Juraj musí pomôcť (George ought to help) + slovenské titulky

[ss9922]

George is broke too.  student loans.

[arseniyonline1234555]

This video is wrong analogy simply because forcing someone into doing something yourself is subjective and in this case would be spontaneous, whether a majority voting and deciding it is a law and having that law put in place fo some time is entirly different. Presenting this as if the analogy is correct and trying to make people feel guilty and a hypocrite for believing in a welfare system, is a nice try. To be perfectly honest with you I'd rather they sat on welfare than derailing my trains

[arseniyonline1234555]

that's a wrong analogy. everything else is democratically voted for, why should this be an exception? i don't want my money to go on military. i just want to help oliver, what choice do i have? once again the right wing mindset acts like the victim of society. while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. and the social mobility dies off, creating a class system. btw, tuition should be free in the first place.

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 we have a massive redistribution of wealth and rich get richer and poor get poorer, can't you see the parallel?

"tuition should be free in the first place" - is the need of one man the duty of another?

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 society can be judged by the treatment of its most vulnerable. Need of one child is a duty of the society he/she grows up in. A right to be able to read. A right to healthcare. A right to move up economic class without disproportionate odds systematically set against them.

[thefish103]

@arseniyonline1234555 perhaps you may choose to judge a society by the treatment of it's most vulnerable, but that does not necessitate a central governing body using force to provide education and healthcare. Likewise, I do not expect, nor do I want, society to raise my children. That is a responsibility and privilege I accept on my own.

[swoldier1016]

@arseniyonline1234555 The "rights" that you claim someone is entitled to implies the use of force against another individual for compliance. Healthcare is not free. Your view of the world is entirely degenerative and leads to misery for the vast population whenever it is applied. Do some research on the Soviet Union before you praise the policies of failed socialist states.

[thestrugglewithin]

@swoldier1016

I'm sure you already see all this, but its my generation(1986) and the future generations, that have been educated to be socialists by public education.

I was told in highschool, that an example of left-wing was the present government (new zealand), and that a R-wing example was called facism - like hitler.

its no wonder that these seeds are sown by union-member teachers. Integrated propaganda.

Would you agree that the liberal movement of the 60's was the lead up to all this?

[thestrugglewithin]

@TuNeCedeMalis11

EXACTLY RIGHT.

You outlined the farce of a socialistic mindset to a T.

[thefish103]

@arseniyonline1234555 On what moral grounds is it my responsibility to pay for your tuition?

[arseniyonline1234555]

@thefish103 social mobility and equality. If everyone's tuition is free, that means you get (would have got) yours for free too, and a TINY portion of your tax is taken to pay for others throughout your lifetime.

[thefish103]

@arseniyonline1234555 Please define social mobility and equality as a moral doctrine for me (seriously). I also have a difficult time understanding how tuition/education can be made free. Unless educators are willing to provide a service w/o compensation there is a cost that someone must bear. If everyone is forced to pay a portion, then social equality is denied when one individual receives a higher quantity or quality of education than another.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@thefish103 in uk uni was free up until 1996 or 1997. not to mention healthcare is still free (for now). "You can test a society by looking how it treats its most vulnerable" - Ghandi. Morality is something subjective, and for you altruism doesn't seem to be part of it

[thefish103]

@arseniyonline1234555 again I would dispute your claim that edu or healthcare can be provided for free (again please provide support for your claim), and in matters of subjectivity should we be employing force to obtain compliance. Mao's subjective version of morality led to the deaths of millions.

[thefish103]

@arseniyonline1234555 Another point to be made. I am simply trying to understand your point of view. My version of morality says that one should not force their views upon others, so I try to use reason and persuasion. I also donate >10% of my gross income (before taxes are confiscated) to charitable causes, and I spent 2 yrs of my life, on my own dime, as a service missionary. So making sweeping accusations regarding my altruism is not helping your argument. Cheers.

[soupwell]

@arseniyonline1234555 "Morality is something subjective." As long as you believe that, you will eventually wind up with "the ends justifies the means" being used to rationalize some pretty awful behavior.

Morality has a very real basis. Any action must always obey the Non-Aggression Principle. This is the only objective basis that allows all human beings to live on equal footing with regard to one another.

Voluntary action beyond that is open for debate, but the basis is crucial.

[thestrugglewithin]

@arseniyonline1234555

democracy? lol

"democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting 'whats for dinner'".

The financial status of all people is their own personal resposibility.

If I have a bigger cake than you, why should I give a bigger portion?

Last time I checked, 45% doesnt equal 35%.

So much for fairness and democracy.

What you do with your money is absolutely none of my business. Visa versa.

The very cry 'rich get richer, poor get poorer' is a victim cry against society.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@thestrugglewithin ok so the poor majority are the ruthless wolves, while the rich are the poor helpless sheep, that's THE most awesome analogy attempt I've ever come across! I assume that you would be against incapacity benefits too. This would be called lack of empathy, it is a trait of narcissism, look it up, go see a doctor about it if you don't believe in social healthcare or incapacity benefit.

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 "I assume that you would be against incapacity benefits too. " - as long as they involve using violence against one man to help another (e.g. taxes) because if you destroy morality at the very beginning of your action (using violence against peaceful individuals) I care not what honorable intention you have with stolen money. It's all just discussing the consequences of immorality. Pleas search for Stefan Molyneux videos.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 there is a limit to how much freedom you can have before you start taking another man's freedom away. this is what you anti regulation guys don't get.

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 libertarians define freedom as "freedom from coercion from other individuals", therefore by definition freedom of one individual can't take another man's freedom away, because all men are egual (have equal rights). What we anti regulation guys don't get is where some individuals get the right to coerce other individuals e.g. IRS guy can take my money, can I take his? Or a policeman can kidnap me if I don't obey his will, do I have this right as well?

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 the IRS guy gets taxed as well. And the policeman thing, it's not kidnap, he don't decide if you go to jail, the courts do, all they can do is detain you for a while if you done an offence. The truth is, once you make yourself relatively wealthy, it is much easier to create more wealth from that, therefor you get taxed more. Imagine if there was an RPG where it's hard to level in the beginning, and then you have it easy in the end. That would be boring and no one would play it.

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 " the IRS guy gets taxed as well." I wasn't asking if he get's raped as well, but where does his right to coerce me come from? Do I have the same right? Aren't all men equal? "he don't decide if you go to jail, the courts do" - for me it doesnt matter who decides, where do they get this right? Do I have the same right to impose my will on people? The rest - no, the wealtier you are its more difficult to keep it, thats why welathy people use state to hamper competition.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 he gets this right from voters. you don't have this right, because you are not elected by the people to have the right, feel free to start you political party and get a majority, see how that works out. The wealthier you are the MUCH more easier it is, trust me. you just don't realize and get consumed by your own greed and materialism.

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 "he gets this right from voters. you don't have this right" - do a voters have right to coerce other people (e.g. force their neighbor to obey their will)? If not, how can they give this right, that they don't have, to other person, who doesn't have it as well and magically this right appears. So you're saying, finally, is that men are not equal. It's like I can't kill or steal, neither you, but if I tell you to kill or steal its suddenly ok and legit. Government is magic!

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 Ok keep believing in your freedom to exploit people and telling yourself you don't take another persons freedom away

[TuNeCedeMalis11]

@arseniyonline1234555 so not coercing people and advocating only voluntary cooperation is exploiting but using violence and forcing people is social justice? If you want to use violence against non-violent people at least don't hide yourself behind the mask of philanthropist.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@TuNeCedeMalis11 The word violence is very badly used here, it's not really violence is it? and if it is, it is only a fraction of what violence is. 'Voluntary' that is because they wouldn't have much other choice, be exploited or die of hunger. That's why there are taxes and regulations in place. Your ideology is ignorant about poverty, and only consists of self interest, expanding self wealth. It would isolate all public services including schools, then you'll see some real violence.

[bitbutter]

@arseniyonline1234555 "The word violence is very badly used here, it's not really violence is it?"

It certainly is. All law is ultimately backed by (and works because of) the ultimate threat of deadly force. If the mugger never actually has to cut anyone like he threatens to, do you conclude that what he's doing is non-violent? I don't think so

Certain laws, such as those related to tax, direct these threats at peaceful people.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@bitbutter you r not gonna get physically cut tho, so what you are saying over exaggerates the argument and is a fallacy. Just coz your tax get wasted and you don't see much back from them doesn't mean that tax is a bad thing, it means the government is doing a shit job with them.

[bitbutter]

@arseniyonline1234555 "so what you are saying over exaggerates the argument and is a fallacy"

The analogy actually understates the violence--the state will not only cut you, it will sooner kill you rather than leave you alone (at least with a mugger you may be able to fight him off). Please think carefully about this: All law is backed by the ultimate threat of deadly force, this is why it's effective.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@bitbutter more fallacy by being way too subjective, you ignored my main point. Ultimately the reason you pay tax and a bit of it goes to the unemployed (most of whom want to work) is so you don't get mugged or cut in the first place. Poverty = crime

[bitbutter]

@arseniyonline1234555 "more fallacy by being way too subjective"

I don't know what you mean. If you believe something i said is false, please explain what and why.

Your 'main point': "Just coz your tax get wasted[..] doesn't mean that tax is a bad thing, "

You're misunderstanding. The reason those here who oppose taxation do so isn't because they think taxes aren't used well, but because taxation necessarily means maintaining threats of violence against peaceful people.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@bitbutter well most of people that think your way tend to come from america where tax money is used on crap, they've never even had a proper healthcare system, so they see little coming back from their tax. The ratio of people that can read and write there is pathetic for a developed country. Crime is at its highest of the developed world, and everyone sees it as the stupidest nation in the world, because not enough goes to education, if tax was more efficiently used, there'd be less complains.

[thestrugglewithin]

@arseniyonline1234555

lol I like how you immediately interpreted my analogy to mean that the rich are the sheep, what a socialistic inferiority complex. The analogy applies to both ends: democracy is a farce of equality.

51% of people get their say, and 49% do not? Its bullshit.

I believe in benefit and community assistence for those that DESERVE it.

[arseniyonline1234555]

@thestrugglewithin we were talking on this issue, and you brought up the analogy, so it was common sense to assess what you meant. Trying to say that i saw it that way out of nowhere because i'm a socialist is a joke. Or are you trying to say you've randomly, for no reason changed the subject then, and the analogy was about something completely different? It doesn't have to be a two party system. I never said that community assistance should always be given freely to everyone.

[thestrugglewithin]

@arseniyonline1234555

The socialist system *always* ends up with such benefits being abused. Show me one socialist government where this did not occur - it doesnt exist because the socialist justice system is not strict enough to enforce against it.

The wolves & sheep analogy is about democracy *alone*, not about left vs right I only mentioned the progressive tax the emphasize the farce of democracy.

[MacGhil]

Very good.

Isn't there another about George trying to start a business, and govt regulations that make it so hard? I can't find it anywhere.

[bitbutter]

@MacGhil No, George is the only one I published so far (the sequel is uploading as we speak though).

[superangrybrit]

Very progressive video. Well done!

[PsychHunter]

Exactly! Socialism exists by force. The 2 biggest Socialist Parties ever, resulted in millions of deaths.

Hitler, leader of the NAZI's ( Germany's National Socialist Party ) killed at least 6 million in WWII.

Stalin, Russia's Socialist leader, killed at least 20 million.

The problem with Socialism is that everything is owned by the government or publicly, supposedly through voluntary cooperation. But when they couldn't get that cooperation, they used force, as this video points out.

[donalddeano]

I pretty sure this is redistribution by income?

[donalddeano]

Isn't this Socialism by force?

[frongjumping]

I think the class warfare goons currently marching in Madison, WI all need to be rounded up and made to watch this. They seem to quite enamored of using the state to indirectly threaten and steal from the rich, so they shouldn't mind having the state force them to watch this short little video, right?

[jeffwoehrle]

Cartoons are helpful in making liberals understand basic concepts. Cartoons play to their 'creative' side...and we know how creative liberals are.

[jollytroopersucks]

Even liberals should be able to understand this. Brilliant.

[bitbutter]

Thanks for translating this! Would you mind sending me the translation file so that I can add it to the original video?