Nightmare: One thing I missed in the last listening of my video was the statement that LordTHawkeye made about Corporatism: That (and I'm paraphrasing) Corporatism is essentially government intervention.
This is blatantly wrong. The Wikipedia Article on Corporatism has several definitions but the core is thus: Corporatism is a system of economic, political OR social organisation that involves division of people of society into corporate groups...
@FSAthe1st Interesting. Thanks for that little tidbit, shows the even larger dishonesty of Hawkeye and his band of libertarian circle jerkers. And by the way, I will be uploading my response to Hawkeye's response later. I've recorded the audio so just need to throw a graphic with it and I should be good.
@ 4:51 approx Medical costs are higher because of the advances in medicine? Why doesn't that apply every other piece of technology, like phones, computers, cars etc etc? Shouldn't a car cost many times what the first cars cost, after all they're many times more advanced. No in reality and for private individuals, things get cheaper as they get more and more advanced.
@crazypants88 "Medical costs are higher because of the advances in medicine? Why doesn't that apply every other piece of technology, like phones, computers, cars etc etc?"
Because cars, phones, computers etc etc are built in bulk and volume, and consumers can purchase as many as they wish. There's a huge difference between people buying cars for maybe one person or a family of 5, and a HOSPITAL purchasing an MRI for an entire hospital wing that's used for THOUSANDS of patients each year.
Consumers in a free market can do something about businesses that stoop to immoral tactics, they can not trade with them, they can rather trade with their more moral competitors. That's why maintaining a positive reputation in a free market is important. You can't lobby the state to get rid of your competition for you, you have to actually compete for your consumers money. The fact that you don't know or grasp this, makes me wonder why you're commenting on this topic.
@crazypants88 Except for the fact that this notion has been debunked numerous times by the fact that with no regulations, monopolies form and there will BE no competitors. You should watch FSAThe1st's video on the subject as he's explained this in much clearer detail than I have.
@Nightmare060 No free marketeer is for no regulation, they're against the state having the monopoly on regulatory services. Monopolies can only be formed and sustained through state intervention. Without artificial barriers to entry there's nothing stopping a competitor(s) to coming in and offering better and/or cheaper goods and services then the current businesses.
@crazypants88 "Monopolies can only be formed and sustained through state intervention."
This is a straight up Lie. Standard Oil had a worldwide multi-national stranglehold on the market at the end of the 19th Century. They had already monopolised several states in the USA BEFORE the Government stepped in.
@Nightmare060 even if that was true, which I've tried to show to the best of my ability how it isn't, it would still only justify a single regulation that bans monopolies and not the countless others you advocate. You would also still have competition between the monopoly and any non-profit organizations or maybe even companies that contractually agree not to be bought out. So you can't use the monopoly argument as a last-resort to dismiss anything that argues against regulations.
@Houshalter Have you ever been so dishonest you think there would be more than one monopoly? And here you go with the charity argument again. Charities are unreliable because they are entirely based on the willing generosity of others. Think about how many people are unemployed. Think about how much medical costs would be to those who are uninsured. Now imagine how much money would be needed to cover them all should serious injury happen. Not realistic is it?
@Nightmare060 "Have you ever been so dishonest you think there would be more than one monopoly?" What??
"And here you go with the charity argument again." I never said anything about charities. Just non-profit organizations. Government could be considered a non-profit organization for that matter.
@Houshalter Exactly how would non-profit organisations other than the government be funded? Yes, the government is none profit, and it is done so because it is sustained by taxes.
@Houshalter And regulations are entirely justified because they give legal power to protect the consumer. Without official laws, that will not happen.
@Nightmare060 they don't protect the consumer, they outlaw choice. Consumers are legally forbidden from buying life-saving drugs, raw milk, working appliances, etc.
@Houshalter (Citation Needed). C0nc0rdance made a fantastic video about raw milk, and drugs need to meet a specific standard and be tested so they are SAFE for the consumer. He also made a video about how a supposed cancer cure was being blocked because it wouldn't make a profit and how that is bogus too.
@Nightmare060 I've seen them, they have nothing to do with the issue that you should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to. As for drugs, the FDA blocks them for years even after they are proven to be safe, and it would still save more lives than it cost if drugs were released even before that. For that matter, the FDA is half of the reason drugs cost so much.
@Houshalter "I've seen them, they have nothing to do with the issue that you should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to." This is something I agree on, but it isn't a case for removing all regulations. "he FDA blocks them for years even after they are proven to be safe, and it would still save more lives than it cost if drugs were released even before that." (Citation needed) "Non-profit doesn't mean they don't charge money." But it still doesn't solve the monopolizing problem.
@FSAthe1st Pretty much. My videos rarely get many votes, so it's easy for dishonest bigots to vote it down. I remember a couple years ago I got vote botted, but it only took about 30 votes to get me down to 1 star ratings :\.
@Nightmare060 Take a look at the comments on my video. There's this guy who is arguing that allowing everyone access to Healthcare will weaken our Gene pool!
Unless you were being sarcastic, you're claiming that people dislike the video because they don't think there is such a thing as Quote Mining, which is not necessarily true at all.
@rockandrock44 Well a large portion of the video was pointing out the dishonesty of LordTHawkeye as well as tackling his arguments, so it is possible that at least some of those 10 thumbs down (last I checked) were overlooking the fact that Mr.Hawkeye was quote mining! Why people thumbed down the video isn't the most serious point when it comes to the discussion on my video anyway.
Don't tell me, let me guess. You just compare the NHS to the US's healthcare system like you always do as inevitably as the tides. It's all you know how to do because you can't think for yourself and actually respond to my concerns about socialism. (that being the issue of theft and violence)
Come back when you're ready to actually communicate with me and not just rehearse your own prejudices.
@lordthawkeye And YOU come back to ME when you learn to listen and acknowladge the fact that FSATHE1ST EXPLAINED and ELABORATED on the notion of the US not being free market. Really, you are showing your blatant dishonesty here when you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of a rebuttal to your argument. You really are quite pathetic.
@Nightmare060 I acknowledge it's existence, I approved it as a response did I not?
But I'm sorry, you don't know how to reason. You NEVER check your statements for consistency and this response was no exception. Every single argument you make conveniently exempts the government for no logical reason and thus is nothing more than you making shit up as you go along.
One moral argument, from first principles, that does not give the state a free pass. That's all I ask.
@lordthawkeye That's the libertarian way! Call the opponents arguments illogical and dogmatic instead of addressing what they say. Everything you say only boils down to "You support the state, therefore you are wrong and not thinking about it". The fact you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies and instead blame it on the state makes you no better than the creationists you claim to be better than.
"That's the libertarian way! Call the opponents arguments illogical and dogmatic"
Because they are. Thinking that giving a bunch of people a bunch of guns so they can threaten us into solving our problems is the way to go is indeed "illogical and dogmatic" in a way that makes PCS and Kent Hovind look like Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer.
@Akatam0t0ma *facepalm* the old Violence argument! Fact is, that no matter whether it's a private or social system, violence will always be used if a person resists enough. Your scare tactics have grown really old. On top of all that, Hakweye here has quote mined and ignored the video, claiming that it was illogical and dogmatic without even watching the video. Like many Libertarians such as yourself, he has a foundational bias which declares anyone who doesn't agree with him to be wrong.
@Akatam0t0ma "Thinking that giving a bunch of people a bunch of guns so they can threaten us into solving our problems is the way to go-"
Is not what we were arguing in the first place. If this is what you claim we are arguing, then this is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man argument.
One more thing... You and Killian have both argued that taxes are immoral and theft by threat of violence. Go set up your own couhtry where taxes don't exist. See how long it lasts.
//Is not what we were arguing in the first place. If this is what you claim we are arguing, then this is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man argument.//
What do you think a State is?
It would be nice if the Statists at least admitted their position instead of trying to hide behind the old "we aren't advocating a monopoly on force and using that force to take from some to give to others" crap.
@FSAthe1st It really feels like Libertarians keep using the word "statist" in a false daichotamy. It doesn't seem to matter what the overall political position a person holds (I consider myself centre left to put a name on it), everyone who is not a libertarian is a "statist" and therefore wrong. Gets rather annoying after a while!
//The question is irrelevant. Stick to the subject at hand.//
I consider my point proven. Akatam0t0ma stated that giving some people guns so they can threaten us into solving problems isn't the way to go. You claimed that was a strawman - but it is not, as that is the nature of the State, hence my question.
And I'm not using Statism like a "religious belief", if you honestly accept it then admit it. It's not necessarily a pejorative.
//Really? So the nature of a Government is to threaten people with guns, is it?//
A State has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area. I recommend reading the work of Max Weber and some political economy. I find it somewhat amusing you cannot even admit this basic fact of political economy. And WE are the creationists? Ha.
@rockandrock44 I'll ask you again. Does the nature of a government exist to threaten people with guns? Your appeal to ridicule has been kicked in the bollocks and thrown out the door.
"A State has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area."
No shit sherlock. Care to tell us something we DON'T already know? And the use of the word Force is an appeal to emotion.
//No shit sherlock. Care to tell us something we DON'T already know? And the use of the word Force is an appeal to emotion.//
YOU are the one that said that saying the State uses force to get what it wants was a strawman. You now have conceded that you are wrong. That's a start, I guess.
If you don't do what the State wishes, the State penalizes you in some way. Continuous failure to comply results in violence. Sorry, but true.
@rockandrock44 "YOU are the one that said that saying the State uses force to get what it wants was a strawman. You now have conceded that you are wrong."
MORE Strawmanning. I have done no such thing. I SAID, ad you QUOTED YOURSELF, that your use of the word FORCE is an appeal to emotion. If you've taken that as a concession that I BELIEVE the government is engaging in the use of FORCE, then you are insane.
I stated that a State is a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, and you condescendingly agreed. I wasn't referring to your appeal to emotion reference.
@rockandrock44 "If you don't do what the State wishes, the State penalizes you in some way. Continuous failure to comply results in violence. Sorry, but true."
@rockandrock44 Know what ELSE the State has a "monopoly" on? Governing the PEOPLE that live within its' borders. You can claim that this is a bad thing all you want, and to that I say this... Fuck off to some uninhabited piece of land somewhere, set up your own form of Government that DOESN'T tax people or businesses, and see how long YOU can maintain order and the infrastructure needed to govern people... THEN tell me that your batshit crazy ideas work.
So now you throw out "Love it or Leave It" ..can this really get more absurd?
I was simply stating the definition and nature of the State because YOU claimed it was a strawman to say that you endorse using a group of people to use force to solve societal problems. It is not a strawman.
And any other word you wish to use other than "force"? I would use coercion but you would probably cry about that one too.
@rockandrock44 "So now you throw out "Love it or Leave It" ..can this really get more absurd?"
Quote Mining.
"I was simply stating the definition and nature of the State because YOU claimed it was a strawman to say that you endorse using a group of people to use force to solve societal problems."
You people are all the same. The State is some EVIL entity that uses FORCE on people. Sorry, but that's paranoid nonsense.
Maybe a strawman, but not a quote mine..I never quoted anything from you when it comes to Love it or Leave It.
You said "You can claim that this is a bad thing all you want, and to that I say this... Fuck off to some uninhabited piece of land somewhere, set up your own form of Government that DOESN'T tax people or businesses, and see how long YOU can maintain order.." That is love it or leave it.
How is that "pathetic"? You stated that using the word "force" is an appeal to emotion. What would you use instead as a correct term to describe the political privileges of the State?
@rockandrock44 Violence will always be a last result for none compliant people, regardless of if it's through private or public services. It's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual! Not to mention the benefits that "forced" taxes give.
@Nightmare060 "t's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual!"
Yup... It's all about the double standard with these people.
@FSAthe1st Is it a double standard to say that, while a policeman can use deadly force against an armed offender who threatens civilians, he cannot use lethal force to ensure compliance with a noise ordinance?
@Virgil0211 Same response to this question. While you and your cohorts are unwilling to address the arguments I presented in my videos, I have nothing to say to any of you, and thus I consider myself under no obligation to answer questions across the whole spectrum of Economic Theory like you;d prefer me to do.
@Nightmare060 //It's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual!//
Must've been a major oversight on our part, it's not like we differentiate between the two or anything...come on, if you're going to criticize a school of thought, at least do some research on the school's basic tenants.
Hint: There's a difference between justified retaliatory force and the initiation of force
In fact, this belief is even more stupid, because at least they have the excuse of fear of eternal punishment for abandoning their stupid belief, whereas you don't. And NO libertarians EVER " refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies". It's just that we understand the way the state distorts the incentive structures that makes it that way, whereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge.
@Akatam0t0ma "And NO libertarians EVER " refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies". It's just that we understand the way the state distorts the incentive structures that makes it that way"
Making excuses for why companies behave so atrociously in the marketplace does not equate to acknowledging the wrongdoing of those companies themselves, so it looks as though the points about the Free MArket Evangelists not acknowledging that it's the Companies' faults still stands.
@Akatam0t0ma "whereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge."
Funny... Maybe if you'd watched our videos instead of simply clicking on Play for 1 minute, stopping again, and commenting in a knee-jerk reaction, you;'d see that neither of us are arguing that this is the case at all. I'm not surprised at this of course.
@Akatam0t0ma "hereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge."
Then how come I criticize laws restricting public nudity, disagree with the war on drugs and head/desk at republicans ignoring the separation of church and state in the US? Oh wait, you didn't know any of that because you assume I'm a dogmatic "Statist" without ever asking or bothering to learn what I actually believe!
@lordthawkeye "Don't tell me, let me guess. You just compare the NHS to the US's healthcare system like you always do as inevitably as the tides."
You have been told on three separate occasions, by myself and by Nightmare060 that this ISN'T the case. Notwithstanding I already mentioned this in the video that 1: you didn't watch, and 2: took a quote out of context from.
Nothing else you can possibly say is worth listening to given this blatantly obvious fact.
@FSAthe1st Answer me straight shot then: Did your video morally analyze socialized healthcare from first principles without special pleading for the government?
You accuse private companies of being succeptible to bribes and yet the thought of politicians doing that is not mentioned even though you claim to know what corporatism is?
So yes you do still special plead for the state so you lied. You even go so far as the say that politicians aren't in it for the money. As someone who's premier voted himself a 30% pay raise despite a recession...I am truly at a loss for words at how naive you are.
@lordthawkeye "You accuse private companies of being succeptible to bribes and yet the thought of politicians doing that is not mentioned even though you claim to know what corporatism is?" Straw-Man. I was pointing out how you seem to ignore the fact the private companies are doing so and blame the state for accepting them. Hence why I don't think private companies should be involved in the first place.
@lordthawkeye "So yes you do still special plead for the state so you lied. " Except you are basing this on a straw-man since I never stated it was an excuse for the state.
"ou even go so far as the say that politicians aren't in it for the money." Because they aren't trying to make extra profit, they are putting in laws and legislation that they believe helps the people most.
@lordthawkeye "As someone who's premier voted himself a 30% pay raise despite a recession...I am truly at a loss for words at how naive you are."
[Citation needed] That and I clearly explained that the motives are usually different. The NHS is not run to make as much money as possible. It is there to be what hospitals should be for; Treating the sick and injured based on medical need!
@Nightmare060 I've uploaded "Fail Quote-Mine for August" to my channel (it should be processed by the time you get a chance to see it). And to prevent the same quote-mining as before, I've set it up as Audio Only with just the title playing throughout. Let's see Mr Hawkeye try that same trick again!
@lordthawkeye "Answer me straight shot then: Did your video morally analyze socialized healthcare from first principles without special pleading for the government?"
Since you couldn't even be bothered to watch the video to begin with, we have nothing to talk about.
Corporations focus on profit, thus on efficiency. They generally take on potentially profitable ideas brought to them and have the means to put these ideas into action. Corporations promote international trade, which does a lot to bring about peace in the world. All of this is good.
The downside is that if any one corporation has a monopoly, they can adjust the prices and product quality as they please and so regulations become necessary to protect consumers and small businesses.
@CuriousMoth Pretty much yes. When peoples lives are concerned, I don't think focusing on maximizing profit should really be the priority. Always treat patients by need, not what makes them money!
You miss the point. Corporatism is what makes the system so bad, more than anything else. And you want to fix it with even more government intervention. If some solution isn't working and ends up just making things worse, the rational thing is to do even more of it!
On a competitive market these problems disappear because businesses that best meet consumer demands thrive over those that don't. In government you simply don't have that mechanism.
@Houshalter You've already had explained both in this video and FSAthe1st's video about how competition won't fix anything when there is a monopoly! That and countries like Japan and Germany work very well with strictly controlled private healthcare, but I think it's even better to remove privatized insurers as the main givers all together. When it becomes free to the point of use WITH regulations, then the customer has power to stop dishonest practitioners and never have to worry about cost.
@Nightmare060 only if there is a monopoly, and that simply never happens without government intervention. And without choice, then there is no way to determine the safest or most cost-efficient way.
@Houshalter "only if there is a monopoly, and that simply never happens without government intervention."
[Citation Needed] Without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed because money is power.
" And without choice, then there is no way to determine the safest or most cost-efficient way."
And you repeat the same old "Choice" nonsense. Private insurance hospitals here in the UK are for minor medical problems quickly if you have the money. But otherwise you get treated or you don't!
@Nightmare060 You are the one making a positive claim, so you get the damn citation. There were not hundreds of monopolies before anti-trust laws or currently in countries where they don't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong though. As long as competition isn't prevented from emerging again, they can't guarantee a monopoly.
You have to pay twice though, once in taxes and again for private insurance. And they still are heavily regulated and don't get the subsidies government hospitals do.
When he said "hundreds of monopolies", he probably meant, monopolies across hundreds of sectors. And indeed, they didn't exist. The anti-trust laws didn't come because there was too little competition and companies had to be broken, but because there was TOO MUCH of it, in the eyes of those who lobbied for them and then used them, because they couldn't compete fairly, so they had to bring the guns of the state into the game. So the point stands. There were NO monopolies back then.
@Akatam0t0ma "The anti-trust laws didn't come because there was too little competition and companies had to be broken, but because there was TOO MUCH of it, in the eyes of those who lobbied for them and then used them, because they couldn't compete fairly, so they had to bring the guns of the state into the game."
//We're talking about only ONE industry. Do try to keep up.//
Read Houshalter's post again. it is quite clear he or she meant "hundreds of monopolies" in the context of multiple industries. Even Nightmare060 stated "without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed", and Houshalter responded to it with the "hundreds of monopolies" post.
@rockandrock44 "Read Houshalter's post again. it is quite clear he or she meant "hundreds of monopolies" in the context of multiple industries."
Notwithstanding the fact that this video was a response to quote mined material from one of MY videos, on the subject of Healthcare... One industry ONLY.
@rockandrock44 "Even Nightmare060 stated "without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed", and Houshalter responded to it with the "hundreds of monopolies" post."
And once again, it doesn't matter. This video, and the one that it relates to, plus the one that it relates to before that, discuss HEALTHCARE. ONE industry.
@FSAthe1st actually I was talking about multiple industries, and if you can't find evidence of monopolies occuring in any other industry, then why would you jump to the conclusion it is inevitable in health care?
Anyways, WTF is with replying to people you blocked?
@Houshalter I suspect he's doing so because on my video it's more a chance to make his points to people. That's what I'm guessing anyway, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
@Nightmare060 "That's what I'm guessing anyway, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong."
He was blocked on my channel and I detailed the list of reasons why. He seems to be under the impression that this automatically disqualifies me from ever talking to him again.
Oh... And by this logic, you should criticise ShaneDK for doing the same thing to me after he blocked me for "homophobia".... A bullshit claim by the way. If it's OK for him to do it, why not me?
@rockandrock44 Well however you boil down the semantics, health insurance companies getting a monopoly is a very dangerous situation to be in. Because when that happens, it doesn't matter how unfair the insurers are. People have no choice but to go to them if they cannot afford healthcare without insurance!
I agree with you. Here in the US people are not allowed to look for insurers across State lines, and most States have 2-3 giant insurance companies running a cartel/oligopoly that can do whatever they want.
@rockandrock44 "and most States have 2-3 giant insurance companies running a cartel/oligopoly that can do whatever they want. " what is Stopping a smaller insurance company for competing with the larger ones, shouldn't the market magic this problem away.
@Houshalter "ou are the one making a positive claim, so you get the damn citation."
No, YOU are making the positive claim that monopolies can't exist in a free market. So YOU provide evidence for your claim. Tell me, how exactly do you expect companies to not be able to gain enough money to buy out smaller companies and merge into one big super company? Why do you think my local supermarket was merged years ago with the chain supermarket Sainsburies?
@Nightmare060 "Why do you think my local supermarket was merged years ago with the chain supermarket Sainsburies?"
Actually this is a very good point. There was no lobbying in this case to make buy-out terms favourable to large corporations like Sainsbury's... They got as big as they did through making lots of money, thus they are able to undercut the competition and price them out of the market, or simply buy them outright. These Free Market people never think of that, do they?
@FSAthe1st I would also point out to how Microsoft pretty much dominate the OS industry. 99% of all computers you can buy in shops have windows, and we all know quite well how infamous for crashing windows can be! And yet they still make tons of money because there is almost no competition (most other OS outside of Mac computers are open source to my knowledge). Another point that libertarians conveniently ignore.
@Nightmare060 "I would also point out to how Microsoft pretty much dominate the OS industry. [SNIP!]"
That's a well kniown example. These people love to argue that the Government is responsible for allowing monopolies to form in the first place. Never mind the fact that (a) Microsoft never lobbied governments to allow their software to proliferate across the PC industry, and (b) many Industrialised countries have Antitrust laws, stopping them from 100% proliferation.
@Nightmare060 Because no matter how much money they have, they can't stop competition from emerging later. If you promise everyone that is capable of creating or investing in new companies that you promise to buy them out the minute they do so, then that is what they are going to do.
Microsoft got a state granted monopoly through intellectual property laws BTW. Come up with a real free-market example if you are going to try to dispute it.
@Houshalter "Because no matter how much money they have, they can't stop competition from emerging later. "
No, but once they have a monopoly, any small business will not be able to afford to undercut them since they still need to make a profit. Once you get to the stage of mega corporation, there is little one guy off the street can do to stop them. Especially when it's healthcare we're dealing with, which is a very expensive field!
@Nightmare060 economies of scale doesn't mean they can't get undercut by the little guy, esspecially if they are fixing prices far above actual market levels. And there is nothing saying only small businesses can compete against monopolies. Finally, even if it ever did become a problem on a free market, though I doubt it would, you don't consider how consumers would react. They may very well create a demand for businesses that contractually agree they won't let themselves get bought out.
@Houshalter "Microsoft got a state granted monopoly through intellectual property laws BTW. "
Source please. And I would like to know if a free market has ever existed, because currently I know of none in existence. And as FSAthe1st explained in his video, there are quite a few factors including better technology which make the culture of the 1920s very different from today, so it's not really comparable. Be sure to avoid appeals to tradition!
@FSAthe1st Ad hominem logical fallacy. Bias is only relevant after you have criticized the data presented by the source on its own merits, either by pointing out a flaw in reasoning or evidence. By that logic, any source that agrees with your opponent's viewpoint can be dismissed out of hand simply because it agrees with your opponent. Then again, that would be rather convenient for you, wouldn't it?
What exactly are you referring to? You're one of those who doesn't actually point out what he's referring to. Care to make an exception for once and stop behaving like a Politician?
"By that logic, any source that agrees with your opponent's viewpoint can be dismissed out of hand simply because it agrees with your opponent."
Hypocrisy. You people do this ALL the time. Your own comments about refusing to watch my video is evidence of that.
@FSAthe1st When you dismissed a source as being biased. An article from Mises cannot be logically dismissed because it comes from mises. One must address the article's data and reasoning first. Bias is only useful for determining the reason why the data was flawed.
Even if your portrayal of events were accurate, ad hominem Tu quoque.
@Virgil0211 "Then again, that would be rather convenient for you, wouldn't it? "
Projection. You have done this on numerous occasions.
See, Virgil... You have told me that I'm not worth wasting my time on and that you won't watch my videos... So why are you wasting time on commenting to me? Try to be consistent.
Scratch that. I found the comment you replied to. Call it an Ad Hominem all you want. There is NOTHING from the Mises Institute that ISN'T biased toward Free-For-All Economics, and you know it.
@Virgil0211 Now... Since I'm not worth bothering with and my videos aren't worth watching, try to contain your impulse to keep replying to me. I'm not interested in someone who won't even argue against what his critics are arguing for in the first place.
If you actually read the article, you would know that it cites independent sources, such as John McGee's two Journal of Law and Economics articles debunking these tired myths about Standard Oil.
@FSAthe1st "John McGee gives an OPINION on the issue... And the Article is HEAVILY biased from my reading of it just now."
Is this a result of your reading of the articles from the Journal of Law & Economics? If so, could you please provide evidence, such as quotations? In order to be a legitimate criticism, you must prove the source wrong before you claim bias.
@Virgil0211 "Are your assertions a result of reading the sources of what you claimed to be an 'unsourced editorial' or not?"
I thought I wasn't worth wasting time on? You'll get nothing whatsoever out of me until you can demonstrate that you are willing to address my ACTUAL arguments by watching the videos I have produced. Since you have already declared on multiple occasions that you are NOT willing to do so, we have nothing to discuss.
@FSAthe1st Do you maintain your claim that the editorial is unsourced? Do you maintain your claims of bias against the editorial and the peer reviewed literature it cited?
@Virgil0211 I think if you just admit you want to argue and will argue based on what is actually said (I.E; Watching the videos in question) then you will get your answer. I have yet to read said "source" and so I make no comment on this particular diversion. I'll stick to the topic at hand, which is about the notion of socialist vs. free market healthcare.
@Nightmare060 I see. I appreciate your candor and your attempts to maintain some form of decorum. Then again, I'm inclined to respect any male age 12+ who has the security of self to use a pokemon as their avatar. :-P
You a first-generation fan, or did you pick up from one of the later games?
@Virgil0211 I will shift the conversation about Pokemon and other such hobbies to PM. Although youtube seems to be being a pain (again!) and not letting me send anything. No idea why. I'm also unmarking alot of responses that were marked as spam. Even if I disagree with an argument, a counter opinion is not spam.
@Virgil0211 "Understood, though I fail to see why you commented if you had nothing to add."
Gee, I can't POSSIBLY imagine what his reason might be, can you?
Maybe it has to do with the fact that this is HIS channel? And if that's not good enough for you, perhaps it has to do with... I don't know... Maybe the FACT that you are going off on a tangent that gets further and further away from the topic of the videos we have produced?!
Outright Lie. This video discusses the issue of Quote Mining of my original video on HEALTHCARE. You are trying to take the issue to that of a biased article on Standard Oil, a subject raised by two others on this channel, and one I have ZERO interest in discussion with a dishonest individual such as yourself. Others, perhaps, but NOT someone who is UNWILLING to argue against what I am ACTUALLY arguing.
@FSAthe1st In fact, why not raise this criticism against Nightmare060, who has claimed that the subject is socialized vs free market healthcare instead of quote-mining on your video?
If one were to follow your logic, they could immediately claim bias which would (again, by your logic) invalidate everything you had to say on the subject without confronting your arguments.
@Virgil0211 "In fact, why not raise this criticism against Nightmare060, who has claimed that the subject is socialized vs free market healthcare instead of quote-mining on your video?"
This is further evidence that you have not watched his video. Such dishonesty is rampant among your group, just like your dishonest claim that I have made homophobic comments (a subject I covered in a video you decided to SPAM). That kind of dishonesty warrants no further response to ANY of your questions.
@FSAthe1st " This video discusses the issue of Quote Mining of my original video on HEALTHCARE. " (You, in a statement about the subject you claimed was avoided)
" I'll stick to the topic at hand, which is about the notion of socialist vs. free market healthcare." (Nightmare060)
Which one has directed the conversation onto a tangent?
Nightmare: One thing I missed in the last listening of my video was the statement that LordTHawkeye made about Corporatism: That (and I'm paraphrasing) Corporatism is essentially government intervention.
This is blatantly wrong. The Wikipedia Article on Corporatism has several definitions but the core is thus: Corporatism is a system of economic, political OR social organisation that involves division of people of society into corporate groups...
It is not de facto Government intervention.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Interesting. Thanks for that little tidbit, shows the even larger dishonesty of Hawkeye and his band of libertarian circle jerkers. And by the way, I will be uploading my response to Hawkeye's response later. I've recorded the audio so just need to throw a graphic with it and I should be good.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st you used the word in the definition.
Houshalter 6 months ago
Christ the stupidity continues..
@ 4:51 approx Medical costs are higher because of the advances in medicine? Why doesn't that apply every other piece of technology, like phones, computers, cars etc etc? Shouldn't a car cost many times what the first cars cost, after all they're many times more advanced. No in reality and for private individuals, things get cheaper as they get more and more advanced.
crazypants88 6 months ago
@crazypants88 "Medical costs are higher because of the advances in medicine? Why doesn't that apply every other piece of technology, like phones, computers, cars etc etc?"
Because cars, phones, computers etc etc are built in bulk and volume, and consumers can purchase as many as they wish. There's a huge difference between people buying cars for maybe one person or a family of 5, and a HOSPITAL purchasing an MRI for an entire hospital wing that's used for THOUSANDS of patients each year.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@ 3:35 approx
Consumers in a free market can do something about businesses that stoop to immoral tactics, they can not trade with them, they can rather trade with their more moral competitors. That's why maintaining a positive reputation in a free market is important. You can't lobby the state to get rid of your competition for you, you have to actually compete for your consumers money. The fact that you don't know or grasp this, makes me wonder why you're commenting on this topic.
crazypants88 6 months ago
@crazypants88 Except for the fact that this notion has been debunked numerous times by the fact that with no regulations, monopolies form and there will BE no competitors. You should watch FSAThe1st's video on the subject as he's explained this in much clearer detail than I have.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 No free marketeer is for no regulation, they're against the state having the monopoly on regulatory services. Monopolies can only be formed and sustained through state intervention. Without artificial barriers to entry there's nothing stopping a competitor(s) to coming in and offering better and/or cheaper goods and services then the current businesses.
crazypants88 6 months ago
@crazypants88 "Monopolies can only be formed and sustained through state intervention."
This is a straight up Lie. Standard Oil had a worldwide multi-national stranglehold on the market at the end of the 19th Century. They had already monopolised several states in the USA BEFORE the Government stepped in.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 even if that was true, which I've tried to show to the best of my ability how it isn't, it would still only justify a single regulation that bans monopolies and not the countless others you advocate. You would also still have competition between the monopoly and any non-profit organizations or maybe even companies that contractually agree not to be bought out. So you can't use the monopoly argument as a last-resort to dismiss anything that argues against regulations.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter Have you ever been so dishonest you think there would be more than one monopoly? And here you go with the charity argument again. Charities are unreliable because they are entirely based on the willing generosity of others. Think about how many people are unemployed. Think about how much medical costs would be to those who are uninsured. Now imagine how much money would be needed to cover them all should serious injury happen. Not realistic is it?
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "Have you ever been so dishonest you think there would be more than one monopoly?" What??
"And here you go with the charity argument again." I never said anything about charities. Just non-profit organizations. Government could be considered a non-profit organization for that matter.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter Exactly how would non-profit organisations other than the government be funded? Yes, the government is none profit, and it is done so because it is sustained by taxes.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Houshalter And regulations are entirely justified because they give legal power to protect the consumer. Without official laws, that will not happen.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 they don't protect the consumer, they outlaw choice. Consumers are legally forbidden from buying life-saving drugs, raw milk, working appliances, etc.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter (Citation Needed). C0nc0rdance made a fantastic video about raw milk, and drugs need to meet a specific standard and be tested so they are SAFE for the consumer. He also made a video about how a supposed cancer cure was being blocked because it wouldn't make a profit and how that is bogus too.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 I've seen them, they have nothing to do with the issue that you should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to. As for drugs, the FDA blocks them for years even after they are proven to be safe, and it would still save more lives than it cost if drugs were released even before that. For that matter, the FDA is half of the reason drugs cost so much.
Non-profit doesn't mean they don't charge money.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter "I've seen them, they have nothing to do with the issue that you should be allowed to drink raw milk if you want to." This is something I agree on, but it isn't a case for removing all regulations. "he FDA blocks them for years even after they are proven to be safe, and it would still save more lives than it cost if drugs were released even before that." (Citation needed) "Non-profit doesn't mean they don't charge money." But it still doesn't solve the monopolizing problem.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 5 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 5 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 5 months ago
"People, I've told you this a million times..."
Aww, that's precious, he thinks people listen to him.
Jermbot15 6 months ago
7 people on this video don't believe that there is such a thing as Quote Mining.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@FSAthe1st Pretty much. My videos rarely get many votes, so it's easy for dishonest bigots to vote it down. I remember a couple years ago I got vote botted, but it only took about 30 votes to get me down to 1 star ratings :\.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 Take a look at the comments on my video. There's this guy who is arguing that allowing everyone access to Healthcare will weaken our Gene pool!
I mean... Wow.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st I always compared free market libertarians to social darwinists in my head, but I never thought it was that literal!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
That in and of itself is a strawman..
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 WHAT in and of itself is a strawman?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Unless you were being sarcastic, you're claiming that people dislike the video because they don't think there is such a thing as Quote Mining, which is not necessarily true at all.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 Yes, it was Sarcasm...
Why do you people lack a sense of humour? It's like dealing with Creationists.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Nice hasty generalization. Forgive "us" for not being able to see the epic hilarity via text.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 Well a large portion of the video was pointing out the dishonesty of LordTHawkeye as well as tackling his arguments, so it is possible that at least some of those 10 thumbs down (last I checked) were overlooking the fact that Mr.Hawkeye was quote mining! Why people thumbed down the video isn't the most serious point when it comes to the discussion on my video anyway.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
By the way Nightmare, don't reply to his ad homs. The more you make it the norm, the more you fuck it up for the rest of us.
CuriousMoth 7 months ago
@CuriousMoth I'll keep that in mind, thanks :).
Nightmare060 7 months ago
Don't tell me, let me guess. You just compare the NHS to the US's healthcare system like you always do as inevitably as the tides. It's all you know how to do because you can't think for yourself and actually respond to my concerns about socialism. (that being the issue of theft and violence)
Come back when you're ready to actually communicate with me and not just rehearse your own prejudices.
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye And YOU come back to ME when you learn to listen and acknowladge the fact that FSATHE1ST EXPLAINED and ELABORATED on the notion of the US not being free market. Really, you are showing your blatant dishonesty here when you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of a rebuttal to your argument. You really are quite pathetic.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 I acknowledge it's existence, I approved it as a response did I not?
But I'm sorry, you don't know how to reason. You NEVER check your statements for consistency and this response was no exception. Every single argument you make conveniently exempts the government for no logical reason and thus is nothing more than you making shit up as you go along.
One moral argument, from first principles, that does not give the state a free pass. That's all I ask.
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye That's the libertarian way! Call the opponents arguments illogical and dogmatic instead of addressing what they say. Everything you say only boils down to "You support the state, therefore you are wrong and not thinking about it". The fact you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies and instead blame it on the state makes you no better than the creationists you claim to be better than.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060:
"That's the libertarian way! Call the opponents arguments illogical and dogmatic"
Because they are. Thinking that giving a bunch of people a bunch of guns so they can threaten us into solving our problems is the way to go is indeed "illogical and dogmatic" in a way that makes PCS and Kent Hovind look like Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer.
Akatam0t0ma 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma *facepalm* the old Violence argument! Fact is, that no matter whether it's a private or social system, violence will always be used if a person resists enough. Your scare tactics have grown really old. On top of all that, Hakweye here has quote mined and ignored the video, claiming that it was illogical and dogmatic without even watching the video. Like many Libertarians such as yourself, he has a foundational bias which declares anyone who doesn't agree with him to be wrong.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma "Thinking that giving a bunch of people a bunch of guns so they can threaten us into solving our problems is the way to go-"
Is not what we were arguing in the first place. If this is what you claim we are arguing, then this is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man argument.
One more thing... You and Killian have both argued that taxes are immoral and theft by threat of violence. Go set up your own couhtry where taxes don't exist. See how long it lasts.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
//Is not what we were arguing in the first place. If this is what you claim we are arguing, then this is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man argument.//
What do you think a State is?
It would be nice if the Statists at least admitted their position instead of trying to hide behind the old "we aren't advocating a monopoly on force and using that force to take from some to give to others" crap.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "What do you think a State is?"
The question is irrelevant. Stick to the subject at hand.
"It would be nice if the Statists-"
It would be better if the Free Market Evangelists stopped using Statist like it's a religious belief.
"at least admitted their position-"
We have made our position clear.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st It really feels like Libertarians keep using the word "statist" in a false daichotamy. It doesn't seem to matter what the overall political position a person holds (I consider myself centre left to put a name on it), everyone who is not a libertarian is a "statist" and therefore wrong. Gets rather annoying after a while!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
//The question is irrelevant. Stick to the subject at hand.//
I consider my point proven. Akatam0t0ma stated that giving some people guns so they can threaten us into solving problems isn't the way to go. You claimed that was a strawman - but it is not, as that is the nature of the State, hence my question.
And I'm not using Statism like a "religious belief", if you honestly accept it then admit it. It's not necessarily a pejorative.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "I consider my point proven."
Consider what you like. Reality does not necessarily correlate on that view.
"You claimed that was a strawman - but it is not, as that is the nature of the State, hence my question."
Really? So the nature of a Government is to threaten people with guns, is it? You really should give up the Cannabis.
"And I'm not using Statism like a "religious belief", if you honestly accept it then admit it."
False dichotomy. I'm neither Statist or Anarchist.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
//Really? So the nature of a Government is to threaten people with guns, is it?//
A State has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area. I recommend reading the work of Max Weber and some political economy. I find it somewhat amusing you cannot even admit this basic fact of political economy. And WE are the creationists? Ha.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 I'll ask you again. Does the nature of a government exist to threaten people with guns? Your appeal to ridicule has been kicked in the bollocks and thrown out the door.
"A State has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area."
No shit sherlock. Care to tell us something we DON'T already know? And the use of the word Force is an appeal to emotion.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSAthe1st
//No shit sherlock. Care to tell us something we DON'T already know? And the use of the word Force is an appeal to emotion.//
YOU are the one that said that saying the State uses force to get what it wants was a strawman. You now have conceded that you are wrong. That's a start, I guess.
If you don't do what the State wishes, the State penalizes you in some way. Continuous failure to comply results in violence. Sorry, but true.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "YOU are the one that said that saying the State uses force to get what it wants was a strawman. You now have conceded that you are wrong."
MORE Strawmanning. I have done no such thing. I SAID, ad you QUOTED YOURSELF, that your use of the word FORCE is an appeal to emotion. If you've taken that as a concession that I BELIEVE the government is engaging in the use of FORCE, then you are insane.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
I stated that a State is a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, and you condescendingly agreed. I wasn't referring to your appeal to emotion reference.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "I stated that a State is a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, and you condescendingly agreed."
I did NO such thing. You are a liar.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSAthe1st
//I did NO such thing. You are a liar.//
I have no interest talking to someone who can't remember what they even posted.
ME- "A State has a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographical area."
YOU- "No shit sherlock. Care to tell us something we DON'T already know? And the use of the word Force is an appeal to emotion."
This was 20 hours ago. I'n my country "no shit sherlock" means "of course dumbass".
This is ridiculous..
rockandrock44 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockandrock44 "If you don't do what the State wishes, the State penalizes you in some way. Continuous failure to comply results in violence. Sorry, but true."
What is the role of Government?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
If there is to be a State, I would claim to protect the rights of the individuals within the society (a minarchist view).
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 Know what ELSE the State has a "monopoly" on? Governing the PEOPLE that live within its' borders. You can claim that this is a bad thing all you want, and to that I say this... Fuck off to some uninhabited piece of land somewhere, set up your own form of Government that DOESN'T tax people or businesses, and see how long YOU can maintain order and the infrastructure needed to govern people... THEN tell me that your batshit crazy ideas work.
Mug.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
So now you throw out "Love it or Leave It" ..can this really get more absurd?
I was simply stating the definition and nature of the State because YOU claimed it was a strawman to say that you endorse using a group of people to use force to solve societal problems. It is not a strawman.
And any other word you wish to use other than "force"? I would use coercion but you would probably cry about that one too.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "So now you throw out "Love it or Leave It" ..can this really get more absurd?"
Quote Mining.
"I was simply stating the definition and nature of the State because YOU claimed it was a strawman to say that you endorse using a group of people to use force to solve societal problems."
You people are all the same. The State is some EVIL entity that uses FORCE on people. Sorry, but that's paranoid nonsense.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSAthe1st
//Quote Mining.//
Maybe a strawman, but not a quote mine..I never quoted anything from you when it comes to Love it or Leave It.
You said "You can claim that this is a bad thing all you want, and to that I say this... Fuck off to some uninhabited piece of land somewhere, set up your own form of Government that DOESN'T tax people or businesses, and see how long YOU can maintain order.." That is love it or leave it.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockandrock44 "And any other word you wish to use other than "force"? I would use coercion but you would probably cry about that one too."
Pathetic. What is the purpose of a Government?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
How is that "pathetic"? You stated that using the word "force" is an appeal to emotion. What would you use instead as a correct term to describe the political privileges of the State?
Insults aren't a substitute for an argument.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 What is the role of Government?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 Violence will always be a last result for none compliant people, regardless of if it's through private or public services. It's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual! Not to mention the benefits that "forced" taxes give.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "t's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual!"
Yup... It's all about the double standard with these people.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Is it a double standard to say that, while a policeman can use deadly force against an armed offender who threatens civilians, he cannot use lethal force to ensure compliance with a noise ordinance?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Same response to this question. While you and your cohorts are unwilling to address the arguments I presented in my videos, I have nothing to say to any of you, and thus I consider myself under no obligation to answer questions across the whole spectrum of Economic Theory like you;d prefer me to do.
Let's see if you can understand this sentence...
WATCH MY VIDEOS... THEN YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
Is that simple enough for you?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Then you can answer for rockandrock (who has seen your videos) Akatam0t0ma whose source you were criticizing.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Then you can answer for rockandrock (who has seen your videos) Akatam0t0ma whose source you were criticizing."
My answer will be posted to them.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 //It's funny how libertarians whine about using "force" to make people pay taxes, but they have no problem using "force" to stop someone murdering another individual!//
Must've been a major oversight on our part, it's not like we differentiate between the two or anything...come on, if you're going to criticize a school of thought, at least do some research on the school's basic tenants.
Hint: There's a difference between justified retaliatory force and the initiation of force
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@Nightmare060
//Not to mention the benefits that "forced" taxes give.//
You're conflating two ethical schools of thought, Utilitarianism and Natural Rights Theory.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@Nightmare060:
In fact, this belief is even more stupid, because at least they have the excuse of fear of eternal punishment for abandoning their stupid belief, whereas you don't. And NO libertarians EVER " refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies". It's just that we understand the way the state distorts the incentive structures that makes it that way, whereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge.
Akatam0t0ma 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma "And NO libertarians EVER " refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings by private companies". It's just that we understand the way the state distorts the incentive structures that makes it that way"
Making excuses for why companies behave so atrociously in the marketplace does not equate to acknowledging the wrongdoing of those companies themselves, so it looks as though the points about the Free MArket Evangelists not acknowledging that it's the Companies' faults still stands.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma "whereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge."
Funny... Maybe if you'd watched our videos instead of simply clicking on Play for 1 minute, stopping again, and commenting in a knee-jerk reaction, you;'d see that neither of us are arguing that this is the case at all. I'm not surprised at this of course.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma "hereas you think the state can either do no wrong, or if it does, then it's only because the wrong ruling class was in charge."
Then how come I criticize laws restricting public nudity, disagree with the war on drugs and head/desk at republicans ignoring the separation of church and state in the US? Oh wait, you didn't know any of that because you assume I'm a dogmatic "Statist" without ever asking or bothering to learn what I actually believe!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@lordthawkeye "Don't tell me, let me guess. You just compare the NHS to the US's healthcare system like you always do as inevitably as the tides."
You have been told on three separate occasions, by myself and by Nightmare060 that this ISN'T the case. Notwithstanding I already mentioned this in the video that 1: you didn't watch, and 2: took a quote out of context from.
Nothing else you can possibly say is worth listening to given this blatantly obvious fact.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@FSAthe1st Answer me straight shot then: Did your video morally analyze socialized healthcare from first principles without special pleading for the government?
If not, we have nothing to talk about.
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye Short answer; Yes. Now actually watch it and be honest with yourself for a change.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 Hmm...
You accuse private companies of being succeptible to bribes and yet the thought of politicians doing that is not mentioned even though you claim to know what corporatism is?
So yes you do still special plead for the state so you lied. You even go so far as the say that politicians aren't in it for the money. As someone who's premier voted himself a 30% pay raise despite a recession...I am truly at a loss for words at how naive you are.
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye "You accuse private companies of being succeptible to bribes and yet the thought of politicians doing that is not mentioned even though you claim to know what corporatism is?" Straw-Man. I was pointing out how you seem to ignore the fact the private companies are doing so and blame the state for accepting them. Hence why I don't think private companies should be involved in the first place.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye "So yes you do still special plead for the state so you lied. " Except you are basing this on a straw-man since I never stated it was an excuse for the state.
"ou even go so far as the say that politicians aren't in it for the money." Because they aren't trying to make extra profit, they are putting in laws and legislation that they believe helps the people most.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye "As someone who's premier voted himself a 30% pay raise despite a recession...I am truly at a loss for words at how naive you are."
[Citation needed] That and I clearly explained that the motives are usually different. The NHS is not run to make as much money as possible. It is there to be what hospitals should be for; Treating the sick and injured based on medical need!
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 "As someone who's premier voted himself a 30% pay raise despite a recession...I am truly at a loss for words at how naive you are."
Mr Hawkeye is arguing this line in spite of the fact that the Premier in question is in CANADA and NOT the United Kingdom.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 I've uploaded "Fail Quote-Mine for August" to my channel (it should be processed by the time you get a chance to see it). And to prevent the same quote-mining as before, I've set it up as Audio Only with just the title playing throughout. Let's see Mr Hawkeye try that same trick again!
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@lordthawkeye "Answer me straight shot then: Did your video morally analyze socialized healthcare from first principles without special pleading for the government?"
Since you couldn't even be bothered to watch the video to begin with, we have nothing to talk about.
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
Corporations focus on profit, thus on efficiency. They generally take on potentially profitable ideas brought to them and have the means to put these ideas into action. Corporations promote international trade, which does a lot to bring about peace in the world. All of this is good.
The downside is that if any one corporation has a monopoly, they can adjust the prices and product quality as they please and so regulations become necessary to protect consumers and small businesses.
CuriousMoth 7 months ago
@CuriousMoth Pretty much yes. When peoples lives are concerned, I don't think focusing on maximizing profit should really be the priority. Always treat patients by need, not what makes them money!
Nightmare060 7 months ago
You miss the point. Corporatism is what makes the system so bad, more than anything else. And you want to fix it with even more government intervention. If some solution isn't working and ends up just making things worse, the rational thing is to do even more of it!
On a competitive market these problems disappear because businesses that best meet consumer demands thrive over those that don't. In government you simply don't have that mechanism.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter You've already had explained both in this video and FSAthe1st's video about how competition won't fix anything when there is a monopoly! That and countries like Japan and Germany work very well with strictly controlled private healthcare, but I think it's even better to remove privatized insurers as the main givers all together. When it becomes free to the point of use WITH regulations, then the customer has power to stop dishonest practitioners and never have to worry about cost.
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 only if there is a monopoly, and that simply never happens without government intervention. And without choice, then there is no way to determine the safest or most cost-efficient way.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter "only if there is a monopoly, and that simply never happens without government intervention."
[Citation Needed] Without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed because money is power.
" And without choice, then there is no way to determine the safest or most cost-efficient way."
And you repeat the same old "Choice" nonsense. Private insurance hospitals here in the UK are for minor medical problems quickly if you have the money. But otherwise you get treated or you don't!
Nightmare060 7 months ago
@Nightmare060 You are the one making a positive claim, so you get the damn citation. There were not hundreds of monopolies before anti-trust laws or currently in countries where they don't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong though. As long as competition isn't prevented from emerging again, they can't guarantee a monopoly.
You have to pay twice though, once in taxes and again for private insurance. And they still are heavily regulated and don't get the subsidies government hospitals do.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter "There were not hundreds of monopolies before anti-trust laws or currently in countries where they don't exist."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!
Hundreds of Monopolies cannot exist! I suggest you go look up the definition of the word "MONOpoly".
FSAthe1st 7 months ago
@FSAthe1st:
When he said "hundreds of monopolies", he probably meant, monopolies across hundreds of sectors. And indeed, they didn't exist. The anti-trust laws didn't come because there was too little competition and companies had to be broken, but because there was TOO MUCH of it, in the eyes of those who lobbied for them and then used them, because they couldn't compete fairly, so they had to bring the guns of the state into the game. So the point stands. There were NO monopolies back then.
Akatam0t0ma 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Keep pumping out unsourced claims. Doesn't make your argument any more valid.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma "The anti-trust laws didn't come because there was too little competition and companies had to be broken, but because there was TOO MUCH of it, in the eyes of those who lobbied for them and then used them, because they couldn't compete fairly, so they had to bring the guns of the state into the game."
What source is there for this claim?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Uh..yes, they can. It's called monopolies in different industries..
As in a monopoly in the oil industry and a monopoly in the garment industry by 2 different companies. Hence monopolies.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "Uh..yes, they can. It's called monopolies in different industries."
We're talking about only ONE industry. Do try to keep up.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
//We're talking about only ONE industry. Do try to keep up.//
Read Houshalter's post again. it is quite clear he or she meant "hundreds of monopolies" in the context of multiple industries. Even Nightmare060 stated "without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed", and Houshalter responded to it with the "hundreds of monopolies" post.
Disingenuous much?
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "Read Houshalter's post again. it is quite clear he or she meant "hundreds of monopolies" in the context of multiple industries."
Notwithstanding the fact that this video was a response to quote mined material from one of MY videos, on the subject of Healthcare... One industry ONLY.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "Even Nightmare060 stated "without regulations, monopolies are guaranteed", and Houshalter responded to it with the "hundreds of monopolies" post."
And once again, it doesn't matter. This video, and the one that it relates to, plus the one that it relates to before that, discuss HEALTHCARE. ONE industry.
So who's REALLY being disingenuous VERY much?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st actually I was talking about multiple industries, and if you can't find evidence of monopolies occuring in any other industry, then why would you jump to the conclusion it is inevitable in health care?
Anyways, WTF is with replying to people you blocked?
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter I suspect he's doing so because on my video it's more a chance to make his points to people. That's what I'm guessing anyway, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "That's what I'm guessing anyway, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong."
He was blocked on my channel and I detailed the list of reasons why. He seems to be under the impression that this automatically disqualifies me from ever talking to him again.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Houshalter "Anyways, WTF is with replying to people you blocked?"
Oh, I'm sorry... Do you want me to stop talking to you and just ignore the fact you're still spouting your nonsense?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
Oh... And by this logic, you should criticise ShaneDK for doing the same thing to me after he blocked me for "homophobia".... A bullshit claim by the way. If it's OK for him to do it, why not me?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Shanedk blockes everyone that disagrees with him, does that make it ok?
Houshalter 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houshalter "Shanedk blockes everyone that disagrees with him, does that make it ok?"
No, but I didn't block your ass for disagreeing with me.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Again, Houshalter was discussing it in the context of multiple industries. I said nothing about what your video was about.
And yet I'm disingenuous?
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 Well however you boil down the semantics, health insurance companies getting a monopoly is a very dangerous situation to be in. Because when that happens, it doesn't matter how unfair the insurers are. People have no choice but to go to them if they cannot afford healthcare without insurance!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060
I agree with you. Here in the US people are not allowed to look for insurers across State lines, and most States have 2-3 giant insurance companies running a cartel/oligopoly that can do whatever they want.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockandrock44 "and most States have 2-3 giant insurance companies running a cartel/oligopoly that can do whatever they want. " what is Stopping a smaller insurance company for competing with the larger ones, shouldn't the market magic this problem away.
TheHolySTD 6 months ago
@Houshalter "ou are the one making a positive claim, so you get the damn citation."
No, YOU are making the positive claim that monopolies can't exist in a free market. So YOU provide evidence for your claim. Tell me, how exactly do you expect companies to not be able to gain enough money to buy out smaller companies and merge into one big super company? Why do you think my local supermarket was merged years ago with the chain supermarket Sainsburies?
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "Why do you think my local supermarket was merged years ago with the chain supermarket Sainsburies?"
Actually this is a very good point. There was no lobbying in this case to make buy-out terms favourable to large corporations like Sainsbury's... They got as big as they did through making lots of money, thus they are able to undercut the competition and price them out of the market, or simply buy them outright. These Free Market people never think of that, do they?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st I would also point out to how Microsoft pretty much dominate the OS industry. 99% of all computers you can buy in shops have windows, and we all know quite well how infamous for crashing windows can be! And yet they still make tons of money because there is almost no competition (most other OS outside of Mac computers are open source to my knowledge). Another point that libertarians conveniently ignore.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "I would also point out to how Microsoft pretty much dominate the OS industry. [SNIP!]"
That's a well kniown example. These people love to argue that the Government is responsible for allowing monopolies to form in the first place. Never mind the fact that (a) Microsoft never lobbied governments to allow their software to proliferate across the PC industry, and (b) many Industrialised countries have Antitrust laws, stopping them from 100% proliferation.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 Because no matter how much money they have, they can't stop competition from emerging later. If you promise everyone that is capable of creating or investing in new companies that you promise to buy them out the minute they do so, then that is what they are going to do.
Microsoft got a state granted monopoly through intellectual property laws BTW. Come up with a real free-market example if you are going to try to dispute it.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter "Because no matter how much money they have, they can't stop competition from emerging later. "
No, but once they have a monopoly, any small business will not be able to afford to undercut them since they still need to make a profit. Once you get to the stage of mega corporation, there is little one guy off the street can do to stop them. Especially when it's healthcare we're dealing with, which is a very expensive field!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 economies of scale doesn't mean they can't get undercut by the little guy, esspecially if they are fixing prices far above actual market levels. And there is nothing saying only small businesses can compete against monopolies. Finally, even if it ever did become a problem on a free market, though I doubt it would, you don't consider how consumers would react. They may very well create a demand for businesses that contractually agree they won't let themselves get bought out.
Houshalter 6 months ago
@Houshalter "Microsoft got a state granted monopoly through intellectual property laws BTW. "
Source please. And I would like to know if a free market has ever existed, because currently I know of none in existence. And as FSAthe1st explained in his video, there are quite a few factors including better technology which make the culture of the 1920s very different from today, so it's not really comparable. Be sure to avoid appeals to tradition!
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Houshalter "Microsoft got a state granted monopoly through intellectual property laws BTW. "
Yes... Because everyone has the right to protect their intellectual property. And again, this doesn't address the point.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Houshalter "only if there is a monopoly, and that simply never happens without government intervention." Standard Oil?
TheHolySTD 7 months ago
@TheHolySTD:
Standard Oil was NOT a monopoly, and when it was dominant on the market, prices of oil drastically dropped, and it had over 150 competitors:
mises(.)org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil
Akatam0t0ma 6 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Posting a link from the Mises Institute, a clearly biased Libertarian Think Tank, is not evidence.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Ad hominem logical fallacy. Bias is only relevant after you have criticized the data presented by the source on its own merits, either by pointing out a flaw in reasoning or evidence. By that logic, any source that agrees with your opponent's viewpoint can be dismissed out of hand simply because it agrees with your opponent. Then again, that would be rather convenient for you, wouldn't it?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Ad hominem logical fallacy."
What exactly are you referring to? You're one of those who doesn't actually point out what he's referring to. Care to make an exception for once and stop behaving like a Politician?
"By that logic, any source that agrees with your opponent's viewpoint can be dismissed out of hand simply because it agrees with your opponent."
Hypocrisy. You people do this ALL the time. Your own comments about refusing to watch my video is evidence of that.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st When you dismissed a source as being biased. An article from Mises cannot be logically dismissed because it comes from mises. One must address the article's data and reasoning first. Bias is only useful for determining the reason why the data was flawed.
Even if your portrayal of events were accurate, ad hominem Tu quoque.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "When you dismissed a source as being biased. An article from Mises cannot be logically dismissed because it comes from mises."
When everything from the Mises Institute is biased?
"One must address the article's data and reasoning first."
Please refrain from such arrant hypocrisies in my presence.
fs3d 6 months ago
@fs3d "When everything from the Mises Institute is biased?"
Even if that were the case, you cannot dismiss a source out of hand by claiming bias. You must deconstruct the argument itself.
"The same Ad Hominem Tu Quoque you committed when you said my video was a waste of time without even bothering to watch it. Yeah... Hypocrisy."
As I said, even were your recounting of events accurate, it would be irrelevant.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Even if your portrayal of events were accurate, ad hominem Tu quoque."
The same Ad Hominem Tu Quoque you committed when you said my video was a waste of time without even bothering to watch it. Yeah... Hypocrisy.
fs3d 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Oh, and by the way...
"When you dismissed a source as being biased."
It's not even a source... It's an UNSOURCED Editorial.
You really have sunk to a new low with this one.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st "It's not even a source... It's an UNSOURCED Editorial."
This criticism, if correct, is logically sound. Further rebuttals should be made in this vein in order to preserve legitimacy.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Then again, that would be rather convenient for you, wouldn't it? "
Projection. You have done this on numerous occasions.
See, Virgil... You have told me that I'm not worth wasting my time on and that you won't watch my videos... So why are you wasting time on commenting to me? Try to be consistent.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Ad hominem logical fallacy."
Scratch that. I found the comment you replied to. Call it an Ad Hominem all you want. There is NOTHING from the Mises Institute that ISN'T biased toward Free-For-All Economics, and you know it.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Now... Since I'm not worth bothering with and my videos aren't worth watching, try to contain your impulse to keep replying to me. I'm not interested in someone who won't even argue against what his critics are arguing for in the first place.
Buh bye now.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st ad hominem and, perhaps, ad hominem Tu quoque.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
So you dismissed his evidence because of the source? Sorry, that is a logical fallacy. You're acting like a creationist.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "So you dismissed his evidence because of the source? Sorry, that is a logical fallacy."
I'm saying that the source isn't evidence to begin with.
"You're acting like a creationist."
If you say so.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
If you actually read the article, you would know that it cites independent sources, such as John McGee's two Journal of Law and Economics articles debunking these tired myths about Standard Oil.
rockandrock44 6 months ago
@rockandrock44 "If you actually read the article, you would know that it cites independent sources, such as John McGee's"
John McGee gives an OPINION on the issue... And the Article is HEAVILY biased from my reading of it just now.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st "John McGee gives an OPINION on the issue... And the Article is HEAVILY biased from my reading of it just now."
Is this a result of your reading of the articles from the Journal of Law & Economics? If so, could you please provide evidence, such as quotations? In order to be a legitimate criticism, you must prove the source wrong before you claim bias.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Is this a result of your reading of the articles from the Journal of Law & Economics?"
This is a Red Herring. I thought, by the way, that I wasn't worth wasting time on?
"In order to be a legitimate criticism, you must prove the source wrong before you claim bias. "
What, like NOT watching a video on the basis that your critic is not worth wasting your time on? Is that what you meant?
By the way... I thought you weren't going to waste time arguing with someone like me?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Are your assertions a result of reading the sources of what you claimed to be an 'unsourced editorial' or not?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Are your assertions a result of reading the sources of what you claimed to be an 'unsourced editorial' or not?"
I thought I wasn't worth wasting time on? You'll get nothing whatsoever out of me until you can demonstrate that you are willing to address my ACTUAL arguments by watching the videos I have produced. Since you have already declared on multiple occasions that you are NOT willing to do so, we have nothing to discuss.
Buh bye now.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Are your assertions a result of reading the sources of what you claimed to be an 'unsourced editorial' or not?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Repeating the same question like a Creationist will not produce the desired response. This constitutes harrassment. Discontinue.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Do you maintain your claim that the editorial is unsourced? Do you maintain your claims of bias against the editorial and the peer reviewed literature it cited?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 This is the 3rd pointless repetition of the same question.
I'll put this into words of one syllable or less so you can comprehend this sentence.
WATCH... WHAT... I... MADE... ON... MY... PAGE.
THEN... WE... CAN... TALK... MORE.
Now is THAT simple enough for you to understand?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 I think if you just admit you want to argue and will argue based on what is actually said (I.E; Watching the videos in question) then you will get your answer. I have yet to read said "source" and so I make no comment on this particular diversion. I'll stick to the topic at hand, which is about the notion of socialist vs. free market healthcare.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 Understood, though I fail to see why you commented if you had nothing to add.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 Just to state my position on the tangent and be honest with my arguments, or lack thereof.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 I see. I appreciate your candor and your attempts to maintain some form of decorum. Then again, I'm inclined to respect any male age 12+ who has the security of self to use a pokemon as their avatar. :-P
You a first-generation fan, or did you pick up from one of the later games?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 I will shift the conversation about Pokemon and other such hobbies to PM. Although youtube seems to be being a pain (again!) and not letting me send anything. No idea why. I'm also unmarking alot of responses that were marked as spam. Even if I disagree with an argument, a counter opinion is not spam.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 In fact, send a friends request to my "TheNightmareRider" channel. More focused on entertainment and stuff there.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "Understood, though I fail to see why you commented if you had nothing to add."
Gee, I can't POSSIBLY imagine what his reason might be, can you?
Maybe it has to do with the fact that this is HIS channel? And if that's not good enough for you, perhaps it has to do with... I don't know... Maybe the FACT that you are going off on a tangent that gets further and further away from the topic of the videos we have produced?!
Watch the videos, THEN you can ask questions.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Comments thus far have only covered the conversation at hand and evidence cited within said conversation. No tangents have been explored.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "No tangents have been explored."
Outright Lie. This video discusses the issue of Quote Mining of my original video on HEALTHCARE. You are trying to take the issue to that of a biased article on Standard Oil, a subject raised by two others on this channel, and one I have ZERO interest in discussion with a dishonest individual such as yourself. Others, perhaps, but NOT someone who is UNWILLING to argue against what I am ACTUALLY arguing.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st If that is the case, then why did you not raise this criticism to those you were discussing the topic with?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st In fact, why not raise this criticism against Nightmare060, who has claimed that the subject is socialized vs free market healthcare instead of quote-mining on your video?
If one were to follow your logic, they could immediately claim bias which would (again, by your logic) invalidate everything you had to say on the subject without confronting your arguments.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@Virgil0211 "In fact, why not raise this criticism against Nightmare060, who has claimed that the subject is socialized vs free market healthcare instead of quote-mining on your video?"
This is further evidence that you have not watched his video. Such dishonesty is rampant among your group, just like your dishonest claim that I have made homophobic comments (a subject I covered in a video you decided to SPAM). That kind of dishonesty warrants no further response to ANY of your questions.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st " This video discusses the issue of Quote Mining of my original video on HEALTHCARE. " (You, in a statement about the subject you claimed was avoided)
" I'll stick to the topic at hand, which is about the notion of socialist vs. free market healthcare." (Nightmare060)
Which one has directed the conversation onto a tangent?
Virgil0211 6 months ago