Sorry for my prejudice. I am all for reform of programs. Every bloody summer when the oil rigs close here in Alberta the riggers who likely just earned over $70000 in 8 months claim EI because they were technically laid off. Meanwhile someone who lost wages due to a car accident is on a waiting list.
Arguing ideology usually leads nowhere because it isn't about fact but rather just personal preference as to how one would like things to be. I am a social democrat, the next guy is a libertarian.
Socialism is giving your freedom to the government, you know, "of the people" and letting them dole it out equally to those who work, and those who don't
There are two kinds of people who really dont say much...those who don't talk at all, and those who talk a lot. Guess which category the socialist belongs to...
WooHoo!! Rooting for Root!! Thankful to hear a pro- American voice! I'm weary of of the bashing of America! We are a good people and I refuse to listen to those who calll America evil. Root is right on about "Crony Capitalisim." Big Gov't+Big Business+ big disaster!!
The PSA, like most organizations of their type, is not socialist. They misleadingly call themselves that when in fact they are communist. Marx, in his time hated socialists & had many harsh words for them. And for libertarians, 2 things, the Robber Barons & social contracts.
Too bad Mr. Root did not run for Pres and he stated in this clip. He may have been our choice as the best conservative without the weight of past voting record to bring him down.
That lib is so lost in his nonsense that it hurt to listen.There is nothing in this world stopping any company to live a socialist path without being forced & robbed. If it is such a great thing then go live where it already exists & let those that want to live under a capitalist system alone to prosper as we have for the last 235yrs. Look around numnut, it is capitalism that built this country, roads, skyscrapers, etc. It was that system that allowed immigrants before to realize their dreams.
Wait so the socialist feels bad for people in other nations blaming poor economic policies by the government. Those poor economic policies are largely big government ones.
That socialist covered all his talking points - he didn't cover them well, and completely undermined his own positions by generalizing and making numerous assumptions based on nothing -- But if you ignore that, he did ok. He's a ranting, raving, anti-capitalist, who I'd doubt understands anything beyond the basics of capitalism at all.
haha the face on that socialist, he's maaaad! But yeah, everyone should be, but its so funny that pretty much every problem he's talking about is a consequence of the government. You socialists need to look deeper.
So i just read freidman's "capitalism and freedom" and... he does not, i repeat, NOT say, in any way shape or form, that there should be no government. Ever. he just talks about price controls and property, which is ok... but even HE does not believe what most youtube libertarians believe. have you guys even read this??
fixing the govt or having workers gain more control means of production (workplace decision-making) are very possible things, there are highly efficient govt programs in the world, as well as co-op style business models. the free market, on the other hand, can not exist, does not exist never could exist.
@HoRostam You are wrong, the more free the better. "fixing the govt" has been tried for so long now, I'm tired of it. Nothing knows better than the free market for what needs to be done, thats self evident.
@11111110 Uhm so what would the alternative have been you mean? What is the one force behind human development? I would say technical innovation, and how would you stimulate this? By government regulation? Of course not, its purely by freedom, and protection of private property.
The alternative? I don't know a society without child labor, widespread poverty, and some assurance that our food isn't being packed with rat droppings?
Besides, there's no "one force" behind human development. Think of the greatest technological developments of the 20th century. Rocketry, plastics, computers, internet, and nuclear power. They came into fruition as massive government projects.
@11111110 If you want less child labor, then you need a free economy. The free economies among the poor countries have much less child labor than the regulated economies. The same trend follows other aspects of the global economy so free markets work much better than regulated economies.
Good ideas don't need governments to develop, these projects might as well have been developed in private companies.
The fact is for several decades the government was the only one developing those technologies, because they required massive investments with little to no profit potential. Would your company spend billions building a machine the size of a warehouse, that does nothing but basic math? Of course not, on paper its the definition of a waste of money. But in reality it would be first computer. They wouldn't become viable for the free market for another 30 years.
@11111110 So basically what you're saying is that we need a institution that force us to spend money on projects they cant know for sure is worth anything? Isn't that a little arbitrary? I mean, the same principle is what took us into the mess we are today, i.e. the notion that taxpayers will be the lender of last resort no matter what the risk are. There always need to be someone who freely will take the ultimate risk, or else it's a great potential for misuse of the system.
There's potential yes, and all government spending should be done skeptically. But there are great things that are too big and too risky for the free market to take on
@11111110 Its too risky for the free market, so then only a few limited people will have access to it? Government people who's been screwing up and lying to the public? Thats sounds more risky I think. The medical companies invest very very much in their research, many prototypes can't be used at all, so its pretty risky, but it works.
Please, businesses screw up and lie all the time. The free market is good for making rapid, incremental improvements in products and designs. Like computers, after the 70s it was the private sector holding the reigns. But they only spend on things that have a quick and relatively safe ROI. There are things which the world needs which you can't extract a profit from.
@11111110 So you think government doesn't screw up? How the hell is it more safe to invest in an organization which can do whatever it want with your money, because you cant choose if you want to participate or not? Do you have any idea at all why we're in this mess we are today? Does the expression moral hazard ring a bell?
And the free market took the product and made it available in every household. The government didn't do that. One could cite many things such as cars, airplanes, and television which were invented without subsidy.
Not only that, even if government pursuits of science were valuable (and they are), that is only a fraction of what government does. The US government spends about >95% of its monies on non-scientific endeavors. Much of which is mal-invested.
Yes, but only after they became cheap and efficient enough to become viable on the free market, which happened only after decades of initial government leg-work. And the government did advance automotive and aeronautics technology by leaps and bounds due to WW1 and WW2.
Why did they become cheap and efficient? Answer: the integrated circuit. Who invented that? Texas Instruments. Not a government agency. Many of the major components that went into government technology were based off of privately developed products such as the transistor (AT&T Bell Labs), or the vacuum tube (Lee De Forest).
'Decades of initial government leg-work' is hilarious. Decades of research into what, exactly?
Texas Instruments didn't "invent" the integrated circuit. There were iterations of the IC that came prior to their work, done by the Britist ministry of defense. Furthermore, no piece of computer technology spawned out of nothingness, they were all based on previous designs. The IC couldn't have been created had there been no advancements made in aspects such as semiconductor devices over the previous 5 decades.
For 25 years the government was the only one building computers. They were slow, expensive, and hellishly inefficient, which is why the government was the only one spending money on them. But with each iteration they became smaller and more efficient, until it became affordable for universities, and then finally the private sector.
Would any business dump billions into a venture that had no hope of generating a profit until 30 years down the road? Heck no.
You do realize that mechanical computers were in use for private industry well before encryption/decryption machines in WW2, right? You said yourself that everything was built off previous iterations, yet you fail to mention that when it comes to government-backed research projects.
...And most of those developments were in the private sector, not the public sector. That was my point. If you look at the vast majority of major research projects in the past 100 years, the vast majority were private, not public.
Someone should tell the socialist that the bailout was an act by the government, not by the free market. As for the banks, again it was government-run Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac that allowed the banks to take abuse and rape the housing market.
The guy even admits that there is corruption at the government level that is facilitating corporate greed, so how is more regulation and more taxation the answer? Talk about cognitive dissonance.
@MatthewRider1 I am a socialist and I EARN my money. The capitalist model is made for people to screw other people over. There's bad sides of both free market and of socialism. A combination of two is what is needed.
Libertarians are turds. Conservatives deserve more respect.
@MrTurdFurgeson I'm glad you can prove that with facts and not speculation. Most socialists I know are blue collared workers. But since you have access to this information that we don't, can you fill me in on how many of the "I'm voting for Ron Paul because he's cool" are actually working. A part time job at Starbucks sided with some liberal studies courses don't count.
Final citation via Wikipedia concerning liberalism and a penchant for more government services (such as universal health care, as per the 2005 Harris Poll)
bit . ly/2pPwED
I can pull up more data if you'd like. Generally, though, the poor vote heavily for people whom they think will improve their livelihood. Its funny the middle class rejects such policies generally - which would tell me that the poor never moved up thanks to socialist policies.
@MrTurdFurgeson Lol you think the Democrats are socialists? Or even liberals for that matter? Just remember that a good percentage of people who are poor aren't there because they were lazy. When a business goes under I'd rather help the lost employees get back on their feet and back to being productive members of society rather than have them work at a grocery store. I know you say they can do it on their own but until you have a family and it happens to you, don't judge.
@thehootz The conservative party of Canada is in power and it scares the shit out of many Canadians because of how far right they are. But yet they're rated at about the same level as the Democrats. It makes you realize how terrifying the Republicans really are. Anyway, that being said I live in Canada and we're doing quite well with our social democracy. Do what you want with your country because I still have mine. I was only commenting.
@thehootz And one more thing. I'm in favour of Capitalism and I'm not a Communist. I just believe in regulation. Greed fuels business and eventually it gets out of hand.
Here's where you go wrong, Hootz, YOU aren't the one wanting to help them get back on their feet. You want to force ME to help them with my money by the power of income redistribution.
If you really, truly, cared about helping them get back on their feet, YOU would give them money, education, food, or help to ensure they can get a new job. I have many friends that have been in those types of dire straits before, and I have never failed to help them.
@MrTurdFurgeson Alright we can agree then. You're a douchebag and would only like to help people directly influencing your life. Likely because down the road it will in one way or another benefit you. But not the single mother with leukemia who can't get coverage because she couldn't afford it. Take a good hard look at yourself.
P.S. I've been arguing with about 5 of you guys and you always seem capitalize different words in your posts. Why? I don't it clarifies anything...
Actually, I help a lot of people that don't directly influence my life. I work at soup kitchens and food pantries to help people I don't know.
I've taken a good hard look at myself. I've realized that helping others MYSELF is far more rewarding, empowering and beneficial for society than demanding someone else do it. Have you ever worked at a soup kitchen? You can feed people for $1 a meal. Comparatively, the government has to spend twice as much due to inefficiency.
Ah, soup kitchen. I'm glad you've changed the world. Because serving lukewarm beef stew with some skin forming on top is a sure way to get people out of poverty. Are you going to remedy people who have been denied health insurance with that chicken noodle soup you've been saving in the back? Or maybe replace an injured workers lost wages with sandwiches. You know, the ones with way too much butter on the bread and the lettuce you normally would've thrown out last Tuesday.
You know, for being the 'nice' socialist, you sure like to attack people with differing beliefs, don't you? I was merely giving examples of things I personally do to help others with what I have.
In the two cases you argue - injured workers and health care - there are always charities that help people out that are privately run. When I was a child, I was given an eye-saving surgery because of private charities - not government services. Such things work quite well.
@MrTurdFurgeson Apologies, that was rude. I never said I was politely nice btw. It's a face I have to wear when arguing with Paul supporters. They tend to resort to flat out insults for any opinion differing to theirs no matter the degree. So I in turn have stopped trying.
In all seriousness, you raise a point about government inefficiency. I don't take this as a point against social funding rather than just a reason as to why it has to be reformed. Scrapping it is extreme.
At any rate, the issue I take with most social programs is that they are vastly inefficient. Having worked with a lot of charities, you find that private entities can provide similar services for 1/2 the price. Some programs can't be scrapped, I agree, but most could be heavily reformed and once the budget is balanced, taxes reduced to help promote more charitable giving, further reducing the areas government must be involved.
@thehootz I don't believe that you actually have faith that individual charities would be enough to give support. If they are so effective then why are they not able to help the people who already need it? Even when the government is already giving assistance.
Government regulates business\ Big Business runs Washington\. Socialism = cut out the middle man (lobbyist). Result = diminished competition, loss of small business, loss of jobs.
All I saw was a man (libertarian) trying to have a discussion on what he thinks is best...and then another man (socialist) repeating the same lines, resorting to name calling, and not arguing anything with any evidence to back his claims
@kazearaki Yea, those stupid libertarians... I mean, how can they possibly believe that they have a right to own their socks, their house, their television or themselves?
"Explain where's that right originate from" It originates from a guy believing that he deserves the right to own his dick (which makes it unlawful for his girlfriend to take it against his will) and by others accepting it.
Where does the right to steal originate from? From envy (which is unproductive an harmufl to prosperity).
As a Libertarian (Left) in the proper sense, I feel disgusted that the word is literally being used to describe Right Wings lunatics - so please stop with all the self labeling. American Libertarianism is trash, pure and simple.
Property Rights stemmed out from individual needs to control another human being, by advancing private interest over community needs. In reality, no one can live by himself or own anything by his own means and that's the reality.
@kazearaki Plus, maybe you should read some Henry David Thoreau if you don't believe a man can live by himself. Besides, this is the reason for Legal and Security providers. The problem with our current third party problem resolution and security provider is that they have a monopoly on the 'legal' practice of these industries.
Property rights stems from individual rights. If an individual is to be secure in his person and possessions then property rights must exist.
I am more than willing to acknowledge property rights so long as it is extremely limited to any form that does not allow the accumulation of wealth and power (most of these are personal e.g. husband-wife relationship etc.). What most Capitalist sheep fail to understand is that to work, earn a living, accumulating wealth and power - should not be the aim of their live. Humanity should instead strife to manifest the best in them for the benefit of the world.
@kazearaki Notice the capitalists don't try to say what's "best" for you. They don't pretend to know what any individual may or may not want to do with their lives. It's only the socialists who pretend to have such grand knowledge. "Working, earning a living, and accumulating wealth and power should not be the aim of your life." No need to live your life as you choose! The socialists know what's best for you!
@kazearaki In a free, capitalist society, people like yourself would be free to form your own socialist communities. You'd be free to work for your needs, and not for profit, and to share with one another. But in a socialist country, it would be illegal to form your own capitalist community. It is ironic that you accuse the capitalists of wanting to "own" other people through property rights, when it is your kind that is so unaccepting of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.
Dead wrong on so many level. There is no such thing as free capitalist society, for capitalism is based upon the accumulation of wealth and power - both of which deprive humanity from being free - earning a job or a living does not make you free, to the contrary is! Secondly, in line with Bakunin, Socialism should be voluntary and most people would want to become part of a Socialist community as mean of survival since men can't live alone. Human are social animal.
What's left would be a bunch of Capitalist buffoon claiming ownership over something that they don't really own. Take a look around here, is there any single Capitalist that can justify ownership of any properties apart from using idiotic argument like; I work my redneck ass on this farm - thus it is all mine! A Capitalist steal the fruit of nature and then claim it as his own, just like the founding fathers stole the land from the Indian and claim it as their own
The fact of the matter is this: the right of property ownership is only valid is society accepted it, otherwise the earth and its fruits belongs to no one but everyone.
@kazearaki blah blah blah, I don't care about your stupid opinion. This is the beauty of freedom. I don't have to care about how you think I should live. You are of course allowed to think how I should live. But you can't command me. And I don't command you. All you can do is try to convince me into your stupid disneyworld. And I can politely ask you to kill yourself! Please, die. Or move to North Korea or something.
@kazearaki You are very wrong. First of all; within a Libertarian Capitalist Society, a group of individuals may pool their wealth together and create a Libertarian Socialist commune within it; socializing the resources and maintaining public ownership of production. You cannot start a Capitalist commune within a Socialist Society because attempting to exercise individual rights to accumulate wealth through hard work is not available.
Take a capitalist bastard like yourself as an example, by your very own logic, tell me just one, again, just one of your bloodsucking activity that does not steal anything from either mother nature or another fellow human being. When you walked on a public road, you already stealing the hard work of countless nameless men that built that road. The only way for you to not steal the work of other is to shoot yourself to space.
When you steal nature's fruit, you put a sign and label the coveted goods as yours - but hold on a second! Who give you that right? The State? Or your own ability to prevent others from accessing the coveted goods by using shotgun (Libertarian my F! ass)? In either case, YOU steal something and keep it as yours with sheer power. In a Socialist society, the right to covet mother nature are fundamentally nullified by the obligation to share it with others.
@mattbell555 The Rothschild are not the ones taxing me though. Its the government taking my money and redistributing the wealth to the Rothschild that sounds like socialism that benefits the rich. My friend your argument is futile.
@SurvivalApocalypse capitalism and socialism both lead to centralisation of power and wealth.Feodalism,communism,socialism,capitalism are all the same.If we abolished all the laws,it will be total chaos.There is difference between libertarism and anarchism.But they tend to be almost the same.I except the notion of freedom,but if you read the constitution of the USA,they dont talk about libertarism or any system.I think the best system for now could be and would be a synthesis of libertarism and
@mattbell555 yeah for the most part your right but the idea of the free market in capitalism there would be little control over the size of businesses. But the true is that the under libertarianism the government treats small businesses and big businesses all the same. Under libertarianism there are no benefits to the rich or the poor. Everyone under libertarianism every is treated equally. So what your saying is your against equality and you should treat some people differently.
@mattbell555 on course, but you still can't be seriously thinking that government control of the economy is a good thing. sure its sounds great, and looks great on paper and it was been tired before. The only problem is in the tried before part, because in practice the government control of the economy has always lead to failure. For example the USSR where millions died, and Cuba which if it was working why are the people leaving to come to America. So dude you can't win.
@SurvivalApocalypse did you read my stuff I never said I was socialist,I'm not biased for anything,we are just debating.And what is that ,so dude you can't win? Are somekind of god who knows everything to say that.Absolutism is bad thing.
@SurvivalApocalypse you cant say that you win a debate,philosophy 101.There is no ref in a debate,nobody can decide who won.And the most awful thing your portrait is saying that you have the absolute truth.You are the one biased who cant debate and trying to flee the tail between your legs.Do you know Machiavel,if not go read some please educate yourself on this topic.Peace
@mattbell555 Ok If you can win then tell me what is so great about socialism and give an example there it has worked. I can tell you many examples of capitalism working and anarchy working. For example ancient Ireland had anarchy and it worked until a foreign government invaded. Naturally because anarchy has no government there was no socialism and it had the capitalist economy. Capitalism worked in early America until the government started interfering with the economy. Winning
@SurvivalApocalypse Ok If you can win ,never said that,its the opposite.Never in the history of mankind there was a pure liberal capitalism,never.Even in the early stage of the USA,they were laws implented to control the companies.You really dont know your history and I am not and USA citizen.Read more.And even the founding fathers did promote and anyway capitalism or socialism.I am not stuck in these dualist debate over capitalism(good) vs socialism(evil).I'm done good debate.
@mattbell555 You miss understand its not government control of companies, its corporations controlling government. If you have ever taken American Government in college you would know that. Its control through a little thing called lobbying. In fact many bills passes by congress are in fact written by the lobbyists them selves. The lobbyists goal is to make sure their interests are met. Don't be thinking I don't know whats going on. I have studies government for a long time now.
@mattbell555 In the beginning there was no control of the economy. The original government didn't have tax and this lead to failure because the government could not pay off dept. Then they wrote the bill of rights and taxes was then allowed to pay off dept and pay for the functions of government. As long as government doesn't grow over sized there is no problem there. That said the Government has no right to interfere with the economy and definitely not giving money to Corporations
@SurvivalApocalypse gov didnt allow company to be too big,and companies used the 14 amendment to grow in size.Yes there was law to regulate the econonomy,it was not total free market like friedman.
@SurvivalApocalypse and stop putting that old rhetoric of the 60s that capitalism is good and communism is the evil.Americans were programmed to think that to create duality in mankind,like the Russians.
@SurvivalApocalypse ... socialism.Libertarism=liberty=freedom not capitalism.Your argument you are talking about is Friedman capitalism,no laws on market.It has been proven that if you have total free market,it will lead to monopolism.So in a long term perpective a one world company.And socialism leads in a long term period to a one world gov.Me I believe in a communitarism,local politic.,direct democracy.And the state deals with security,exchange with other countries.I believe in the principle
@SurvivalApocalypse of free will.The system I believe is a mix of Socialism/Trade/Libertarism/Communitarism.THe problem in reality is that we have criminal in power of the gov ,banks and CEO.You can have the best system in the universe but if bad mans control that we are doom.
11:26. socialist implies that AIDS and poverty are race related problems. I guess his heart is in the right place, but he's showing how green under the gills he is.
Dont we already have libertarianism?Under any system property is owned by someone,in todays case countryes=politicians and people to some extent control what happens inside the borders of a country.Isnt it possible under the free market that many individuals own the same property with a contract?The problem is all land is already owned by someone.And if you are inside the owned land you have to do what the land owner or the factory owner says,right?Well,we already have that
1) I'm Russian and do live in Russia. Last place I wanna be right now is dying empire called US. I'm sure that come as a huge shock to you but did u know that interwebs work internationally?
1. I suggest you move to Russia or at least to some eastern Europe country or shut up. Be the example stop talking about it.
2. The question is - who decides what is most needed for society? In capitalism those are consumers - the society itself. Can't argue with this can you.
3. Well, who decides what is the purpuse of rare materials, capital, wrokforce, resources? It's the politbeuro. What's going to happen to people? Their needs won't be met, and system will fail like ZSSR.
@pipem4n "The question is - who decides what is most needed for society? In capitalism those are consumers - the society itself. Can't argue with this can you."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Stupid people like you make YouTube worth visiting, on behalf of sane people: Thank you.
Dear Micheal Dipshitface, capitalism is an economic system. A capitalist nation that goes to war isn't doing so because of capitalism in the same way they don't go to war for socialism. They go to war for totalitarianism, and maybe even corporatism. Capitalism is about the free market. Going to war so rich businesses, which is WRONG, has nothing to do with the free market.
7:45 - The racist card. When did anyone make a racist comment? You can talk about race without being racist. Obviously someone doesn't know what it means to be racist.
If there are no resources, then socialism doesn't work either. Besides, under a free market system, competition will drive companies to seek alternative resources for energy.
Lol socialist aruging that profit isn't the motive for creation by mentioning all smart inventors work for pharma and military companies.. that is profit.. this guy is an idiot.
Destroy any economy in the world? There a several socialist nations in the world and all them are far older than the USA. Their economy is in a far better state than America. Everyone suffers when they're problems, in America everyone suffers but the few elite who have enough money. The states are in a disgusting state.
That Socialist kid is just arguing like any liberal democrat and doesn't directly answer any of the Capitalist's questions, he simply goes on a bunch of pro-Obama "anyone who disagrees with him is a racist" spiel.
The socialist guy keeps bringing up modern government interference problems and claiming that's capitalism. RT could have found a better rep. for the socialism side of things.
Hmmm, stealing money from the wealthy or stealing money from the people? I think that faggot silver hair needs that football behind him shoved up his ass. Yeah, I'm gonna steal money from the rich. YOU don't own don't own anything. And that's bullshit, FDR ran the New Deal and President Johnson ran the war against poverty. Don't listen to that football lovin' sportsboy. He needs to be hung or routed out of the community IMMEDIATELY.
The question at hand is how is it decided what an individual contributes to society and how are they compensated for their contribution? Socialists like to pretend their system allows us all to decide what we contribute but we are all compensated sufficiently and equally. For their system to be in any way sustainable, we all must do our duty to the almighty state. I would prefer to decide how to use my existence and allow those who find value in my contributions to determine their worth.
Richest country, really? BTW before they said who the Socialist was I already knew it was the guy on the bottom, I can recognize one of those dirty rats miles away.
@Kalvin40 Agreed, you can tell because they look pissed off because they feel like everyone owes them something, the libertarian on the top is happy and probably gives money away, on top of employing 100 people!!
@Silbaugh4liberty No because they have NOTHING after being robbed. Fuck your liberty. You must have money. Dont find yourself in that welfare line talking your shit...you'd "disappear."
@NathanHaleLives -> I'm being robbed too jackass. And I only have the little money that I work my ass off for, and I don't like my little paycheck to keep shrinking because others are too lazy to work for their own paycheck. There's only SOO much of everyone's money to go around. PS. I WISH FOR LIBERTY FOR EVERYONE, SO STOP BEING A FUCKING DUMBASS.
@thrashkwan You fucking animal. You better not speak too loudly in a crowd...people are VERY angry with people like you arguing for rich motherfuckers. Be careful.
I'm poor and I'm a libertarian. Bailouts are not capitalism. If you guys want a socialized health system, you should demand it at the state level. I wouldn't want my health service run by the EU.
Prysner embodies the word "sophomore". Nauseating assemblage CPUSA talking points.
attguy98 7 hours ago
Paul Rand is not electable. He can not beat Obama, so what good is he besides splitting the REP. vote
oneshotonekill50BMG 1 day ago
Sorry for my prejudice. I am all for reform of programs. Every bloody summer when the oil rigs close here in Alberta the riggers who likely just earned over $70000 in 8 months claim EI because they were technically laid off. Meanwhile someone who lost wages due to a car accident is on a waiting list.
Arguing ideology usually leads nowhere because it isn't about fact but rather just personal preference as to how one would like things to be. I am a social democrat, the next guy is a libertarian.
thehootz 1 day ago
Socialism is giving your freedom to the government, you know, "of the people" and letting them dole it out equally to those who work, and those who don't
mynameisliberty1 1 day ago
fuuuuuu GET OFF YOUR PERIOD!
Kirkzzy 2 days ago
Love the hippie guys rant at around 3:00 he is referring to government intervention and the bailouts. Loved the irony in that.
Kirkzzy 2 days ago
There are two kinds of people who really dont say much...those who don't talk at all, and those who talk a lot. Guess which category the socialist belongs to...
AutechVersion 2 days ago
Socialism is a mental disorder.
MrAmputechture 2 days ago
so much confusion in America from all the smokescreens created by crazy people. Wayne Root comes off as a complete douchebag in this debate.
quicknuss 2 days ago
Why did they get a cheesy creep to represent libertarianism? Most of the libertarians I know look like the hip young socialist guy lol
kblflivingston 2 days ago
It is really about replacing a system that God can communicate in with a system of bondage. It is replacing facts with illusion.
mn8aol 2 days ago
Socialist guy needs to review what fallacies are.
mrpoghunter 2 days ago
And I'm sure Socialists aren't corrupted at all!...LOL.
DisciplineOfSteel 2 days ago
WooHoo!! Rooting for Root!! Thankful to hear a pro- American voice! I'm weary of of the bashing of America! We are a good people and I refuse to listen to those who calll America evil. Root is right on about "Crony Capitalisim." Big Gov't+Big Business+ big disaster!!
GardenVariety2 3 days ago
This guy is a straight up communist.
schizrade 3 days ago
The PSA, like most organizations of their type, is not socialist. They misleadingly call themselves that when in fact they are communist. Marx, in his time hated socialists & had many harsh words for them. And for libertarians, 2 things, the Robber Barons & social contracts.
namayake 3 days ago
Too bad Mr. Root did not run for Pres and he stated in this clip. He may have been our choice as the best conservative without the weight of past voting record to bring him down.
LoyaltotheUSA 3 days ago
That lib is so lost in his nonsense that it hurt to listen.There is nothing in this world stopping any company to live a socialist path without being forced & robbed. If it is such a great thing then go live where it already exists & let those that want to live under a capitalist system alone to prosper as we have for the last 235yrs. Look around numnut, it is capitalism that built this country, roads, skyscrapers, etc. It was that system that allowed immigrants before to realize their dreams.
LoyaltotheUSA 3 days ago 4
@LoyaltotheUSA wow your user name says it all. Biased opinions like yours should not be shared to the flock of sheep that is the YT community.
SuperHeroMan411 1 day ago
Wait so the socialist feels bad for people in other nations blaming poor economic policies by the government. Those poor economic policies are largely big government ones.
Charlesperalo 3 days ago
Blah!! *flailing* "Hording all the wealth!"
That socialist covered all his talking points - he didn't cover them well, and completely undermined his own positions by generalizing and making numerous assumptions based on nothing -- But if you ignore that, he did ok. He's a ranting, raving, anti-capitalist, who I'd doubt understands anything beyond the basics of capitalism at all.
JoeBrenn 3 days ago
waynee allyn dosen't want Puerto Rico to be the 51 state right?
MrBoricua2593 3 days ago
socialist were the won's who fought for the right of the worker in my country why do you guys hate them so much???
MrBoricua2593 3 days ago
That socialist needs more fiber in his diet.
johnnyvonrotten 4 days ago
Wayne Allyn Root is not a Libertarian. He is a slimy neocon bastard who thinks he can butt rape the Libertarian party.
tsm767 4 days ago
haha the face on that socialist, he's maaaad! But yeah, everyone should be, but its so funny that pretty much every problem he's talking about is a consequence of the government. You socialists need to look deeper.
rwoz 5 days ago
So i just read freidman's "capitalism and freedom" and... he does not, i repeat, NOT say, in any way shape or form, that there should be no government. Ever. he just talks about price controls and property, which is ok... but even HE does not believe what most youtube libertarians believe. have you guys even read this??
HoRostam 5 days ago
fixing the govt or having workers gain more control means of production (workplace decision-making) are very possible things, there are highly efficient govt programs in the world, as well as co-op style business models. the free market, on the other hand, can not exist, does not exist never could exist.
HoRostam 5 days ago
@HoRostam You are wrong, the more free the better. "fixing the govt" has been tried for so long now, I'm tired of it. Nothing knows better than the free market for what needs to be done, thats self evident.
rwoz 5 days ago
@rwoz
Was it self-evident in the late 19th century?
11111110 4 days ago
@11111110 Does it matter?
rwoz 4 days ago
@rwoz
It's a time when US government regulations were at a minimum, and the free market was at its freest. How did that work out for everyone?
11111110 4 days ago
@11111110 Uhm so what would the alternative have been you mean? What is the one force behind human development? I would say technical innovation, and how would you stimulate this? By government regulation? Of course not, its purely by freedom, and protection of private property.
rwoz 4 days ago
@rwoz
The alternative? I don't know a society without child labor, widespread poverty, and some assurance that our food isn't being packed with rat droppings?
Besides, there's no "one force" behind human development. Think of the greatest technological developments of the 20th century. Rocketry, plastics, computers, internet, and nuclear power. They came into fruition as massive government projects.
11111110 3 days ago
@11111110 If you want less child labor, then you need a free economy. The free economies among the poor countries have much less child labor than the regulated economies. The same trend follows other aspects of the global economy so free markets work much better than regulated economies.
Good ideas don't need governments to develop, these projects might as well have been developed in private companies.
rwoz 3 days ago
@rwoz
The fact is for several decades the government was the only one developing those technologies, because they required massive investments with little to no profit potential. Would your company spend billions building a machine the size of a warehouse, that does nothing but basic math? Of course not, on paper its the definition of a waste of money. But in reality it would be first computer. They wouldn't become viable for the free market for another 30 years.
11111110 3 days ago
@11111110 So basically what you're saying is that we need a institution that force us to spend money on projects they cant know for sure is worth anything? Isn't that a little arbitrary? I mean, the same principle is what took us into the mess we are today, i.e. the notion that taxpayers will be the lender of last resort no matter what the risk are. There always need to be someone who freely will take the ultimate risk, or else it's a great potential for misuse of the system.
rwoz 2 days ago
@rwoz
There's potential yes, and all government spending should be done skeptically. But there are great things that are too big and too risky for the free market to take on
11111110 2 days ago
@11111110 Its too risky for the free market, so then only a few limited people will have access to it? Government people who's been screwing up and lying to the public? Thats sounds more risky I think. The medical companies invest very very much in their research, many prototypes can't be used at all, so its pretty risky, but it works.
rwoz 2 days ago
@rwoz
Please, businesses screw up and lie all the time. The free market is good for making rapid, incremental improvements in products and designs. Like computers, after the 70s it was the private sector holding the reigns. But they only spend on things that have a quick and relatively safe ROI. There are things which the world needs which you can't extract a profit from.
11111110 1 day ago
@11111110
Could you give a few examples of world needs that government must absolutely provide since there is no profit in them?
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
@11111110 So you think government doesn't screw up? How the hell is it more safe to invest in an organization which can do whatever it want with your money, because you cant choose if you want to participate or not? Do you have any idea at all why we're in this mess we are today? Does the expression moral hazard ring a bell?
rwoz 1 day ago
@11111110
And the free market took the product and made it available in every household. The government didn't do that. One could cite many things such as cars, airplanes, and television which were invented without subsidy.
Not only that, even if government pursuits of science were valuable (and they are), that is only a fraction of what government does. The US government spends about >95% of its monies on non-scientific endeavors. Much of which is mal-invested.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 days ago
@MrTurdFurgeson
Yes, but only after they became cheap and efficient enough to become viable on the free market, which happened only after decades of initial government leg-work. And the government did advance automotive and aeronautics technology by leaps and bounds due to WW1 and WW2.
11111110 2 days ago
@11111110
Why did they become cheap and efficient? Answer: the integrated circuit. Who invented that? Texas Instruments. Not a government agency. Many of the major components that went into government technology were based off of privately developed products such as the transistor (AT&T Bell Labs), or the vacuum tube (Lee De Forest).
'Decades of initial government leg-work' is hilarious. Decades of research into what, exactly?
MrTurdFurgeson 2 days ago
@MrTurdFurgeson
Texas Instruments didn't "invent" the integrated circuit. There were iterations of the IC that came prior to their work, done by the Britist ministry of defense. Furthermore, no piece of computer technology spawned out of nothingness, they were all based on previous designs. The IC couldn't have been created had there been no advancements made in aspects such as semiconductor devices over the previous 5 decades.
11111110 1 day ago
@11111110
For 25 years the government was the only one building computers. They were slow, expensive, and hellishly inefficient, which is why the government was the only one spending money on them. But with each iteration they became smaller and more efficient, until it became affordable for universities, and then finally the private sector.
Would any business dump billions into a venture that had no hope of generating a profit until 30 years down the road? Heck no.
11111110 1 day ago
@11111110
You do realize that mechanical computers were in use for private industry well before encryption/decryption machines in WW2, right? You said yourself that everything was built off previous iterations, yet you fail to mention that when it comes to government-backed research projects.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
@11111110
...And most of those developments were in the private sector, not the public sector. That was my point. If you look at the vast majority of major research projects in the past 100 years, the vast majority were private, not public.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
Someone should tell the socialist that the bailout was an act by the government, not by the free market. As for the banks, again it was government-run Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac that allowed the banks to take abuse and rape the housing market.
The guy even admits that there is corruption at the government level that is facilitating corporate greed, so how is more regulation and more taxation the answer? Talk about cognitive dissonance.
eleutheromaniac 1 week ago
Wayne killed it!
oskArtist 1 week ago
YEAH MICHAEL LOST
missmelissa3x 1 week ago
Libertarians believe they have to EARN their money.
Socialists believe they have the right to TAKE money from other people.
MatthewRider1 1 week ago 21
@MatthewRider1 I am a socialist and I EARN my money. The capitalist model is made for people to screw other people over. There's bad sides of both free market and of socialism. A combination of two is what is needed.
Libertarians are turds. Conservatives deserve more respect.
thehootz 4 days ago
@thehootz
Many socialists don't earn their money. That's the problem.
MrTurdFurgeson 3 days ago 8
@MrTurdFurgeson I'm glad you can prove that with facts and not speculation. Most socialists I know are blue collared workers. But since you have access to this information that we don't, can you fill me in on how many of the "I'm voting for Ron Paul because he's cool" are actually working. A part time job at Starbucks sided with some liberal studies courses don't count.
thehootz 3 days ago
@thehootz
Sadly, YouTube generally hates it when one cites URLs, so its hard to provide all the statistical information, but here it goes:
Majority of low-income voters heavily favored Democrats in 2004/2008 presidential elections:
bit . ly/xmtTEr
Unemployed tend to favor Democrats in politics, not Republicans:
bit . ly/xRhpoo
Those are just two bits of data. You'd have to then correlate Democratic voter blocs with a preference for more government redistribution of incomes.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 days ago
@thehootz
Final citation via Wikipedia concerning liberalism and a penchant for more government services (such as universal health care, as per the 2005 Harris Poll)
bit . ly/2pPwED
I can pull up more data if you'd like. Generally, though, the poor vote heavily for people whom they think will improve their livelihood. Its funny the middle class rejects such policies generally - which would tell me that the poor never moved up thanks to socialist policies.
MrTurdFurgeson 2 days ago
@MrTurdFurgeson Lol you think the Democrats are socialists? Or even liberals for that matter? Just remember that a good percentage of people who are poor aren't there because they were lazy. When a business goes under I'd rather help the lost employees get back on their feet and back to being productive members of society rather than have them work at a grocery store. I know you say they can do it on their own but until you have a family and it happens to you, don't judge.
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz The conservative party of Canada is in power and it scares the shit out of many Canadians because of how far right they are. But yet they're rated at about the same level as the Democrats. It makes you realize how terrifying the Republicans really are. Anyway, that being said I live in Canada and we're doing quite well with our social democracy. Do what you want with your country because I still have mine. I was only commenting.
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz And one more thing. I'm in favour of Capitalism and I'm not a Communist. I just believe in regulation. Greed fuels business and eventually it gets out of hand.
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz
Here's where you go wrong, Hootz, YOU aren't the one wanting to help them get back on their feet. You want to force ME to help them with my money by the power of income redistribution.
If you really, truly, cared about helping them get back on their feet, YOU would give them money, education, food, or help to ensure they can get a new job. I have many friends that have been in those types of dire straits before, and I have never failed to help them.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
@MrTurdFurgeson Alright we can agree then. You're a douchebag and would only like to help people directly influencing your life. Likely because down the road it will in one way or another benefit you. But not the single mother with leukemia who can't get coverage because she couldn't afford it. Take a good hard look at yourself.
P.S. I've been arguing with about 5 of you guys and you always seem capitalize different words in your posts. Why? I don't it clarifies anything...
thehootz 1 day ago
Ron Paul Revolution - Hipster Baristas of America Unite!
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz
Actually, I help a lot of people that don't directly influence my life. I work at soup kitchens and food pantries to help people I don't know.
I've taken a good hard look at myself. I've realized that helping others MYSELF is far more rewarding, empowering and beneficial for society than demanding someone else do it. Have you ever worked at a soup kitchen? You can feed people for $1 a meal. Comparatively, the government has to spend twice as much due to inefficiency.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
Ah, soup kitchen. I'm glad you've changed the world. Because serving lukewarm beef stew with some skin forming on top is a sure way to get people out of poverty. Are you going to remedy people who have been denied health insurance with that chicken noodle soup you've been saving in the back? Or maybe replace an injured workers lost wages with sandwiches. You know, the ones with way too much butter on the bread and the lettuce you normally would've thrown out last Tuesday.
thehootz 1 day ago
And AGAIN with the capitalization. I don't need the emphasis. I read you just FINE.
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz
You know, for being the 'nice' socialist, you sure like to attack people with differing beliefs, don't you? I was merely giving examples of things I personally do to help others with what I have.
In the two cases you argue - injured workers and health care - there are always charities that help people out that are privately run. When I was a child, I was given an eye-saving surgery because of private charities - not government services. Such things work quite well.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
@MrTurdFurgeson Apologies, that was rude. I never said I was politely nice btw. It's a face I have to wear when arguing with Paul supporters. They tend to resort to flat out insults for any opinion differing to theirs no matter the degree. So I in turn have stopped trying.
In all seriousness, you raise a point about government inefficiency. I don't take this as a point against social funding rather than just a reason as to why it has to be reformed. Scrapping it is extreme.
thehootz 1 day ago
@thehootz
Who said I was a Ron Paul supporter?
At any rate, the issue I take with most social programs is that they are vastly inefficient. Having worked with a lot of charities, you find that private entities can provide similar services for 1/2 the price. Some programs can't be scrapped, I agree, but most could be heavily reformed and once the budget is balanced, taxes reduced to help promote more charitable giving, further reducing the areas government must be involved.
MrTurdFurgeson 1 day ago
@thehootz I don't believe that you actually have faith that individual charities would be enough to give support. If they are so effective then why are they not able to help the people who already need it? Even when the government is already giving assistance.
thehootz 1 day ago
Did this guy just use Soviet Russia as an example of a successful Socialist nation? WTF kool-aid is this guy drinking?
LibertarianAgorist 1 week ago
Government regulates business\ Big Business runs Washington\. Socialism = cut out the middle man (lobbyist). Result = diminished competition, loss of small business, loss of jobs.
DrunkenGodMode 1 week ago
my brain is hurting I can't DECIDE
Username14129 1 week ago
All I saw was a man (libertarian) trying to have a discussion on what he thinks is best...and then another man (socialist) repeating the same lines, resorting to name calling, and not arguing anything with any evidence to back his claims
Murph992 1 week ago
Libertarian Right piece of trash.
Explain to me the basis of you owning something and where's that right originate from.
kazearaki 1 week ago
@kazearaki What about the right to give it to someone else?
Zuzmaw 1 week ago
@kazearaki Yea, those stupid libertarians... I mean, how can they possibly believe that they have a right to own their socks, their house, their television or themselves?
"Explain where's that right originate from" It originates from a guy believing that he deserves the right to own his dick (which makes it unlawful for his girlfriend to take it against his will) and by others accepting it.
Where does the right to steal originate from? From envy (which is unproductive an harmufl to prosperity).
IWantToUnderstandIt 1 week ago
@IWantToUnderstandIt
As a Libertarian (Left) in the proper sense, I feel disgusted that the word is literally being used to describe Right Wings lunatics - so please stop with all the self labeling. American Libertarianism is trash, pure and simple.
Property Rights stemmed out from individual needs to control another human being, by advancing private interest over community needs. In reality, no one can live by himself or own anything by his own means and that's the reality.
kazearaki 1 week ago
Comment removed
LibertarianAgorist 1 week ago
@kazearaki Plus, maybe you should read some Henry David Thoreau if you don't believe a man can live by himself. Besides, this is the reason for Legal and Security providers. The problem with our current third party problem resolution and security provider is that they have a monopoly on the 'legal' practice of these industries.
Property rights stems from individual rights. If an individual is to be secure in his person and possessions then property rights must exist.
LibertarianAgorist 1 week ago
@LibertarianAgorist
I am more than willing to acknowledge property rights so long as it is extremely limited to any form that does not allow the accumulation of wealth and power (most of these are personal e.g. husband-wife relationship etc.). What most Capitalist sheep fail to understand is that to work, earn a living, accumulating wealth and power - should not be the aim of their live. Humanity should instead strife to manifest the best in them for the benefit of the world.
kazearaki 1 week ago
@kazearaki Notice the capitalists don't try to say what's "best" for you. They don't pretend to know what any individual may or may not want to do with their lives. It's only the socialists who pretend to have such grand knowledge. "Working, earning a living, and accumulating wealth and power should not be the aim of your life." No need to live your life as you choose! The socialists know what's best for you!
TheGamerJoseph 1 week ago
@kazearaki In a free, capitalist society, people like yourself would be free to form your own socialist communities. You'd be free to work for your needs, and not for profit, and to share with one another. But in a socialist country, it would be illegal to form your own capitalist community. It is ironic that you accuse the capitalists of wanting to "own" other people through property rights, when it is your kind that is so unaccepting of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.
TheGamerJoseph 1 week ago
@TheGamerJoseph
Dead wrong on so many level. There is no such thing as free capitalist society, for capitalism is based upon the accumulation of wealth and power - both of which deprive humanity from being free - earning a job or a living does not make you free, to the contrary is! Secondly, in line with Bakunin, Socialism should be voluntary and most people would want to become part of a Socialist community as mean of survival since men can't live alone. Human are social animal.
kazearaki 1 week ago
@kazearaki hahaha u r so funny, i like ur jokes
nicazzo 1 week ago
@TheGamerJoseph
What's left would be a bunch of Capitalist buffoon claiming ownership over something that they don't really own. Take a look around here, is there any single Capitalist that can justify ownership of any properties apart from using idiotic argument like; I work my redneck ass on this farm - thus it is all mine! A Capitalist steal the fruit of nature and then claim it as his own, just like the founding fathers stole the land from the Indian and claim it as their own
kazearaki 1 week ago
@TheGamerJoseph
The fact of the matter is this: the right of property ownership is only valid is society accepted it, otherwise the earth and its fruits belongs to no one but everyone.
kazearaki 1 week ago
@kazearaki blah blah blah, I don't care about your stupid opinion. This is the beauty of freedom. I don't have to care about how you think I should live. You are of course allowed to think how I should live. But you can't command me. And I don't command you. All you can do is try to convince me into your stupid disneyworld. And I can politely ask you to kill yourself! Please, die. Or move to North Korea or something.
IWantToUnderstandIt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kazearaki You are very wrong. First of all; within a Libertarian Capitalist Society, a group of individuals may pool their wealth together and create a Libertarian Socialist commune within it; socializing the resources and maintaining public ownership of production. You cannot start a Capitalist commune within a Socialist Society because attempting to exercise individual rights to accumulate wealth through hard work is not available.
LibertarianAgorist 1 week ago
@IWantToUnderstandIt
Take a capitalist bastard like yourself as an example, by your very own logic, tell me just one, again, just one of your bloodsucking activity that does not steal anything from either mother nature or another fellow human being. When you walked on a public road, you already stealing the hard work of countless nameless men that built that road. The only way for you to not steal the work of other is to shoot yourself to space.
kazearaki 1 week ago
@IWantToUnderstandIt
When you steal nature's fruit, you put a sign and label the coveted goods as yours - but hold on a second! Who give you that right? The State? Or your own ability to prevent others from accessing the coveted goods by using shotgun (Libertarian my F! ass)? In either case, YOU steal something and keep it as yours with sheer power. In a Socialist society, the right to covet mother nature are fundamentally nullified by the obligation to share it with others.
kazearaki 1 week ago
Michael Prysner looks like a fucking giraffe!
Rattlesnakemeuk 1 week ago
lybya was socialist and they were no bankrupcy and they were no central banks from the bank of england.
mattbell555 1 week ago
socialism didnt destroyed the system but the rothschild did.futile debate.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 The Rothschild are not the ones taxing me though. Its the government taking my money and redistributing the wealth to the Rothschild that sounds like socialism that benefits the rich. My friend your argument is futile.
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse capitalism and socialism both lead to centralisation of power and wealth.Feodalism,communism,socialism,capitalism are all the same.If we abolished all the laws,it will be total chaos.There is difference between libertarism and anarchism.But they tend to be almost the same.I except the notion of freedom,but if you read the constitution of the USA,they dont talk about libertarism or any system.I think the best system for now could be and would be a synthesis of libertarism and
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 yeah for the most part your right but the idea of the free market in capitalism there would be little control over the size of businesses. But the true is that the under libertarianism the government treats small businesses and big businesses all the same. Under libertarianism there are no benefits to the rich or the poor. Everyone under libertarianism every is treated equally. So what your saying is your against equality and you should treat some people differently.
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse there is a difference between equity and equally.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 on course, but you still can't be seriously thinking that government control of the economy is a good thing. sure its sounds great, and looks great on paper and it was been tired before. The only problem is in the tried before part, because in practice the government control of the economy has always lead to failure. For example the USSR where millions died, and Cuba which if it was working why are the people leaving to come to America. So dude you can't win.
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse did you read my stuff I never said I was socialist,I'm not biased for anything,we are just debating.And what is that ,so dude you can't win? Are somekind of god who knows everything to say that.Absolutism is bad thing.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 Right if your not biased why did you reply. Now you see your losing your trying to cover your ass.
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse you cant say that you win a debate,philosophy 101.There is no ref in a debate,nobody can decide who won.And the most awful thing your portrait is saying that you have the absolute truth.You are the one biased who cant debate and trying to flee the tail between your legs.Do you know Machiavel,if not go read some please educate yourself on this topic.Peace
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 Ok If you can win then tell me what is so great about socialism and give an example there it has worked. I can tell you many examples of capitalism working and anarchy working. For example ancient Ireland had anarchy and it worked until a foreign government invaded. Naturally because anarchy has no government there was no socialism and it had the capitalist economy. Capitalism worked in early America until the government started interfering with the economy. Winning
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse Ok If you can win ,never said that,its the opposite.Never in the history of mankind there was a pure liberal capitalism,never.Even in the early stage of the USA,they were laws implented to control the companies.You really dont know your history and I am not and USA citizen.Read more.And even the founding fathers did promote and anyway capitalism or socialism.I am not stuck in these dualist debate over capitalism(good) vs socialism(evil).I'm done good debate.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 You miss understand its not government control of companies, its corporations controlling government. If you have ever taken American Government in college you would know that. Its control through a little thing called lobbying. In fact many bills passes by congress are in fact written by the lobbyists them selves. The lobbyists goal is to make sure their interests are met. Don't be thinking I don't know whats going on. I have studies government for a long time now.
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse Im not talking about mordern USA but at the beggining of it.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 In the beginning there was no control of the economy. The original government didn't have tax and this lead to failure because the government could not pay off dept. Then they wrote the bill of rights and taxes was then allowed to pay off dept and pay for the functions of government. As long as government doesn't grow over sized there is no problem there. That said the Government has no right to interfere with the economy and definitely not giving money to Corporations
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse gov didnt allow company to be too big,and companies used the 14 amendment to grow in size.Yes there was law to regulate the econonomy,it was not total free market like friedman.
mattbell555 6 days ago
@mattbell555 yeah the government didn't allow the companies to grow to big, the government got paid too.
SurvivalApocalypse 4 days ago
@SurvivalApocalypse and stop putting that old rhetoric of the 60s that capitalism is good and communism is the evil.Americans were programmed to think that to create duality in mankind,like the Russians.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555 its not Rhetoric if its true. XD
SurvivalApocalypse 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse ... socialism.Libertarism=liberty=freedom not capitalism.Your argument you are talking about is Friedman capitalism,no laws on market.It has been proven that if you have total free market,it will lead to monopolism.So in a long term perpective a one world company.And socialism leads in a long term period to a one world gov.Me I believe in a communitarism,local politic.,direct democracy.And the state deals with security,exchange with other countries.I believe in the principle
mattbell555 1 week ago
@SurvivalApocalypse of free will.The system I believe is a mix of Socialism/Trade/Libertarism/Communitarism.THe problem in reality is that we have criminal in power of the gov ,banks and CEO.You can have the best system in the universe but if bad mans control that we are doom.
mattbell555 1 week ago
socialism and capitalism are not the answer to our problem.THey were creating to divise humanity.
mattbell555 1 week ago
11:26. socialist implies that AIDS and poverty are race related problems. I guess his heart is in the right place, but he's showing how green under the gills he is.
paperneck 1 week ago
The windy socialist plays the race card when he can't defend his pathetic ideology. :-)
OldRight1776 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dont we already have libertarianism?Under any system property is owned by someone,in todays case countryes=politicians and people to some extent control what happens inside the borders of a country.Isnt it possible under the free market that many individuals own the same property with a contract?The problem is all land is already owned by someone.And if you are inside the owned land you have to do what the land owner or the factory owner says,right?Well,we already have that
affilinet 1 week ago
Comment removed
xxxxAXIxxxx 1 week ago
Comment removed
nixd3v 1 week ago
Comment removed
nixd3v 1 week ago
@pipem4n
1) I'm Russian and do live in Russia. Last place I wanna be right now is dying empire called US. I'm sure that come as a huge shock to you but did u know that interwebs work internationally?
nixd3v 1 week ago
Comment removed
nixd3v 1 week ago
@nixd3v
1. I suggest you move to Russia or at least to some eastern Europe country or shut up. Be the example stop talking about it.
2. The question is - who decides what is most needed for society? In capitalism those are consumers - the society itself. Can't argue with this can you.
3. Well, who decides what is the purpuse of rare materials, capital, wrokforce, resources? It's the politbeuro. What's going to happen to people? Their needs won't be met, and system will fail like ZSSR.
pipem4n 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pipem4n "The question is - who decides what is most needed for society? In capitalism those are consumers - the society itself. Can't argue with this can you."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Stupid people like you make YouTube worth visiting, on behalf of sane people: Thank you.
Lukege15 1 week ago
Dear Micheal Dipshitface, capitalism is an economic system. A capitalist nation that goes to war isn't doing so because of capitalism in the same way they don't go to war for socialism. They go to war for totalitarianism, and maybe even corporatism. Capitalism is about the free market. Going to war so rich businesses, which is WRONG, has nothing to do with the free market.
NoNameC68 1 week ago
7:45 - The racist card. When did anyone make a racist comment? You can talk about race without being racist. Obviously someone doesn't know what it means to be racist.
NoNameC68 1 week ago
Comment removed
nixd3v 1 week ago
@nixd3v
If there are no resources, then socialism doesn't work either. Besides, under a free market system, competition will drive companies to seek alternative resources for energy.
Mkvine 1 week ago
This country needs to split in two. One side practices socialism, the other practices truly free market capitalism.
Combat79 2 weeks ago
Lol socialist aruging that profit isn't the motive for creation by mentioning all smart inventors work for pharma and military companies.. that is profit.. this guy is an idiot.
jcf005 2 weeks ago
Does this Michael guy look more like Pauly Shore, or Eric Foreman?
dehteg 2 weeks ago
Did i just hear this dude say that the Soviet Union was good for Russians? That's just some kind of joke...
matti1003 2 weeks ago
Whatever your standpoint you must admit that this socialist is shrill and inarticulate. A shame.
oldoddjobs 2 weeks ago
Destroy any economy in the world? There a several socialist nations in the world and all them are far older than the USA. Their economy is in a far better state than America. Everyone suffers when they're problems, in America everyone suffers but the few elite who have enough money. The states are in a disgusting state.
TheUndergroundificat 2 weeks ago
That Socialist kid is just arguing like any liberal democrat and doesn't directly answer any of the Capitalist's questions, he simply goes on a bunch of pro-Obama "anyone who disagrees with him is a racist" spiel.
mikess56 2 weeks ago
Sorry Michael, but if you are suggesting a socialist society, who is Saint that will organize the society? You?
heavym3tal 3 weeks ago
The socialist guy keeps bringing up modern government interference problems and claiming that's capitalism. RT could have found a better rep. for the socialism side of things.
hokieneer17 3 weeks ago
Hmmm, stealing money from the wealthy or stealing money from the people? I think that faggot silver hair needs that football behind him shoved up his ass. Yeah, I'm gonna steal money from the rich. YOU don't own don't own anything. And that's bullshit, FDR ran the New Deal and President Johnson ran the war against poverty. Don't listen to that football lovin' sportsboy. He needs to be hung or routed out of the community IMMEDIATELY.
NathanHaleLives 3 weeks ago
@NathanHaleLives -> and neither President's plan worked!!
Silbaugh4liberty 3 weeks ago
haha the guest guy is so pissed off....he has nothing to say.....haha
travisman1994 3 weeks ago
Socialism is about people getting paid fairly for their work. People getting a product for a fair price
Fair meaning, without fraud or exploitation
There's already been a redistribution of wealth and theft
"I earn the money you, steal it from me to give it to people who did not earn it..."
Lets translate
Workers earn the money, corporations steal/withhold it and give it to shareholders who didn't earn it.
Socialism has never worked and capitalism has never existed.
jackedup2077 3 weeks ago
Wayne Allyn is retarded because he dosnt know anything about Obama, and Michael Prysner sounds like a fuckin broken taperecorder...
Hansped33 3 weeks ago
The question at hand is how is it decided what an individual contributes to society and how are they compensated for their contribution? Socialists like to pretend their system allows us all to decide what we contribute but we are all compensated sufficiently and equally. For their system to be in any way sustainable, we all must do our duty to the almighty state. I would prefer to decide how to use my existence and allow those who find value in my contributions to determine their worth.
BudWithBeats76 3 weeks ago
That socialist is pissed.
NejnejnejJAnej 3 weeks ago
Richest country, really? BTW before they said who the Socialist was I already knew it was the guy on the bottom, I can recognize one of those dirty rats miles away.
Kalvin40 3 weeks ago
@Kalvin40 Agreed, you can tell because they look pissed off because they feel like everyone owes them something, the libertarian on the top is happy and probably gives money away, on top of employing 100 people!!
Silbaugh4liberty 3 weeks ago
@Silbaugh4liberty No because they have NOTHING after being robbed. Fuck your liberty. You must have money. Dont find yourself in that welfare line talking your shit...you'd "disappear."
NathanHaleLives 3 weeks ago
@NathanHaleLives -> I'm being robbed too jackass. And I only have the little money that I work my ass off for, and I don't like my little paycheck to keep shrinking because others are too lazy to work for their own paycheck. There's only SOO much of everyone's money to go around. PS. I WISH FOR LIBERTY FOR EVERYONE, SO STOP BEING A FUCKING DUMBASS.
Silbaugh4liberty 3 weeks ago
That socialist guy sounds like a college undergrad who has a liberal English professor or is taking philosophy.
thrashkwan 3 weeks ago
@thrashkwan You fucking animal. You better not speak too loudly in a crowd...people are VERY angry with people like you arguing for rich motherfuckers. Be careful.
NathanHaleLives 3 weeks ago
@NathanHaleLives Whoa there. I never said I was arguing for the rich. All I said was that he sounded like the stereotypical liberal.
And btw, I'll talk as loud as I like, thank you very much.
thrashkwan 3 weeks ago
I'm poor and I'm a libertarian. Bailouts are not capitalism. If you guys want a socialized health system, you should demand it at the state level. I wouldn't want my health service run by the EU.
liamcampbell88 3 weeks ago
The level of this debate is incredibly low.
ohedd 3 weeks ago
Bad choice for socialist representative. I could've done a better job.
AllNightDayDream 3 weeks ago
@AllNightDayDream Agreed. I'm not a socialist, but if I was going to be swayed, he wasn't going to do it.
thrashkwan 3 weeks ago
how did the Soviet Union turn out?
jadedfeelings21 3 weeks ago
I couldn't agree more.
nomoreserfs 3 weeks ago
7:34
Losing a debate? Shout "racist!"
HelplessVictim 4 weeks ago
EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT!
Logical response.
EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT!
Logical response.
repeat.
gigahertz123 4 weeks ago 2
the socialist figures the angirer and louder you are, the more right you are. It doesn't work. Freedom works.
gigahertz123 4 weeks ago
@gigahertz123 It always "worked" for O'reily.
hokieneer17 3 weeks ago
The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
ConorJNixon 4 weeks ago
Socialists are to economics, what witch doctors are to medicine.
TheCapitalistdog 4 weeks ago
@nomoreserfs You lost me buddy, you're saying that I am pro socialism? Are you bat shit crazy? I am a libertarian through and through.
I'm pretty confused on what exactly your comment meant, maybe you should reiterate it into something that is more sensible. Kthxbye <3efsaeegares
NightOfTheLiving8bit 4 weeks ago
the socialists argument is airy fairy and he just repeats himself
mr