I was about to watch this video and destroy your likely pathetic arguments. Sadly i found your stupid fucking faggot face so irritating that i had to pause the video to write this insult. Sorry.
@bblokar1 Go back to masturbating about living in a hunter gatherer society so you can escape your failure to achieve any merit by modern normative standards. Loser.
Yeah bro, thats really something that you achieved in your life. What about all those people living in 3rd world that have to work in sweatshops for 12 hours per day or are left to starve to death to keep your life comfortable? Im sure a ruthless despotic absolutist dictator would praise his system too. Go fucking die. This world would be better off without people like you.
Right-wing is best. Most University Student become Left, not knowing how the real world actually works. Once you get out, get a job, by a home and so on you dont want to be taxed every time you get our paycheck.
Leftism is not inconsistent with competition - any more than competition is inconsistent when ending in monopoly, as it will without regulation to keep the competition "balanced."
Another spoiled asshole spouting comfortable ideological nonsense. Get some experience in life and then you'll understand that any logical arguments you make against leftism will ultimately fall on deaf ears, and empty bellies. All attempts to bring Ayn Rands theories to fruition will implode in the practical world. Populism will triumph . . . every. . .single. . .TIME. I don't want to be around when your CONVENIENT arm chair lifestyle falls apart. Your discussions are pure mastrobation.
to have a few men dictating the destinies of the man, without their consent,y using violence as a threat to limit their behaviour/liberty & economic freedomsr is a totally immoral proposal, this is the problem with leftism... anarcho-communism is the only valid form of leftism, anarcho-capitalism the only valid form of rightism. the state is the problem in either extreme.
getting rid of exessive inequalitys is not the same as eliminating competitiion. excessive inequality are things as race and gender inequality, and crippeling economic woes. competition is hinderd when these inequalities are entrenched in our culture, when only those of the right ethnic, gender and economic composition have any say in the competitive culture. Free market capitalism without the striving for societal equality is andy democratic and totalitarian in nature.
@UCIBME competition embodies inequality only in the sense that when two persons are doing t he same job, one of them is going to be better at it then the other. But you can't honestly tell me that you think that that is the only type of inequality that is out there. What I'm talking about is the fact that there are many people who cannot compete not because they lack any merit, but because they either are crippled by their economic background or because of there cultural standing....
@Retlaww ...I have never heard anyone say that a shitty talkshow host deserves the same ratings as a talented one, or a crap pizza baker deserves the same amount of costumers as a good one. demanding that is madness and saying anyone is suggesting that is strawmanning. But what I find important is that people who aren't stockholders or in a money handling job or a goverment office don't exploit those who do al lthe actual production in a country because they fancy themselves more ''succesful''..
@Retlaww we have a saying here that goes something like this '' every rock in equally as important in making the pile, but only the top one can enjoy the view'' call me socialist, call me leftist, I don't care
@UCIBME competition doesnt embody inequality... human needs are infinite which gives those competing to fulfil them infinite ways to find a niche, one person makes wooden chairs, another plastic chairs, they both appeal to different people yet in the overall market theyre competing. the customers needs mean both are required despite some customers changing preferences between wood/plastic ie: competition between the 2.
@UCIBME so what do you propose as an alternative? equal slavery? personally i have no problem with people who prefer anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, as long as no one is using violence to impose either onto the other... which is why voluntaryism allows for maximum liberty whichever economic model you prefer within its scope.
@djdnauk1977 I have no complaints about the inequality that leftism seeks to abolish. It is axiomatic that a hierarchy of values -- and therefore inequality -- will exist in a free society.
I already addressed my grievance with anarcho-capitalism, but something similar can be said with anarcho-communism in that in order to be implemented in reality, property rights would need to be mutually abandoned. That will never occur, nor should it.
@UCIBME if leftism seeks to abolish inequality by the use of violence/theft, how do you explain the current situation in most countries eg: USA, where inequality is at an all time high despite far more social programs & government regulations etc... the problem with socialism is (unless its anarcho-socialism) it gives a few men the right to use violence to distribute wealth as they see fit, not as the individuals require it.
@UCIBME ok so you agree the only way to get absolute equality is through a USSR like communism totalitarian state? & if so does that mean you concede that its a very bad idea based on what usually happens under totalitarian communist/fascist regimes?
@djdnauk1977 Yes, absolutely. I was never advocating any sort of totalitarianism. Free societies will generate hierarchies; to deny that fact, or to treat it as if it is malevolent, as leftism does, is absolutely delusional and LITERALLY leads to psychopathic morality and politics, like every single communist state that has ever been implemented.
The purpose of this video was to undermine leftism through deductive logic by highlighting its inherent contradiction in argumentation.
@UCIBME ok apologies maybe i was confused... i just dont understand why you were making anti-libertarian comments in another post, what is your political or more importantly your philosophical stance?
@djdnauk1977 No problem -- I'm a classical liberal, not an anarcho-capitalist. Government exists as a necessary evil for the preservation of life, liberty, and property.
My own thinking suggests government exists due to the natural selection of societies that "evolved" the "adaptation" of private property. Government as biological fact falsifies many political philosophies who attempt to make an "is" and "ought"; and this is why political philosophy becomes a big circle jerk...
@UCIBME ...because their premises are unfalsifiable. That isn't to say it is a pointless exercise or that I'm a positivist, but rather, by viewing government empirically, one can develop a philosophy, that while it can't be proven, it can be falsified by looking at government in nature.
Thus classical liberalism is the only position that remains standing after an empirical inquiry, but from there one can develop epistemological and even metaphysical justifications for it.
@UCIBME ok so you are a minarchist? (libertarian?) personally i believe a state-monopoly breeds corruption & taxation is immoral, so the only solution i see working is voluntaryism, which would allow contractual 3rd parties to solve societies problems... not to mention as mans prosperity grows so does the state & its taxes, which means the government that starts the smallest will always end up growing to parasitically feed off its host (productive society)
@Retlaww I am dealing with definitions and drawing conclusions from them. Suggesting that competition is hindered due to sociocultural inequality is to evade the deductive, logical, reasoning used to show a contradiction of a competitive ideology which is anti-inequality.
I find leftists to be most contradictory in their claim to support freedom. For when you get right down to it, in order for the leftist to make us all free, we have to be made all equal, and in order to make us all equal they require a totalitarian system of government. . .which is of course antithetical to the notion of freedom.
@ostralopithicus Spot on. They can't possibly want freedom, because of the material inequality that necessarily results (see a previous video I made about that).
I'm beginning to think it's something pathopsychological that attracts so many people to enforcing a tribal, primitive-esque society, where "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability". I call what they want "totalitarian tribalism" ;-)
Wow 'What is the Nature of Leftism'. I have been studying this for about 5 years now, amazing that someone actually put up a video with that exact title. So far my working model is 'those set of ideas, which when implemented, maximize social regression, whilst concurrently claiming to maximize social progress'.
Btw, I don't agree with your claim. Leftists has never spoken as though their belief system is a competitive option, and they always destroyed their competitors after ceasing power.
"Leftists has never spoken as though their belief system is a competitive option"
--they don't have to; as I am saying, it's implied when they argue...basically, every time anyone argues something they are saying the argument is the best or better than the alternative.
This provides a quick-and-easy way of dismissing Leftism as necessarily logically contradictory, and I offer it because Leftists ignore facts and truths that contradict their world-view.
Nice strawman. When can we expect the tin man and the lion?
Rickdeckard2020 1 month ago
I was about to watch this video and destroy your likely pathetic arguments. Sadly i found your stupid fucking faggot face so irritating that i had to pause the video to write this insult. Sorry.
bblokar1 4 months ago
@bblokar1 Go back to masturbating about living in a hunter gatherer society so you can escape your failure to achieve any merit by modern normative standards. Loser.
UCIBME 4 months ago
@UCIBME
>born in a wealthy middle class family
>born in a wealthy western country
Yeah bro, thats really something that you achieved in your life. What about all those people living in 3rd world that have to work in sweatshops for 12 hours per day or are left to starve to death to keep your life comfortable? Im sure a ruthless despotic absolutist dictator would praise his system too. Go fucking die. This world would be better off without people like you.
bblokar1 4 months ago
Right-wing is best. Most University Student become Left, not knowing how the real world actually works. Once you get out, get a job, by a home and so on you dont want to be taxed every time you get our paycheck.
LordWellington15 5 months ago
Leftism is not inconsistent with competition - any more than competition is inconsistent when ending in monopoly, as it will without regulation to keep the competition "balanced."
TheAzov 5 months ago
Another spoiled asshole spouting comfortable ideological nonsense. Get some experience in life and then you'll understand that any logical arguments you make against leftism will ultimately fall on deaf ears, and empty bellies. All attempts to bring Ayn Rands theories to fruition will implode in the practical world. Populism will triumph . . . every. . .single. . .TIME. I don't want to be around when your CONVENIENT arm chair lifestyle falls apart. Your discussions are pure mastrobation.
imaginativelads 11 months ago
@imaginativelads Troll troll go away, come again another day.
UCIBME 11 months ago
to have a few men dictating the destinies of the man, without their consent,y using violence as a threat to limit their behaviour/liberty & economic freedomsr is a totally immoral proposal, this is the problem with leftism... anarcho-communism is the only valid form of leftism, anarcho-capitalism the only valid form of rightism. the state is the problem in either extreme.
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
getting rid of exessive inequalitys is not the same as eliminating competitiion. excessive inequality are things as race and gender inequality, and crippeling economic woes. competition is hinderd when these inequalities are entrenched in our culture, when only those of the right ethnic, gender and economic composition have any say in the competitive culture. Free market capitalism without the striving for societal equality is andy democratic and totalitarian in nature.
Retlaww 11 months ago
@Retlaww But the definition of competition embodies inequality. In other words, everybody competing cannot win.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME competition embodies inequality only in the sense that when two persons are doing t he same job, one of them is going to be better at it then the other. But you can't honestly tell me that you think that that is the only type of inequality that is out there. What I'm talking about is the fact that there are many people who cannot compete not because they lack any merit, but because they either are crippled by their economic background or because of there cultural standing....
Retlaww 11 months ago
@Retlaww ...I have never heard anyone say that a shitty talkshow host deserves the same ratings as a talented one, or a crap pizza baker deserves the same amount of costumers as a good one. demanding that is madness and saying anyone is suggesting that is strawmanning. But what I find important is that people who aren't stockholders or in a money handling job or a goverment office don't exploit those who do al lthe actual production in a country because they fancy themselves more ''succesful''..
Retlaww 11 months ago
@Retlaww we have a saying here that goes something like this '' every rock in equally as important in making the pile, but only the top one can enjoy the view'' call me socialist, call me leftist, I don't care
Retlaww 11 months ago
@UCIBME competition doesnt embody inequality... human needs are infinite which gives those competing to fulfil them infinite ways to find a niche, one person makes wooden chairs, another plastic chairs, they both appeal to different people yet in the overall market theyre competing. the customers needs mean both are required despite some customers changing preferences between wood/plastic ie: competition between the 2.
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@djdnauk1977 Yet some will fulfill those needs more than others, creating inequality amongst each other.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME so what do you propose as an alternative? equal slavery? personally i have no problem with people who prefer anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, as long as no one is using violence to impose either onto the other... which is why voluntaryism allows for maximum liberty whichever economic model you prefer within its scope.
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@djdnauk1977 I have no complaints about the inequality that leftism seeks to abolish. It is axiomatic that a hierarchy of values -- and therefore inequality -- will exist in a free society.
I already addressed my grievance with anarcho-capitalism, but something similar can be said with anarcho-communism in that in order to be implemented in reality, property rights would need to be mutually abandoned. That will never occur, nor should it.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME if leftism seeks to abolish inequality by the use of violence/theft, how do you explain the current situation in most countries eg: USA, where inequality is at an all time high despite far more social programs & government regulations etc... the problem with socialism is (unless its anarcho-socialism) it gives a few men the right to use violence to distribute wealth as they see fit, not as the individuals require it.
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@djdnauk1977 Well obviously the means to abolish inequality are horrible. True equality will require a totalitarian system.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME ok so you agree the only way to get absolute equality is through a USSR like communism totalitarian state? & if so does that mean you concede that its a very bad idea based on what usually happens under totalitarian communist/fascist regimes?
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@djdnauk1977 Yes, absolutely. I was never advocating any sort of totalitarianism. Free societies will generate hierarchies; to deny that fact, or to treat it as if it is malevolent, as leftism does, is absolutely delusional and LITERALLY leads to psychopathic morality and politics, like every single communist state that has ever been implemented.
The purpose of this video was to undermine leftism through deductive logic by highlighting its inherent contradiction in argumentation.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME ok apologies maybe i was confused... i just dont understand why you were making anti-libertarian comments in another post, what is your political or more importantly your philosophical stance?
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@djdnauk1977 No problem -- I'm a classical liberal, not an anarcho-capitalist. Government exists as a necessary evil for the preservation of life, liberty, and property.
My own thinking suggests government exists due to the natural selection of societies that "evolved" the "adaptation" of private property. Government as biological fact falsifies many political philosophies who attempt to make an "is" and "ought"; and this is why political philosophy becomes a big circle jerk...
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME ...because their premises are unfalsifiable. That isn't to say it is a pointless exercise or that I'm a positivist, but rather, by viewing government empirically, one can develop a philosophy, that while it can't be proven, it can be falsified by looking at government in nature.
Thus classical liberalism is the only position that remains standing after an empirical inquiry, but from there one can develop epistemological and even metaphysical justifications for it.
UCIBME 11 months ago
@UCIBME ok so you are a minarchist? (libertarian?) personally i believe a state-monopoly breeds corruption & taxation is immoral, so the only solution i see working is voluntaryism, which would allow contractual 3rd parties to solve societies problems... not to mention as mans prosperity grows so does the state & its taxes, which means the government that starts the smallest will always end up growing to parasitically feed off its host (productive society)
djdnauk1977 11 months ago
@Retlaww I am dealing with definitions and drawing conclusions from them. Suggesting that competition is hindered due to sociocultural inequality is to evade the deductive, logical, reasoning used to show a contradiction of a competitive ideology which is anti-inequality.
UCIBME 11 months ago
great argument! unfortunately it will only work on those with the ability to utilize reason and logic ;)
i'm down for 'political equality,' of course. it's people who want to impose 'economic equality' that i have an issue with...
redrajani 1 year ago
I find leftists to be most contradictory in their claim to support freedom. For when you get right down to it, in order for the leftist to make us all free, we have to be made all equal, and in order to make us all equal they require a totalitarian system of government. . .which is of course antithetical to the notion of freedom.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago 2
@ostralopithicus Spot on. They can't possibly want freedom, because of the material inequality that necessarily results (see a previous video I made about that).
I'm beginning to think it's something pathopsychological that attracts so many people to enforcing a tribal, primitive-esque society, where "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability". I call what they want "totalitarian tribalism" ;-)
UCIBME 1 year ago 2
Wow 'What is the Nature of Leftism'. I have been studying this for about 5 years now, amazing that someone actually put up a video with that exact title. So far my working model is 'those set of ideas, which when implemented, maximize social regression, whilst concurrently claiming to maximize social progress'.
Btw, I don't agree with your claim. Leftists has never spoken as though their belief system is a competitive option, and they always destroyed their competitors after ceasing power.
tothemax01 1 year ago 2
@tothemax01 haha what are the odds?!
"Leftists has never spoken as though their belief system is a competitive option"
--they don't have to; as I am saying, it's implied when they argue...basically, every time anyone argues something they are saying the argument is the best or better than the alternative.
This provides a quick-and-easy way of dismissing Leftism as necessarily logically contradictory, and I offer it because Leftists ignore facts and truths that contradict their world-view.
UCIBME 1 year ago 3
Well this video explains alot indirectly about the characters that consider themselves 'leftists'.
Schneboll 1 year ago 2
@Schneboll If you mean they reject reality and substitute it for their own, then yes, absolutely.
UCIBME 1 year ago 3
@UCIBME pretty much yea
Schneboll 1 year ago 2