Perfect demonstration of the cognitive dissonance of the so called "Libertarian" mind. I also think it's ironic that the top rated comment from fringeelements who (credit to him) admitted to being a "former" racial separatist. With that in mind it makes sense why he holds the views that he does.
There's no cognitive dissonance unless you can make an actual refutation of Ryan's (fringe) argument with elaboration and not simple ad hoc dismissal as you've just done.
"former racial separatist" Ad hoc dismissal -and- not-so-subtle genetic fallacy in one comment? I need to cap this. LOL.
Seeing as how you haven't presented an argument, it looks like you may need to start re-evaluating your positions or perceptions.
You're right about the ad hom, I concede someone's position on an unrelated topic does not invalidate their arguments about the subject at hand. However if he really thinks the private sector can do a better job at financing roads, keeping our food safe (for everyone not just the wealthy) he would have linked to a video or report demonstrating this. His neglecting to do so (or failure to do so) demonstrates laziness or an inability to point, counterpoint.
Alright he's got videos with sources demonstrating what you're using as an example (food regulation and roads), but the only problem now is that they're his videos and people (not necessarily you but in general) disregard when other's self-promote.
@nerdyexploration I was also a marxist, and I don't see what's so awful about racial separatism. There's less shame to that than being a social democrat.
i wouldn't expect a worshipper of the power of the State to entertain the notion of actually providing a causal theory regarding why things are the way they are. why didn't you do that???
no, all they have to do is point to the existence of a federal agency and say, "see, that's why your life is better, b/c of this agency!"
this should be an embarrassment to anyone who values rational, scientific thinking.
@junior00bacon00chee Good thing we have libertarians here to present the usual straw-man arguments based on arguments that were never actually said and present a false daichotamy at the same time! It's pathetic really. Typically ignoring how well these socialist services are run and just screaming "Gummint BAD!" right into it's face.
huh? my point was that no arguments were presented, how is that a straw man?
no, there is a very clear reason why the govt is a total failure...their revenue is based on extortion, euphemistically referred to as taxation, so their is very little incentive to provide quality service. moreover, b/c there is no profit and loss, they have no indicators for how resources should be allocated according to peoples' preferences.
Idiot. If you live in a soceity you HAVE to do something to help the soceity function. We see this in the wild with social animals such as lions and our cousins the chimps. They live together to ensure survival and will put another's needs before one's own. Since we invented money plus all that we have, we need to properly maintane soceity somehow. Don't like it? Move to china or the middle east where yo can live in totalitarianism like you so evidently wish.
lol. okay, so being against statism means i am against social cooperation and love totalitarianism?
society can be maintained far better without the extortion rackets euphemistically referred to as governments. and why should i move? you are the one who loves the totalitarianism so much, how about all the statists move to china?
srsly the whole you should move thing is so incredibly old and lame. present me with a real argument and i will consider talking to you.
Fine. On the subject of public education, if we let it be that people pay to go to school out of their own pockets, the common man would not be able to afford putting their children through school. By making it to where all schools end up being part of the capitalist system we end up in a form of soceity not too different from fuedal europe where education for the peasents was considered illegal, and that's ultimately what the extreme right are trying to do here.
nonsense. before long public education will be moot, all you will need to get an education will be a computer and an internet connection. just look at the kahn academy. kids don't need to be forced into indoctrination camps in order to become competent well rounded individuals. feudal europe was incredibly statist, so the comparison is pointless. i'm advocating the abolition of states where people are free to use the enormous availability of info around them to educate themselves.
After the renneisance people began becoming more educated much to the objections raised by the rich. Then when America's founding fathers were born they learned just how things went in the history of mankind, which shaped their personal beleifs. Thomas Jefferson in particular advocated public education since at the time education could oly be afforded by the upper classes. A public education system will be paid for by everyone so everyon can be educated proper.
the public "education" system has done more to dumb people down than anything. it was designed after the prussian system where the aim was to create a loyal, obedient citizenry. this apparatus is clearly used by the politically connected rich to manipulate people. ironic that you support it.
also, it's a pointless discussion in the age of the internet. we are soaked with information. kids don't need to be packed into classrooms anymore.
That is just one example. I shouldn't have to explain other points of US history when it's so blatantly obvious not to mention easily accsessable via google. It helps to pay attention in school, dumbass.
lol. "It helps to pay attention in school, dumbass." typical.
it's great how you are just proving my point. public schooling aims to destroy people's capacity to form their own thoughts and beliefs thereby leaving them with the default, which is to go along with whatever they are told. did you bother to question anything you were taught?
saying, "i learned it in school" is not an argument.
Granted it's been a month but I came back to this video for a laugh, and the moment I saw your bilge water excuse of a rebuttal, I have this to say; your conspiritorial remarks are unfounded and total bullshit. Sure anyone can go to school and just soak up info but it's better than to be lied to by neo-cons about what's officially known thanks to the historical records I took the time to look up over the years. Nice try sporty.
our education system was designed after the prussian system, which was designed to instill loyalty and obedience to the state. now, just b/c some fanatics pushed it for that reason to not mean it's some kind of giant conspiracy. idk why i'm telling you this b/c obviously you don't like learning new things. again, typical.
and what do the neocons have to do with this? yes they conspired, they lied about intelligence the they had and deliberately falsified it in order to push us into war.
Great argument. Hey, in the USSR the state produced all the food... and the people there ATE IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM.
Clearly, they endorsed the system, just as much as we do when we drive on gov't roads.
If the gov't monopolizes something, forces you to pay for it so it's "free to use" and thus making private competition almost impossible, and you use that thing, then clearly you endorse the whole bag.
Amazingly stupid video, liked by amazingly stupid people.
@fringeelements Yeah, because it's SO much better to pay constant premiums for free market monopolies where it's not even a guarantee that the company will even pay for your medical treatment, leaving you massively in debt and facing possible bankruptcy to a basic need in ANY society. So lets see here; "Theft" for free service, or social darwinism? I think I'll choose the former thank you very much!
The truth of all of this is that a pure form of government either socialist or capitalist will create horrible living conditions. However, even in a more balanced country like the United States with decent living conditions, 40% of the power (money) is consolidated into an elite 1%, so we're not too far from communist totalitarianism.
The only solution I could see to a corrupt human elite would be a well organized technocracy with an educated populace, which we are gradually moving towards.
Almost all of the organizations listed here are jokes and operate with ulterior motives. The problem with this little diatribe is that they automatically assume guvmints can do good things without public pressure.
I do agree with you. I think the US Army has lost every war since WW2 because they're government funded. We need private corporate armies which will be way more efficient.
>implying that the FCC, USDA, FDA, DOT, EPA, Federal Reserve, and Public Schools are good things, and that these things (and everything non-defense related) couldn't be done better by the private sector.
What are you talking about, my neighbor drives a Hummer. Who's taking away people's cars? Social commentary only works with things that are actually happening.
My computer is labeled as energy efficient by the socialist Energy Star program and the socialist TCO certificate '01.
As a member of the socialist European Union I'm glad I can travel between the member states without the need for passport and I'm also looking forward to seeing the socialist EU energy label on the products I buy which will facilitate choosing products that are most energy efficient thereby incentivizing the free market to produce more energy efficient household appliances.
I've heard people complain about capitalists using the "you are part of the system" argument against the critics of capitalism. Is this any different?
But, total socialism, in the less-ideal-world that we have, is not the correct solution in my eyes. Neither is total capitalism. I think there needs to be a balance between the two. Capitalism balances socialism by providing the means to use socialist knowledge, and vice versa.
With a PERFECT community, though, socialism would create Utopia.
What is a "socalist" and does it have anything to do with what real people actually advocate?
A person who advocates the work-or-starve ultimatum backed by police enforced property rights doesn't believe in freedom.
A person who advocates policies that enable unelected private individuals to make decisions that affect many people, does not believe in freedom. Such people usually are against state-fascism but advocate business fascism. i.e. Crypto-fascists who are against democracy.
That is absolutely not capitalism. THAT IS DEMOCRACY! Our founding fathers knew democracy would turn out like this which is why they made us a republic. And when a socialist takes away that persons property that is for the "greater good"? If affects many people but it by no means controls their entire life and if it does they are just whiners, sorry.
When NON-ELECTED people make decisions that affect many people, this is not Democracy. One person rule is objectionable at the state level and at the business level. Teenagers don't leave home angry at being bossed around by parents thinking, "AT LAST! Now I am free be bossed around by a businessman!"
You appear to hold ordinary people in contempt, believing them to be incapable of voting in their own interest. You don't appear to care about freedom, dismissing legitmate concerns as "whining."
you ignored what I wrote. I said we are a republic not a democracy. "RULE BY LAW" not "RULE BY MAJORITY". I hold contempt for ordinary people? I am an ordinary person. And that person who owns the business they get to do whatever they want with it because guess what? They own it. I suppose you wouldn't like it if i went into your house and started to demand twinkies?
"RULE BY LAW" does not define any political system. Stalin had rule by law. Republics are usually defined in part as democracy, so no ignoring. Technical people solve problems not business people, businesses hire those people and then in an act of gross self-aggrandizement pay themselves an undeservedly large slice of the pie. Such would be impossible if technical people had enough capital to refuse work: Only then would agree that it was entirely voluntary to choose to work over leisure.
"RULE BY LAW" does define a political system. Hitler also came to power in a democracy. Business people make sure those people have jobs. ( would be on the street otherwise). Business people also take the brunt of criticism when the whole business goes down the shitter. You make more money with brains not your skills. I'm sorry to say this, but have those dock workers can't do the job of the head guy.
Benjamin Franklin also said America is a republic.
If "RULE BY LAW" is sufficient to define a political system then there can be no objection to the kings and serfs situation described above, who all live by rule of law.
If government is to be dismantled then in order to gain popular support, there has to be more than a tawdry proposal of hollow claims of favouring freedom, born of a superficial vision of people in ersatz happiness of voluntary slavery to business authoritarians.
How about explaining how "rule of law" is sufficient for creating a fair and free society, under hypothetical conditions where a few plutocrats own nearly everything, and people have to face the plutocrat's police force and starve, or work to earn a little property which is likewise protected by the same police? i.e the situation you earlier rejected as a strawman. Is "RULE OF LAW" enough or not?
Have you played Sudoku? In a hard puzzle, it is sometimes necessary to guess a value in a square (e.g 6), follow the rules to fill in squares, and see if a contradiction results. (e.g. two 3's on one row). i.e. with fixed rules and principles, an observed contradiction means the premise is wrong. That's how logic works. If the principle is "RULE OF LAW is enough", and now it accepted there are conditions in which law is not enough, then what is the logic of your position, fudge factor aside?
Never played Sudoku or even know how to play .( I prefer crossword puzzles and RTS games) lol, I also never even heard of "fudge factor". I do think that is a bad analogy because a Sudoku puzzle has fixed rules not the U.S constitution. ( they can make laws whenever as long as with they are in the powers of the constitution.)
If someone states "All swans are white" and then a black swan is presented, then observation contradicts the stated principle. If the same person maintains his position and says, "Well, all swans are white in practice, there's an exception to everything." - then the "All swans are white" principle only stands with a significant fudge factor.
If "rule by law" is not sufficient under some conditions to create a fair and free society, then what is a fudge-factor free answer to achieving this aim?
follow our constitution. A law in it says you can create new laws as long as they are within its powers. Tis why I said Rule of Law is good enough under it.
[People] + [Laws] + [Ability to change laws] = Free Society
And in light of the fact that changing the laws means any law system is possible, including a law that makes everyone a slave, another way to put that position is:
And I suppose I should add that the Constitution would exist happily alongside a plutocracy whereby the majority of people had to work or starve and face the police force that protects all property. In other words, the following does not add up:
[People] + [Constitution] =/= Free Society
Rather:
[People] + [Constitution] + [Some other things] = Free Society
A precise statement about what constitutes a free society, of a standard worthy of serious consideration, demands more than "needs laws"
Would you do anything in the plutocrat's paradise which has an equivalent constitution, where a few people own nearly everything, and has the work-or-starve ulimatum described earlier?
As the Constitution would be entirely compatible with that society, it would appear you would let the plutocrats turn everyone into slaves, and the "strawman" was in fact entirely accurate.
I would probably join the fighters of the revolution! Some kind of wealth redistribution would have to result.
Property rights are not absolute. For scarce resources, property rights usually make sense. For abundant resources, property rights make much less sense, and no sense if the incentive argument is inapplicable. When property rights interfere with freedom, the question is much harder, and insisting on absolute property rights is asinine..
Property rights do not interfere with freedom. What you are saying is that elites have complete control over your own life. Well, here is one example in which they do not. Gas hit 4 dollars a gallon and people stopped buying as much gas and as a result the rich didn't get as rich and were forced to bring down the prices. But, I think you would call that " social justice" right? Taking away from someone is not asinine it is thievery.
You didn't say what you would do. If you are against thievery in all cases, then you must allow the plutocrats to control everyone. *Absolute* property rights are asinine but private property rights often make sense; see above.
Property rights always interfere with freedom. If I own a car then you don't have the freedom to use it. Rightly, there are limits on freedom. Using private technology to replicate food (c.f. startrek) from renewable energy, and charging starving people would be immoral.
Technically what I advocate isn't ABSOLUTE property rights either. If someone is running a child prostitution ring inside their house then the government has the right to seize the house for further investigation.
" Using private technology to replicate food (c.f. startrek) from renewable energy, and charging starving people would be immoral."
One quick question before I continue. Assuming from that statement I think you are against free trade, right?
I doubt it. Not sure if you are asking about international trade more more generally. But the point of the comment you quoted was to illustrate a way in which private property could be unethical; where a person may wish to disallow it. Such things have a real world bearing on the limits of private property, such as the non-patentability of mathematical and physics discoveries. Only a precise examination of the limitations will be of use here
"Free trade" covers too many things all at once. I'm OK with preventing unnecessary govt interference, but I doubt we'd agree about what is necessary. I don't believe that price signals can be relied on in the real world, and neo-classical economics generally is nonsense, mathematically unsound, and based on all sorts of untenable premises, including an insultingly incorrect analysis of human motivation.
Have you given up on this and decided that I must be psychologically infantile, wanting "daddy" government to protect me, rather than wanting elected leaders in control instead of property-qualified leaders in control? I'm still interested in what you would do in the plutocrat situation. Or if you're not answering because you think I haven't answered your question, then first explain what you think of "free trade" so that there is some hope of communication.
In light of the fact that the Constitution would protect the property of the plutocrats, and would sustain their control over those who lack property to escape the control of those plutocrats, then you appear to be in favour of an Orwellian "freedom" of slavery to property-qualified authoritarians, and uncaring about rights of any substance. What would be an accurate understanding of freedom, in light of the fact that absolute property rights are insufficient for ensuring freedom?
Your protests of "thievery", as if property rights are absolute, do not furnish support of the kind of property rights you favour. Fairness, not freedom? When a person makes a choice that he finds objectionable, under the influence of other people, then his conflicting attitudes and beliefs make him unhappy with his choice. So what you are advocating is the right for some people to create mass unhappiness, and no right to happiness for poor people. Your kind of "freedom" isn't worth having.
There is only one kind of freedom. The kind of freedom that no laws are broken in order to insure "fairness". The dock workers have a lot more power than they think, they just don't want to bother with it.
The one kind of freedom is the one where people get to behave in full accordance with their beliefs and attitudes, free from control of private interests but in accordance with the law made by elected representatives. If you don't care about "fairness" - then fine, we just need a law where the earnings of the rich are taxed at 210%. That meets the conditions of your stated requirements: no laws broken to ensure "fairness"
Sure. So stopping a business from having control over another person's life trumps near-absolute property rights that enable such control.
And what is personal liberty if it is not behaving in full accordance with one's own beliefs and attitudes? Clearly, a violent despot who operates under no limits is bad for society, so some limitations must apply. So why should we accept your limitations (near-absolute property rights) and not some other set?
You load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store...
It's funny how conservatives have this ridiculous and hypocritical expectation for people to be omniscent, therefore everything is their fault and not the companies who are entitled to do whatever they want to make a buck.
I absolutely think people can be responsible, but they can't be an expert in everything. Lawyers exist so that people who don't understand legal jargon can go to them. That kind of thing. Responsibility isn't the issue, the issue is should company's take advantage of people's trust and ignorance. Which is very irresponsible.
They don't point a gun to your head to work there. I actually agree don't trust corporations. Trust yourself because not one person owes you anything.
Ok, this always happens over the internet people always interpet what I say as a generalization but w/e. You do trust the government with protecting you, family, friends, etc.
But one quick question if someone in the service industry does not give you service, what would you do?
I don't know what w/e is, but I know you spoke in pretty general terms. Of course people aren't perfect, which is why it's ludicrous to blame people for making mistakes and being duped by people they trust to be experts.
" Ok, this always happens over the internet people always interpet what I say as a generalization but w/e. You do trust the government with protecting you,
Not sure I understand the question. What would I refuse if somebody refused to serve me? Go somewhere else. If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, it's kind of a moot point since most people don't always know the other options or that they're getting duped.
Also, above you said dockers can't manage. Here's what Lowell mill girls (approx equivalent) of c.1850 thought about this:
"Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism."
Not so stupid. Note the widespread hatred of the system you advocate.
I think there is a difference between government owned and run (schools) which are socialist, and private free market enterprise that is regulated by the government.
But it is a good argument against the too much government crowed who think that any government involvement is bad, which is untrue.
of course the schools is a valid example. when you have a free government run program that is socialism in a form. the petrol and cars are also good examples because the government makes sure the quality is acceptable. and this works all around the world because every democracy has those kinds of institutions and parties that wants to privaties more.
communist is when the government owns and runs everything thing in the country and everyone works for the government.
socialist is were the government runs a free program for the betterment of all its people. public schools, public health care, regulatory agencies and even the military. The USA is already socialist the question is how socialist do you guys want to be.
i sure wish my recently unemployed, therefore uninsured neighbor had access to healthcare because the untreated virus he passed on to his kids was passed to mine.they were denied coverage, since i was recently diagnosed with cancer which my insurer says is related a prior condition of cystic acne in my teens and is therefore un-covered. that's their excuse to deny my whole family coverage.
they know i'll be dead before any appeal reaches court. i will now lose my house & job, & become burden to medicare (which is bankrupt due to covering not just those originally intended, but those like me, denied by theiir paid private insurers) or emergency care, which is paid for by all taxpayers, even though i paid my premiums to the bitter end.
funny but the ins company didn't offer all those to follow me to medicare despite their refusal to cover.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL! What an ignorant fucking video! How is a private company, producing & selling me electric or water socialist? How fucking STUPID!
The only things that ARE socialist is the U.S. Mail(which, if socialist should be free, & is in bankruptcy) and public schools(which is failing our children in a BIG WAY!). Lets end them both!
Police & Fire are paid for & controlled by LOCAL gov'ts!
Highways are paid locally!
Everything else mentioned are REGULATORY AGENCIES!!!!! Get it libtarded idiots?
Hogwash, It isn't socialism when local people vote on it, pass it, pay for it, & kick the politicians out of Office if they don't like the job they're doing.
Socialism is when the Federal Gov't runs the show & there basically ISN'T ANY local control of ANYTHING!
Read your Constitution, it gives the Federal Gov't VERY limited powers & everything else is supposed to be up to the individual States. The Feds are out of control & violate the Constitution daily, like the healthcare issue!
ya and then I put on my socialist shoes and speak my socialist words... way to justify everything you say... thing are not socialist just because tax money pay for it newb
Cuba is a communist country. It is not socialist. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist senator from Vermont, has a beautiful state which has just granted equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. And believe it or not, STILL NO HURRICANES!
Not to mention, Ben & Jerry's ice cream is made there. :-)
The way I see it, you seem to be economically pushed down by everything in the US. If you don't have a proper economy, you aren't given any "breathing space". I myself am a supporter of solidarity. Even if I have a poor economy and is not able to pay much in tax, others whose economy is good can pay more in tax, therefore compensating my lack of funds in order to get public services such as health care and education. I can't see anything wrong in replacing profit-seeking corporations with this.
you know what the best thing is about having all these socialist programs? I at least get to keep HALF my pay check.... All we need to do now is add socialized health care.. That should shave off a few more percentage points off my income... What if I dont have kids in public school, use the post office or drive a car? Do I still need to pay for these "benefits"?
Oh yeah, you forgot about Social Security... Its a bankrupt ponzi scheme.
God damn kids. When we were young we had to fend for ourselves. No damn reveneuers sticking their god damn noses in everything. We didn't take hand outs from anyone, Just the way it's supposed to be. Anyway, Gotta go cash my Social Security check. Fucking commies.
From NASAs own website: Since 1966, the Office of Management and Budget has encouraged federal agencies and departments to contract out, or outsource, services that are not "inherently governmental", based on the idea that services that are commonly performed by the private sector are performed more efficiently by the private sector than if they were to be performed by civil servants. Since then, NASA has placed many of its day-to-day operations in the hands of private sector employees...
(cont) NASA uses contractors to build most, if not all, of its spacecraft-indeed, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which many people think of as a NASA center, is really operated by one of NASA's oldest contractors, the California Institute of Technology. Other research and development agencies, such as the Dept. of Energy, also rely on contractors.
Funny watching people gloat over a video praising government encroachment of once privately supplied services. Only after reading the comments did I realize it wasn't an (intentional) critique of socialism. Public education? Public mail? FCC? These are triumphs over the free market?
It's nice to see people haven't lost their religion..
socialism is not bad at all only the leaders were corrupt and evil not socialism most ppl dont see this they only know what they are told by the media
It's not going to cost you more. Your premiums will be lower cause the goal of the government insurance is NOT profit which also means increased care and money spent on actually taking care of you rather than political campaigns, lobbying for bills that help raise your rates, decrease your care and drop you from your plan when you actually need the insurance the most so they can keep the profits which is why "socialist" govenment run Medicare insurance is so popular with the 65+.
HaHa great video,
Perfect demonstration of the cognitive dissonance of the so called "Libertarian" mind. I also think it's ironic that the top rated comment from fringeelements who (credit to him) admitted to being a "former" racial separatist. With that in mind it makes sense why he holds the views that he does.
nerdyexploration 5 months ago
@nerdyexploration
There's no cognitive dissonance unless you can make an actual refutation of Ryan's (fringe) argument with elaboration and not simple ad hoc dismissal as you've just done.
"former racial separatist" Ad hoc dismissal -and- not-so-subtle genetic fallacy in one comment? I need to cap this. LOL.
Seeing as how you haven't presented an argument, it looks like you may need to start re-evaluating your positions or perceptions.
fountainherz 5 months ago
@fountainherz
You're right about the ad hom, I concede someone's position on an unrelated topic does not invalidate their arguments about the subject at hand. However if he really thinks the private sector can do a better job at financing roads, keeping our food safe (for everyone not just the wealthy) he would have linked to a video or report demonstrating this. His neglecting to do so (or failure to do so) demonstrates laziness or an inability to point, counterpoint.
nerdyexploration 5 months ago
@nerdyexploration
Alright he's got videos with sources demonstrating what you're using as an example (food regulation and roads), but the only problem now is that they're his videos and people (not necessarily you but in general) disregard when other's self-promote.
fountainherz 5 months ago
@nerdyexploration I was also a marxist, and I don't see what's so awful about racial separatism. There's less shame to that than being a social democrat.
fringeelements 5 months ago
ahaha, this guy is a troll.
Sivels 5 months ago
wow, you really hate freedom.
snewso 5 months ago
Without all those socialist institutions, we would have nothing but mud huts, is that your thesis?
qtutoringhelps 5 months ago
@qtutoringhelps lol
Sivels 5 months ago
You should publish a book called "How to build straw-man arguments" or "Straw-man Arguments For Dummies"
christo930 5 months ago
You know.... politics would be a lot easier if everybody dropped all the labels and just figured out how we'd like things to be organised.
URProductions 5 months ago
I bet "SkeptikSnarf" thinks he is really smart for inventing this clever and powerful argument. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
LOL.
alternativereality 5 months ago
LOL.
talk about post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
i wouldn't expect a worshipper of the power of the State to entertain the notion of actually providing a causal theory regarding why things are the way they are. why didn't you do that???
no, all they have to do is point to the existence of a federal agency and say, "see, that's why your life is better, b/c of this agency!"
this should be an embarrassment to anyone who values rational, scientific thinking.
junior00bacon00chee 5 months ago 5
@junior00bacon00chee it certainly rustled my jimmies
smthngdffrnt 5 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Good thing we have libertarians here to present the usual straw-man arguments based on arguments that were never actually said and present a false daichotamy at the same time! It's pathetic really. Typically ignoring how well these socialist services are run and just screaming "Gummint BAD!" right into it's face.
Nightmare060 5 months ago
@Nightmare
huh? my point was that no arguments were presented, how is that a straw man?
no, there is a very clear reason why the govt is a total failure...their revenue is based on extortion, euphemistically referred to as taxation, so their is very little incentive to provide quality service. moreover, b/c there is no profit and loss, they have no indicators for how resources should be allocated according to peoples' preferences.
where is your argument/explanation?
junior00bacon00chee 5 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Idiot. If you live in a soceity you HAVE to do something to help the soceity function. We see this in the wild with social animals such as lions and our cousins the chimps. They live together to ensure survival and will put another's needs before one's own. Since we invented money plus all that we have, we need to properly maintane soceity somehow. Don't like it? Move to china or the middle east where yo can live in totalitarianism like you so evidently wish.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
lol. okay, so being against statism means i am against social cooperation and love totalitarianism?
society can be maintained far better without the extortion rackets euphemistically referred to as governments. and why should i move? you are the one who loves the totalitarianism so much, how about all the statists move to china?
srsly the whole you should move thing is so incredibly old and lame. present me with a real argument and i will consider talking to you.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Fine. On the subject of public education, if we let it be that people pay to go to school out of their own pockets, the common man would not be able to afford putting their children through school. By making it to where all schools end up being part of the capitalist system we end up in a form of soceity not too different from fuedal europe where education for the peasents was considered illegal, and that's ultimately what the extreme right are trying to do here.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NC
nonsense. before long public education will be moot, all you will need to get an education will be a computer and an internet connection. just look at the kahn academy. kids don't need to be forced into indoctrination camps in order to become competent well rounded individuals. feudal europe was incredibly statist, so the comparison is pointless. i'm advocating the abolition of states where people are free to use the enormous availability of info around them to educate themselves.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
After the renneisance people began becoming more educated much to the objections raised by the rich. Then when America's founding fathers were born they learned just how things went in the history of mankind, which shaped their personal beleifs. Thomas Jefferson in particular advocated public education since at the time education could oly be afforded by the upper classes. A public education system will be paid for by everyone so everyon can be educated proper.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
the public "education" system has done more to dumb people down than anything. it was designed after the prussian system where the aim was to create a loyal, obedient citizenry. this apparatus is clearly used by the politically connected rich to manipulate people. ironic that you support it.
also, it's a pointless discussion in the age of the internet. we are soaked with information. kids don't need to be packed into classrooms anymore.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
That is just one example. I shouldn't have to explain other points of US history when it's so blatantly obvious not to mention easily accsessable via google. It helps to pay attention in school, dumbass.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
lol. "It helps to pay attention in school, dumbass." typical.
it's great how you are just proving my point. public schooling aims to destroy people's capacity to form their own thoughts and beliefs thereby leaving them with the default, which is to go along with whatever they are told. did you bother to question anything you were taught?
saying, "i learned it in school" is not an argument.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Granted it's been a month but I came back to this video for a laugh, and the moment I saw your bilge water excuse of a rebuttal, I have this to say; your conspiritorial remarks are unfounded and total bullshit. Sure anyone can go to school and just soak up info but it's better than to be lied to by neo-cons about what's officially known thanks to the historical records I took the time to look up over the years. Nice try sporty.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@NUT
our education system was designed after the prussian system, which was designed to instill loyalty and obedience to the state. now, just b/c some fanatics pushed it for that reason to not mean it's some kind of giant conspiracy. idk why i'm telling you this b/c obviously you don't like learning new things. again, typical.
and what do the neocons have to do with this? yes they conspired, they lied about intelligence the they had and deliberately falsified it in order to push us into war.
junior00bacon00chee 3 months ago
Communist Russia was first to put man in space. If you like space exploration but hate Communism then you are a hypocrite!
DKshad0w 5 months ago 5
@DKshad0w
HAHAHA
junior00bacon00chee 5 months ago
Great argument. Hey, in the USSR the state produced all the food... and the people there ATE IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM.
Clearly, they endorsed the system, just as much as we do when we drive on gov't roads.
If the gov't monopolizes something, forces you to pay for it so it's "free to use" and thus making private competition almost impossible, and you use that thing, then clearly you endorse the whole bag.
Amazingly stupid video, liked by amazingly stupid people.
fringeelements 5 months ago 64
@fringeelements Yeah, because it's SO much better to pay constant premiums for free market monopolies where it's not even a guarantee that the company will even pay for your medical treatment, leaving you massively in debt and facing possible bankruptcy to a basic need in ANY society. So lets see here; "Theft" for free service, or social darwinism? I think I'll choose the former thank you very much!
Nightmare060 5 months ago
@Nightmare060
*facepalm*
ProDCloud 5 months ago
@fringeelements i think you took the video a bit too seriously...
Darusdei 1 month ago
I've approved this one. Still haven't gotten the hang of turning on auto-approval.
Incidentally, it was this video and some Libertarian Randroid below who inspired me to make the extended version.
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
Simply genius.
GreatGungHolio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Look up the "Libertarian Alarm Clock""
I was wondering when someone from the Mises Institute would counter this video with an equivalent...
I read the article... Completely misses the point. Well done guys.
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
Look up the "Libertarian Alarm Clock"
rockandrock44 5 months ago
I can't believe I missed this one... Hilarious!
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
Best version of trolling. . EVER
LeChatDeNoir13 7 months ago 13
Has anyone forwarded this to Glenn Beck? Erm wait... I heard that he doesn't use the Socialist Internet anymore. Shame.
MidnightSundowns 11 months ago
Gold! This video is GOLD! haha
avenuePad 1 year ago
Conservatives and tea baggers will always spout off, 'socialism bad, capitalism/corporate rule good,' no matter what the facts are.
unclebanana 1 year ago
I effin love this vid..
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
Comment removed
HelmetBlissta 1 year ago
@HelmetBlissta
what makes this wrong and selfish and shortsighted
893160007 1 year ago
SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA!
usafistrapedindabutt 1 year ago
mesa like socialism ^^
sandran17 1 year ago
The truth of all of this is that a pure form of government either socialist or capitalist will create horrible living conditions. However, even in a more balanced country like the United States with decent living conditions, 40% of the power (money) is consolidated into an elite 1%, so we're not too far from communist totalitarianism.
The only solution I could see to a corrupt human elite would be a well organized technocracy with an educated populace, which we are gradually moving towards.
bryguy95 1 year ago
Almost all of the organizations listed here are jokes and operate with ulterior motives. The problem with this little diatribe is that they automatically assume guvmints can do good things without public pressure.
Oyaji291 1 year ago
I do agree with you. I think the US Army has lost every war since WW2 because they're government funded. We need private corporate armies which will be way more efficient.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic Haha private armies? Well I can see no way in which that could punch us back in the face.... You are being sarcastic aren't you?
Jasonthegaiface 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jasonthegaiface "Haha private armies? Well I can see no way in which that could punch us back in the face.... You are being sarcastic aren't you?"
Unfortunately, these people are deadly serious.
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
@Pseudologic ww2 was the latest soclialist war.
FriendOregon 5 months ago
>implying that the FCC, USDA, FDA, DOT, EPA, Federal Reserve, and Public Schools are good things, and that these things (and everything non-defense related) couldn't be done better by the private sector.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago 2
As long as private sector sees profit as #1 motive, no it couldn't do a better job.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel well they could be done in the private sector, good luck paying for all those services on a constant basis by yourself homes
thatgodlessguy 1 year ago
I am always telling people that we are already socialists and they never believe me. Thanks for making the video.
trekgeek1 1 year ago 5
further proof that most people wouldn't know what "socialist" was if it punched them in the face.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago 8
@JAROSLAVAGINA EXACTLY! what about "workers control over the means of production" is so difficult to understand????
eboyd32 1 year ago
I love socialism <3
ThePrimusGuy 2 years ago
Its funny how similar events always occur around the same time within the centuries..
Mass movements are going to occur again, nationalist radicals are going to grasp for power.
Especially in the US when ppl realize that the excitement and vibe "hope" "change" was empty rhetoric
SecretAgentSPIXHVS 2 years ago
And then I get in my car, oh wait no it's been taken away by the Global Warming Gestapo.
Oops.
BarackOcarter 2 years ago
What are you talking about, my neighbor drives a Hummer. Who's taking away people's cars? Social commentary only works with things that are actually happening.
terminaldeity 2 years ago 3
My computer is labeled as energy efficient by the socialist Energy Star program and the socialist TCO certificate '01.
As a member of the socialist European Union I'm glad I can travel between the member states without the need for passport and I'm also looking forward to seeing the socialist EU energy label on the products I buy which will facilitate choosing products that are most energy efficient thereby incentivizing the free market to produce more energy efficient household appliances.
GlueSniffer4Life 2 years ago
I like you
Pseudologic 1 year ago
Amen!
If you thought watching Fox News was a laugh, just try to imagine watching Fox News... being a EUROPEAN!
To hell with socialism!
BTW you forgot to mention socialist public transportation...
arneperschel 2 years ago
Lol...loved it.
YogiToad 2 years ago
I've heard people complain about capitalists using the "you are part of the system" argument against the critics of capitalism. Is this any different?
But, total socialism, in the less-ideal-world that we have, is not the correct solution in my eyes. Neither is total capitalism. I think there needs to be a balance between the two. Capitalism balances socialism by providing the means to use socialist knowledge, and vice versa.
With a PERFECT community, though, socialism would create Utopia.
Rekcarevo 2 years ago
Comment removed
plantpanther 2 years ago
Point being you do trust people but people are not perfect, so you do look after yourself.
plantpanther 2 years ago
Seriously it is this kind of thinking that lead people to sue Mcdonnalds for making them " fat" Blame someone else.
plantpanther 2 years ago
How Sweet It IS!
Townclownsunite 2 years ago
This is awesome! I was going to do something like this, but you beat me to it....AAARRRGHH! Great job! };-)
armyveteran101st 2 years ago
You've earned a new subscriber :P
LogicalSanity 2 years ago
it is ability to make new laws which is lawful.
plantpanther 2 years ago
You sure got some strange ideas on socialism still it is better to understand the communist manifesto first :)
PS: Oh by the way, do you really think Al Goore is socialist?
TheBlindPowerslave 2 years ago
Explain to me what you would do about getting rid of NON-Elected officials?
plantpanther 2 years ago
1) capitalism favors spending (a reasonable amount of) money on infrastructure such as high ways and postal service.
2) government safety inspection agencies are not a socialist idea
3) the federal reserve bank is privately owned (they loan us out own money with interest), this is one of the things the government should run
4) half the stuff you mentioned consumes much of our taxes than worth paying
5) the water and electric companies are monopolized, they'd cost less in a competitive market.
raigekimaru 2 years ago
LOL. The govt. does everything.
samOFblorx 2 years ago
And I don't think conservatives are against the government running anything that is in the constitution.
One other thing, if you are a socialist you don't believe in freedom.
plantpanther 2 years ago
If you are a socialist, you are against economic freedom, but not personal freedom.
masterofhobbiton 2 years ago
I guess private property rights don't count as freedom.
plantpanther 2 years ago
What is a "socalist" and does it have anything to do with what real people actually advocate?
A person who advocates the work-or-starve ultimatum backed by police enforced property rights doesn't believe in freedom.
A person who advocates policies that enable unelected private individuals to make decisions that affect many people, does not believe in freedom. Such people usually are against state-fascism but advocate business fascism. i.e. Crypto-fascists who are against democracy.
utinomen 2 years ago
That is absolutely not capitalism. THAT IS DEMOCRACY! Our founding fathers knew democracy would turn out like this which is why they made us a republic. And when a socialist takes away that persons property that is for the "greater good"? If affects many people but it by no means controls their entire life and if it does they are just whiners, sorry.
plantpanther 2 years ago
When NON-ELECTED people make decisions that affect many people, this is not Democracy. One person rule is objectionable at the state level and at the business level. Teenagers don't leave home angry at being bossed around by parents thinking, "AT LAST! Now I am free be bossed around by a businessman!"
You appear to hold ordinary people in contempt, believing them to be incapable of voting in their own interest. You don't appear to care about freedom, dismissing legitmate concerns as "whining."
utinomen 2 years ago
you ignored what I wrote. I said we are a republic not a democracy. "RULE BY LAW" not "RULE BY MAJORITY". I hold contempt for ordinary people? I am an ordinary person. And that person who owns the business they get to do whatever they want with it because guess what? They own it. I suppose you wouldn't like it if i went into your house and started to demand twinkies?
plantpanther 2 years ago
"RULE BY LAW" does not define any political system. Stalin had rule by law. Republics are usually defined in part as democracy, so no ignoring. Technical people solve problems not business people, businesses hire those people and then in an act of gross self-aggrandizement pay themselves an undeservedly large slice of the pie. Such would be impossible if technical people had enough capital to refuse work: Only then would agree that it was entirely voluntary to choose to work over leisure.
utinomen 2 years ago
"RULE BY LAW" does define a political system. Hitler also came to power in a democracy. Business people make sure those people have jobs. ( would be on the street otherwise). Business people also take the brunt of criticism when the whole business goes down the shitter. You make more money with brains not your skills. I'm sorry to say this, but have those dock workers can't do the job of the head guy.
Benjamin Franklin also said America is a republic.
plantpanther 2 years ago
If "RULE BY LAW" is sufficient to define a political system then there can be no objection to the kings and serfs situation described above, who all live by rule of law.
If government is to be dismantled then in order to gain popular support, there has to be more than a tawdry proposal of hollow claims of favouring freedom, born of a superficial vision of people in ersatz happiness of voluntary slavery to business authoritarians.
utinomen 2 years ago
America has no kings or serfs. We have a president. And Kings are usually a monarchy.
plantpanther 2 years ago
"America has no kings or serfs. [etc] "
At last! You said something agreeable.
How about explaining how "rule of law" is sufficient for creating a fair and free society, under hypothetical conditions where a few plutocrats own nearly everything, and people have to face the plutocrat's police force and starve, or work to earn a little property which is likewise protected by the same police? i.e the situation you earlier rejected as a strawman. Is "RULE OF LAW" enough or not?
utinomen 2 years ago
Rule of law under the united states constitution is enough but is not perfect.
plantpanther 2 years ago
Have you played Sudoku? In a hard puzzle, it is sometimes necessary to guess a value in a square (e.g 6), follow the rules to fill in squares, and see if a contradiction results. (e.g. two 3's on one row). i.e. with fixed rules and principles, an observed contradiction means the premise is wrong. That's how logic works. If the principle is "RULE OF LAW is enough", and now it accepted there are conditions in which law is not enough, then what is the logic of your position, fudge factor aside?
utinomen 2 years ago
Never played Sudoku or even know how to play .( I prefer crossword puzzles and RTS games) lol, I also never even heard of "fudge factor". I do think that is a bad analogy because a Sudoku puzzle has fixed rules not the U.S constitution. ( they can make laws whenever as long as with they are in the powers of the constitution.)
plantpanther 2 years ago
If someone states "All swans are white" and then a black swan is presented, then observation contradicts the stated principle. If the same person maintains his position and says, "Well, all swans are white in practice, there's an exception to everything." - then the "All swans are white" principle only stands with a significant fudge factor.
If "rule by law" is not sufficient under some conditions to create a fair and free society, then what is a fudge-factor free answer to achieving this aim?
utinomen 2 years ago
follow our constitution. A law in it says you can create new laws as long as they are within its powers. Tis why I said Rule of Law is good enough under it.
plantpanther 2 years ago
You appeared to be arguing:
[People] + [Rule of Law] = Free Society
To which I replied with the king/serf/plutocrat example which you seemed to accept had a bearing on the matter. In short:
[People] + [Rule of Law] + [Some other things] = Free Society
But oddly, instead of acknowledging the weakness of the argument, you simply state it isn't perfect. In short:
[People] + [Rule of Law] + [Fudge Factor] = Free Society
Which you appear to think is the same as your original position. Right?
utinomen 2 years ago
The ability to change laws is a law.
plantpanther 2 years ago
OK, so is your position the below?
[People] + [Laws] + [Ability to change laws] = Free Society
And in light of the fact that changing the laws means any law system is possible, including a law that makes everyone a slave, another way to put that position is:
[People] + [Fudge Factor] + [Changeable Fudge Factor] = Free Society.
With such insights, I am sure nobel prizes will be forthcoming.
utinomen 2 years ago
And I suppose I should add that the Constitution would exist happily alongside a plutocracy whereby the majority of people had to work or starve and face the police force that protects all property. In other words, the following does not add up:
[People] + [Constitution] =/= Free Society
Rather:
[People] + [Constitution] + [Some other things] = Free Society
A precise statement about what constitutes a free society, of a standard worthy of serious consideration, demands more than "needs laws"
utinomen 2 years ago
yes exactly! That is what the constitution is! it is more than "laws"
plantpanther 2 years ago
"[the constituition] is more than "laws""
Agreed.
Would you do anything in the plutocrat's paradise which has an equivalent constitution, where a few people own nearly everything, and has the work-or-starve ulimatum described earlier?
As the Constitution would be entirely compatible with that society, it would appear you would let the plutocrats turn everyone into slaves, and the "strawman" was in fact entirely accurate.
utinomen 2 years ago
First, tell me what you would do about it.
plantpanther 2 years ago
I would probably join the fighters of the revolution! Some kind of wealth redistribution would have to result.
Property rights are not absolute. For scarce resources, property rights usually make sense. For abundant resources, property rights make much less sense, and no sense if the incentive argument is inapplicable. When property rights interfere with freedom, the question is much harder, and insisting on absolute property rights is asinine..
utinomen 2 years ago
Property rights do not interfere with freedom. What you are saying is that elites have complete control over your own life. Well, here is one example in which they do not. Gas hit 4 dollars a gallon and people stopped buying as much gas and as a result the rich didn't get as rich and were forced to bring down the prices. But, I think you would call that " social justice" right? Taking away from someone is not asinine it is thievery.
plantpanther 2 years ago
You didn't say what you would do. If you are against thievery in all cases, then you must allow the plutocrats to control everyone. *Absolute* property rights are asinine but private property rights often make sense; see above.
Property rights always interfere with freedom. If I own a car then you don't have the freedom to use it. Rightly, there are limits on freedom. Using private technology to replicate food (c.f. startrek) from renewable energy, and charging starving people would be immoral.
utinomen 2 years ago
Technically what I advocate isn't ABSOLUTE property rights either. If someone is running a child prostitution ring inside their house then the government has the right to seize the house for further investigation.
" Using private technology to replicate food (c.f. startrek) from renewable energy, and charging starving people would be immoral."
One quick question before I continue. Assuming from that statement I think you are against free trade, right?
plantpanther 2 years ago
Will this let me post?
utinomen 2 years ago
I doubt it. Not sure if you are asking about international trade more more generally. But the point of the comment you quoted was to illustrate a way in which private property could be unethical; where a person may wish to disallow it. Such things have a real world bearing on the limits of private property, such as the non-patentability of mathematical and physics discoveries. Only a precise examination of the limitations will be of use here
utinomen 2 years ago
Ok, but are you for or against free trade?
plantpanther 2 years ago
"Free trade" covers too many things all at once. I'm OK with preventing unnecessary govt interference, but I doubt we'd agree about what is necessary. I don't believe that price signals can be relied on in the real world, and neo-classical economics generally is nonsense, mathematically unsound, and based on all sorts of untenable premises, including an insultingly incorrect analysis of human motivation.
utinomen 2 years ago
Have you given up on this and decided that I must be psychologically infantile, wanting "daddy" government to protect me, rather than wanting elected leaders in control instead of property-qualified leaders in control? I'm still interested in what you would do in the plutocrat situation. Or if you're not answering because you think I haven't answered your question, then first explain what you think of "free trade" so that there is some hope of communication.
utinomen 2 years ago
I said I would follow our constitution earlier. So, in fact the rich do not take away any of the rights of the poor.
plantpanther 2 years ago
In light of the fact that the Constitution would protect the property of the plutocrats, and would sustain their control over those who lack property to escape the control of those plutocrats, then you appear to be in favour of an Orwellian "freedom" of slavery to property-qualified authoritarians, and uncaring about rights of any substance. What would be an accurate understanding of freedom, in light of the fact that absolute property rights are insufficient for ensuring freedom?
utinomen 2 years ago
you are not advocating freedom. You are advocating 'fairness"
plantpanther 2 years ago
Your protests of "thievery", as if property rights are absolute, do not furnish support of the kind of property rights you favour. Fairness, not freedom? When a person makes a choice that he finds objectionable, under the influence of other people, then his conflicting attitudes and beliefs make him unhappy with his choice. So what you are advocating is the right for some people to create mass unhappiness, and no right to happiness for poor people. Your kind of "freedom" isn't worth having.
utinomen 2 years ago
" Your kind of freedom isn't worth having"
There is only one kind of freedom. The kind of freedom that no laws are broken in order to insure "fairness". The dock workers have a lot more power than they think, they just don't want to bother with it.
plantpanther 2 years ago
The one kind of freedom is the one where people get to behave in full accordance with their beliefs and attitudes, free from control of private interests but in accordance with the law made by elected representatives. If you don't care about "fairness" - then fine, we just need a law where the earnings of the rich are taxed at 210%. That meets the conditions of your stated requirements: no laws broken to ensure "fairness"
utinomen 2 years ago
personal liberty > fairness.
plantpanther 2 years ago
"personal liberty > fairness"
Sure. So stopping a business from having control over another person's life trumps near-absolute property rights that enable such control.
And what is personal liberty if it is not behaving in full accordance with one's own beliefs and attitudes? Clearly, a violent despot who operates under no limits is bad for society, so some limitations must apply. So why should we accept your limitations (near-absolute property rights) and not some other set?
utinomen 2 years ago
You load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store...
jumpmonkey03 2 years ago
your fault, not the companies.
plantpanther 2 years ago
It's funny how conservatives have this ridiculous and hypocritical expectation for people to be omniscent, therefore everything is their fault and not the companies who are entitled to do whatever they want to make a buck.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
so you think people can't be responsible?
plantpanther 2 years ago
I absolutely think people can be responsible, but they can't be an expert in everything. Lawyers exist so that people who don't understand legal jargon can go to them. That kind of thing. Responsibility isn't the issue, the issue is should company's take advantage of people's trust and ignorance. Which is very irresponsible.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
They don't point a gun to your head to work there. I actually agree don't trust corporations. Trust yourself because not one person owes you anything.
plantpanther 2 years ago
If somebody goes into the service industry than they owe you the best service possible, legally and more important loyally.
Unless you're living in the middle of a forest with no human contact than your don't trust anybody argument doesn't make much sense.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
Ok, this always happens over the internet people always interpet what I say as a generalization but w/e. You do trust the government with protecting you, family, friends, etc.
But one quick question if someone in the service industry does not give you service, what would you do?
plantpanther 2 years ago
I don't know what w/e is, but I know you spoke in pretty general terms. Of course people aren't perfect, which is why it's ludicrous to blame people for making mistakes and being duped by people they trust to be experts.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
w/e means whatever. And no I did not speak in general terms can you read my mind?
plantpanther 2 years ago
I can read your posts. "Trust yourself because not one person owes you anything.", that's pretty fucking general.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
" Ok, this always happens over the internet people always interpet what I say as a generalization but w/e. You do trust the government with protecting you,
family, friends, etc. "
Why did you leave that out of your response?
plantpanther 2 years ago
Because that wasn't the generalized statement I was talking about.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And I stand by not one person owes you anything. I'm talking about people oweing you something. Which is not general
plantpanther 2 years ago
Not sure I understand the question. What would I refuse if somebody refused to serve me? Go somewhere else. If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, it's kind of a moot point since most people don't always know the other options or that they're getting duped.
GoodOldHalo 2 years ago
Also, above you said dockers can't manage. Here's what Lowell mill girls (approx equivalent) of c.1850 thought about this:
"Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism."
Not so stupid. Note the widespread hatred of the system you advocate.
utinomen 2 years ago
Golden!
Ezer101 2 years ago
you commie bastard!
D3ltaStar 2 years ago
neocons don't make any sense and they forgot their failed governance when they had power
cholotara 2 years ago
I think I love you <3
authoryomu 2 years ago
Very good, but a bit off the mark,
I think there is a difference between government owned and run (schools) which are socialist, and private free market enterprise that is regulated by the government.
But it is a good argument against the too much government crowed who think that any government involvement is bad, which is untrue.
henleythecat 2 years ago
I can only say: damn socialists! You're everywhere!
And what's worse, you evolve (ugly word) to communists!
7omnia7 2 years ago
The left is a joke.
"Socialist public school" - This isn't a monopoly therefore that doesn't work.
"Socialist petrol" - The companies who profit from the sale of fuel are capitalist, therefore that hardly works.
"Socialist car" - WHAT?\
Nationalisation of SOME of America's industry does not mean total and absolute socialism.
Even then this is an American example and only works for an American audience so maybe a title change.
WinstonChurchill 2 years ago
WinstonChurchill
of course the schools is a valid example. when you have a free government run program that is socialism in a form. the petrol and cars are also good examples because the government makes sure the quality is acceptable. and this works all around the world because every democracy has those kinds of institutions and parties that wants to privaties more.
majotonn 2 years ago
WinstonChurchill
I think your confusing socialist with communist.
communist is when the government owns and runs everything thing in the country and everyone works for the government.
socialist is were the government runs a free program for the betterment of all its people. public schools, public health care, regulatory agencies and even the military. The USA is already socialist the question is how socialist do you guys want to be.
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
Comment removed
WinstonChurchill 2 years ago
i sure wish my recently unemployed, therefore uninsured neighbor had access to healthcare because the untreated virus he passed on to his kids was passed to mine.they were denied coverage, since i was recently diagnosed with cancer which my insurer says is related a prior condition of cystic acne in my teens and is therefore un-covered. that's their excuse to deny my whole family coverage.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago 2
they know i'll be dead before any appeal reaches court. i will now lose my house & job, & become burden to medicare (which is bankrupt due to covering not just those originally intended, but those like me, denied by theiir paid private insurers) or emergency care, which is paid for by all taxpayers, even though i paid my premiums to the bitter end.
funny but the ins company didn't offer all those to follow me to medicare despite their refusal to cover.
TerryEFV2 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL! What an ignorant fucking video! How is a private company, producing & selling me electric or water socialist? How fucking STUPID!
The only things that ARE socialist is the U.S. Mail(which, if socialist should be free, & is in bankruptcy) and public schools(which is failing our children in a BIG WAY!). Lets end them both!
Police & Fire are paid for & controlled by LOCAL gov'ts!
Highways are paid locally!
Everything else mentioned are REGULATORY AGENCIES!!!!! Get it libtarded idiots?
fuklibs 2 years ago
Dude that doesn't make it any less socialist. Local gov is still spending 'public' money to do the deeds.
kenshin0694 2 years ago 3
Hogwash, It isn't socialism when local people vote on it, pass it, pay for it, & kick the politicians out of Office if they don't like the job they're doing.
Socialism is when the Federal Gov't runs the show & there basically ISN'T ANY local control of ANYTHING!
Read your Constitution, it gives the Federal Gov't VERY limited powers & everything else is supposed to be up to the individual States. The Feds are out of control & violate the Constitution daily, like the healthcare issue!
fuklibs 2 years ago
ya and then I put on my socialist shoes and speak my socialist words... way to justify everything you say... thing are not socialist just because tax money pay for it newb
matewien 2 years ago
0:39 - Hey that Breakfast is from the SOCIALIST, West Virginia state funded Tamarack visitors center.
PaulSebert 2 years ago
That was excellent!
RianRocket 2 years ago 2
u clearly do not understand what socialism is..
NONE of the govt things mentioned in this silly video would be possible if the country was socialist..
go spend a day in cuba moron
liberalscamefromapes 2 years ago
Moron,
Cuba is a communist country. It is not socialist. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist senator from Vermont, has a beautiful state which has just granted equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. And believe it or not, STILL NO HURRICANES!
Not to mention, Ben & Jerry's ice cream is made there. :-)
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
Comparing Communism and Socialism is like comparing apples and oranges. You must have no clue what Socialism or Communism is.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Wow, socialism is a tenet of communism. Not really a BIG DIFFERENCE but a difference.
plantpanther 2 years ago
Bravo.
I actually have several acquaintances who would agree with this video 100% and would see nothing ironic at all.
Scary, ain't it?
middlekk 2 years ago
HAHAHA
Now please never use the word socialist to describe something in the US ever again!
8DX 2 years ago
The way I see it, you seem to be economically pushed down by everything in the US. If you don't have a proper economy, you aren't given any "breathing space". I myself am a supporter of solidarity. Even if I have a poor economy and is not able to pay much in tax, others whose economy is good can pay more in tax, therefore compensating my lack of funds in order to get public services such as health care and education. I can't see anything wrong in replacing profit-seeking corporations with this.
Erklon 2 years ago
you know what the best thing is about having all these socialist programs? I at least get to keep HALF my pay check.... All we need to do now is add socialized health care.. That should shave off a few more percentage points off my income... What if I dont have kids in public school, use the post office or drive a car? Do I still need to pay for these "benefits"?
Oh yeah, you forgot about Social Security... Its a bankrupt ponzi scheme.
vdubs4life1964 2 years ago
God damn kids. When we were young we had to fend for ourselves. No damn reveneuers sticking their god damn noses in everything. We didn't take hand outs from anyone, Just the way it's supposed to be. Anyway, Gotta go cash my Social Security check. Fucking commies.
memonk11 2 years ago
"Dept. of energy", keeps us on coal.
"FCC", limits free speech based on popular belief.
"NASA", $4000 hammer, nuff said
"Dept of Ag", destroyed the small farmers
"FDA", mercury in swine flu vaccination
"Dept of Transportation", NAFTA superhighway
"EPA", Outsourcing American production jobs to China
"Legal tender", unconstitutional runaway inflation, not backed by gold or silver
"Federal reserve system", I'm not surprised how brainwashed you are to add this one as an accomplishment...
vdubs4life1964 2 years ago
"Post office" bankrupt
"public school system" indoctrinating kids
"Dpt. of defence" remember 9/11?
"OSHA" small business killer
"USDA" codex alimentarius
"internet" still privately ran.. would still exist with out Al Gore
vdubs4life1964 2 years ago
With all these "socialist" programs, no wonder why America is in the shape its in...
vdubs4life1964 2 years ago
America is in the shape it's in because of corporate greed. Ironically, that's the same reason why America will never see socialized health care.
IronChefofPoon 2 years ago
Ron Paul explains why health care is so expensive... Government involvement...
Peace brother
watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY
vdubs4life1964 2 years ago
From NASAs own website: Since 1966, the Office of Management and Budget has encouraged federal agencies and departments to contract out, or outsource, services that are not "inherently governmental", based on the idea that services that are commonly performed by the private sector are performed more efficiently by the private sector than if they were to be performed by civil servants. Since then, NASA has placed many of its day-to-day operations in the hands of private sector employees...
rbairos1 2 years ago
(cont) NASA uses contractors to build most, if not all, of its spacecraft-indeed, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which many people think of as a NASA center, is really operated by one of NASA's oldest contractors, the California Institute of Technology. Other research and development agencies, such as the Dept. of Energy, also rely on contractors.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Funny watching people gloat over a video praising government encroachment of once privately supplied services. Only after reading the comments did I realize it wasn't an (intentional) critique of socialism. Public education? Public mail? FCC? These are triumphs over the free market?
It's nice to see people haven't lost their religion..
rbairos1 2 years ago
socialism is not bad at all only the leaders were corrupt and evil not socialism most ppl dont see this they only know what they are told by the media
robertcote1 2 years ago
Socialism for the win.
sushiyama1 2 years ago
It's not going to cost you more. Your premiums will be lower cause the goal of the government insurance is NOT profit which also means increased care and money spent on actually taking care of you rather than political campaigns, lobbying for bills that help raise your rates, decrease your care and drop you from your plan when you actually need the insurance the most so they can keep the profits which is why "socialist" govenment run Medicare insurance is so popular with the 65+.
TekkaSage 2 years ago