Robin Hood stole taxes from the corrupt Government of King John and gave the money back to the people whom which it was taken! Robin Hood was a defender of property rights, not a crusader of socialism!
I don't wanna be part of a group forcefully! I'd rather not live in Sparta! Where they threw away children if they weren't beneficial to the Group, where they stole children at seven to be part of the group! No thank you!
A business is an organization with the goal of bringing about a mutual benefit to itself and those with whom it conducts business. Capitalism is made of businesses. So capitalistic societies are largely built off of mutually beneficial relationships. Money is a way to vote on what you like in society: the more successful you are, the more votes you get. As you spend money, you are “shaping” society to [your preferences] * [the weight of your success].
Society and losers benefit from the “winner-loser” system. The loser benefits because he learned that his idea sucked (or someone could do it better) and so he should not waste his time, energy, and money. Society benefits because the good things get better (like your computer) and crappy things (things no one wants) stop being produced. Yes, there are still poor people, but the “rich” have made production so efficient that even the homeless can be fed, clothed, & some even have cell phones.
A large disparity between the rich and the poor isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The richest person will still benefit the poorest. If he invests in stocks: he causes businesses to grow, production becomes more efficient and reaches more people, & people are employed. If he puts it in the bank, banks can loan it to people. If he starts a business and it succeeds, society logically benefits from it or it would have failed (see above). If he spends his money, his money is transferred to that place.
@dombon6 Watch the Boondock Saints (1999), they were still using beepers and payphones. Cell phones existed back then but they were still bulky and expensive. But this was when rich people invested in them (by buying), and tested them (by using), and weeded out the crappy ones (by buying the “not crappy” ones). Today, 12 years later, we have “Smart Phones”.
A large disparity between the rich and the poor isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The richest person will still benefit the poorest. If he invests in stocks: he causes businesses to grow, production becomes more efficient and reaches more people, & people are employed. If he puts it in the bank, banks can loan it to people. If he starts a business and it succeeds, society logically benefits from it or it would have failed (see above). If he spends his money, his money is transferred to that place.
"rich people are rich because of rich parents". This is true in some cases, but most cases people become rich by doing something that society values. And related to inheritance: Talent is passed down from one generation to another (through good genes), and there is nothing wrong with that, so why is there something wrong about passing down wealth.
We have safety nets put in place for the losers. These safety nets include welfare.
Competition is best for society. As people get richer, it means that they produced something the people wanted. The competition brings the maximum efficiency to society. More goods are produced, so more goods can go around.
You assume that people in general are willing to do something for nothing. You also assume that other people are willing to give away stuff to people who are not doing anything. People are rational competitive maximizers. Why would I work 50 hours a week if I get the same for working 10 hours a week? I wouldn't.
And then your rich people (your talented people) move away and stop generating wealth. Since you are without the most talented members of your society, the production in society stagnates and everyone is poorer. Capitalism makes EVERYONE richer (some richer than others). Socialism makes EVERYONE poorer.
i stopped at 1:34 cause it was taking waaaayyyyy tooooo long for you to get your point across... from what i got you seem to think that socialism would "level the playing field". well it would, except for the government officials. they would become the "rich", and everyone else would be the "poor". then, if you wanted a "good job" that pays a little more, you'd have to join with the state, most likely in the military, if its not already a requirement. i.e. USSR, China, N. Korea..
@HELLDOGGER & its in a socialistic society where you would most likely find the modern Robin Hood. He didn't rob the rich to help the poor. He specifically targeted the politically rich (who then gained wealth through their political power): Prince John, Sheriff of N.Ham (and tax collectors), and Church officials who were also political powerhouses back then (tons of land, money, King needed church's permission to reign, etc). Robin Hood even robbed an abbot to save a knight's (nobleman) land.
Well... wait... duh... Stealing from the rich and giving the poor.
Morally right, for as long as the rich you're stealing from is greedy and deserves to have their money taken. I wouldn't want to steal and honest & hard working rich man's money-- yes this rare specias does in fact exist. Not as funny if someone who rightfully earned their money gets it taken from them.
libertarianism is interpretive like all systems of govt. things arent blk/wht. a poorly run capitalist system isnt "better" than a well run socialist sys and vica versa. govt depends on the capability and interests of the ppl running it. we have lotsa needless law on books that if werent, that if society were more libertarian , society wud run just fine. exp, blu law. itll be ok if you buy furniture on sunday, and many more laws too
But you seem not to know very much about the topic. So I would suggest you to read further to inform yourself a more about socialistics countries, and compare their system to the capitalistics one. Then make a research on where are the countries where most people are leaving from, and where are they heading to. Not to the socialistics ones, but actually running from them. I highly recommend you to do this before you present your speech in front of an audience if you dont want to look like a fool
Now, about the story of Robin Hood, if you actually read it or watched the movie, you would find interesting that the ''RICH GUYS" that Robin Hood took stuff from, where the abusive leaders that, in the first place, took that stuff away from the people, BY F0RCE. exactly what happens in a socialistic society.
If it weren't for Adam Smith's ideas, the entrepreneurs, that created and provided you with everything you buy on the free market, wouldn't have taken the risk of investing on their business and PERSUADE you to buy their stuff. Because obviously the company where you, or your parents, purchased that videocamera, persuaded them to do it, they did not take your money away by F0RCE like the socialistic leaders do.
Dear Dude, for what I can look around your room, you don't seem to be very "Socialistic". The credit for pretty much all the stuff you have in there, starting from the camera you are using to record this crapy speech, needs to be given to the "Evil" capitalist society that you are criticizing.
You are stupid!! How can u say that wealthy will stay will get richer and the poor people get worst!!!!!!!! Im sorry YOU are an idiot!
Do YOU think anyone will make more jobs available for people if the successful people are being punished for being successful, they would not want to spend their business or employ stupid not so productive people like you.
The losers oh poor them, maybe they go out of business because their product or service is bad! Dont you think you would go to a place
with better service instead of going to a horrible establishment where the service is bad? They should get ELIMINATED!!!
Winners are best because they won!! Stupid
Libertarianism has nothing to do with capitalism
Dude Government CANT valance the market!!
Socialism is an ideology; ideology because its not fair for the rich to have so much money is fair a law or an ideology? Well cant ask you. So I ask whoever read this
Real evidence? Remember when what happened with socialism?
Capitalism is reality, capitalism is based on self-interest, and dont you always want what is best for you?
Well for fools like you socialism would be amazing because you are a fool a loser that has nothing, no aspiration of your own so you need the government to give you things so you would survive. Well keep thinking that look at Cuba and what Venezuela is starting to be .. No social liberty, no private property
( Hmmm that sounds like whats mine is mine, whats yours we share)
OMG U stupid everything u said!! Its really annoying just hear U talk.
Is not supported by the rich, they are supported by smarter people, that believe they could be someone in the future and they just dont stay there and wait for the government to give them stuff.
There are so many other things that I could say to you but its too late and I dont want to waste more time on this crap!
@Christophermdh I completely agree with you, it is really sad that there are some IGN0RANTS out there who think that socialism benefits people. It benefits Lazy and useless people who are doing N0THING from society but they want to receive a profit for posting senseless videos in youtube talking against "Evil Capitalism", but because we capitalists believe in freedom, I will not say anything against these sort of fools :)
I would argue the opposite. I think that capitalism grows the middle class, while communism makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Socialism would fall somewhere between depending on how many sectors of the economy are socialized. We do need some basic safety nets, which is where capitalism fails, but I think that the more free the market is, the less safety nets we will need.
It's funny that anyone who is educated in the US seems to believe that capitalism is near perfect, and the greatest system on earth with virtually no faults. While it is true that communism, the highest form of socialism according to Lenin, failed miserably, and created poverty stricken dictatorships for the most part, aside from Tito of Yugoslavia. The problem with capitalism is that it's Darwinistic, being that only the "strongest" survive. Also, China and Russia were once capitalist.
I used to live in China, and I know the history very well because a lot of my family lived through it. Before the communist party took over in China, the divide between rich and poor was huge. Also, China and Russia did not give rights or freedom to people even when they were capitalist. The National party of China was capitalist. In fact, most people who were less fortunate were either paid very little, or put in slavery; hence, why people went commie, but it didn't fix the problems.
I was under the impression that Robin Hood did not "Steal from the Rich to Give to the Poor." Wasn't it all about a corrupt government (The Sheriff) which demanded unfair taxes? Robin Hood takes these taxes back and gives them to those who lost their property. It was Justice for the people, and only Stealing in the eyes of the government that hunted him.
America has the RICHEST poor people in the world because of Capitalsm. Elsewhere in the world - poor means POOR! You have been brainwashed like all the others who vote for politicians like Obama. And you sound like Lenin of the USSR. That was a great experiment.
you talk about brainwashing??? Its funny that you say people who have a left wing ideology are brainwashed when cleary the guy speaking is like an american os some sh!t like that and the fact that every american is brainwashed to think that anything associated with communism is bad bad through and through bad.... Let me also remind you that America has also some of the poorest people in the world which are in the same League as 3rd world counties! Hypocrite!
actually, in Scandinavia: the poor are way better off. and they have massive government programs. oil companies are owned by the state, so is schools and hospitals. and sub-sahara africa is very capitalist/img/world bank-oriented. so is china with it's slave workers for nike. the facts are the opposite of what you are describing.
But what will happen when the oil reserves dry up. The scandanavian countries can't base their entire system on the money it gets from oil. In China, alot of people are moving out of poverty because factory jobs pay much better than substinance farming. African countries are screwed up because of empirialism, and the world bank puts these nations into debt, it does not help them. The world bank is just and idea from people who advocate a centrally planned economy.
Ok, I commend you for expressing your beliefs. I however disagree with you on most everything. You have this idea of "society". You have to understand that as humans we need a reason to work harder, and competitive market is the reason for that. If I'm lazy and the person next door to me isnt, who is going to purchase my service? Do they want to purchase from a lazy person who's product or service is garbage? or my neighbor who works their butt off who's product is very good.
wow, that was painful. did you rehearse or prethink any of your thoughts. I thought I may see a valid discussion but that was a weak rant with poor examples, and vague throughout. The comments on this page hold more insight
In Capitalism, the rich get richer, and the poor get richer, but slower. Socialism is fundamentally based on theft. Any system that has theft at its core definitely will not be moral at any other point.
the robin hood thing really was a failure. in robin hood, the rich never earned their money, they didnt work hard. today you dont see rich people coming up to poor people and holding a gun to their head, demanding their money.
oh yea..socialism makes sense now. just give your hard earned money to poor people.....thats the dumest idea ive ever heard. Cuz socialism worked so amazingly well for Russia!
soviet was horrible. true. and social democracy is way better. but we don't need any capitalism. we need both political and economic democracy. otherwise it's not real democracy. dare to struggle: dare to win!
WOw, I'm really amazed about how much quazi-intellectualism on the internet... No i'm not... People know nothing about economics or industrial structure. most of what you are saying either doesn't refer to this world or can be empirically proven to lessen general social welfare. If I had time I could use utilitarian calculus to show how all forms of socialism diminish general welfare and social utility. You are very uneducated. I would strongly recommend u marginalism and un applied econ...
Capitalism is for tools. (and libertarianism is for tools with a punk ass attitude and delusions of intellectuality.) People who support the aristocracy of the wealthy and honestly think they can join it through hard work.
More like 'back to work drone!'
The really smart people are either socialists or liberals. (or they ARE capitalists but are actually atop the pyramid, instead of little people in the street dumb enough to support them.)
LOL. A lot of rich people became rich through working hard. Look up Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford. They all went from rags to riches.
Secondly, capitalism does not make the poor poorer. If it does, then why were poor Americans much poorer 200 years ago than they are now? Why can many poor people in third world countries afford cell phones? Wouldn't those "evil capitalists" keep everything away from the poor?
why would they dumbness that is how the rich make more money either owning or holding stock in companies that takes advantage of its users! you p o s! puto ay ayay aiy 22 centimetros buey ariba ariba andale............ha ha
People are very uneducated in general. The world economy isn't a zero sum game. Everyone gets richer when 1 person does through markets. People who make alot only do so because they are performing a highly valued task that isn't performed enough. As enough firms perform that task the profit goes down. The most high paid execs are doing a task creates the most value for society vs other alternatives.
The rich have been getter richer but so have the poor, just not at the same rate (look at the data). If poverty is defined as some percentage of income, you'll will always have a lower class. If you had it your way, we would all be equal...just equally poor! Take a look at South America.
The problem with Robin Hood is that the story doesn't take into account that people respond to incentives.
I would pose to you to show that altruism truly exists in society and nature.
We wouldn't all be equal. A higher, progressive tax rate just decreases the rate at which your wealth increases. But your wealth still increases if you do more work and have a higher base salary.
That isnt necessarily always true. Look at it from an extreme perspective. Imagine what a world would look like if you taxed people who work 100% and transfer all of that income to people who dont work. How many people do you think would be left workingnone! As such, we would all be equally poor.
If ones logic doesnt hold in the extremes, then its flawed.
With all of our latest technology innovations I don't understand why we even have poverty, and situations where people dont even have the basics of life. This is a sad state of affairs and I think the underlying problem behind this situation is the monetary system and the elites controlling it, the flow of money/credit that is. Why does everything have to boil down to how much $ you have for even the basics of life. Its time we evolve as a species!!
the2nd group can use all theircollective resources to utilize the latest technolody to produce all of the basics of lif without the need for money.then if they get really motivated to get a plasma tv or lamborghinithen can opt out of this facility type of group and go into the purely free market economy. This 2nd tier can be an alternative to welfare and develope the skills of the participants where they can choose to enter the winner circle of free market economy once they acquire the skill set
The government's role is not to balance out our society. However, I do believe that all of us should have choice, and so I am proposing something different. How about we have a 2 tiered economy. One where the well to do can continue to market unneeded junk that ends up in landfills, and one where the not so well off can operate under some municipal cooperative to produce all the basics of life like food, clothes and shelter. the 2nd group can use all their collective resources to
I do agree with your comments about capitalism leading to a winners and losers situation or have and have nots, because not everyone is smart enough to make it in this kind of system. If you have a true capitalist/free market system and if everyone is given a fair chance to complete or market their particular skills/servives eventually the whole society benefits. the problem is our monetary sytem and oligarchy system. Governments purpose is to protect us and ensure our ownership rights.
FREE trade competition creates innovation and wealth government takes wealth and messes with markets. There has never been capitalism we currently have a mixed economy with a government which corrupts company's and create monopoly's.
Sorry I was not in my right mind when I wrote that comment 9 hours ago. Anyway, I think libertarianism is a good concept but I'd prefer a mixed government of capitalism and libertarianism. You have to realize, when EVERY business is socialized, you lose the element of competition. :)
Most people who don't get rich were not previously poor?!?!?! Utter Rubbish!!! What about the millions of immigrants that flocked into the US in the early 20th century who came from impoverished conditions?The did not stay poor! What about places like Hong Kong and New Zealand? They were once poor countries! Since Capitalism was brought to there country , they've become some of the richest countries on the planet!
Not True. The rich get richer and so do the poor. If you do a quick google search on income statistics, you will find that 90 percent of the people who make up the top one percent of the highest income earners in the US were not born with the wealth they've acquired!
I must interject again, this film uses a lot of emotional reasons, yet very little reason. Capitalism should ensure quality control for the customer. The most chaotic unfriendly places in the United States are things run by the government, such as DMV (where you get license renewed.) It is an ineffecient place that would be much friendler/effieicent if there ass was on the line, like non-government buisness.
Wealthy people are wealthy because they work harder and are smarter than poor people. Smart people deserve better things. Anyone willing to work hard, who is smart can become rich (at least in America, Switzerland, Australia, ect), places where capitalism is the policy. As for giving my wealth to people who I don't know, Fuck that. I don't know who they are and I don't care what they have or don't have. Honest person <<<------
In the case of robin hood, do you not feel that he was taking from those who stole form the poor (socialism?) and gave it back? (King John's High Taxes, F.E.)
Do you not feel that loosing in capitalism is motivation for the loosers to try again and improve, while socialism does nothing?
Your Definition of Libertarianism is Wrong.
(Socialists are HARDCORE Idealistic)
Have Socialists looked at the example, the evidence, given by the Former Soviet Unions Success?
I see your heart felt concern with the disparity of wealth. I found long ago that my education was severely lacking because my economics professors failed to define capital properly because they lumped land in with capital completely confusing the distinction between the two. The point is that the return to capital (tools of production) is earned while the return to land/natural resources is wholly unearned because the value of land is created 100% by the community and not by individual owners.
Do you live in S. Korea, Cuba or China? If not, why? The Jamestown settlement experimented to find what would work, they tried socialism and too many wanted to eat without working. When they gave a plot of land to each and said, grow food on it or die, the settlement became successful. The experiment has been conducted on our continent and the lessons learned.
The Bible is the best selling book in human history. It has had a profound influence on culture. If you read classic literature in order to see how it has influenced the world you found yourself in, you must include the Bible in your list of important books. Your statement reveals you to be an uneducated person.
That's not really what I was questioning with that statement. I was questioning how useful the bible is compared to a book like Harry Potter. For your information I have read the bible. It's a lovely story just don't think it's all that useful as far as being a moral guide. Many of the good behaviors it encourages are things that already exist in natural good human behavior. It's sad that you would assume that I'm so "uneducated."
Socialist societies cause the greatest division of man. I feel the division lies between the ruling olagarchy and the homogenous masses.
However, a Constitutional Republic offers freedom, encourages inovation and protects individualism. The role of this type of government is to simply do one thing;PROTECT YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. This type of society requires good will and personal responsibility. However, it seemed to work for our Founding Fathers. Sorry for any typos. Look into Ron Paul.
Economics 101: you decide to tax people with money and capital at a high rate: it will not be worth it for them to expand and increase capital investment. The economy will slow, creativity will decline and the government will have less money to give to the poor. Everyone ends up poorer. Do yourself a hugh favor and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to get a view from the other side.
libertarianism is based on noncoersion. The government exists as a coersive entity. You obviously have no idea of libertarianism. Basically what your saying is that regular citizens do not have the right to steal, but the government does via taxes. What so many socialists don't realize is that socialism is by nature a coersive violent system. Its based upon theft. Citizen: "The money I earn is my own" Socialist: " To bad if you dont give it to us we will throw in jail".
I was a socialist for some time granted I wasnt a state socialist, I was an anarcho-socialist. You say that libertarianism is based on Idealism...and socialism isnt? You think everyone in society wants to live a life for the collective? If want to live as a free indivual what happens? In the market anarchist or libertarian system, if you want to live in communes and live a life for the collective then by all means do it. Your free to associate with whom you please.
In the socialist system you are forced to live this altruistic life, in libertarianism its your choice. If you want a purely deomocratic system of governing then buy all means do it...as its your choice to associate and make contract with whom you please..but don't force it on me friend. If you want a purely democrat union in control of a said factory.. go for it...but don't attempt to rob me or penalize me for owning my own factory.
Its all comes down to morality. Do you belive theft is justifiable? Do you belive the state a voilent coresive entity is valid? If you do then it really doesnt matter if what side of the political spectrum you sit on..you are an athoritarian. There are plenty of libertarian socialists. All libertarian means is lack of government control and maximum liberty. I gave your video 5 stars for some decent questions. I apologize for spelling errors I was a little fired up.
In general, I'm strongly opposed to authoritarianism. The problem is how to remove one authority (say the government) without having it replaced by another authority (say rich people and big corporations). I advocate a transfer of authority from corporations to the government, in the hopes that it will be more fair to society.
Ultimately, how a government is run is an important factor. Frankly, many of the governments we've seen around the world would encourage people to adopt a libertarian outlook. I'd support it myself, but I just find it impractical. Any unprecedented system is largely idealist until its put into practice. The best for the near future is probably to approach the issues one step at a time.
Most people are ignorant about the authoritarian vs. libertarian factor of the political spectrum they just hear socialism and automatically think communism. In reality it does not matter whether it is the government or a private corporation making everyone else miserable with their misguided policies because one is no different then the other.
"Ultimately, that's up to the individual employers"
So the employers can pay them more? Whether in cash, goods or services, how is that socialism? You will soon have rich and poor again.
As for capitalism having the rich-richer and poor-poorer, that is false. Certainly the rich get richer under capitalism, but the poor are also richer than in socialist and/or communist countries. So both get richer. In socialism the rich get poorer and the poor get poorer, as few incentives to produce.
Robin Hood stole taxes from the corrupt Government of King John and gave the money back to the people whom which it was taken! Robin Hood was a defender of property rights, not a crusader of socialism!
I don't wanna be part of a group forcefully! I'd rather not live in Sparta! Where they threw away children if they weren't beneficial to the Group, where they stole children at seven to be part of the group! No thank you!
rehwr 9 hours ago
you must be rich
sistaterra 7 months ago
A business is an organization with the goal of bringing about a mutual benefit to itself and those with whom it conducts business. Capitalism is made of businesses. So capitalistic societies are largely built off of mutually beneficial relationships. Money is a way to vote on what you like in society: the more successful you are, the more votes you get. As you spend money, you are “shaping” society to [your preferences] * [the weight of your success].
dombon6 1 year ago
Society and losers benefit from the “winner-loser” system. The loser benefits because he learned that his idea sucked (or someone could do it better) and so he should not waste his time, energy, and money. Society benefits because the good things get better (like your computer) and crappy things (things no one wants) stop being produced. Yes, there are still poor people, but the “rich” have made production so efficient that even the homeless can be fed, clothed, & some even have cell phones.
dombon6 1 year ago
A large disparity between the rich and the poor isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The richest person will still benefit the poorest. If he invests in stocks: he causes businesses to grow, production becomes more efficient and reaches more people, & people are employed. If he puts it in the bank, banks can loan it to people. If he starts a business and it succeeds, society logically benefits from it or it would have failed (see above). If he spends his money, his money is transferred to that place.
dombon6 1 year ago
@dombon6 Watch the Boondock Saints (1999), they were still using beepers and payphones. Cell phones existed back then but they were still bulky and expensive. But this was when rich people invested in them (by buying), and tested them (by using), and weeded out the crappy ones (by buying the “not crappy” ones). Today, 12 years later, we have “Smart Phones”.
dombon6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A large disparity between the rich and the poor isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The richest person will still benefit the poorest. If he invests in stocks: he causes businesses to grow, production becomes more efficient and reaches more people, & people are employed. If he puts it in the bank, banks can loan it to people. If he starts a business and it succeeds, society logically benefits from it or it would have failed (see above). If he spends his money, his money is transferred to that place.
dombon6 1 year ago
"rich people are rich because of rich parents". This is true in some cases, but most cases people become rich by doing something that society values. And related to inheritance: Talent is passed down from one generation to another (through good genes), and there is nothing wrong with that, so why is there something wrong about passing down wealth.
TheSAMathematician 1 year ago
We have safety nets put in place for the losers. These safety nets include welfare.
Competition is best for society. As people get richer, it means that they produced something the people wanted. The competition brings the maximum efficiency to society. More goods are produced, so more goods can go around.
TheSAMathematician 1 year ago
You assume that people in general are willing to do something for nothing. You also assume that other people are willing to give away stuff to people who are not doing anything. People are rational competitive maximizers. Why would I work 50 hours a week if I get the same for working 10 hours a week? I wouldn't.
TheSAMathematician 1 year ago
And then your rich people (your talented people) move away and stop generating wealth. Since you are without the most talented members of your society, the production in society stagnates and everyone is poorer. Capitalism makes EVERYONE richer (some richer than others). Socialism makes EVERYONE poorer.
TheSAMathematician 1 year ago
Good man!!!!! Love it!!!!
juiposa 1 year ago
i stopped at 1:34 cause it was taking waaaayyyyy tooooo long for you to get your point across... from what i got you seem to think that socialism would "level the playing field". well it would, except for the government officials. they would become the "rich", and everyone else would be the "poor". then, if you wanted a "good job" that pays a little more, you'd have to join with the state, most likely in the military, if its not already a requirement. i.e. USSR, China, N. Korea..
HELLDOGGER 1 year ago
@HELLDOGGER The USSR, N. Korea and China are Totalitarian Communist Societies, completely separate from Social Democracy.
juiposa 1 year ago
@HELLDOGGER & its in a socialistic society where you would most likely find the modern Robin Hood. He didn't rob the rich to help the poor. He specifically targeted the politically rich (who then gained wealth through their political power): Prince John, Sheriff of N.Ham (and tax collectors), and Church officials who were also political powerhouses back then (tons of land, money, King needed church's permission to reign, etc). Robin Hood even robbed an abbot to save a knight's (nobleman) land.
dombon6 1 year ago
Robin Hood stole for the tax collectors (government) to give to the poor, he wasn't a socialist, he was freedom fighter.
Billythepeon 1 year ago
So Robin Hood is a communist story?
Well... wait... duh... Stealing from the rich and giving the poor.
Morally right, for as long as the rich you're stealing from is greedy and deserves to have their money taken. I wouldn't want to steal and honest & hard working rich man's money-- yes this rare specias does in fact exist. Not as funny if someone who rightfully earned their money gets it taken from them.
TourettesSomething 1 year ago
In Robin Hood, The rich got their wealth from taxes taken from the poor. That was not capitalism that robin hood was against that was tyranny.
666or999 1 year ago
libertarianism is interpretive like all systems of govt. things arent blk/wht. a poorly run capitalist system isnt "better" than a well run socialist sys and vica versa. govt depends on the capability and interests of the ppl running it. we have lotsa needless law on books that if werent, that if society were more libertarian , society wud run just fine. exp, blu law. itll be ok if you buy furniture on sunday, and many more laws too
adzug 1 year ago
Wow. I wish I could get those 9 minutes of my life back.
I think this poor kid has mental development issues. He has no grasp on reality.
accountstube 2 years ago
but he makes an argument, a point. right or wrong. you just say you think he crazy.
adzug 1 year ago
@accountstube
juiposa 1 year ago
But you seem not to know very much about the topic. So I would suggest you to read further to inform yourself a more about socialistics countries, and compare their system to the capitalistics one. Then make a research on where are the countries where most people are leaving from, and where are they heading to. Not to the socialistics ones, but actually running from them. I highly recommend you to do this before you present your speech in front of an audience if you dont want to look like a fool
RASTAMEN91 2 years ago
Now, about the story of Robin Hood, if you actually read it or watched the movie, you would find interesting that the ''RICH GUYS" that Robin Hood took stuff from, where the abusive leaders that, in the first place, took that stuff away from the people, BY F0RCE. exactly what happens in a socialistic society.
RASTAMEN91 2 years ago
If it weren't for Adam Smith's ideas, the entrepreneurs, that created and provided you with everything you buy on the free market, wouldn't have taken the risk of investing on their business and PERSUADE you to buy their stuff. Because obviously the company where you, or your parents, purchased that videocamera, persuaded them to do it, they did not take your money away by F0RCE like the socialistic leaders do.
RASTAMEN91 2 years ago
Dear Dude, for what I can look around your room, you don't seem to be very "Socialistic". The credit for pretty much all the stuff you have in there, starting from the camera you are using to record this crapy speech, needs to be given to the "Evil" capitalist society that you are criticizing.
RASTAMEN91 2 years ago
You are stupid!! How can u say that wealthy will stay will get richer and the poor people get worst!!!!!!!! Im sorry YOU are an idiot!
Do YOU think anyone will make more jobs available for people if the successful people are being punished for being successful, they would not want to spend their business or employ stupid not so productive people like you.
The losers oh poor them, maybe they go out of business because their product or service is bad! Dont you think you would go to a place
Christophermdh 2 years ago
with better service instead of going to a horrible establishment where the service is bad? They should get ELIMINATED!!!
Winners are best because they won!! Stupid
Libertarianism has nothing to do with capitalism
Dude Government CANT valance the market!!
Socialism is an ideology; ideology because its not fair for the rich to have so much money is fair a law or an ideology? Well cant ask you. So I ask whoever read this
Real evidence? Remember when what happened with socialism?
Christophermdh 2 years ago
You are retarded!
Capitalism is reality, capitalism is based on self-interest, and dont you always want what is best for you?
Well for fools like you socialism would be amazing because you are a fool a loser that has nothing, no aspiration of your own so you need the government to give you things so you would survive. Well keep thinking that look at Cuba and what Venezuela is starting to be .. No social liberty, no private property
Christophermdh 2 years ago
( Hmmm that sounds like whats mine is mine, whats yours we share)
OMG U stupid everything u said!! Its really annoying just hear U talk.
Is not supported by the rich, they are supported by smarter people, that believe they could be someone in the future and they just dont stay there and wait for the government to give them stuff.
There are so many other things that I could say to you but its too late and I dont want to waste more time on this crap!
Christophermdh 2 years ago
@Christophermdh I completely agree with you, it is really sad that there are some IGN0RANTS out there who think that socialism benefits people. It benefits Lazy and useless people who are doing N0THING from society but they want to receive a profit for posting senseless videos in youtube talking against "Evil Capitalism", but because we capitalists believe in freedom, I will not say anything against these sort of fools :)
RASTAMEN91 2 years ago
I would argue the opposite. I think that capitalism grows the middle class, while communism makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Socialism would fall somewhere between depending on how many sectors of the economy are socialized. We do need some basic safety nets, which is where capitalism fails, but I think that the more free the market is, the less safety nets we will need.
enomarekim 2 years ago
It's funny that anyone who is educated in the US seems to believe that capitalism is near perfect, and the greatest system on earth with virtually no faults. While it is true that communism, the highest form of socialism according to Lenin, failed miserably, and created poverty stricken dictatorships for the most part, aside from Tito of Yugoslavia. The problem with capitalism is that it's Darwinistic, being that only the "strongest" survive. Also, China and Russia were once capitalist.
incognito322 2 years ago
I used to live in China, and I know the history very well because a lot of my family lived through it. Before the communist party took over in China, the divide between rich and poor was huge. Also, China and Russia did not give rights or freedom to people even when they were capitalist. The National party of China was capitalist. In fact, most people who were less fortunate were either paid very little, or put in slavery; hence, why people went commie, but it didn't fix the problems.
incognito322 2 years ago
Comment removed
incognito322 2 years ago
I was under the impression that Robin Hood did not "Steal from the Rich to Give to the Poor." Wasn't it all about a corrupt government (The Sheriff) which demanded unfair taxes? Robin Hood takes these taxes back and gives them to those who lost their property. It was Justice for the people, and only Stealing in the eyes of the government that hunted him.
TelletheElder 2 years ago
America has the RICHEST poor people in the world because of Capitalsm. Elsewhere in the world - poor means POOR! You have been brainwashed like all the others who vote for politicians like Obama. And you sound like Lenin of the USSR. That was a great experiment.
dalepremier 2 years ago
you talk about brainwashing??? Its funny that you say people who have a left wing ideology are brainwashed when cleary the guy speaking is like an american os some sh!t like that and the fact that every american is brainwashed to think that anything associated with communism is bad bad through and through bad.... Let me also remind you that America has also some of the poorest people in the world which are in the same League as 3rd world counties! Hypocrite!
Manymemz 2 years ago
actually, in Scandinavia: the poor are way better off. and they have massive government programs. oil companies are owned by the state, so is schools and hospitals. and sub-sahara africa is very capitalist/img/world bank-oriented. so is china with it's slave workers for nike. the facts are the opposite of what you are describing.
lampeskjermer 2 years ago
@lampeskjermer
But what will happen when the oil reserves dry up. The scandanavian countries can't base their entire system on the money it gets from oil. In China, alot of people are moving out of poverty because factory jobs pay much better than substinance farming. African countries are screwed up because of empirialism, and the world bank puts these nations into debt, it does not help them. The world bank is just and idea from people who advocate a centrally planned economy.
enomarekim 2 years ago
Ok, I commend you for expressing your beliefs. I however disagree with you on most everything. You have this idea of "society". You have to understand that as humans we need a reason to work harder, and competitive market is the reason for that. If I'm lazy and the person next door to me isnt, who is going to purchase my service? Do they want to purchase from a lazy person who's product or service is garbage? or my neighbor who works their butt off who's product is very good.
childofthekorn1318 2 years ago
Cooperation, not competition.
BlacKiddX 2 years ago
wow, that was painful. did you rehearse or prethink any of your thoughts. I thought I may see a valid discussion but that was a weak rant with poor examples, and vague throughout. The comments on this page hold more insight
jtitdawg 2 years ago
In Capitalism, the rich get richer, and the poor get richer, but slower. Socialism is fundamentally based on theft. Any system that has theft at its core definitely will not be moral at any other point.
Psychosmurf547 2 years ago
the robin hood thing really was a failure. in robin hood, the rich never earned their money, they didnt work hard. today you dont see rich people coming up to poor people and holding a gun to their head, demanding their money.
bgsdfhugvufbgv 2 years ago
oh yea..socialism makes sense now. just give your hard earned money to poor people.....thats the dumest idea ive ever heard. Cuz socialism worked so amazingly well for Russia!
bgsdfhugvufbgv 2 years ago 2
Socialism in the form of Communism, is horrible, we need Social Democracy.
BlacKiddX 2 years ago
soviet was horrible. true. and social democracy is way better. but we don't need any capitalism. we need both political and economic democracy. otherwise it's not real democracy. dare to struggle: dare to win!
lampeskjermer 2 years ago
This has got to be one of the worst political videos I've ever seen...
211Anon 2 years ago
WOw, I'm really amazed about how much quazi-intellectualism on the internet... No i'm not... People know nothing about economics or industrial structure. most of what you are saying either doesn't refer to this world or can be empirically proven to lessen general social welfare. If I had time I could use utilitarian calculus to show how all forms of socialism diminish general welfare and social utility. You are very uneducated. I would strongly recommend u marginalism and un applied econ...
ChoronzonicChaos333 2 years ago
You are a seriously confused young man. And I assume you have no money.
rhodi100 2 years ago
Capitalism is for tools. (and libertarianism is for tools with a punk ass attitude and delusions of intellectuality.) People who support the aristocracy of the wealthy and honestly think they can join it through hard work.
More like 'back to work drone!'
The really smart people are either socialists or liberals. (or they ARE capitalists but are actually atop the pyramid, instead of little people in the street dumb enough to support them.)
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
LOL. A lot of rich people became rich through working hard. Look up Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford. They all went from rags to riches.
Secondly, capitalism does not make the poor poorer. If it does, then why were poor Americans much poorer 200 years ago than they are now? Why can many poor people in third world countries afford cell phones? Wouldn't those "evil capitalists" keep everything away from the poor?
Justgetout 2 years ago
why would they dumbness that is how the rich make more money either owning or holding stock in companies that takes advantage of its users! you p o s! puto ay ayay aiy 22 centimetros buey ariba ariba andale............ha ha
revolver22zero9 2 years ago
revolver22zero9 you are full of nonsense!!!!!!!!!!
Justgetout 2 years ago
People are very uneducated in general. The world economy isn't a zero sum game. Everyone gets richer when 1 person does through markets. People who make alot only do so because they are performing a highly valued task that isn't performed enough. As enough firms perform that task the profit goes down. The most high paid execs are doing a task creates the most value for society vs other alternatives.
ChoronzonicChaos333 2 years ago
Comment removed
Justgetout 2 years ago
The rich have been getter richer but so have the poor, just not at the same rate (look at the data). If poverty is defined as some percentage of income, you'll will always have a lower class. If you had it your way, we would all be equal...just equally poor! Take a look at South America.
The problem with Robin Hood is that the story doesn't take into account that people respond to incentives.
I would pose to you to show that altruism truly exists in society and nature.
nospam2318 2 years ago
We wouldn't all be equal. A higher, progressive tax rate just decreases the rate at which your wealth increases. But your wealth still increases if you do more work and have a higher base salary.
BenkaiDebussy 2 years ago
That isnt necessarily always true. Look at it from an extreme perspective. Imagine what a world would look like if you taxed people who work 100% and transfer all of that income to people who dont work. How many people do you think would be left workingnone! As such, we would all be equally poor.
If ones logic doesnt hold in the extremes, then its flawed.
nospam2318 2 years ago
Check out the venus project about a resource base economy which has some promise to it but is still a work in progress idea.
charronfamilyconnect 2 years ago
With all of our latest technology innovations I don't understand why we even have poverty, and situations where people dont even have the basics of life. This is a sad state of affairs and I think the underlying problem behind this situation is the monetary system and the elites controlling it, the flow of money/credit that is. Why does everything have to boil down to how much $ you have for even the basics of life. Its time we evolve as a species!!
charronfamilyconnect 2 years ago
the2nd group can use all theircollective resources to utilize the latest technolody to produce all of the basics of lif without the need for money.then if they get really motivated to get a plasma tv or lamborghinithen can opt out of this facility type of group and go into the purely free market economy. This 2nd tier can be an alternative to welfare and develope the skills of the participants where they can choose to enter the winner circle of free market economy once they acquire the skill set
charronfamilyconnect 2 years ago
The government's role is not to balance out our society. However, I do believe that all of us should have choice, and so I am proposing something different. How about we have a 2 tiered economy. One where the well to do can continue to market unneeded junk that ends up in landfills, and one where the not so well off can operate under some municipal cooperative to produce all the basics of life like food, clothes and shelter. the 2nd group can use all their collective resources to
charronfamilyconnect 2 years ago
I do agree with your comments about capitalism leading to a winners and losers situation or have and have nots, because not everyone is smart enough to make it in this kind of system. If you have a true capitalist/free market system and if everyone is given a fair chance to complete or market their particular skills/servives eventually the whole society benefits. the problem is our monetary sytem and oligarchy system. Governments purpose is to protect us and ensure our ownership rights.
charronfamilyconnect 2 years ago
Would money be eliminated in your ideal socialist society?
eurohim 2 years ago 2
you have EVERYTHING backwards.
Government creates poverty and inequality
FREE trade competition creates innovation and wealth government takes wealth and messes with markets. There has never been capitalism we currently have a mixed economy with a government which corrupts company's and create monopoly's.
Eldel15 2 years ago 2
Sorry I was not in my right mind when I wrote that comment 9 hours ago. Anyway, I think libertarianism is a good concept but I'd prefer a mixed government of capitalism and libertarianism. You have to realize, when EVERY business is socialized, you lose the element of competition. :)
caffeine4671 2 years ago
Yeah man. I agree with you.
caffeine4671 2 years ago
capitalism vs. communism. It's basically an arms race if you think about it.
caffeine4671 2 years ago
what?
DeanMoriarty0 2 years ago
Capitalism is responsible for most of the world's wealth, and with the rise in the real wages and standard of living in the world.
Sorry, but government didn't get humanity where it is today.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
Most people who don't get rich were not previously poor?!?!?! Utter Rubbish!!! What about the millions of immigrants that flocked into the US in the early 20th century who came from impoverished conditions?The did not stay poor! What about places like Hong Kong and New Zealand? They were once poor countries! Since Capitalism was brought to there country , they've become some of the richest countries on the planet!
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
Not True. The rich get richer and so do the poor. If you do a quick google search on income statistics, you will find that 90 percent of the people who make up the top one percent of the highest income earners in the US were not born with the wealth they've acquired!
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
so are you for communism??? it doesnt work
frolfer88 3 years ago
I must interject again, this film uses a lot of emotional reasons, yet very little reason. Capitalism should ensure quality control for the customer. The most chaotic unfriendly places in the United States are things run by the government, such as DMV (where you get license renewed.) It is an ineffecient place that would be much friendler/effieicent if there ass was on the line, like non-government buisness.
Freecell5671 3 years ago
Wealthy people are wealthy because they work harder and are smarter than poor people. Smart people deserve better things. Anyone willing to work hard, who is smart can become rich (at least in America, Switzerland, Australia, ect), places where capitalism is the policy. As for giving my wealth to people who I don't know, Fuck that. I don't know who they are and I don't care what they have or don't have. Honest person <<<------
Freecell5671 3 years ago
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. . .
can you explain how the rich have all the power?
can you explain how the rich became rich in the first place?
(if the rich became rich through hardwork, is it fair to take from them and give to those who feel they deserve something, just for being born?)
JAROSLAVAGINA 3 years ago
In the case of robin hood, do you not feel that he was taking from those who stole form the poor (socialism?) and gave it back? (King John's High Taxes, F.E.)
Do you not feel that loosing in capitalism is motivation for the loosers to try again and improve, while socialism does nothing?
Your Definition of Libertarianism is Wrong.
(Socialists are HARDCORE Idealistic)
Have Socialists looked at the example, the evidence, given by the Former Soviet Unions Success?
JAROSLAVAGINA 3 years ago
YAY SOCIALISM!! You rock Man!
ballofuzz 3 years ago
I see your heart felt concern with the disparity of wealth. I found long ago that my education was severely lacking because my economics professors failed to define capital properly because they lumped land in with capital completely confusing the distinction between the two. The point is that the return to capital (tools of production) is earned while the return to land/natural resources is wholly unearned because the value of land is created 100% by the community and not by individual owners.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Sorry for the rest of you I know that is WAY off topic.
Ohman9264 3 years ago
Socialism are for lazy bums and lazy thinkers.
AlterSpades 3 years ago
Do you live in S. Korea, Cuba or China? If not, why? The Jamestown settlement experimented to find what would work, they tried socialism and too many wanted to eat without working. When they gave a plot of land to each and said, grow food on it or die, the settlement became successful. The experiment has been conducted on our continent and the lessons learned.
Proverbs 12:11
He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.
Pathfinder767 3 years ago
Haha bible quote? Since when should I give a shit about what that book says? You might as well have just quoted a Harry Potter book.
Ohman9264 3 years ago
The Bible is the best selling book in human history. It has had a profound influence on culture. If you read classic literature in order to see how it has influenced the world you found yourself in, you must include the Bible in your list of important books. Your statement reveals you to be an uneducated person.
Pathfinder767 3 years ago
That's not really what I was questioning with that statement. I was questioning how useful the bible is compared to a book like Harry Potter. For your information I have read the bible. It's a lovely story just don't think it's all that useful as far as being a moral guide. Many of the good behaviors it encourages are things that already exist in natural good human behavior. It's sad that you would assume that I'm so "uneducated."
Ohman9264 3 years ago
Capitalism is horrible.
DblOSmith 3 years ago 2
Socialist societies cause the greatest division of man. I feel the division lies between the ruling olagarchy and the homogenous masses.
However, a Constitutional Republic offers freedom, encourages inovation and protects individualism. The role of this type of government is to simply do one thing;PROTECT YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. This type of society requires good will and personal responsibility. However, it seemed to work for our Founding Fathers. Sorry for any typos. Look into Ron Paul.
Torcehorse 3 years ago
Economics 101: you decide to tax people with money and capital at a high rate: it will not be worth it for them to expand and increase capital investment. The economy will slow, creativity will decline and the government will have less money to give to the poor. Everyone ends up poorer. Do yourself a hugh favor and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to get a view from the other side.
dj1067 3 years ago
libertarianism is based on noncoersion. The government exists as a coersive entity. You obviously have no idea of libertarianism. Basically what your saying is that regular citizens do not have the right to steal, but the government does via taxes. What so many socialists don't realize is that socialism is by nature a coersive violent system. Its based upon theft. Citizen: "The money I earn is my own" Socialist: " To bad if you dont give it to us we will throw in jail".
napalmtube 3 years ago
I was a socialist for some time granted I wasnt a state socialist, I was an anarcho-socialist. You say that libertarianism is based on Idealism...and socialism isnt? You think everyone in society wants to live a life for the collective? If want to live as a free indivual what happens? In the market anarchist or libertarian system, if you want to live in communes and live a life for the collective then by all means do it. Your free to associate with whom you please.
napalmtube 3 years ago
In the socialist system you are forced to live this altruistic life, in libertarianism its your choice. If you want a purely deomocratic system of governing then buy all means do it...as its your choice to associate and make contract with whom you please..but don't force it on me friend. If you want a purely democrat union in control of a said factory.. go for it...but don't attempt to rob me or penalize me for owning my own factory.
napalmtube 3 years ago
Its all comes down to morality. Do you belive theft is justifiable? Do you belive the state a voilent coresive entity is valid? If you do then it really doesnt matter if what side of the political spectrum you sit on..you are an athoritarian. There are plenty of libertarian socialists. All libertarian means is lack of government control and maximum liberty. I gave your video 5 stars for some decent questions. I apologize for spelling errors I was a little fired up.
napalmtube 3 years ago
In general, I'm strongly opposed to authoritarianism. The problem is how to remove one authority (say the government) without having it replaced by another authority (say rich people and big corporations). I advocate a transfer of authority from corporations to the government, in the hopes that it will be more fair to society.
Stephen5000 3 years ago
Ultimately, how a government is run is an important factor. Frankly, many of the governments we've seen around the world would encourage people to adopt a libertarian outlook. I'd support it myself, but I just find it impractical. Any unprecedented system is largely idealist until its put into practice. The best for the near future is probably to approach the issues one step at a time.
Stephen5000 3 years ago
so in your view nobody has ever become "rich" on their own merits
jblive1985 3 years ago 2
Exactly. Authoritarianism is dangerous because a majority can than destroy any opposing minority.
SmileNow2 3 years ago
Most people are ignorant about the authoritarian vs. libertarian factor of the political spectrum they just hear socialism and automatically think communism. In reality it does not matter whether it is the government or a private corporation making everyone else miserable with their misguided policies because one is no different then the other.
SmileNow2 3 years ago
How do you (Socialism) give incentives to workers to perform more than the minimum expected amounts?
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago
Ultimately, that's up to the individual employers. Ideally, of course, people will choose jobs that they enjoy and care about doing.
Stephen5000 3 years ago
"Ultimately, that's up to the individual employers"
So the employers can pay them more? Whether in cash, goods or services, how is that socialism? You will soon have rich and poor again.
As for capitalism having the rich-richer and poor-poorer, that is false. Certainly the rich get richer under capitalism, but the poor are also richer than in socialist and/or communist countries. So both get richer. In socialism the rich get poorer and the poor get poorer, as few incentives to produce.
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago
I think we're using different definitions of socialism - I don't mean communism, just a system with some redistribution of wealth.
There are not and never have been any ACTUAL communist countries, just authoritarian dictatorships that claim to be socialist or communist.
Stephen5000 3 years ago