for soot falling on a house, why not pay for damages to my water?
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@fzqlcs True, but under current capitalism, that is not the case. I was more directing at how he was saying that environmentalists hate capitalism. I actually do not care that much about capitalism, but what I do care about is protecting my land. Even with the current court system, I do not have anyone I can sue for the pollution or damages to my land. I am for unregulated capitalism, with a very strong court system that favors the little man over the big company.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Yes, I would agree that politicians have perverted our capitalist system away from its purest function. People who revere the environment may or may not like capitalism, but the environmental movement is clearly an anti-private property one, which seeks to have government elites dictate property usage. Capitalism is our engine for prosperity, so we need to be careful about clogging it with regulations that are a detriment to our standard of living and provide a minimal gain.
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs I agree, but I say that we need damages to be paid for. I don't care about regulation saying "you cannot do this or that", I hate that kind of crap. But what I do like is that, "you are damaging the environment, so you owe X in extra money to produce that product". This would allow you to still do thing, just there is an agreed upon price. If we knew for a fact that Nestle bottles were 99% of all plastic in the ocean, should they have to pay for their ill designed product?
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig In my view, the problem is with the party that deposited the bottles in the ocean. If Nestle did not do that, I would not be for punishing them. That would be like prosecuting Smith and Wesson when their product is used in a murder, no?
fzqlcs 6 months ago
@fzqlcs you raise a good question... should they be held responsible for distrusting arms. Should it be illegal to sell nuclear technology to terrorists? It is them who will use it. But you raise a good point, but how do you punish those who litter, the only way I can see is via a tax on bottled water to help offset the ecological damages. Plastic in generally should have an environmental tax on it, imo. But we cannot deny that bottles end up in the ocean, and no one pays.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig That is... completely ridiculous. Of course your property can not have toxic waste dumped on it.
Saying you can't do that isn't a regulation, it's property rights - i.e., the law.
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit You should look into it more. Property by definitino is the land below and the air above. Is my air polluted? by co2 that I did not produce? Is my ground water from my well polluted by drugs, drugs that I don't use, nor have ever bought. So my ground is being contaminated, by someone else, and I have to pay for it. How is that justice? Same with co2, I am forced to breath the pollution of others, even when I do not pollute.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig So you want to assign property rights to the air? Who dictates what goes into the air and what doesn't? You? The government? Who owns the air?
The air is non-exclusionary, and you're just being silly with CO2, I think you must be a troll if you're treating CO2 as some deadly chemical you breathe every day, or just a total idiot. As for groundwater, no, that is your property and if other are not able to pollute it unless the government allows them to do so.
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit My apologizes, i mean CO. But that doesn't really matter as I am talking about pollution in general.
Who owns the air? i would say the commons. Everyone owns the air. Likewise, if damage is done to the air or air quality, then the person who did the damage should owe money to the commons.
As for ground water pollution, it happens, often. Boeing did it for years without getting into any trouble. After they got caught, they did it for years again! you can youtube it easy enough.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Who are "the commons"? The government does not represent me and I would not like any money to be paid to them on my behalf. So who, then, is the commons? Should they cut a check to everyone on the planet to the sum of a fraction of a penny?
Even so, air pollution is irrelevant. Your kind have been trying to justify some legislation without much luck and I do wish the best of luck to you, if only because you will have to live with the consequences as I do.
s0beit 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Simple: Would you move into a neighbourhood that allows anyone to spew out whatever they feel like? No, you would insist that such protection be included in your contract. If you don't, then obviously you're not really that concerned about the matter.
And don't ever forget, governments are the biggest polluters in the world by far, even if you don't count wars. To EVER argue that govco is a champion for the environment is a betrayal of ignorance.
lordthawkeye 6 months ago 20
@lordthawkeye I agree, i think government is total crap. But I think that the courts should be there to punish companies to an agreeable amount for damages that they do. Boeing for example, near portland, was found to be dumping toxic waste for YEARS. Their fine was so small, the company didn't even flinch. I am for strong property rights, and even in the case of clean air, I would expect to be paid, via gas tax, for polluting my air. I don't use a car, yet I get to breath pollution all day long
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Never forget, who was it who gave themselves a monopoly on courts? So if companies do wrong and get away with it, who's fault is that?
The DRO model appeals to me personally. Works like insurance, you pay for protection and if someone wrongs you, the DRO compensates you then goes after the perp to pay them back. If the perp refuses, they get their credit rating shot. This way, the focus is on compensation and not on crude revenge.
lordthawkeye 6 months ago
@lordthawkeye not sure what you mean by DRO model, never heard of it... link?
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig Stands for Dispute Resolution Organization. It's one possible model for how we could have courts without a governments.
watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw This vid provides details and he has a free book you can check out if you wish to read it in even more detail.
The main point is, when courts have competitors, they actually have a vested interest in being fair and keeping good relations with the public. The government is a violent monopoly which lends itself to abuse and exploitation.
lordthawkeye 6 months ago
@lordthawkeye As i Capitalist, i wouldn't move into that neighborhood. You have no right to go into an established neighborhood and tell them what they can and can't do anymore than you have the right to move next to an airport and tell them they have to keep the noise. down.
SuperNache 5 months ago
@bluefootedpig The video hasn't finished processing and already you have a comment? I looked up to see if you were trolling and the 1st comment of yours I found was..."The other thing is that I personally represent green products, and it is amazing how 50 cent difference on a 20 dollar item will cause someone to not buy". So it looks like you have an ulterior motive? With property rights you have the legal right to sue your neighbor for damage to your property w/o the need for any regulation
justintempler 6 months ago
@justintempler Well, the video was finished playing for me. So not sure on that. As far as sueing someone.. um... i can't. My ground water in my well has toxins that have prescription drugs in it. I didn't put it there, and no way did my garden put them there. So who do I sue? Or what about cancer ally? where people have sued the oil companies but lost, when we have study after study showing cancer rates being abnormally high near processing plant. My motive is only to protect my land.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig It's nice to know you are so worried about all those toxins from pharmaceuticals in your ground water. Maybe you should go after the biggest source of pollution of all. The GOVERNMENT.
People flush those drugs into the wastewater and sewage system which your government kindly provides us all with for sanitation purposes, and then introduces those toxins into the water cycle that pollutes your ground water.
justintempler 6 months ago
@justintempler yup, both are to blame. But the simple fact is no one is held responsible to pay for the damages. Instead, each person is expected to take it and say, "yes sir, thank you sir". I am against government regulation, but for government suing on behalf of the people against these big companies. I personally think government should be the peoples representatives to sue such companies for these violations. But right now, we can see these violations, and nothing being done.
bluefootedpig 6 months ago
@bluefootedpig "I am against government regulation, but for government suing on behalf of the people against these big companies."
So after agreeing with me, tell me who prosecutes the government.
justintempler 6 months ago 3
I'm a moralist (in a strictly denotative sense); for that reason I condemn those who oppose Capitalism.
StudentOfObjectivism 6 months ago 52
@StudentOfObjectivism Capitalism, but with heavy regulations on derivatives such as futures contracts and on banking, without a fractional reserve system (should be illegal for all countries) where money is backed by gold (or another stable commodity that is not consumed, if any...land?) and a persons right to life, no matter how poor, is not dictated by money. So a healthcare for all citizens, but privatized/subsidized to keep prices competitive. Other than that, less big gov! more community!
mattyelle1 6 months ago 5
@mattyelle1 I don't intend to get in an argument here, but if you think that subsidizing healthcare helps to keep prices competitive, you are grossly mistaken. All it does it to redistribute money from people who earned it in order to give it to a company that doesn't earn it so that it can continue 'competing' with a company that would have earned it.
StudentOfObjectivism 6 months ago
@mattyelle1 You basically wrote a socialist manifesto and then said but with less government and more community.
daobagua 6 months ago
@daobagua Um, no. No FEMA, CIA, small FBI, no monopolized NASA, no TSA, a tenth of the military, etc, etc, cuts are everywhere. Power is returned to individual states, the federal government is essentially abolished except it reinforces a common constitution and collective laws to protect liberty (freedom in the future). As for healthcare, it should be the states although imo they should all offer healthcare. A person's life is not worth more just because they have more money. Can you disagree?
mattyelle1 6 months ago
@mattyelle1 I pretty much agree with everything on your list except for the healthcare. Some people are worth more then others to the world. Was Einstein or Hawkins worth more then my dad. Yes. It is sad, but it is true, some people are more valuable then others. That being said, I believe that charity and compassion should be shown to all people (we can't all be rock stars :)). I would agree with state chosen health care, but would hope for 1 state with pure capitalistic healthcare.
daobagua 6 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Yes, and capitalism is society organized on rational grounds.
WarVideo 6 months ago