4:06 I disagree with that because if I don't want acid rain myself I'm not going to want to inflict it on other people, sort of like how countries don't go ahead and drop nukes on the other countries they don't like because they know it would result in mutual destruction. Collectivism and statism are fundamentally against individuals having equal authority and therefore equal rights.
This guy gives me a headache. "uh, uh blah blah. uh blah, uh uh blah, uh blah blah blah." He makes no real point. He just proves the ineptitude of socialists.
thanks for the comments !!! I was going to listen to the stammering dude...until @ 1:20 I asked myself "do I need to listen to this crap?" and read the comments....
"inexpensive public universities"? "safe banking system"? "now in an era of free markets where anything goes"? HAHAHA! This guy smashes the credibility of his own argument for "good government" before the debate even gets going! Take this as a life lesson kids, don't smoke a bale of weed before you participate in a debate.
from my understanding, when a government deregulates something it doesn't hand it over to the free market but rather hands the monopoly over to it's friends.
the socialists by nature have to have a priviledged elitist class to re-distribute wealth.. see George Orwells book Animal Farm. Natural Monopolies? lol..no such thing. Even water can be distilled from the ocean, and rain water can be caught..these guys are narrowly trained in humanism and worldly views .you can even catch water from condensation boxes.. these guys have degrees from U's., but don't think outside the box. There education expenses were a misallocation of resources.
the socialists by nature have to have a priviledged elitist class to re-distribute wealth.. see George Orwells book Animal Farm. Natural Monopolies? lol..no such thing. Even water can be distilled from the ocean, and rain water can be caught..these guys are narrowly trained at best.. you can even catch water from condensation.. these guys have degrees from U., but don't think outside the box.
"Quality of lives have been improved by collective democratic government?" Compared to what? Hell? All government programs are pitiful failures.
"Natural Monopolies exist" Yes but natural monopolies are not harmful to consumers because there is always the pressure of potential competition. COERCIVE monopolies are harmful to consumers because they have no competitive pressure to solve consumer problems and pay virtually no cost for abusing consumers. Government is a coercive monopoly.
the guy thinking roads as a natural monopoly is just an evidence of how State is something "given" nowadays. People discuss society as if State was the law of gravity and not just a variable inserted in the system. It's bizarre how liberty, the most inherent human condition, has become counterintuitive for people.
its funny that the socialist thinks all of these things he gives credit to government for couldn't possibly be created in a free market. just compare how many valuable products and services have come from the private sector vs. the public sector. and the private sector has to compete and cant print its own money. but that actually is what makes it superior to govt. the guy is very ignorant and not well studied in market anarchism. i expect him to get shredded in the next few videos.
"society is too complex to be explained by any theoretical framework" - said by the guy who wants a violent gang to completely manage every aspect of society..... wow...
Even though I'm an anarchist, I get that he wants more than just a violent gang to manage everything. He mentioned workers unions participating in board meetings.
@kennyfreakinrocks I should note that Socialists and most other Leftists are Civil Libertarians, and believe that the government should remove itself from the individual's dominion over his own body, what he imbibes, what he says, who he marries, etc. He seems to wish less for government regulation of the market, though he certainly accepts that, and more for worker involvement in enterprise, which is a matter of empowering workers and not repressing individuals.
@nocturnezero - But what better way is there to empower workers than to decrease the violence preventing more choices of employers from existing to zero?
@Shezmu Worker self-management rather than employer monopoly on decision making ability. An evaluation of how much a given decision affects the workers so they have a fair share of voting ability. Remuneration that doesn't take inborn talents, geography, property ownership or any other uncontrollable factors into account.
@nocturnezero - I'm probably misunderstanding what you are saying, but are you saying that employment is not a voluntary translation and thus mutual benefit can be assumed, but instead is a translation of a mini-dictator over a slave?
Also, wages that don't take someone's "inborn" talents and the surrounding market into account? I'm pretty sure that that is economically impossible without being arbitrary yet alone sustainable.
It's so easy to be a socialist. Just act as if passing some legislation and forcing some people to do one thing or fund something and focus only on the perceived social benefit, rather than the unintended consequences.
When you boil your arguments down to emotional relativism, you get this opening statement. Like saying that after WW2 we had a managed economy, and then the ridiculous notion that Reagan brought us free markets.
@Mudh0ney16 It's so easy to be a Capitalist. Just act as if entrusting decision making to the upper strata of wealth and forcing some people to do one thing or hand money that they rightfully earned upwards to those who happen to own land will do liberty and equity any favors.
I haven't seen part 2 (the vid doesn't seem to work for me) but I hope that, that statement was better. He equated "collective action of society" to democracy, which is absolute BS. That is mob rule, only when every party agrees to a solution is it collective action of society. It also equated government to society which is just plain wrong. I think he missed the point.
However, it's incredibly sad when a self proclaimed socialist has more moderate proposals than democrates I've heard
@TheLateAndrewRyan That's absolute BS. That is mob rule, Only when every single person in the world agrees to a solution is it collective action of society.
This guy demonstrates his ignorance by debating two explicit austrians and still couching the debate as between Marx and Ayn Rand. Also his definition of monopoly is silly. At any given moment nobody can be utilizing multiple goods, for instance I'm only wearing one shirt at this moment. Monopolies cannot arise on a free market. His examples are so ignorant it further convines me that socialists are emotive idiots.
Monopolies can arise in a free market. These monopolies treat consumers well because there is always the threat of competition. However, COERCIVE monopolies (the government) do abuse consumers because there's no threat of competition.
Monopoly is a vague word. No 2 products are exactly the same. Therefore all products are monopolies in a sense. Nike Shoes are a monopoly on Nike shoes for example. Whether a company is a monopoly depends on how you define the product category.
i wanted to vote you down at first, without watching, only because I've been into socialistic things lately. But after watching, yea that's a really a dumb remark
@sean0milan0 Good on you for looking before you leap. This is a recurrant propblem with socialists. They have an infintile "understanding" of free market capitalism that typically does not go beyond bashing Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (and maybe F.A. Hayak). There is alot more to it than those thinkers. I've never found socialism (at least its common varient) convincing because its based on slogans, dumb remarks and assertians that do not stand up to even cursury scrutiny
Even as a Libertarian myself, I do agree with some of his points. I'm convinced that the top comments listened to the first minute and turned it off.
1032974b 1 month ago in playlist More videos from hotforliberty
4:06 I disagree with that because if I don't want acid rain myself I'm not going to want to inflict it on other people, sort of like how countries don't go ahead and drop nukes on the other countries they don't like because they know it would result in mutual destruction. Collectivism and statism are fundamentally against individuals having equal authority and therefore equal rights.
dubified89 1 month ago
How can you be his age and not understand the failure, destruction and inherent corruption of socialism?
picopallasi 3 months ago
This guy gives me a headache. "uh, uh blah blah. uh blah, uh uh blah, uh blah blah blah." He makes no real point. He just proves the ineptitude of socialists.
possm88 3 months ago
Give anarchy a chance...we've already had thousands of years of socialism and big government...
fly8oy51 5 months ago 5
thanks for the comments !!! I was going to listen to the stammering dude...until @ 1:20 I asked myself "do I need to listen to this crap?" and read the comments....
JonathanSeagullUtube 7 months ago
"inexpensive public universities"? "safe banking system"? "now in an era of free markets where anything goes"? HAHAHA! This guy smashes the credibility of his own argument for "good government" before the debate even gets going! Take this as a life lesson kids, don't smoke a bale of weed before you participate in a debate.
gergenheimer 8 months ago
@lengthyounarther of course a free market can't have monopolies, if as soon as there's a monopoly you declare it's not a free market!
randomino5 9 months ago
I consider myself strongly a market anarchist, but I think this is a very valid debate and he makes good points. This should be a good debate!
zyodei 11 months ago 3
people listening to this debate for the first time have to be thinking, wtf???
leavesofliberty 1 year ago 3
This guy makes me want to shoot myself in the head
alistairproductions 1 year ago 5
this guy has no way of knowing that people's lives are not worse off thanks to these democratic socialist programs...
redrajani 1 year ago
"Markets, we think, don't work well under monopolies." So... let's make these services monopolies, lol.
AshleyKScott 1 year ago 3
from my understanding, when a government deregulates something it doesn't hand it over to the free market but rather hands the monopoly over to it's friends.
ccodling 1 year ago 2
(something like) "governments should provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number possible."
(something like) " the 1970's banking system was an example of good government."
What the hell is war and how the hell is war maintained?
Shezmu 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shezmu 1 year ago
the socialists by nature have to have a priviledged elitist class to re-distribute wealth.. see George Orwells book Animal Farm. Natural Monopolies? lol..no such thing. Even water can be distilled from the ocean, and rain water can be caught..these guys are narrowly trained in humanism and worldly views .you can even catch water from condensation boxes.. these guys have degrees from U's., but don't think outside the box. There education expenses were a misallocation of resources.
dons123111 1 year ago
the socialists by nature have to have a priviledged elitist class to re-distribute wealth.. see George Orwells book Animal Farm. Natural Monopolies? lol..no such thing. Even water can be distilled from the ocean, and rain water can be caught..these guys are narrowly trained at best.. you can even catch water from condensation.. these guys have degrees from U., but don't think outside the box.
dons123111 1 year ago
anarchists +1
socialists 0
PrudenceWright 1 year ago 3
"Quality of lives have been improved by collective democratic government?" Compared to what? Hell? All government programs are pitiful failures.
"Natural Monopolies exist" Yes but natural monopolies are not harmful to consumers because there is always the pressure of potential competition. COERCIVE monopolies are harmful to consumers because they have no competitive pressure to solve consumer problems and pay virtually no cost for abusing consumers. Government is a coercive monopoly.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
the guy thinking roads as a natural monopoly is just an evidence of how State is something "given" nowadays. People discuss society as if State was the law of gravity and not just a variable inserted in the system. It's bizarre how liberty, the most inherent human condition, has become counterintuitive for people.
caribolas 1 year ago
Tell you what, I've heard a lot of Socialists talk, and this guy is pretty damn good vs. most of them.
He is still a total retard, but he is a good speaker.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
I like how libertarians always criticize socialism based on it being "emotional" but then go "boo hoo aggression"
snowballz 1 year ago
its funny that the socialist thinks all of these things he gives credit to government for couldn't possibly be created in a free market. just compare how many valuable products and services have come from the private sector vs. the public sector. and the private sector has to compete and cant print its own money. but that actually is what makes it superior to govt. the guy is very ignorant and not well studied in market anarchism. i expect him to get shredded in the next few videos.
rmcc0002 1 year ago 3
@rmcc0002
But...WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS???
rockandrock44 1 year ago
roads. lol.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
herb shore needs to do his research. he's debating anarchists not minarchists.why is it so hard for people to comprehend that violence is bad?
rmcc0002 1 year ago
Water coming out of the water faucet is a monopoly? Whaaaa???
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
"what is an adequate substitute substitution for government?" programs
"... too complex..." BS, consider how large our computer storage is... and how powerful and numerous out machines are.
the first identified major cause of disease was close conditions to farm animals and one another.
but very nice opening remarks...
morthim 1 year ago
did this idiot actually have the nerve to act like there is less regulation and intervention in the economy now than there was in 1965??
whoops!
oiuoiu988 1 year ago
A safe banking system - LOL'D.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
Reality can never be fully explained. Case and point for democratic socialism.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
lol the roads
Wesker1982 1 year ago
"society is too complex to be explained by any theoretical framework" - said by the guy who wants a violent gang to completely manage every aspect of society..... wow...
kennyfreakinrocks 1 year ago 70
Even though I'm an anarchist, I get that he wants more than just a violent gang to manage everything. He mentioned workers unions participating in board meetings.
esalian9 1 year ago
@kennyfreakinrocks you took the words right out of my mouth. These socialist have no chance in this debate because true principles cant be beat.
t2491tom 1 year ago
@t2491tom But Socialists have principles.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero inconsistent ones...
t2491tom 1 year ago
@t2491tom Such as?
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@kennyfreakinrocks
Chainedorlo 1 year ago
@kennyfreakinrocks I should note that Socialists and most other Leftists are Civil Libertarians, and believe that the government should remove itself from the individual's dominion over his own body, what he imbibes, what he says, who he marries, etc. He seems to wish less for government regulation of the market, though he certainly accepts that, and more for worker involvement in enterprise, which is a matter of empowering workers and not repressing individuals.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero - But what better way is there to empower workers than to decrease the violence preventing more choices of employers from existing to zero?
Shezmu 1 year ago
@Shezmu Worker self-management rather than employer monopoly on decision making ability. An evaluation of how much a given decision affects the workers so they have a fair share of voting ability. Remuneration that doesn't take inborn talents, geography, property ownership or any other uncontrollable factors into account.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero - I'm probably misunderstanding what you are saying, but are you saying that employment is not a voluntary translation and thus mutual benefit can be assumed, but instead is a translation of a mini-dictator over a slave?
Also, wages that don't take someone's "inborn" talents and the surrounding market into account? I'm pretty sure that that is economically impossible without being arbitrary yet alone sustainable.
Shezmu 1 year ago
he talks like principle McVicker from Beavis and Butthead.
ohbobsagetpiss 2 years ago
It's so easy to be a socialist. Just act as if passing some legislation and forcing some people to do one thing or fund something and focus only on the perceived social benefit, rather than the unintended consequences.
When you boil your arguments down to emotional relativism, you get this opening statement. Like saying that after WW2 we had a managed economy, and then the ridiculous notion that Reagan brought us free markets.
Mudh0ney16 2 years ago
@Mudh0ney16 It's so easy to be a Capitalist. Just act as if entrusting decision making to the upper strata of wealth and forcing some people to do one thing or hand money that they rightfully earned upwards to those who happen to own land will do liberty and equity any favors.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Safe banking system until it got deregulated. LOL! Where has this guy been for the last hundred years.
cclodfe 2 years ago 3
hahaha "safe banking system", good one.
laelli03 2 years ago 3
What a yammering idiot...
baggytheo 2 years ago 2
FDIC is or was working well?!? Where does this guy lives?
hugolp 2 years ago 3
I haven't seen part 2 (the vid doesn't seem to work for me) but I hope that, that statement was better. He equated "collective action of society" to democracy, which is absolute BS. That is mob rule, only when every party agrees to a solution is it collective action of society. It also equated government to society which is just plain wrong. I think he missed the point.
However, it's incredibly sad when a self proclaimed socialist has more moderate proposals than democrates I've heard
TheLateAndrewRyan 2 years ago 2
@TheLateAndrewRyan That's absolute BS. That is mob rule, Only when every single person in the world agrees to a solution is it collective action of society.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Does he have any arguments to make? All I heard were assertions.
Spideynw 2 years ago 3
This guy demonstrates his ignorance by debating two explicit austrians and still couching the debate as between Marx and Ayn Rand. Also his definition of monopoly is silly. At any given moment nobody can be utilizing multiple goods, for instance I'm only wearing one shirt at this moment. Monopolies cannot arise on a free market. His examples are so ignorant it further convines me that socialists are emotive idiots.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago 38
@lengthyounarther,
Monopolies can arise in a free market. These monopolies treat consumers well because there is always the threat of competition. However, COERCIVE monopolies (the government) do abuse consumers because there's no threat of competition.
Monopoly is a vague word. No 2 products are exactly the same. Therefore all products are monopolies in a sense. Nike Shoes are a monopoly on Nike shoes for example. Whether a company is a monopoly depends on how you define the product category.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@lengthyounarther
i wanted to vote you down at first, without watching, only because I've been into socialistic things lately. But after watching, yea that's a really a dumb remark
sean0milan0 1 year ago
@sean0milan0 Good on you for looking before you leap. This is a recurrant propblem with socialists. They have an infintile "understanding" of free market capitalism that typically does not go beyond bashing Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman (and maybe F.A. Hayak). There is alot more to it than those thinkers. I've never found socialism (at least its common varient) convincing because its based on slogans, dumb remarks and assertians that do not stand up to even cursury scrutiny
lengthyounarther 1 year ago