I like the idea of a lib/moderate coalition to fight the crazy assholes.
I think we should also have more children (at least two per family) to combat the crazy rat-like reproduction rates of the right wingers. Imagine if there were two or three people directly raised and closely influenced by The Amazing Atheist? eventually there'd be a better America.
It makes me laugh that in other videos you have criticised your users' use of grammar and capitalisation to emphasise their points, but you use vocal stress, music, and dramatic pauses to make yours. I guess that makes you a hypocrite. Nevertheless, this was an excellent video. Many valuable points.
@matbroomfield I assume that he's referring to youtube comments when he says that. But this is an act of oratory. If this was a message that was written out, then yes; it would be hypocritical. But it's not, he's speaking out load. Although the music was pretty annoying, what the fuck was that for? It just annoyed me.
@TheAnimusification People use punctuation, occasionally capitalisation, etc to clarify the stresses in their writing, which if anything makes even more sense as it is an act of clarification in a medium lacking those cues. Why should it be ok for TJ to use dramatic presentation in an oratorial medium, but worthy of derision when his users do the same in writing? I don't see why you draw a distinction?
@matbroomfield No, you're misunderstanding me. Well, partially. I'm not saying that the use of punctuation/capitalization in a written form is worthy of being mocked(as long as it complies with the rules of the English language). I'm just saying that it's different. The voice and text are completely different. That's why it's not always easy to convey things in text the way you could simply talking. You have to have a better command over the English language to do the same thing with just text.
The sad thing, many minority groups are against other minority groups, with only a few exceptions. Atheists are one, while they have (justifiable) animosity toward one majority, they treat even the smallest fringe minorities with respect, and that's all that is really needed is respect from others at this time. They don't have to accept everything, they just have to respect people equally in spite of differences. But it's hard to care about some minority groups because of how they treat others.
So why did the left elect a guy whose second largest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs -- who gave over 1 million to Obama and only 1/4 million to McCain?
Oh yea, he is black, and photogenic and seems like a nice guy. Great criteria there guys.
"Hey everybody, come on, get in the van, this guy has CANDY!"
Agree with most people here, Ron Paul is the only logical choice. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but Obama's a joke, and so are the rest of the republicans.
Everyone here can hate on Ron Paul, that's fine, but Obama sucks... He's terrible, and the Democrats decided NOT to have any one to run against him, so their only choice is Obama. All of the Reputards are TERRIBLE, but what other choices do we have? I see one honest candidate and that's Ron Paul. Even I don't fully agree with him, but at least he's honest. After this election year though, I wont be voting D or R any longer. This will be my last mainstream vote, and it's going to Ron Paul.
The true way to go is libatarian or even nonpartisan, both the right wing and the left wing have problems. The right is war-mongering as the left is fiscally irresponsible with their nanny nation ways, look beyond parties to find the truth. AmazingAtheist you fail understand that the government does not represent the people anymore, that is the only reason why Obama got elected. You forget the purpose of the electoral college.
@mcdblaze EVERY ideology has issues. There is not a single one. Liberatarianism does nothing to disempower the bourgeois leaving the working classes completely open to be fucked by cooperations, and spews a contradicting rhetoric about the virtue of self reliance and ambition while simultaneously expects a nation of self serving individuals to give a rats ass about anyone else enough to provide charity. No matter what way you look at it we are fucked.
@Flimsii Good point, maybe no ideologies are 100% sound, although, Liberatarianism is one ideology that works, in my opinion. Not quite sure what your saying with the middle class being fucked by corporations, maybe be more specific. How is self reliance contradicting?
In a humorous twist, despite all your pretension you failed to even understand what his question was asking.
He wasn't asking about the role of the present United States government; he was inquiring about your idea of a just role of government.
Your haughty attitude might be marginally more appropriate if you had actually been able to understand what the person you were criticizing was saying.
There's a difference between being articulate and being pompous. You were the latter and not the former.
Talking down to people for the sake of appearing superior tends to cause observers to perceive the opposite as being true. Nobody here shares your presumption that you're smarter than them.
Once Whites become a minority in USA life for people like you is going to suck whatever you agree or disagree with. And say goodbye to women's and homosexual rights once that happens too. Because no people on Earth do as much for homosexuals and women than do Whites.
Everything you said can be applied to liberal whites, inner city black and/or latino ethnic group voting blocs you intellectually dishonest piece of shit. That's all. Oh, and by the way. You're a bigot.
I think that if the left would separate into two different groups, one aimed at social progress, and the other aimed at becoming a socialist nation, that social progress would instantly surge forth and become a contender. I like the liberal thoughts on abortion and gay marriage and such, but I am not, nor will I ever be, a socialist or a supporter of any system of government other than a capitalist republic. By purifying your goals, you might have a bit more luck meeting them.
I'm fourteen and an Agnostic Humanist. I'm not sure what political stance I should take and I'm leaning toward either Libertarianism or Liberalism. I just want a country that doesn't mix politics and religion. I want one that follows the constitution, but is flexible depending on the situation. I want the government to be minimal, as-in it's only uses would be protecting the people and settling legal disputes. I'm still on the fence of a laissez-faire econ. system but bottom line:
As much as I'd love to enlist another Libertarian into our ranks, the only person that can decide what you are is you. The primary differences between Liberals and Libertarians regard economic policy and the origin of rights. If I may get your responses to some questions it would help reveal where you stand on those issues:
You stated government’s role should be minimal, primarily to protect rights. Do you believe individuals have the right to healthcare and education?
Do you believe it proper for government to elevate individuals out of poverty or is it ultimately up to the individual?
This last one may be most important; does an employer have the right to fire a pregnant woman based solely on the fact that she’s pregnant? I’m NOT asking if they should, if it’s moral, or if it’s “fair;” I’m simply asking if you believe the employer has the RIGHT to do so. Or does the woman have the right to force her employer to keep her around?
@mountainpony (1/2)As far as healthcare goes, I'll refer to Canada. As for education I do believe that we should all have the right to be educated in a school of some kind. I wish schooling was free, because if for example, a poor mother in the ghetto can't send her child to school b/c of money, it's not right, in my opinion. I don't think the govt. should elevate people because of poverty (1/2)
@mountainpony (2/2) *CONTINUED* I believe it depends on the individual and what they do. If they need help from the government(welfare, food stamps, etc.) they should get it( and I know this is a challenge, but if we can stop welfare fraud then most other problems might be resolved more efficiently). Finally, I think that if the store wants to fire a pregnant mother ONLY because she's pregnant, then they should first look at her lifestyle( Is she a drug addict or a golden mother)
You're definitely a liberal, and it seems malignant.
The aspects of Libertarianism that attract you are ones that overlap with Liberalism (Avoiding unnecessary wars, equality of rights, no bailouts, etc.). But a true Libertarian would unhesitatingly agree an employer can rightly fire that pregnant woman. He would abhor and condemn the act but submit he has no right to use force, especially not the force of government, to promote his values.
This principle, that undue force is always wrong, is why we Libertarians disagree with welfare programs, affirmative action, subsidies and the like. While we may agree with the ends (poverty reduction, equality, etc.), we cannot condone the means, i.e. the use of force. Taking from one group without their consent in order to provide another is force and using force to take one’s property is unjust in every respect regardless of circumstance and intention.
@mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant on it. I guess you can call me a half libertarian XD JKJK but in all seriousness this helped a lot, so thanks.
@mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant on it. I guess you can call me a half libertarian XD JKJK but in all seriousness this helped a lot, so thanks.
@mountainpony@mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant. I suppose you can call me a half Libertarian (JKJK) But seriously this helped a lot so thanks.
@mountainpony (this makes three) scratch what I said, I DO think the store owner should have the right to fire her for whatever reason he/she wants. The government shouldn't be involved unless the pregnant mother claims the owner is prejudiced, in which case the govt is involved
So all in all
Yes, individuals have the right to healthcare/education
It isn't up to the government to elevate individuals out of poverty(I might be contradicting myself)
I apologize if I prematurely posted. But regarding your (more recent) response do people not have the right to be prejudice? Aren't you prejudice in selecting your friends? your partners?
Does a store owner have the right to prevent minorities or women from entering his store? (Once again the question regards rights not morals). Isn't that his private property? Can't you use your own judgement to prevent certain individuals from entering your home? Isn't that prejudice?
@mountainpony Prejudice is everywhere, I think we can only work around it, and at the end of the day that owner has the right to stop anyone he wants. In a nutshell
Prejudice can be an undesirable aspect of society, but even applying the death penalty to prejudiced individuals would do little to prevent it, except perhaps on the surface. Using force will at best disguise it. The best strategy to defeat negative prejudice is freedom; let people realize the error in their judgment through their practice of it.
For instance, let's say a store owner did prevent minorities from shopping there, what do you think would happen to his business?
@mountainpony Perfect way of describing it. Let the ignorance bring upon it's own downfall, the death penalty is only a short term solution, therefore not so useful. Agree 100%
If you support government provided healthcare/education, do you also support government provided jobs, clothing, foods, and houses? Aren't those things necessary as well?
Your argument is that some individuals are too poor or unfortunate to acquire healthcare or education and therefore government should step in. But what about, say, babies born without lungs? Surely that's not their fault. Should government require others to provide organs for the unfortunate as well?
@mountainpony (2/2) damn 200 character limit, lol. Anyway, WE should do those things for eachother, not the government. As for the baby, hey, sometimes life isn't fair :/
Exactly. People don't need to be compelled to help one another; they do so anyway. If people freely donate food and clothes, why is it so hard to believe these charitable individuals would donate money for healthcare and education? Or teachers and doctors donate their services?
Reaching into your pocket and donating that money is charity and should be commended, but reaching in another's pocket and donating it is theft and should be outlawed. The latter is what gov't does.
@mountainpony That was a good conversation, finally got to express my views to someone. Thanks for that, not many people I can speak to about this stuff XD
No problem; the feeling is mutual. You can scroll back a couple pages and see the type of people I usually spar with and it isn't pretty. This was a welcome deviation.
Hello there, I couldn't help but see your conversation with the mountainpony. Like the mountainpony, I am a libertarian. Also like mountainpony, I would be very happy to welcome you as a new individual of the liberty movement.
Anyway, your answers to his questions seem to be perhaps a bit inconsistent. By this I mean that the crucial difference between liberals and libertarians is that the former are collectivists and the latter are individualists.
@tubecrabs Well, after studying around many different political views since my last conversation, I've decided that my views reflect that of Left-Libertarianism (Libertarian Socialism). My views may chance in the future, as my thoughts are a bit scattered, which explains my inconsistency. Anyway, to answer your question I would say I have an individualist point of view, and also, thank you for your interest.
I would argue that private charities can do a better job of allocating resources to those most in need and that government-run welfare is counter-productive. Its intentions are good but its results are what matter. Tax-funded welfare means individuals have less money to spend or donate as they see fit and creates a false sense of involvement; people feel as though they don't need to donate more or volunteer because they already paid taxes and government will take care of it.
But you gotta understand that not everyone is going to agree with you. As a far left libertarian, I still must admit that my ideas are only perfect for what I believe. No matter how much you think "These conservative republicans have absolutely zero common sense!" you have to realize that it makes what makes sense to you may not make sense to them, and vice versa.
Stupid people disgusts me. The fact that they are the ones holding power in the most powerful country in the world disgusts me even more. Their logic is so absurd that I don't understand how it could possibly be considered in first place.
I used to think that it was important to have individuality when I was a young christian. Then I learned that atheism is truth and creationists are dumb about everything. If individuality is so important then why do you expect cops to protect you from criminals?
"We hate government except when we want it to help us!" Lol.
We all have a right to have good things. Do you actually believe those sick Aesop's Fables? The grasshopper didn't ask to be lazy, why does he deserve to starve?
No one said the government is the answer to our problem, dipshit. Getting our government to clean up it's act and do it's job properly is how this country will be fixed. And that will take a grassroots movement that isn't driven by Murdoch's propoganda empire.
@Courtiousness If you have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the government is us. We have faith in ourselves. But with respect to you guys... Oh, well, 'noug said.
So a democracy, but what is the proper ROLE of government? Is it to protect its citizenry's rights to life and property or to provide them with goods and housing and other necessities? It can't be both. Can a democratically elected Congress do pretty much anything as long as the majority of citizens agree?
@Courtiousness *Peoria Journal Start Columnist* Phil Luciano recently related that someone had stated something to him [Luciano] as if he were explaining quantum physics to a monkey. I reply in the same spirit. Why, no, son. Perhaps you'd like to check out Footnote 4 in the *Carolene Products* case--304 U.S. 144(1938). And Justice Black did not do himself proud applying it in *Korematsu* v. *United States*.
de: newdarnacount You, son, have a lot to learn that is not included in Dr. Ron Paul's--or any other right-winger's--HISstory or imaginary Constitution.
@Courtiousness At least we can show the government actully exists. I don't see how Universal healthcare or a public option would limit individuality. Nor do i see how legalizing gay maridge turns people into government slaves. Explain please?
Okay, I'll answer your questions even though you didn't answer mine.
Firstly, the funds from programs like Universal Healthcare have to come from somewhere, either taxes, borrowing or printing, all of which makes the citizenry poorer by devaluating the currency.
Next, medical care is a service, a product of labor, and individuals have no right to compel someone to labor for them. Can I force you to build me a house or sew me clothing? No, but government can?
UH creates a moral hazard; since you no longer directly bear the costs of healthcare you’re more likely to increase your consumption, increasing the total cost of the healthcare program even though you don’t pay an extra dime.
What about smoking, exercise and bad diets? They worsen your health and increase costs. Should government ban smoking, compel exercise and monitor diets? Sex and vacationing improve health; should government provide sex partners and Mexico trips too?
I understand the good-intentions behind UH but no one considers its unintended consequences or underlying notion that it’s government’s or society’s responsibility to provide for everyone. This notion, especially as a basis for law, requires the dissolution of freedom and individuality in favor of collectivism and servitude-through-duty to your fellowman. A free society yields both the prosperity of liberty and the charitability of collectivism without its immoral use of force.
And regarding gay marriage (or any form of marriage for that matter), I'm not for ANY government involvement whatsoever. What right do politicians have to tell you who you can and can't marry? A just government wouldn't concern itself with such things because it has no right to. That's my concern with a purely democratic government; with only a majority vote, gay marriage could be outlawed. Any undesirable act could be. That's not only unjust, it's immoral.
@Courtiousness I agree with you, governement shouldnt get involved whatsoever, if i had it my way, marridge wouldnt even be recognised by the government or law. Government has no say in these matters you say? Well why do politicains run on not letting gays marry? Thats government getting into your busnies. As for unjust, how exactly? And morality is subjective.
I didn't say it doesn't, I say it shouldn't. A government that interferes in such matters is unjust because the only consistent, proper role of government is the protection of our rights, our property and our liberty. These rights stem from our individuality, our humanity, and no government nor individual can justly violate or rescind them.
@Courtiousness So your argument against gay rights is that the governments only job is to protect rights thus we shouldnt give rights to gays...What? Your argument makes no sense.
These rights stem from our individuality, our humanity, and no government nor individual can justly violate or rescind them.
Yeah, except maybee for the 27 amendments added to the constituion. Rights are added and taken away by goverments in every country.
If one accepts this as the role of government, one cannot say that Universal Healthcare or welfare is just; that requires the confiscation of private property to be redistributed according to the one's class or a politician's preference. Some accept the intentions as moral or just, but that doesn't make the act of redistribution by force any less unjust. And, frankly, these programs hardly if ever succeed in achieving their goals.
@Courtiousness I don't except that as the only role of a government so that basicly invalidates your next argument. But i will say i live in the UK. the NHS is fine, there is no taking away of private property by the NHS. So i guess you pulled that out of your ass. There are actully private healthcare companys here too making a fat profit every year, so its not like the private companys that exist are choking under some kind of evil 'government control'.
Where do NHS funds derive from? Taxation. Money is property. If I were a beneficiary of private healthcare and insurance, what justification do you have to fund the NHS with my money (my property)?
I agree with you that taxation should be voluntary, and voluntary taxation would surely resolve the issue. If the NHS provided the best healthcare service at the lowest cost it would surely not require to take money from the citizenry by force.
My first inquiry regarded your claim that the NHS doesn't "take away private property" when in its current form it clearly does.
My following post regards that voluntary taxation would lead to the dissolution of these programs you claim are properly pursued by government. In my opinion that's fantastic; I advocate their dissolution. The market would do a far better job of offering those services than a government bureaucracy.
Does a citizen have the right to take another's money without their consent? No. Does a group of citizens? No? Hmm... what if they did it through government, then it's okay right?
What I'm alluding to is the principle that government has no more rights than those it governs. What rational position can one take that answers "no" my first two questions but "yes" to my last? It's entirely inconsistent. Where would government acquire these rights from?
@Courtiousness Nice try but no cigar. I think taxes should be voluntary. If you dont want to pay taxes then you shouldnt, but you shouldnt get to use the public funded services. And if you decide to pay tax you get access to these services. It keeps everybody happy.
What questions ? The government has lots of roles. It has a role to put out fires, to defend a country, to uphold jutice and i think, provide healthcare.
I thought you could of figured out thats what i meant
Why stop at healthcare? Why not provide everyone with a job? What about proper housing and nutrition? Automobiles? Clothing? What logical reasoning is there to justify providing healthcare but not the rest of these things?
As long as government provides these things there is no way taxation will become voluntary. Politicians and central planners in charge of these functions could never possess enough knowledge and talent to offer these services more efficiently than the market.
i personally don't think in a trillion years we would ever have any revolution where the people put aside their hate towards others and fight together. cool vid though. :)
Being an atheist, socialist, and a cop I agree with everything in this video except for the anti-police part near the end. Police aren't brutal and do help people. BUT... I still like and favorite this video. The majority of this I can stand for and will compromise for the greater good of the liberal agenda. While I may not like the name of this political party... their goals are the same as yours: the National Atheist Party. Not that we don't have a 2 party system though...
@Vindaven the cops get used has a political football - they're always piggy in the middle (no pun intended) but the vast majority of the time the cops help maintain a civilized society, But credit where credits due - the police have made vast improvements from the homophobic, racist bad old days. And I think affirmative action has played an important role in this respect.
You also see the state in splendid isolation from geo-political realities. A State tyranny can develop in reaction to an aggressive enemy. There's no evidence to suggest that a Libertarian Republic wouldn't come under attack from a foreign rival. So you still might have to introduce conscription or commandeer private property - or else be invaded. Look at Germany - after WW1 - was the rise of Hitler down to the evil of government or the Treaty of Versaille.
If you tried to implement your government in an arena where it was able to forcibly consolidate wealth, suffer no burden to produce, and outlaw competitive governmental systems, your government would definitely be unjust. It would be extremely coercive and inefficient.
Government just doesn’t do these things right. It can’t replicate the market pricing mechanism, determine best use of land, promote innovation, or accurately predict successful business ventures.
@tubecrabs This is why we have things like democracy, a free press and free assembly. I don't care that much for state power myself. A government should be scared of its people not the other way round - but I'm more interested in public ownership as a vehicle for safeguarding the interests of the working class - against the Darwinian race to the bottom of the free market.
@tubecrabs Of course I'm being facetious with my Social Feudalism - but I do so to demonstrate that taxation needn't always be gathered by force. Corporations are free agents - if they don't want to pay they are free to invest elsewhere - so government, like any other landlord, can charge for the use of their property. This is a system of raising revenue that a government might use more frequently - as the rich refuse to pay tax on "moral" grounds or squirrel away their fortunes off shore.
@tubecrabs You say government doesn't do things right - which is a specious argument - government gets a lot of things right - like putting a man on the moon, or building freeways and bridges but then does other things wrong like starting wars and deregulating the banks. So the point is - to keep the good stuff and eliminate the bad - dozens of other countries show this is perfectly achievable.
I would like to stress that liberty and justice can be promoted by many different styles of government (or even in its absence). Some version of your model of a feudal socialist government could even exist on the state level in America, or as a competing government in a system where governments that obtain their funds through non-coercive means compete for funding and citizens within a constitutionally limited framework.
This clearly wouldn’t be true though. You could just as well call me a statist for my belief that government can be a tool to promote liberty and justice. I am neither one nor the other. My loyalty is to self-ownership, individual liberty, justice, and to the institutions of voluntary human association that promote these. Government can be one such institution.
The risk is that government can quickly become an institution of oppression.
It’s not that government CAN’T obtain legal ownership of all property. Of course it can. It’s that a government that does this is not a just government.
I think that a just government can take many different forms. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that government is even necessary to promote liberty and justice.
And, no, I didn’t accidentally let the cat out of the bag. I’m well aware that my saying this might create a temptation to accuse me of being an anarchist.
Government can do all sorts of things. A sovereign people can determine what kind of government they want. If we wanted government to strip women’s rights to vote and compete in the workplace, hey government has the power to do that.
If we want government to apply a 90% tax on men between the ages of 25-40, are you kidding me? That's no problem for government! Compulsory military service, slavery, ethnic cleansing - this is government we're talking about; consider it done.
@tubecrabs You say regulation always fails - which is a meaningless statement - a little like saying health inspectors always fail because they never completely wipe out food poisoning. But what about all the food poisoning they managed to stop. Letting the banks regulate themselves was madness and resulted in disaster - as governments are now at last realizing.
I won't call it tax or compensation. I'll call it theft. If a corporation damages individuals then it should compensate the damaged individuals, not make compulsory payments to government.
If it's so beneficial to corporations then taxes don't need to be involuntary. Make it voluntary. I contend that they would not pay and that you know this perfectly well.
Individuals put their money into a corporation, not a government piggy bank; government taking this money by force is theft.
@tubecrabs Why can't the government act like any other feudal landowner. Lord Halifax - once the local squire round this neck of the woods - once charged airline companies for flying over his land - he also made a fortune out of quarrying and coal mining without lifting a finger. So lets say, the government becomes the great feudal baron - and the corporations become the tenant farmers. If the land is purchased fairly and squarely then no theft has taken place whatsoever.
You clearly misunderstand. Government fails to regulate any better (and quite often worse) than market forces do. In the long run health inspectors don't inhibit any less cases of food poisoning while costing society more money and freedom. Furthermore, giving inspectors the power to fine and close down establishment often leads to corruption and abuse.
Banks were not left unregulated; they were encouraged to make bad loans and protected from default when, inevitably, they failed.
What happens to these criminal-minded individuals in your system? It’s not like we didn’t have laws in place to prevent the fraud from happening; the law just didn’t work. What system prevents people who refuse to obey law from causing harm? We could have an incredibly coercive police state, but that still couldn’t guarantee that bad people can’t do bad things.
You again criticize liberty for a feature of humanity and fail to provide an alternative that addresses the problem.
@tubecrabs No system is perfect but financial deregulation has seen a massive increase in businessmen cooking the books - has one would see a massive increase in food poisoning if you sacked all the health inspectors or a massive increase in drink driving if you sacked all the traffic cops. Do you think government likes paying for all these officials just to jack up the money supply for Keynesian stimulation. The problem is every time they get rid of them - very bad things happen.
Over time personal responsibility and maturity would take hold in society. The only reason we might see increases in drunk driving or food poisoning cases is nowadays people's choices and their consequences are so cushioned by government intervention.
Would you start drunk driving just because you wouldn't get fined or your license suspended? If your answer is yes, you find the potential artificial punishment of fining or suspension worse than potentially taking an innocent life.
What allowed Bernie Madoff to perform his great heist? Consumer complacency did. It’s just a foregone conclusion to most consumers that government is watching out for their interests. If consumers held no such false ideas then the private sector would deal with this uncertainty like it deals with everything else.
There’s actually an ad on this video from LearnLiberty that talks about market solutions to theft. You should check it out; it’s pretty good.
What’s your solution to things like Enron’s fraud? Government accounting mandates aren’t good solutions. Not only do they create negative externalities, they enhance the problem. Government watchdog agencies are ineffective. Consumers become complacent when government tries to remove risk.
In the absence of useless government accounting mandates and watchdog agencies, private consumer watchdog groups would emerge and do a better job than any government program.
Why haven't banks always given home loans to people who couldn't afford them?
Would you give somebody a loan if you knew perfectly well they couldn't pay you back? Obviously, there is some distortion in market signals going on if people are giving loans to people who can't afford them.
Monetary policy is an enormous problem, but it's just a part of a network of problems. Basically, the network is made up of coercive fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.
I don’t consider either poor people or spoiled rich people failures.
I actually argue that the free market teaches the principle of forgiveness. No matter how many times you screw up, you can always keep trying to succeed. You can fail a thousand times, but nobody can force you to give up. The market rewards the perpetual struggle of all humans towards self-improvement with prosperity.
I find that this teaches tolerance, forgiveness, patience, and faith in humanity.
@tubecrabs you keep blaming the money supply because that fits your anti-statist bias - it really is laughable. Businesses don't always go bust because of the federal reserve - what utter nonsense. But you can never blame private enterprise - its always the evil gubmint. I admit socialism as its weak points - free markets are sometimes more efficient - but you have always got to blame the money supply. What about banks selling mortgages to people on welfare - what about Enron- lol
It is not God that makes productivity. Humans create productivity. God may have made it possible for us to be prosperous by providing the means and social forces that allow it, but only free human interaction creates prosperity. God may have made it possible for us to be moral, but only free commerce and the free exchange of ideas promote a mature and moral society.
Yes, I am lucky to be born into prosperity. We all are; even today's poor.
Government could only buy this stuff up if it had involuntary taxation, was allowed to run up enormous unsustainable deficits, and print up baseless money. Ending compulsory taxation, ending deficit spending, and returning to a gold standard would keep government from acting on unsustainable plans like the one you're talking about.
The market runs these things, farms, banking, and what have you, much better than government.
If you concede that taxation of private property is theft, how can you maintain that it's okay to tax corporations? Corporations are private property. If the definition of theft is the seizure of another's property by force, why isn't it theft when you take corporate assets by force?
The government would buy bankrupt banks? Why would it waste money like that? This plan (which I oppose) would work better if it just put private banks out of business by issuing credit directly.
@tubecrabs I've already explained how taxing corporations is not theft. Giving they ruin the environment, put a blot on the landscape, often make workers sick, poison the water. Also corporations benefit from employing educated, fit and healthy employers as well as gaining from police protection that stops gangsters from shaking them down. They also hire and fire at will - destroying the social fabric of communities. Don't call it tax - call it compensation.
A limited increase in the things you mention may occur in the short run, but when the mindset of society changes, we'll no longer blindly depend on government for a faux sense of security.
If you were a restaurant owner who spent countless resources building up your restaurant's credibility and quality, would you stop caring about those things if you had no health inspector looking over your shoulder? That notion is preposterous; the market would put you out of business immediately.
Call it charity for all I care, it's still the coercive acquisition of private property, i.e. theft. If a corporations spews chemicals into a river, smog into the air or garbage onto the landscape those are byproducts that corporation is ultimately responsible for. If you own that land or that river and a corporation pollutes it without consent, the owner of that private property is owed compensation, not the government. You're advocating taxes as prior restraint.
Even if you got your way, you bleeding hearts don't even consider the unintended consequences associated with your policies.
What happened when cigarette companies were required to run anti-smoking ads and pay fees/higher taxes? The price of cigarettes went up! The only thing you'd accomplish is passing on higher prices to the consumer. Ultimately, you're hurting those you're intending to help. Maybe this is your goal, using force (taxes, regulations) to mold society to your liking.
@mountainpony You're trying to rob the government of rights private citizens enjoy - i'e. if the government runs military exorcises on private land the owner can claim compensation. Or like the London Olympic Committee compensating businesses and home owners for millions. At the moment our atmosphere is polluted by microwaves, pesticides, petrol fumes - obviously taxing the corporations that cause this toxic soup is not theft - unless you privatize the air of course.
So what alternative are you proposing? That the government can run military exercises where it wishes? Parliament can just start building a ski-ramp in your backyard for the Olympics?
If those fumes or pesticides cause harm to you or your property the polluting corporation is responsible for that harm. The air itself isn't privatized; the air space within your owned property is.
@mountainpony Prices might rise - but its all a question of setting the tax at the right level - so you collect revenue without causing too much inflation - strategic pricing - you should know that being in business. I would propose that the government buy up land and then rent it out to corporations. This is what the Chinese do with their Zones of Economic Development.So, in this sense, the government becomes a gigantic landlord - with the rent it collects channeled back into public services.
The Chinese who are authoritarian you mean? Tell me, where does the government acquire the funds to do all this? Taxing, printing, borrowing, or all three? All of which makes us poorer. Where in the constitution does it say it's government role to "rent out land" again? You'd be putting obscene amounts of power in the hands of a few, exacerbating the very things you rail against. What if the corporations fail? The taxpayers' funds were just wasted, try again?
@mountainpony Of course, this would all be done democratically because unlike Libertarians I wouldn't abolish representative government. But if the corporations failed - then we'd have a recession on our hands. So then we'd nationalize bankrupt companies - which then, in time, as things began to pick up - we'd sell back at a profit to the private sector - and the whole cycle would begin again. Lets call it - Feudal Socialism or Social Feudalism - I haven't quite made my .mind up yet.
What we have now is a representative government and these issues of lobbying and preferential treatment occur. Furthermore, what guarantee is there that a majority vote for investing in a corporation would be correct? If it fails, the taxpayers are still on the hook.
The issue isn't even if it fails or not; it's that the government has no right nor authority to spend other people's money in such things. Can I take your money and invest in Goldman Sachs whether I make money or not?
@mountainpony So you are denying a democratically elected government the same rights has a private landowner - that's hardly fair. And libertarians want the government to do nothing more than sort out financial disputes and protect property - so what's the point holding elections.
@mountainpony Land owners don't use force they rent to free agents - if corporations don't want the business its up to them. But they'll come if there's money to be made -like the package holiday companies setting up in Cuba - even though Castro was taxing them at 80%. Capitalism is a little like bacteria it'll grow anywhere.
I don't have time to respond to your comments, but I just wanted to say that I find it ridiculous that you're accusing libertarians of wanting to abolish representative government.
That is an absolutely absurd mischaracterization.
The problem isn't representative government, that is necessary and favorable; the problem is consolidation of power, something your poorly construed idea of "social feudalism" does nothing but expand.
What you're advocating is nonsense. We'd spend billions of taxpayer money on land acquisition, hopefully rent it out to solvent corporations, and if they fail we'll bail them out with taxpayer money again. How does government have the right to risk our money on such ventures?
@mountainpony First of all the land could be bought up using carbon taxes on industry - so the tax payer needn't be pestered. This wouldn't be done overnight either - but perhaps spread out over a twenty year period. And if businesses go bust you can generally buy them up for a song and, suffice to say, we'd put a little money to one side for a rainy day The Royal Houses of Europe have been operating a similar system for centuries and raked it in- so why not democratically elected governments.
Yeah, I can see from your rhetoric that you don't have an angry hateful message.
"ABSOLUTE VOMIT YOU DISGUSTING WORM!!!"
You're very tolerant of different ideas.
I believe that every individual has absolute self-ownership.
I'll tell you right now that I own me. You don't own me, America doesn't own me, all the workers of the world don't own me - I own me. Nobody but me has the right to command my labor.
You own you; use your labor however you see fit. You don't command mine.
@tubecrabs You own you - great! Keep all your tax - we'll just tax corporations and stop pestering people who feel like paying tax is like denoting a gallon of blood. Either that or the government could buy up bankrupt banks, businesses, farms and property portfolios and slowly but surely take over the means of production without any use of "force". There's more than one way to skin a cat.
So capitalism is necessarily exploitative again? People will only agree to non-coercive market exchanges if they think their situation is improved by the exchange. Do you want to know what’s really exploitative? It’s exploitative when government declares that it’s legal to steal money from a minority to give to the majority in exchange for their vote.
OWS wants government to provide universal access to college, health-care, and good jobs. What kind of anarchy is that?
Milton Friedman never advocated giving money to insolvent companies. He opposed the GM bailout back in the day. He was a monetary interventionist, not a fiscal interventionist.
Like I said, he ultimately did become more free market oriented near his death, when he finally advocated for abolishing the FED.
Let's be honest. You were wrong about this. If you can't admit that you're wrong about this, how can you take any of your opinions seriously? You're just defending your ego.
For your personal information, late in his life Friedman conceded that the FED should be abolished, and that in the absence of the FED the great depression would never have happened.
Given the existence of the FED, he opposed fiscal intervention and only promoted monetary policy. His proposed solution to the great depression was to increase the money supply. TARP was a bailout. They gave money to the companies to try to offset the fact that they were totally insolvent.
You're right, nobody wants the 1900s back. We're through with the central planning era. Everybody is sick of socialism. Third world countries like India turned their back on the failed system and have begun prospering. We're done with the 1900s.
“The peasants are going to revolt,” this angry garbage again? Tell me, what will unite your cause once you've killed all us free marketers? Your ideology is pathologically incapable of taking personal responsibility for failure.
@tubecrabs I don't call people who're born into poverty who then end up on welfare - "failures". A failure is Paris Hilton - all that money - all that privilege - and she still ends up as dumb as a bag of spanners. When you're rich and useless they call you a socialite but when you're poor and useless they call you a failure. But you should look at your own life - and see how things might have turned out if "you" had been born into poverty. There but for the grace of god go I - so to speak.
Executive power is just a fact of life - but of course it needs to be limited by checks and balances - such as free speech, free assembly and democratic elections. But the poor have always looked to the government for assistance - whether that was bread rations in ancient Rome or the Church hospitals of the middle ages. But lets just say for conjectures sake that we did emasculate all government power - where then would the rage of the poor be directed? Think long and hard about that one.
In regards to the 1929 crash - Friedman blamed the Federal Reserve for not doing enough to stop the money supply contracting - i.e. pump more liquidity into the banking system. This would still result in a depression but a less severe one. So the bailout is just the Federal Reserve implementing Friedman's advice posthumously. I refer you to Milton Friedman "the Depression Myth".
I shouldn't have to state Friedman wasn't a libertarian. He blamed the FED for not expanding the money supply enough to match economic growth. I say they shouldn't be manipulating the money supply in the first place.
Was it government that first established gold as currency or was it the market? Government began coining money millenia ago, but by then gold was already a widely accepted medium of exchange. The market established it, so let the market regulate commodity money.
Milton Friedman died in 2006, and Lehman Brothers didn't even go under until almost two full years later. TARP was created in response to the crisis that occurred after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe Friedman supported a program to address this crisis when neither existed prior to his death.
Anna Schwartz is still alive, and she disapproved of the bailout. Friedman wasn't the leader of free market economics anyway.
@tubecrabs The people don't want the 1900s back- they don't want it NOW in the third world. The global revolution is only just beginning- you just can't keep exploiting people like pack mules to make profits - then say "that's the market working" shut up. The real revolution is just beginning - but its a global revolution. The forces of capital moved the means of production to the third world - where they could better exploit feudal peasants - but the peasants are beginning to revolt. You'll see
@32peartree Bourgeois elements always emphasize the individual over the collective. This is because they have financial independence. There power resides in the law, property and money whereas the working class draw their strength from their weight of numbers. Ye are many/they are few as Shelly wrote. So in political terms you're trying to rob the working class of their competitive advantage. Which in the great scheme of things is only to be expected.
Back at home this does two things. First, we have more affordable goods because they cost less to make; second, jobs are created. The more shoes nike makes the more stores they need to sell them. And let's not forget the insourcing of jobs to America from foreign countries.
America at one point had sweatshops and low wages; these are aspects of an economic phase of development. Economic growth and efficiency changed them over time long before unions and government mandates.
So as far as I’m concerned, let the chips fall where they may. Things will likely get worse before they get better, and we individualists will be saying, “I told you so,” as government breaks one promise after another.
Maybe I’m wrong and the workers will unite, destroy our government, and find justice in bringing to the guillotine those enemies of man who dared to deny and defy the divinity of the collective will.
Liberty is such a powerful uniting force. It unites through love of humanity and individuality. Your uniting force is hatred against supposed agents of oppression. Your argument is that the working class will unite against its oppressors, against nature itself. Is this angry hateful message your alternative to the individualists' message of peace, prosperity, and tolerance? I’m not worried about that argument at all.
@tubecrabs That's the sickest bullshit imaginable. Not only is it a pathetic lie, but this GROSS falsehood that greed and capitalism mean the same as "liberty" is just vomit. Absolute vomit.
NOBODY who loves humanity can support capitalism. The idea that a few people should be able to have millions and millions in obscene luxury while millions of other people DIE from poverty is one that doesn't give a shit about humanity.
they aren't "supposed" agents, the oppression is REAL.
@tubecrabs You're truly a disgusting worm. NOTHING could be more DESPICABLE than to not only defend something hateful but to claim the OPPOSITE is "hateful", to claim FALSELY your greed based in IGNORING the suffering it causes others is "individualism", to claim your support for a system that WILL cause war over and over and over again is "peace," that ignoring poverty is "prosperity", and not giving a damn about people in need is "tolerance." What a massive liar you are.
I like the idea of a lib/moderate coalition to fight the crazy assholes.
I think we should also have more children (at least two per family) to combat the crazy rat-like reproduction rates of the right wingers. Imagine if there were two or three people directly raised and closely influenced by The Amazing Atheist? eventually there'd be a better America.
Piriathy 7 hours ago
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
- Yeats
jmcgurk01 21 hours ago
It makes me laugh that in other videos you have criticised your users' use of grammar and capitalisation to emphasise their points, but you use vocal stress, music, and dramatic pauses to make yours. I guess that makes you a hypocrite. Nevertheless, this was an excellent video. Many valuable points.
matbroomfield 1 day ago
@matbroomfield I assume that he's referring to youtube comments when he says that. But this is an act of oratory. If this was a message that was written out, then yes; it would be hypocritical. But it's not, he's speaking out load. Although the music was pretty annoying, what the fuck was that for? It just annoyed me.
TheAnimusification 5 hours ago
@TheAnimusification People use punctuation, occasionally capitalisation, etc to clarify the stresses in their writing, which if anything makes even more sense as it is an act of clarification in a medium lacking those cues. Why should it be ok for TJ to use dramatic presentation in an oratorial medium, but worthy of derision when his users do the same in writing? I don't see why you draw a distinction?
matbroomfield 4 hours ago
@matbroomfield No, you're misunderstanding me. Well, partially. I'm not saying that the use of punctuation/capitalization in a written form is worthy of being mocked(as long as it complies with the rules of the English language). I'm just saying that it's different. The voice and text are completely different. That's why it's not always easy to convey things in text the way you could simply talking. You have to have a better command over the English language to do the same thing with just text.
TheAnimusification 4 hours ago
9:10 They don't do that in my school here in New Zealand we hear from both sides and we actually can debate which side was right
Plasticplas1 2 days ago
@Plasticplas1 We do that here in the USA too. This guy obviously hasn't been in an American school for a long time.
5382021 2 days ago
The sad thing, many minority groups are against other minority groups, with only a few exceptions. Atheists are one, while they have (justifiable) animosity toward one majority, they treat even the smallest fringe minorities with respect, and that's all that is really needed is respect from others at this time. They don't have to accept everything, they just have to respect people equally in spite of differences. But it's hard to care about some minority groups because of how they treat others.
KittenKoder 3 days ago
Evil will defeat good. Evil is more resourceful and is quick to act. Evil, gets things done.
ThePublicIsInsane 4 days ago
LIBERAL REVOLUTION! LETS GO!!! :D
adam78180 4 days ago
So why did the left elect a guy whose second largest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs -- who gave over 1 million to Obama and only 1/4 million to McCain?
Oh yea, he is black, and photogenic and seems like a nice guy. Great criteria there guys.
"Hey everybody, come on, get in the van, this guy has CANDY!"
Dumbasses.
mindprism 4 days ago
Agree with most people here, Ron Paul is the only logical choice. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but Obama's a joke, and so are the rest of the republicans.
DarcyTisGreat 1 week ago
Everyone here can hate on Ron Paul, that's fine, but Obama sucks... He's terrible, and the Democrats decided NOT to have any one to run against him, so their only choice is Obama. All of the Reputards are TERRIBLE, but what other choices do we have? I see one honest candidate and that's Ron Paul. Even I don't fully agree with him, but at least he's honest. After this election year though, I wont be voting D or R any longer. This will be my last mainstream vote, and it's going to Ron Paul.
bluesyrastapunkraver 1 week ago 6
Um-mm... here's something; the book can also be - a hat.
misha9137 1 week ago 11
The true way to go is libatarian or even nonpartisan, both the right wing and the left wing have problems. The right is war-mongering as the left is fiscally irresponsible with their nanny nation ways, look beyond parties to find the truth. AmazingAtheist you fail understand that the government does not represent the people anymore, that is the only reason why Obama got elected. You forget the purpose of the electoral college.
mcdblaze 1 week ago
@mcdblaze EVERY ideology has issues. There is not a single one. Liberatarianism does nothing to disempower the bourgeois leaving the working classes completely open to be fucked by cooperations, and spews a contradicting rhetoric about the virtue of self reliance and ambition while simultaneously expects a nation of self serving individuals to give a rats ass about anyone else enough to provide charity. No matter what way you look at it we are fucked.
Flimsii 4 days ago
@Flimsii Good point, maybe no ideologies are 100% sound, although, Liberatarianism is one ideology that works, in my opinion. Not quite sure what your saying with the middle class being fucked by corporations, maybe be more specific. How is self reliance contradicting?
mcdblaze 3 days ago
@newdarnaccount
In a humorous twist, despite all your pretension you failed to even understand what his question was asking.
He wasn't asking about the role of the present United States government; he was inquiring about your idea of a just role of government.
Your haughty attitude might be marginally more appropriate if you had actually been able to understand what the person you were criticizing was saying.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@newdarnaccount
There's a difference between being articulate and being pompous. You were the latter and not the former.
Talking down to people for the sake of appearing superior tends to cause observers to perceive the opposite as being true. Nobody here shares your presumption that you're smarter than them.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
Once Whites become a minority in USA life for people like you is going to suck whatever you agree or disagree with. And say goodbye to women's and homosexual rights once that happens too. Because no people on Earth do as much for homosexuals and women than do Whites.
xXWhiteRabbitDannyXx 1 week ago
Everything you said can be applied to liberal whites, inner city black and/or latino ethnic group voting blocs you intellectually dishonest piece of shit. That's all. Oh, and by the way. You're a bigot.
Pendragon1717 1 week ago
seig heil
iamphon99 1 week ago
@SiSTeRFiSTER100 I thought about doing something along the lines of that, but I was compensated by 8:36.
Prometheus720 2 weeks ago
I think that if the left would separate into two different groups, one aimed at social progress, and the other aimed at becoming a socialist nation, that social progress would instantly surge forth and become a contender. I like the liberal thoughts on abortion and gay marriage and such, but I am not, nor will I ever be, a socialist or a supporter of any system of government other than a capitalist republic. By purifying your goals, you might have a bit more luck meeting them.
Prometheus720 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thumbs up if you didn't listen to and ignored the video, and looked at the booty pop thumbnail.
SiSTeRFiSTER100 2 weeks ago
I'm fourteen and an Agnostic Humanist. I'm not sure what political stance I should take and I'm leaning toward either Libertarianism or Liberalism. I just want a country that doesn't mix politics and religion. I want one that follows the constitution, but is flexible depending on the situation. I want the government to be minimal, as-in it's only uses would be protecting the people and settling legal disputes. I'm still on the fence of a laissez-faire econ. system but bottom line:
What am I?
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
1/2
As much as I'd love to enlist another Libertarian into our ranks, the only person that can decide what you are is you. The primary differences between Liberals and Libertarians regard economic policy and the origin of rights. If I may get your responses to some questions it would help reveal where you stand on those issues:
You stated government’s role should be minimal, primarily to protect rights. Do you believe individuals have the right to healthcare and education?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
2/2
Do you believe it proper for government to elevate individuals out of poverty or is it ultimately up to the individual?
This last one may be most important; does an employer have the right to fire a pregnant woman based solely on the fact that she’s pregnant? I’m NOT asking if they should, if it’s moral, or if it’s “fair;” I’m simply asking if you believe the employer has the RIGHT to do so. Or does the woman have the right to force her employer to keep her around?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony (1/2)As far as healthcare goes, I'll refer to Canada. As for education I do believe that we should all have the right to be educated in a school of some kind. I wish schooling was free, because if for example, a poor mother in the ghetto can't send her child to school b/c of money, it's not right, in my opinion. I don't think the govt. should elevate people because of poverty (1/2)
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony (2/2) *CONTINUED* I believe it depends on the individual and what they do. If they need help from the government(welfare, food stamps, etc.) they should get it( and I know this is a challenge, but if we can stop welfare fraud then most other problems might be resolved more efficiently). Finally, I think that if the store wants to fire a pregnant mother ONLY because she's pregnant, then they should first look at her lifestyle( Is she a drug addict or a golden mother)
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
1/2
You're definitely a liberal, and it seems malignant.
The aspects of Libertarianism that attract you are ones that overlap with Liberalism (Avoiding unnecessary wars, equality of rights, no bailouts, etc.). But a true Libertarian would unhesitatingly agree an employer can rightly fire that pregnant woman. He would abhor and condemn the act but submit he has no right to use force, especially not the force of government, to promote his values.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
2/2
This principle, that undue force is always wrong, is why we Libertarians disagree with welfare programs, affirmative action, subsidies and the like. While we may agree with the ends (poverty reduction, equality, etc.), we cannot condone the means, i.e. the use of force. Taking from one group without their consent in order to provide another is force and using force to take one’s property is unjust in every respect regardless of circumstance and intention.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant on it. I guess you can call me a half libertarian XD JKJK but in all seriousness this helped a lot, so thanks.
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant on it. I guess you can call me a half libertarian XD JKJK but in all seriousness this helped a lot, so thanks.
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mountainpony @mountainpony Ohhhhh I see. I also posted a third comment that said that the owner would have the right, regardless of my own personal preference. Sorry if you missed that. Anyway, thank you for helping me get closer to determining my position on the political scale. I've only got into politics for about a year and a half, so I'm still a bit ignorant. I suppose you can call me a half Libertarian (JKJK) But seriously this helped a lot so thanks.
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony (this makes three) scratch what I said, I DO think the store owner should have the right to fire her for whatever reason he/she wants. The government shouldn't be involved unless the pregnant mother claims the owner is prejudiced, in which case the govt is involved
So all in all
Yes, individuals have the right to healthcare/education
It isn't up to the government to elevate individuals out of poverty(I might be contradicting myself)
It's up to the employer
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
I apologize if I prematurely posted. But regarding your (more recent) response do people not have the right to be prejudice? Aren't you prejudice in selecting your friends? your partners?
Does a store owner have the right to prevent minorities or women from entering his store? (Once again the question regards rights not morals). Isn't that his private property? Can't you use your own judgement to prevent certain individuals from entering your home? Isn't that prejudice?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Prejudice is everywhere, I think we can only work around it, and at the end of the day that owner has the right to stop anyone he wants. In a nutshell
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
I agree. Prejudice is preference. Outlawing prejudice is the first step to undermining all of free choice.
This is entirely unrelated, but can you only type 200 characters as well?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Yes and it's annoying XD but anyway my views in a nutshell-
Minimization of govt.
Canadian healthcare
Deal with prejudice (but try not to be more than the average person)
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
Prejudice can be an undesirable aspect of society, but even applying the death penalty to prejudiced individuals would do little to prevent it, except perhaps on the surface. Using force will at best disguise it. The best strategy to defeat negative prejudice is freedom; let people realize the error in their judgment through their practice of it.
For instance, let's say a store owner did prevent minorities from shopping there, what do you think would happen to his business?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Perfect way of describing it. Let the ignorance bring upon it's own downfall, the death penalty is only a short term solution, therefore not so useful. Agree 100%
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
I rarely meet level-headed individuals on YouTube. It's refreshing.
But if you'll humor me (and YouTube's character limit allows me) I'd like to challenge your healthcare position.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Sure if you want, fire away.
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony Sure go ahead
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
If you support government provided healthcare/education, do you also support government provided jobs, clothing, foods, and houses? Aren't those things necessary as well?
Your argument is that some individuals are too poor or unfortunate to acquire healthcare or education and therefore government should step in. But what about, say, babies born without lungs? Surely that's not their fault. Should government require others to provide organs for the unfortunate as well?
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony I think govt provided health/edc. is a good option
as for clothing/food, etc. i think WE should do that for other people w/out govt interference, but that's just me. (1/2)
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony (2/2) damn 200 character limit, lol. Anyway, WE should do those things for eachother, not the government. As for the baby, hey, sometimes life isn't fair :/
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
Exactly. People don't need to be compelled to help one another; they do so anyway. If people freely donate food and clothes, why is it so hard to believe these charitable individuals would donate money for healthcare and education? Or teachers and doctors donate their services?
Reaching into your pocket and donating that money is charity and should be commended, but reaching in another's pocket and donating it is theft and should be outlawed. The latter is what gov't does.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@mountainpony That was a good conversation, finally got to express my views to someone. Thanks for that, not many people I can speak to about this stuff XD
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
No problem; the feeling is mutual. You can scroll back a couple pages and see the type of people I usually spar with and it isn't pretty. This was a welcome deviation.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
(1/2)
Hello there, I couldn't help but see your conversation with the mountainpony. Like the mountainpony, I am a libertarian. Also like mountainpony, I would be very happy to welcome you as a new individual of the liberty movement.
Anyway, your answers to his questions seem to be perhaps a bit inconsistent. By this I mean that the crucial difference between liberals and libertarians is that the former are collectivists and the latter are individualists.
tubecrabs 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
(2/2)
With the exception of your favoring the Canadian healthcare system, you seem to be a staunch individualist.
Do you believe that anybody else has the right to command you to labor or to determine how the fruits of your labor should be spent?
An individualist would say no while a collectivist would say yes.
Your answer to that probably best determines whether you're a liberal or a libertarian.
tubecrabs 2 weeks ago
@tubecrabs Well, after studying around many different political views since my last conversation, I've decided that my views reflect that of Left-Libertarianism (Libertarian Socialism). My views may chance in the future, as my thoughts are a bit scattered, which explains my inconsistency. Anyway, to answer your question I would say I have an individualist point of view, and also, thank you for your interest.
YouAdmireThisName 2 weeks ago
@YouAdmireThisName
I would argue that private charities can do a better job of allocating resources to those most in need and that government-run welfare is counter-productive. Its intentions are good but its results are what matter. Tax-funded welfare means individuals have less money to spend or donate as they see fit and creates a false sense of involvement; people feel as though they don't need to donate more or volunteer because they already paid taxes and government will take care of it.
mountainpony 2 weeks ago
But you gotta understand that not everyone is going to agree with you. As a far left libertarian, I still must admit that my ideas are only perfect for what I believe. No matter how much you think "These conservative republicans have absolutely zero common sense!" you have to realize that it makes what makes sense to you may not make sense to them, and vice versa.
SteezySkater72 2 weeks ago
Stupid people disgusts me. The fact that they are the ones holding power in the most powerful country in the world disgusts me even more. Their logic is so absurd that I don't understand how it could possibly be considered in first place.
I hope for you best, United States.
fabaum22 2 weeks ago
Good video, dude
eyeseethroughyou 2 weeks ago
For atheists you guys put a lot of faith in the benevolent omnipotence of government.
Is anyone reading this post honestly so willing to give up their individuality so carelessly?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness
I used to think that it was important to have individuality when I was a young christian. Then I learned that atheism is truth and creationists are dumb about everything. If individuality is so important then why do you expect cops to protect you from criminals?
"We hate government except when we want it to help us!" Lol.
We all have a right to have good things. Do you actually believe those sick Aesop's Fables? The grasshopper didn't ask to be lazy, why does he deserve to starve?
syndromeofxstylez 2 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Courtiousness: "For atheists you guys put a lot of faith in the benevolent omnipotence of government."
No, we don't. The vast majority of us recognize that the government is neither benevolent nor omnipotent.
"Is anyone reading this post honestly so willing to give up their individuality so carelessly?"
Speak for yourself. I suspect that few if any of us want to "give up our individuality", carelessly or otherwise.
mikefromwa 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness
No one said the government is the answer to our problem, dipshit. Getting our government to clean up it's act and do it's job properly is how this country will be fixed. And that will take a grassroots movement that isn't driven by Murdoch's propoganda empire.
NUTCASE71733 2 weeks ago
@NUTCASE71733
So government is the answer, as long as its run properly? What exactly is your idea of a properly run government anyway?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness If you have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the government is us. We have faith in ourselves. But with respect to you guys... Oh, well, 'noug said.
newdarnaccount 2 weeks ago
@newdarnaccount
So a democracy, but what is the proper ROLE of government? Is it to protect its citizenry's rights to life and property or to provide them with goods and housing and other necessities? It can't be both. Can a democratically elected Congress do pretty much anything as long as the majority of citizens agree?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness *Peoria Journal Start Columnist* Phil Luciano recently related that someone had stated something to him [Luciano] as if he were explaining quantum physics to a monkey. I reply in the same spirit. Why, no, son. Perhaps you'd like to check out Footnote 4 in the *Carolene Products* case--304 U.S. 144(1938). And Justice Black did not do himself proud applying it in *Korematsu* v. *United States*.
newdarnaccount 1 week ago
de: newdarnacount You, son, have a lot to learn that is not included in Dr. Ron Paul's--or any other right-winger's--HISstory or imaginary Constitution.
newdarnaccount 1 week ago
@Courtiousness At least we can show the government actully exists. I don't see how Universal healthcare or a public option would limit individuality. Nor do i see how legalizing gay maridge turns people into government slaves. Explain please?
kojimapie 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@kojimapie
1/3
Okay, I'll answer your questions even though you didn't answer mine.
Firstly, the funds from programs like Universal Healthcare have to come from somewhere, either taxes, borrowing or printing, all of which makes the citizenry poorer by devaluating the currency.
Next, medical care is a service, a product of labor, and individuals have no right to compel someone to labor for them. Can I force you to build me a house or sew me clothing? No, but government can?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
2/3
UH creates a moral hazard; since you no longer directly bear the costs of healthcare you’re more likely to increase your consumption, increasing the total cost of the healthcare program even though you don’t pay an extra dime.
What about smoking, exercise and bad diets? They worsen your health and increase costs. Should government ban smoking, compel exercise and monitor diets? Sex and vacationing improve health; should government provide sex partners and Mexico trips too?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
3/3
I understand the good-intentions behind UH but no one considers its unintended consequences or underlying notion that it’s government’s or society’s responsibility to provide for everyone. This notion, especially as a basis for law, requires the dissolution of freedom and individuality in favor of collectivism and servitude-through-duty to your fellowman. A free society yields both the prosperity of liberty and the charitability of collectivism without its immoral use of force.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
And regarding gay marriage (or any form of marriage for that matter), I'm not for ANY government involvement whatsoever. What right do politicians have to tell you who you can and can't marry? A just government wouldn't concern itself with such things because it has no right to. That's my concern with a purely democratic government; with only a majority vote, gay marriage could be outlawed. Any undesirable act could be. That's not only unjust, it's immoral.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness I agree with you, governement shouldnt get involved whatsoever, if i had it my way, marridge wouldnt even be recognised by the government or law. Government has no say in these matters you say? Well why do politicains run on not letting gays marry? Thats government getting into your busnies. As for unjust, how exactly? And morality is subjective.
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
I didn't say it doesn't, I say it shouldn't. A government that interferes in such matters is unjust because the only consistent, proper role of government is the protection of our rights, our property and our liberty. These rights stem from our individuality, our humanity, and no government nor individual can justly violate or rescind them.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Courtiousness So your argument against gay rights is that the governments only job is to protect rights thus we shouldnt give rights to gays...What? Your argument makes no sense.
These rights stem from our individuality, our humanity, and no government nor individual can justly violate or rescind them.
Yeah, except maybee for the 27 amendments added to the constituion. Rights are added and taken away by goverments in every country.
and..
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
If one accepts this as the role of government, one cannot say that Universal Healthcare or welfare is just; that requires the confiscation of private property to be redistributed according to the one's class or a politician's preference. Some accept the intentions as moral or just, but that doesn't make the act of redistribution by force any less unjust. And, frankly, these programs hardly if ever succeed in achieving their goals.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness I don't except that as the only role of a government so that basicly invalidates your next argument. But i will say i live in the UK. the NHS is fine, there is no taking away of private property by the NHS. So i guess you pulled that out of your ass. There are actully private healthcare companys here too making a fat profit every year, so its not like the private companys that exist are choking under some kind of evil 'government control'.
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
Where do NHS funds derive from? Taxation. Money is property. If I were a beneficiary of private healthcare and insurance, what justification do you have to fund the NHS with my money (my property)?
I agree with you that taxation should be voluntary, and voluntary taxation would surely resolve the issue. If the NHS provided the best healthcare service at the lowest cost it would surely not require to take money from the citizenry by force.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness Congratulations, youve just answered your own question.
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
My first inquiry regarded your claim that the NHS doesn't "take away private property" when in its current form it clearly does.
My following post regards that voluntary taxation would lead to the dissolution of these programs you claim are properly pursued by government. In my opinion that's fantastic; I advocate their dissolution. The market would do a far better job of offering those services than a government bureaucracy.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
Let me ask you this:
Does a citizen have the right to take another's money without their consent? No. Does a group of citizens? No? Hmm... what if they did it through government, then it's okay right?
What I'm alluding to is the principle that government has no more rights than those it governs. What rational position can one take that answers "no" my first two questions but "yes" to my last? It's entirely inconsistent. Where would government acquire these rights from?
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
@Courtiousness Nice try but no cigar. I think taxes should be voluntary. If you dont want to pay taxes then you shouldnt, but you shouldnt get to use the public funded services. And if you decide to pay tax you get access to these services. It keeps everybody happy.
What questions ? The government has lots of roles. It has a role to put out fires, to defend a country, to uphold jutice and i think, provide healthcare.
I thought you could of figured out thats what i meant
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
@kojimapie
Why stop at healthcare? Why not provide everyone with a job? What about proper housing and nutrition? Automobiles? Clothing? What logical reasoning is there to justify providing healthcare but not the rest of these things?
As long as government provides these things there is no way taxation will become voluntary. Politicians and central planners in charge of these functions could never possess enough knowledge and talent to offer these services more efficiently than the market.
Courtiousness 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kojimapie 2 weeks ago
This is by far my favorite TAA video, it's so accurate.
Conker187777 2 weeks ago
Yeah lefties it's time for us to fight back! :D
ihazkittens 2 weeks ago
8:37 That totally threw me off guard there hahah. O///O
ihazkittens 2 weeks ago
i personally don't think in a trillion years we would ever have any revolution where the people put aside their hate towards others and fight together. cool vid though. :)
PE64088 2 weeks ago
Being an atheist, socialist, and a cop I agree with everything in this video except for the anti-police part near the end. Police aren't brutal and do help people. BUT... I still like and favorite this video. The majority of this I can stand for and will compromise for the greater good of the liberal agenda. While I may not like the name of this political party... their goals are the same as yours: the National Atheist Party. Not that we don't have a 2 party system though...
Vindaven 3 weeks ago
@Vindaven the cops get used has a political football - they're always piggy in the middle (no pun intended) but the vast majority of the time the cops help maintain a civilized society, But credit where credits due - the police have made vast improvements from the homophobic, racist bad old days. And I think affirmative action has played an important role in this respect.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
This...is...absolutely the way it is supposed to be
cytherina 3 weeks ago
You also see the state in splendid isolation from geo-political realities. A State tyranny can develop in reaction to an aggressive enemy. There's no evidence to suggest that a Libertarian Republic wouldn't come under attack from a foreign rival. So you still might have to introduce conscription or commandeer private property - or else be invaded. Look at Germany - after WW1 - was the rise of Hitler down to the evil of government or the Treaty of Versaille.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
amazing cookieist - this is soooo pathetic
vetalique 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(5/5)
If you tried to implement your government in an arena where it was able to forcibly consolidate wealth, suffer no burden to produce, and outlaw competitive governmental systems, your government would definitely be unjust. It would be extremely coercive and inefficient.
Government just doesn’t do these things right. It can’t replicate the market pricing mechanism, determine best use of land, promote innovation, or accurately predict successful business ventures.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs This is why we have things like democracy, a free press and free assembly. I don't care that much for state power myself. A government should be scared of its people not the other way round - but I'm more interested in public ownership as a vehicle for safeguarding the interests of the working class - against the Darwinian race to the bottom of the free market.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs Of course I'm being facetious with my Social Feudalism - but I do so to demonstrate that taxation needn't always be gathered by force. Corporations are free agents - if they don't want to pay they are free to invest elsewhere - so government, like any other landlord, can charge for the use of their property. This is a system of raising revenue that a government might use more frequently - as the rich refuse to pay tax on "moral" grounds or squirrel away their fortunes off shore.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs You say government doesn't do things right - which is a specious argument - government gets a lot of things right - like putting a man on the moon, or building freeways and bridges but then does other things wrong like starting wars and deregulating the banks. So the point is - to keep the good stuff and eliminate the bad - dozens of other countries show this is perfectly achievable.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(4/5)
I would like to stress that liberty and justice can be promoted by many different styles of government (or even in its absence). Some version of your model of a feudal socialist government could even exist on the state level in America, or as a competing government in a system where governments that obtain their funds through non-coercive means compete for funding and citizens within a constitutionally limited framework.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(3/5)
This clearly wouldn’t be true though. You could just as well call me a statist for my belief that government can be a tool to promote liberty and justice. I am neither one nor the other. My loyalty is to self-ownership, individual liberty, justice, and to the institutions of voluntary human association that promote these. Government can be one such institution.
The risk is that government can quickly become an institution of oppression.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(2/5)
It’s not that government CAN’T obtain legal ownership of all property. Of course it can. It’s that a government that does this is not a just government.
I think that a just government can take many different forms. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that government is even necessary to promote liberty and justice.
And, no, I didn’t accidentally let the cat out of the bag. I’m well aware that my saying this might create a temptation to accuse me of being an anarchist.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(1/5)
Government can do all sorts of things. A sovereign people can determine what kind of government they want. If we wanted government to strip women’s rights to vote and compete in the workplace, hey government has the power to do that.
If we want government to apply a 90% tax on men between the ages of 25-40, are you kidding me? That's no problem for government! Compulsory military service, slavery, ethnic cleansing - this is government we're talking about; consider it done.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
Governmental deregulation does not equate to complete deregulation.
Government regulations anesthetize market forces and simply replace regulatory market forces with regulatory government forces.
The choice isn't between regulation and no regulation; it's between government regulation and market regulation.
Governmental regulation always fails. Then its failure is seen as justification for a new layer of governmental regulation, which always fails.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs You say regulation always fails - which is a meaningless statement - a little like saying health inspectors always fail because they never completely wipe out food poisoning. But what about all the food poisoning they managed to stop. Letting the banks regulate themselves was madness and resulted in disaster - as governments are now at last realizing.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
I won't call it tax or compensation. I'll call it theft. If a corporation damages individuals then it should compensate the damaged individuals, not make compulsory payments to government.
If it's so beneficial to corporations then taxes don't need to be involuntary. Make it voluntary. I contend that they would not pay and that you know this perfectly well.
Individuals put their money into a corporation, not a government piggy bank; government taking this money by force is theft.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs Why can't the government act like any other feudal landowner. Lord Halifax - once the local squire round this neck of the woods - once charged airline companies for flying over his land - he also made a fortune out of quarrying and coal mining without lifting a finger. So lets say, the government becomes the great feudal baron - and the corporations become the tenant farmers. If the land is purchased fairly and squarely then no theft has taken place whatsoever.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree
You clearly misunderstand. Government fails to regulate any better (and quite often worse) than market forces do. In the long run health inspectors don't inhibit any less cases of food poisoning while costing society more money and freedom. Furthermore, giving inspectors the power to fine and close down establishment often leads to corruption and abuse.
Banks were not left unregulated; they were encouraged to make bad loans and protected from default when, inevitably, they failed.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(4/4)
What happens to these criminal-minded individuals in your system? It’s not like we didn’t have laws in place to prevent the fraud from happening; the law just didn’t work. What system prevents people who refuse to obey law from causing harm? We could have an incredibly coercive police state, but that still couldn’t guarantee that bad people can’t do bad things.
You again criticize liberty for a feature of humanity and fail to provide an alternative that addresses the problem.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs No system is perfect but financial deregulation has seen a massive increase in businessmen cooking the books - has one would see a massive increase in food poisoning if you sacked all the health inspectors or a massive increase in drink driving if you sacked all the traffic cops. Do you think government likes paying for all these officials just to jack up the money supply for Keynesian stimulation. The problem is every time they get rid of them - very bad things happen.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
Over time personal responsibility and maturity would take hold in society. The only reason we might see increases in drunk driving or food poisoning cases is nowadays people's choices and their consequences are so cushioned by government intervention.
Would you start drunk driving just because you wouldn't get fined or your license suspended? If your answer is yes, you find the potential artificial punishment of fining or suspension worse than potentially taking an innocent life.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(3/4)
What allowed Bernie Madoff to perform his great heist? Consumer complacency did. It’s just a foregone conclusion to most consumers that government is watching out for their interests. If consumers held no such false ideas then the private sector would deal with this uncertainty like it deals with everything else.
There’s actually an ad on this video from LearnLiberty that talks about market solutions to theft. You should check it out; it’s pretty good.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(2/4)
What’s your solution to things like Enron’s fraud? Government accounting mandates aren’t good solutions. Not only do they create negative externalities, they enhance the problem. Government watchdog agencies are ineffective. Consumers become complacent when government tries to remove risk.
In the absence of useless government accounting mandates and watchdog agencies, private consumer watchdog groups would emerge and do a better job than any government program.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(1/4)
Why haven't banks always given home loans to people who couldn't afford them?
Would you give somebody a loan if you knew perfectly well they couldn't pay you back? Obviously, there is some distortion in market signals going on if people are giving loans to people who can't afford them.
Monetary policy is an enormous problem, but it's just a part of a network of problems. Basically, the network is made up of coercive fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
I don’t consider either poor people or spoiled rich people failures.
I actually argue that the free market teaches the principle of forgiveness. No matter how many times you screw up, you can always keep trying to succeed. You can fail a thousand times, but nobody can force you to give up. The market rewards the perpetual struggle of all humans towards self-improvement with prosperity.
I find that this teaches tolerance, forgiveness, patience, and faith in humanity.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs you keep blaming the money supply because that fits your anti-statist bias - it really is laughable. Businesses don't always go bust because of the federal reserve - what utter nonsense. But you can never blame private enterprise - its always the evil gubmint. I admit socialism as its weak points - free markets are sometimes more efficient - but you have always got to blame the money supply. What about banks selling mortgages to people on welfare - what about Enron- lol
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
It is not God that makes productivity. Humans create productivity. God may have made it possible for us to be prosperous by providing the means and social forces that allow it, but only free human interaction creates prosperity. God may have made it possible for us to be moral, but only free commerce and the free exchange of ideas promote a mature and moral society.
Yes, I am lucky to be born into prosperity. We all are; even today's poor.
Why should we end prosperity now?
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(2/2)
Government could only buy this stuff up if it had involuntary taxation, was allowed to run up enormous unsustainable deficits, and print up baseless money. Ending compulsory taxation, ending deficit spending, and returning to a gold standard would keep government from acting on unsustainable plans like the one you're talking about.
The market runs these things, farms, banking, and what have you, much better than government.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(1/2)
If you concede that taxation of private property is theft, how can you maintain that it's okay to tax corporations? Corporations are private property. If the definition of theft is the seizure of another's property by force, why isn't it theft when you take corporate assets by force?
The government would buy bankrupt banks? Why would it waste money like that? This plan (which I oppose) would work better if it just put private banks out of business by issuing credit directly.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs I've already explained how taxing corporations is not theft. Giving they ruin the environment, put a blot on the landscape, often make workers sick, poison the water. Also corporations benefit from employing educated, fit and healthy employers as well as gaining from police protection that stops gangsters from shaking them down. They also hire and fire at will - destroying the social fabric of communities. Don't call it tax - call it compensation.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
A limited increase in the things you mention may occur in the short run, but when the mindset of society changes, we'll no longer blindly depend on government for a faux sense of security.
If you were a restaurant owner who spent countless resources building up your restaurant's credibility and quality, would you stop caring about those things if you had no health inspector looking over your shoulder? That notion is preposterous; the market would put you out of business immediately.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
Call it charity for all I care, it's still the coercive acquisition of private property, i.e. theft. If a corporations spews chemicals into a river, smog into the air or garbage onto the landscape those are byproducts that corporation is ultimately responsible for. If you own that land or that river and a corporation pollutes it without consent, the owner of that private property is owed compensation, not the government. You're advocating taxes as prior restraint.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
Even if you got your way, you bleeding hearts don't even consider the unintended consequences associated with your policies.
What happened when cigarette companies were required to run anti-smoking ads and pay fees/higher taxes? The price of cigarettes went up! The only thing you'd accomplish is passing on higher prices to the consumer. Ultimately, you're hurting those you're intending to help. Maybe this is your goal, using force (taxes, regulations) to mold society to your liking.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony You're trying to rob the government of rights private citizens enjoy - i'e. if the government runs military exorcises on private land the owner can claim compensation. Or like the London Olympic Committee compensating businesses and home owners for millions. At the moment our atmosphere is polluted by microwaves, pesticides, petrol fumes - obviously taxing the corporations that cause this toxic soup is not theft - unless you privatize the air of course.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
So what alternative are you proposing? That the government can run military exercises where it wishes? Parliament can just start building a ski-ramp in your backyard for the Olympics?
If those fumes or pesticides cause harm to you or your property the polluting corporation is responsible for that harm. The air itself isn't privatized; the air space within your owned property is.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony Prices might rise - but its all a question of setting the tax at the right level - so you collect revenue without causing too much inflation - strategic pricing - you should know that being in business. I would propose that the government buy up land and then rent it out to corporations. This is what the Chinese do with their Zones of Economic Development.So, in this sense, the government becomes a gigantic landlord - with the rent it collects channeled back into public services.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
The Chinese who are authoritarian you mean? Tell me, where does the government acquire the funds to do all this? Taxing, printing, borrowing, or all three? All of which makes us poorer. Where in the constitution does it say it's government role to "rent out land" again? You'd be putting obscene amounts of power in the hands of a few, exacerbating the very things you rail against. What if the corporations fail? The taxpayers' funds were just wasted, try again?
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony Of course, this would all be done democratically because unlike Libertarians I wouldn't abolish representative government. But if the corporations failed - then we'd have a recession on our hands. So then we'd nationalize bankrupt companies - which then, in time, as things began to pick up - we'd sell back at a profit to the private sector - and the whole cycle would begin again. Lets call it - Feudal Socialism or Social Feudalism - I haven't quite made my .mind up yet.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
What we have now is a representative government and these issues of lobbying and preferential treatment occur. Furthermore, what guarantee is there that a majority vote for investing in a corporation would be correct? If it fails, the taxpayers are still on the hook.
The issue isn't even if it fails or not; it's that the government has no right nor authority to spend other people's money in such things. Can I take your money and invest in Goldman Sachs whether I make money or not?
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony So you are denying a democratically elected government the same rights has a private landowner - that's hardly fair. And libertarians want the government to do nothing more than sort out financial disputes and protect property - so what's the point holding elections.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Courtiousness 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
I'll just ask restate my question: Do I have the right to take your money by force and spend it on venture capitalism? On anything at all?
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony Land owners don't use force they rent to free agents - if corporations don't want the business its up to them. But they'll come if there's money to be made -like the package holiday companies setting up in Cuba - even though Castro was taxing them at 80%. Capitalism is a little like bacteria it'll grow anywhere.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
The point is to make sure that if people like you somehow get elected, they're not there for too long abusing their power.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
I don't have time to respond to your comments, but I just wanted to say that I find it ridiculous that you're accusing libertarians of wanting to abolish representative government.
That is an absolutely absurd mischaracterization.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
The problem isn't representative government, that is necessary and favorable; the problem is consolidation of power, something your poorly construed idea of "social feudalism" does nothing but expand.
What you're advocating is nonsense. We'd spend billions of taxpayer money on land acquisition, hopefully rent it out to solvent corporations, and if they fail we'll bail them out with taxpayer money again. How does government have the right to risk our money on such ventures?
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@mountainpony First of all the land could be bought up using carbon taxes on industry - so the tax payer needn't be pestered. This wouldn't be done overnight either - but perhaps spread out over a twenty year period. And if businesses go bust you can generally buy them up for a song and, suffice to say, we'd put a little money to one side for a rainy day The Royal Houses of Europe have been operating a similar system for centuries and raked it in- so why not democratically elected governments.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Yeah, I can see from your rhetoric that you don't have an angry hateful message.
"ABSOLUTE VOMIT YOU DISGUSTING WORM!!!"
You're very tolerant of different ideas.
I believe that every individual has absolute self-ownership.
I'll tell you right now that I own me. You don't own me, America doesn't own me, all the workers of the world don't own me - I own me. Nobody but me has the right to command my labor.
You own you; use your labor however you see fit. You don't command mine.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs You own you - great! Keep all your tax - we'll just tax corporations and stop pestering people who feel like paying tax is like denoting a gallon of blood. Either that or the government could buy up bankrupt banks, businesses, farms and property portfolios and slowly but surely take over the means of production without any use of "force". There's more than one way to skin a cat.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
So capitalism is necessarily exploitative again? People will only agree to non-coercive market exchanges if they think their situation is improved by the exchange. Do you want to know what’s really exploitative? It’s exploitative when government declares that it’s legal to steal money from a minority to give to the majority in exchange for their vote.
OWS wants government to provide universal access to college, health-care, and good jobs. What kind of anarchy is that?
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(2/2)
Milton Friedman never advocated giving money to insolvent companies. He opposed the GM bailout back in the day. He was a monetary interventionist, not a fiscal interventionist.
Like I said, he ultimately did become more free market oriented near his death, when he finally advocated for abolishing the FED.
Let's be honest. You were wrong about this. If you can't admit that you're wrong about this, how can you take any of your opinions seriously? You're just defending your ego.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(1/2)
For your personal information, late in his life Friedman conceded that the FED should be abolished, and that in the absence of the FED the great depression would never have happened.
Given the existence of the FED, he opposed fiscal intervention and only promoted monetary policy. His proposed solution to the great depression was to increase the money supply. TARP was a bailout. They gave money to the companies to try to offset the fact that they were totally insolvent.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
You're right, nobody wants the 1900s back. We're through with the central planning era. Everybody is sick of socialism. Third world countries like India turned their back on the failed system and have begun prospering. We're done with the 1900s.
“The peasants are going to revolt,” this angry garbage again? Tell me, what will unite your cause once you've killed all us free marketers? Your ideology is pathologically incapable of taking personal responsibility for failure.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs I don't call people who're born into poverty who then end up on welfare - "failures". A failure is Paris Hilton - all that money - all that privilege - and she still ends up as dumb as a bag of spanners. When you're rich and useless they call you a socialite but when you're poor and useless they call you a failure. But you should look at your own life - and see how things might have turned out if "you" had been born into poverty. There but for the grace of god go I - so to speak.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
Executive power is just a fact of life - but of course it needs to be limited by checks and balances - such as free speech, free assembly and democratic elections. But the poor have always looked to the government for assistance - whether that was bread rations in ancient Rome or the Church hospitals of the middle ages. But lets just say for conjectures sake that we did emasculate all government power - where then would the rage of the poor be directed? Think long and hard about that one.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
In regards to the 1929 crash - Friedman blamed the Federal Reserve for not doing enough to stop the money supply contracting - i.e. pump more liquidity into the banking system. This would still result in a depression but a less severe one. So the bailout is just the Federal Reserve implementing Friedman's advice posthumously. I refer you to Milton Friedman "the Depression Myth".
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
I shouldn't have to state Friedman wasn't a libertarian. He blamed the FED for not expanding the money supply enough to match economic growth. I say they shouldn't be manipulating the money supply in the first place.
Was it government that first established gold as currency or was it the market? Government began coining money millenia ago, but by then gold was already a widely accepted medium of exchange. The market established it, so let the market regulate commodity money.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
Milton Friedman died in 2006, and Lehman Brothers didn't even go under until almost two full years later. TARP was created in response to the crisis that occurred after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe Friedman supported a program to address this crisis when neither existed prior to his death.
Anna Schwartz is still alive, and she disapproved of the bailout. Friedman wasn't the leader of free market economics anyway.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs The people don't want the 1900s back- they don't want it NOW in the third world. The global revolution is only just beginning- you just can't keep exploiting people like pack mules to make profits - then say "that's the market working" shut up. The real revolution is just beginning - but its a global revolution. The forces of capital moved the means of production to the third world - where they could better exploit feudal peasants - but the peasants are beginning to revolt. You'll see
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree Bourgeois elements always emphasize the individual over the collective. This is because they have financial independence. There power resides in the law, property and money whereas the working class draw their strength from their weight of numbers. Ye are many/they are few as Shelly wrote. So in political terms you're trying to rob the working class of their competitive advantage. Which in the great scheme of things is only to be expected.
32peartree 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
2/2
Back at home this does two things. First, we have more affordable goods because they cost less to make; second, jobs are created. The more shoes nike makes the more stores they need to sell them. And let's not forget the insourcing of jobs to America from foreign countries.
America at one point had sweatshops and low wages; these are aspects of an economic phase of development. Economic growth and efficiency changed them over time long before unions and government mandates.
mountainpony 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(6/6)
So as far as I’m concerned, let the chips fall where they may. Things will likely get worse before they get better, and we individualists will be saying, “I told you so,” as government breaks one promise after another.
Maybe I’m wrong and the workers will unite, destroy our government, and find justice in bringing to the guillotine those enemies of man who dared to deny and defy the divinity of the collective will.
But I don’t think so.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@32peartree
(5/6)
Liberty is such a powerful uniting force. It unites through love of humanity and individuality. Your uniting force is hatred against supposed agents of oppression. Your argument is that the working class will unite against its oppressors, against nature itself. Is this angry hateful message your alternative to the individualists' message of peace, prosperity, and tolerance? I’m not worried about that argument at all.
tubecrabs 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs That's the sickest bullshit imaginable. Not only is it a pathetic lie, but this GROSS falsehood that greed and capitalism mean the same as "liberty" is just vomit. Absolute vomit.
NOBODY who loves humanity can support capitalism. The idea that a few people should be able to have millions and millions in obscene luxury while millions of other people DIE from poverty is one that doesn't give a shit about humanity.
they aren't "supposed" agents, the oppression is REAL.
PrisonerNumber9653 3 weeks ago
@tubecrabs You're truly a disgusting worm. NOTHING could be more DESPICABLE than to not only defend something hateful but to claim the OPPOSITE is "hateful", to claim FALSELY your greed based in IGNORING the suffering it causes others is "individualism", to claim your support for a system that WILL cause war over and over and over again is "peace," that ignoring poverty is "prosperity", and not giving a damn about people in need is "tolerance." What a massive liar you are.
PrisonerNumber9653 3 weeks ago