@TomReeseqazwsx I plan to do a vid later explaining this in further detail but in a nutshell, while statists may CLAIM that they don't worship the state as a god, they frequently make arguments that presuppose that those in the state are perfectly moral and all knowing. What's worse, when I bring up these issues, they either refuse to respond or get offended at me. What am I to conclude?
People say lots of things, the truth is in what they do.
The part on redistribution of wealth about "the more labour you put in the more you put out" is false. For example, a person could scrape and toil at poop, but it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere.
Rather, it is the more subjective value you produce the more subjective value you get out.
Free Markets punish charity. Any money toward charity a person spends is less money they have for investment opportunities. Stop trying to set the world on fire in the name of your ideological purity. Humans do not follow the NAP.
Your bit about environmentalism was a joke. Governments are the biggest polluters? Since when?
Democratic States do not differentiate between the Government and the people. If you don't agree with it, then go live in the fucking woods. The State won't follow you.
The state will follow you into the woods. People have tried it. You have to pay property taxes on the woods, lots of it isn't for sale in the first place because BS fiat land claims by the government, you are still subject to all their arbitrary laws, etc.
If that were true and we could secede our own property from the state, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the government.
@ContractorTwobitz Except that charity IS an investment, just not a monetary one. If you actually understood capitalism is more than just "MONIES!!", you'd know that.
Governments deficit spend, that means you are consuming more than you are producing and is all the proof you need.
The approval rating for the state in general in the US right now is 6%. If your "we are the state" mantra were true, the US gov would be doing a HUGE overhaul right now. They are not.
@lordthawkeye Perhaps he does have an inkling of a valid point. Maybe, just maybe, forcing people to do what the free market would otherwise "punish" them for may be counter intuitive. After all those investments may provide the job that will make the charity recipient's life worth living.
@Xtro2005 The free market doesn't punish you for donating to charity. It's a voluntary exchange and thus carries mutual benefits, whether it's good PR or just the satisfaction of a job well done. This guy is rolling with the idea that capitalism means "Money at all costs" which he would know is not so if he bothered to take 5 minutes to look up the definition.
Capitalism only means exchange without coersion. It does NOT neccessarily mean monetary exchange.
@lordthawkeye The point I was trying to make was, if what he is saying were true, then it would behoove him to reconsider involuntary charity as coercion is clearly working against the well being of the provider by his own statement. If this were so, then he should consider other alternatives that may be more equitable to all parties.
8:45 "the strength of one, means the weakness of the other" A lot of people think like this. I've asked a friend of mine about something and he replied with, "if the other country goes down, our country will go up". I
You can't get 30 people to agree on pizza toppings but you can get 300,000,000 to agree on a list or arbitrary rules put forth by the state. See, the social contract is valid.
@BalazarsBrain The elderly generation right now is the richest generation in human history and they got that by supporting an immoral ponzi scheme that has cheated the younger generation out of untold wealth and opportunity.
Kinda makes it hard to sympathize with them when the government said to them "hey! Want free stuff at the cost of your children's future?" and they jump on it with no opposition.
"cheated the younger generation out of untold wealth and opportunity"
Right on Brother...screw the Elderly!!!
Just because the elderly can't get affordable health insurance (due to their constant annoying health problems) doesn't mean they should become blood-sucking leaches and feed off of the younger generations.
"And health insurance is expensive because the government monopolizes it."
Right, the private health insurance companies setting their prices high is all the government's fault right?
A private Corporation would never jack up their rates on Elderly because the Elderly have the biggest health problems...I'm sure the private insurance companies will keep the rates low out of the kindness of their hearts!
@BalazarsBrain Your argument presupposes that a violent monopoly who gets to charge you by force rather than win you over like a private company has to would NEVER overcharge for services despite having nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
Is it really too much to ask for an argument that DOESN'T exempt the government itself for no logical reason? Really?
"And health insurance is expensive because the government monopolizes it."
Right, the private health insurance companies setting their prices high is all the government's fault right?
A private Corporation would never jack up their rates on Elderly because the Elderly have the biggest health problems...I'm sure the private insurance companies will keep the rates low out of the kindness of their hearts!
@BalazarsBrain If you're genuinely concerned for people having money to live on after they've retired, then might I suggest that you stop supporting an institution that steals from people before they're even born, and decreases the value of what money they do have through inflation?
“He's a window breaker who wants free stuff like all his kind….You're probably right, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyhow.”
Uhhh Ohhhh….here come the Baseless, Immature comments. I’m really sorry, you must be running out of arguments at this point and getting desperate if you have to resort to these immature comments. Mad Bro? :D
I’m not surprised…I suppose you 2 just make random stuff up about people all the time, and try to pass it off as the truth. Great Job!
@BalazarsBrain Why are you addressing this comment while ignoring my other comment where I did make a point about you claiming to care about people having money to retire on while simultaneously supporting an institution that steals from them. It's weird that you would ignore that comment, the one that was directed at you, and instead address my other comment, which was directed at someone else. Do you not have a response to my comment that was directed at you?
"Why are you addressing this comment while ignoring my other comment"
Because I found those comments by you and lordhawkeye weak and immature, and it was an easy target for me to show what kind of pathetic name calling you resort to.
"Do you not have a response to my comment"
Well, I don't even know what your premise is...you need to clarify what you mean by "stealing from them"?
"claiming that capitalists want old people to suffer and die?"
I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth...that's simply the outcome of taking away medicare options for elderly, when they're left with unaffordable health insurance costs.
ACTUALLY, I was referring to your petty ad hominem name calling. In my experience, these immature insults typically come from those with weak arguments, whose only choice is to resort to grade-school style attacks.
What Hawkeye can’t seem to wrap his head around is the simple truth that Private health insurers will JACK UP the prices on Elderly because they have the Highest Health Costs.
The Free-market answer to that is to take away Medicare for the Elderly and simply let Grandma and Grandpa die off…because they have no option for affordable health care.
Is that a fair summary?...tell me specifically what about these 2 statements is wrong?
@BalazarsBrain You are confusing free markets with corporatism, that's what's wrong.
In a free market, if you overcharge, your competition will just undercut you and steal your business.
Corporatism is when firms lobby governments for regulations that benefit them and cripple their competitors. Such as...the FDA's monopoly on drugs or the AMA's monopoly on doctors?
Monopolies need state support. So if a monopoly is overcharging, who's fault is that?
"In a free market, if you overcharge, your competition will just undercut you and steal your business."
Your grasp of the free-market system is astounding!
In what business model would a Private Insurance Company be able to pay for the HIGH Costs of the Elderly's health insurance costs, yet be able to charge them low, affordable rates???
I agree completely. Meaning that when an disabled person can't work to pay his own bills, we tell those leaches and thieves to get lost...you ain't gettin any of my money!
By force, or by choice? No matter how hijacked our democracy is, its still one man and one vote with our elected officials. So maybe you have an authority, but at least you have some say in it.
With Corporate Authority, you simply have a dictator (whoever owns the most shares) running the shots.
Take your choice...authority by choice, or dictatorship by wealth.
@BalazarsBrain Yeah, just keep telling yourself that as politicians continue to break all their campaign promises and get away with it.
Money is not power. I have more money than the homeless guy downtown but does that mean I have power over him? Hardly...
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police, no nukes, no prisons. Who's the only one who has those things AND the free pass that state boot lickers like you give them to use them?
A big mistake that anarchists, anti-statists, many Ron paul supporters make is that they focus on government power, and naively overlook other forms of power.
If we get rid of formal government completely...do you think we're going to form some sort of peaceful kumbaya existence? NOPE...humanity will prop up another authority and it will be back to business as usual. Congrats...you will have achieved nothing!
@BalazarsBrain "NOPE...humanity will prop up another authority and it will be back to business as usual. Congrats...you will have achieved nothing!"
A: You have no proof of that.
B: Even if it were true, that's a complete nirvana fallacy. We shouldn't try to solve a problem because another might someday spring up? Wouldnt' get much done if we followed such a cowardly, defeatist position now would we?
“humanity will prop up another authority….You have no proof of that”
Ummm how about the history of the World?...there’s always been authority. I hope you realize that formal government is not the only power structure. Whether you decide to give more power to the government, Corporations, others…someone will always be lording over you.
Could you please explain a scenario when we would ever achieve this authority-free kumbaya utopia?
"The status quo should be the status quo because it is the status quo."
LMAO putting words in my mouth again...I never said "should be" i said WILL BE. There always has been authority, and there always WILL BE...and the proof is in the entire history of human civilization.
You going to keep question dodging?...Could you please explain a scenario when we would ever achieve this authority-free kumbaya utopia?
@BalazarsBrain Democracy at best means 49% of the population is oppressed by the other 51%. Of course only 10-20% of people vote for the winners in each election, and you'd be hard pressed to argue those winners actually represent the people that voted for them. For most people the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is pretty small.
"Ahem! Government = worst polluters in the world even if you don't count wars which you should."
A. You assume with no Formal Government there would be no wars....good luck w that logic. Not sure if you've noticed, but humans have a history of violence and war.
B. Government at least regulates Corporate pollution, granted not the best.
Under your system you have no solution do you?...you don't seriously expect plants to self-regulate pollution they spew out?
@BalazarsBrain "In what business model would a Private Insurance Company be able to pay for the HIGH Costs of the Elderly's health insurance costs, yet be able to charge them low, affordable rates???"
Yes, if you've been paying for insurance all your life which any sensible person would do. If you waited until you got sick and then tried to get insurance, it's kinda self defeating to demand that everyone else take the fall for your negligence.
So you live in a world where people never get laid off, and lose their affordable private health insurance. A world where the elderly's insurance rates NEVER go up with their age. And if they have any pre-existing conditions, the insurance companies will simply IGNORE that, and charge low rates out of the kindness of their hearts...
Sounds brilliant, and I'm sure Santa and the Tuth-fairy will chip in as well.
@BalazarsBrain Huh? The elderly's health insurance IS costly. It is not overcharging when you charge them for this. A company will charge what they need to stay in business, if another company can charge less, they will. The state's solution is to not worry about it, we will force someone to pay when you get old. This does not make it less expensive, never mind that at some point this scheme will collapse and no one will have saved for the future at all, since saving is punished in this scheme.
The free market solution is to give the best healthcare to the rich, mediocre health-care to the middle-class, and none (if any) to the poor who can't afford anything.
Under 1 system, people who can't afford healthcare will be dying in the streets without proper care. Disabled and Elderly have the highest costs of health-care...how will you feel when you see your disabled and elderly relatives dying in the street?
@BalazarsBrain The free market does not have a THE solution to anything being as it's simply a matrix of competing ideas.
Had you actually bothered to look up your definitions before trying to debate rather than reciting nonsense you heard off a Micheal Moore film like a lemon, you'd know that and wouldn't be here humiliating yourself.
"off a Micheal Moore film like a lemon, you'd know that and wouldn't be here humiliating yourself."
LMAO, Michael Moore films???? Like a lemon??? HAHAHA Another example of you simply making up false things about me. I have no idea WTF you mean about a lemon, and I don't watch Michael Moore.
Nice try next time...try to stay away from your baseless ad-hominem attacks in the future....shows a sign of how weak your arguments are, if all you can do is make stuff up.
@BalazarsBrain I won't let them! Who would? Why is health care different than any other thing. Surely there are things more important than health care. Like food distribution. If you had some sort of forced one supplier of food, and standing in line all day for a piece of bread and eventually people starving, you would be saying the same thing. Sure, freedom means differences, but everyone is better off. It is impossible at any moment in time to provide infinitely good health care to everyone.
@mortalisk All wealth is made possible by trade. If there were no trade we would be like animals, with no health care, supermarkets or anything,. Not even streets to die in. Trade is mutually beneficial, but the ones who are best at it get the most out of it.
Mortalisk, sure there's a trade off between absolute freedom and fairness. In the case of the elderly, who have the highest health costs, but the least benefit to society...I say we subsidize them.
I'm sorry if you disagree, and think it's ok to simply let Grandma and Grandpa die off because they don't produce the highest amount of GDP in this country.
@BalazarsBrain Once again, you're refuting an argument that nobody here is making...
I'm really getting the impression here that you didn't even actually watch the vid, you simply took a quick glance at a few comments and lept at the offensive with marxist cliches, that's the only reason why you're making arguments that were already clearly addressed in the vid.
LMAO, again you're making stuff up...what Marxist cliche did I ever make? If anything, you anti-statists remind me of Karl Marx with your delusions that if we simply get rid of the state, we will form some kind of peaceful, Kumbaya society...much like Marx's delusions that a social state will do same.
You naively overlook that there will ALWAYS be an authority, formal government or not...deal w it!
@BalazarsBrain I say let's support those who cannot support them selves. GDP is the most stupid socialist thing ever to be a basis for talking about anything, so I can't follow that thinking. I think old people are a huge benefit to me and everyone I know thinks the same. And please stop using straw man arguments like everyone who does not want to use force to do things are against doing those things. Force does not work in the long run. It always ends up in disaster.
If you privatize the schools, then corporations and rich people will provide education! Then there would be inequality of income. Poor people wouldn't be able to read or get healthcare! Corporations would pay the lowest wages possible to teachers. (This is what someone actually said to me)
@lordthawkeye He was saying that it would get worse if there wasn't a government provider. He said he was anti-government but pro-public education. go figure
@abeismain It's someone who believes in the legitimacy of government power.
As an anarchist, I view politicians as a bunch of guys in costumes with made up titles who force you at gun point to fund their excessively long role playing game.
@abeismain In a sense yes. Ron Paul most definetely does not agree with what the state is doing these days. The only thing we part ways on is he thinks it can be redeemed and I don't.
the environmental counter argument is silly. its as vacuous as a creationist defending their sociopathic god, by claiming "atheist mass murder has also occurred, so whats the difference?"
you fail to address the fact their is no mechanism to protect everyones interest in the environment.....
@scottpastry Except that atheist mass murder never actually happened.
Actually there is. A land owner won't pollute his own land as that hurts the bottom line. (land is worth less than what you bought if for) Polluting someone else's land gets you sued and ostracized.
Governments have no vested interest in maintaining the value of resources since they just take them by force. Governments pollute because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
@scottpastry Yes, it's quite logical to assume that if you want to be covered for damages commited against you, that means you must also contractually accept charges laid against you.
Sure, you can not get coverage but then who's going to agree to deal with you?
And yes, you can not pay the restitution when ordered but then you get your credit rating shot and again, nobody will want to deal with you until you settle your accounts.
@lordthawkeye i dont need to be looked after. i will sort out my own problems. my ability/inability to settle my debts or obligations is not really your concern in this scenario. in fact, its not inconceivable that i profit partly from business practices that exploit the environment (dumping waste in the bay)
the people willing to accept the mutual contracts for mutual benefit that you speak of are statists, submitting to an arbitrator, whether you call it government , archon ...
@blurglide What about them? The danger of radioactive waste is grossly overstated and without government regulations in the way, we could set up thorium reactors who don't produce anywhere near the amount of waste that uranium reactors do, making the entire issue moot.
@lordthawkeye Where'd I mention radioactive waste? Superfund sites deal with all kinds of toxic pollution. There's some abandoned waterfront in Portland, for example, that is riddled with chemicals used to treat timber.
The point is, "people won't pollute their own land" is unfortunately false.
@MaryJo1950 oooo ooooo me me, I know how to make pizza, play video games, and I'm studying to be a physicist. and just incase you meant cuckoo or bonkers then I'm also an anti-statist. Have a good day, try not to get shot at by those benevolant legitimized force initiators.
@MirageScience I live in the real world not some lala land make believe world of my own creation like yourself. Yeah just get rid of the state and people will just automatically act nice towards one another, treat each with respect and then sit around holding hands and signing kumbaya.
@lordthawkeye All you have to do is look to see what has happened when there is no government or no enforcing agency to protect the rights of all or when a government did not enforce those rights. What do you get? Things like the mobs in the old south who lynched people, warlords taking over little patches of territory and terrorizing those who happen to live there. The list is endless.
@MaryJo1950 cool story bro it's too bad you can't see that the great majority of people aren't assholes and aren't looking to commit any type of violence whether it's considered lawful or unlawful and besides I don't just think the state should vanish. W.e. it's prodviding should be provided privatle before the state is gone. And it's not just automatic, or magic because there will still be laws governing interactions, its just that everyone will be law takers, no law makers.
@MirageScience All you have to is look at history to see what people have done to each other when there was either no government or no enforcing agency to protect the rights of all.
@MaryJo1950 all you have to do is looke at history my good friend and you will see that slavery is absolutly nessisary. Sorry but the, "it's never been done before" crap isn't an argument AT ALL. So everything you just said right there was, in totality, pointless. Tell me if people are so bad they how did they come together to make the lovely caring and ohhhh sooo kind state? Oh thats right, people for the most part aren't assholes unless sick, genetically disposed or brainwashed
While I agree that a smaller government is necessary, I think you are a bit deluded if you think no government is a viable option. Who pays for the schools for the children who's parents can't afford it. Who provides the money to build projects which benefit everyone. I know you said in your argument that projects would be given money according to their merits but what is to stop people from simply not paying for anything which they will certainly use, like roads if there is no obligation to pay
It seems there are 3 kinds of people. Those who trust the corporations - libertarians, those who trust the governments - liberals, and those who trust the police and the military - conservatives.
@lordthawkeye Aah, true :) Darnit, thanks :P So basically... hmm.. then what do libertarians support? Because it seemed to me that they place a lot of trust into corporations :\
@Anonymous247n Couldn't be more wrong. Corporations are a government created entity. No government = no corporations. IN fact it's very hard for a company to grow past a certain point in a free market.
@lordthawkeye Hmm, really?! I'm sorry to keep bothering you but, could you explain why it'd be hard for a company to grow past a certain point in a free market? I thought monopolization would be the end goal of any corporation, why would it be hard to achieve that in a free market?
@Anonymous247n and if you narrowly define the good McDonalds is a monopoly because it's they are the only company that sells Big Macs. Monopolies are everywhere. Burger King has a monopoly Whoppers. Honda has a monopoly on Civics. Tiger Woods has a monopoly on playing golf like Tiger Woods. Anonymous247n is a monopolist on Anonymous247n services if you beleive you are a unique person. You better turn yourself in the the SEC.
@MrGreeneggsnham Aah i see, good point! Well how about monopolies in a very wide sense? Like the coca cola company? Plus you must take into account the possibility of.. um, shall we call them... cartels?
@Anonymous247n Coca Cola isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of other cola companies out there and if you want to start your own, there isn't a thing they can do to stop you.
@Anonymous247n To achieve a monopoly, you need to lobby the government to regulate away all your competition. In a free market, that's not an option.
The reason why it's harder is because the bigger a company gets, the more people it can reach but the harder it gets to serve the needs of your customers promptly because there's more middlemen to go through so like MrGreen said, you start getting diminishing returns from expansion.
@lordthawkeye Aaah now i see, good point good point! Diminishing returns, plus if something becomes too widespread, the "think different" mentality kicks in when people don't want to be too "mainstream", i guess there are some pretty good limiters to monopolization! OK thanks ;)
FFF- To argument number 11. I'll say this. The state doesn't legitimately own the land you live on, or for that matter any land at all really, calling dibs and placing imaginary lines isn't really a valid method. You should always point this out. They love to just dance around it.
Good video, except one thing. Don't belittle your opposition. You'll only manage to drive them further away. When a person is approached by a new argument, the first thing they see is the person delivering it. This sets the tone for the rest of the discussion and the person receiving it will either view it in an inquisitive manner or a defensive manner. If you start attacking the opposition this will only serve to drive them closer to their established philosophy.
@Doublicon Oh sure, there are genuinely curious people who I'm always glad to answer questions to.
This video isn't directed at them. This is for the dogmatists who will never change because they've already invested too much of their ego into their mythology to back out.
Always bothers me how statists use Godwin's law as if it were some sort of logical fallacy, which it isn't. It's like they think just saying someone used godwin's laws means they therefore win the debate.
@crazypants88 A corollary to Godwin's Law (which says you've lost the debate if you CALL your opposition a Nazi, not make any sort of reference to the Nazis at all) is the concept that if you CLAIM Godwin's Law and win the debate when you HAVEN'T been compared to the Nazies, you've lost the debate.
This is possibly my favorite video on all of Youtube. I think I'm just going to start sending people the link to this video from now on whenever I hear them making any of these arguments. You can't imagine how much time you've saved me in the long run.
Godwin's law is bullshit anyway, WW2 was is trumpeted as the most important event in the 20th century for most western countries, shutting off one of the pivotal leaders in tat conflict from reference is nothing if not censorship.
If people are too dilled with mind-numbing hatred for Nazis to remain rational when they are used in debate 1st) its on them for being irrational 2nd) shouldn't they be interested in how something is similar to Nazis? After all the law was made because people hate em.
@Hashishin13 Godwin's law is really only applicable when you compare your opponent to Nazis purely as an ad hominem attack. If you can actually logically back up your comparison, then there is a point to be made.
But as I said, I wasn't comparing anyone to Nazis. Merely explaining how their argument would justify it. Much like how if a scientific theory could prove something obviously wrong, then the theory is flawed.
I've always found it hysterical that statists look down on libertarians for relying heavy on free markets while statists are so certain they're idea is better they want everyone on the tax farm to obey.
Great video. The only point I really have trouble with is the part about the environment. The government is actually pretty good about keeping other organizations from polluting too much. Just because they pollute themselves (I'd like to see your source, if possible) doesn't mean they aren't good at reducing overall pollution. Protecting endangered species, for example, would be difficult without government. We're eye-to-eye on every other point, but I have trouble with this.
@blurglide The endangered species act is a failure on every level.
The act says that if the feds find an endangered species living on your property, they basically get to seize your land from you and you can't do a damn thing about it.
So the act basically became a hit list. If you see this animal on your land, shoot the thing, bury it and don't tell anyone.
Use violence to solve problems and you always get the opposite result.
@blurglide There are 2500 and change animals on the US ESA list. Since the act went into effect, only 40 have been delisted. Of those 40, 9 are extinct and 16 were taken off because they were put on accidentally.
Of the 15 left, they were all either ESA taking credit for something it had nothing to do with or species that weren't even actually endangered at all.
I'm somewhat less than impressed by those numbers.
@blurglide Another good one would be the fisheries up here in Canada. For 300 years, we fished them fine. Then the government took over to "preserve the fish population" and they ruined it all in less than a generation.
They took bribes, caved in to political pressure and let people plunder the water dry.
Governments have no vested interest in maintaining the value of resources, that's why they pollute more, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in doing so.
@blurglide Look up "depleted uranium" specifically its BILLION+ YEAR long half-life. The militaristic governments of the west like the US, Britain and Israel are shooting this stuff all over their war-zones. They've been doing it since the mid 90s. Its radioactive waste, literally, and it causes cancer and birth defects where ever it's been used and even in the people who use it. They test and train with it on their own bases, exposing their own troops. Soo environmentally friendly!
The ruling "popular socialist" party in Denmark, SF, recently came up with another brilliant argument.
They believe that if you have ever been "helped" by the state in any form you can't dislike it later on. Because of an effective taxrate of 66 % almost everyone gets some kind of "aid" at some point in their life because it is impossible to save up (the state taxes private savings).
So yeah, according to my government I can't dislike them because I went to (shitty) public schools.
@pete2314 "A government dogmatist is someone who, after government has legislated away all non-government alternatives, says that Libertarians are hypocrites for not using those alternatives." -- Shanedk
@pete2314 I guess people who were worked to death in Stalin's labor camps should not complain either becuase they ate government provided food! Hypocrites!
I think i should write a consitution and have people on the street sign it because they will sign anything. I will give myself the right by social contract to be the prevailing emperor over all of the continent of North America. It's legit look I wrote it on nice paper. ( I will make sure it's on very nice paper)
@MirageScience That reminds me of an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit where they had someone go to some outdoor environmental convention asking people if they wanted to sign a petition to ban dihydrogren monoxide (water). Low and behold tons of people signed it.
Somehow I think the "God" slip wasn't fully inadvertent or impertinent.
TomReeseqazwsx 1 week ago
@TomReeseqazwsx I plan to do a vid later explaining this in further detail but in a nutshell, while statists may CLAIM that they don't worship the state as a god, they frequently make arguments that presuppose that those in the state are perfectly moral and all knowing. What's worse, when I bring up these issues, they either refuse to respond or get offended at me. What am I to conclude?
People say lots of things, the truth is in what they do.
lordthawkeye 1 week ago
Statist Logic:
"The elderly's healthcare is too expensive!"
"Tax them when they're young so they can't afford said insurance!"
vspqbd 4 weeks ago
The part on redistribution of wealth about "the more labour you put in the more you put out" is false. For example, a person could scrape and toil at poop, but it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere.
Rather, it is the more subjective value you produce the more subjective value you get out.
DoctorCapitalist 4 weeks ago
@DoctorCapitalist I didn't say labor specifically. I only said "the more you put in", more being whatever you're trading.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye I see lol
DoctorCapitalist 3 weeks ago
Make more videos dammit
DoctorCapitalist 4 weeks ago
Free Markets punish charity. Any money toward charity a person spends is less money they have for investment opportunities. Stop trying to set the world on fire in the name of your ideological purity. Humans do not follow the NAP.
Your bit about environmentalism was a joke. Governments are the biggest polluters? Since when?
Democratic States do not differentiate between the Government and the people. If you don't agree with it, then go live in the fucking woods. The State won't follow you.
ContractorTwobitz 4 weeks ago
@ContractorTwobitz you do know what charity is, right?
The state will follow you into the woods. People have tried it. You have to pay property taxes on the woods, lots of it isn't for sale in the first place because BS fiat land claims by the government, you are still subject to all their arbitrary laws, etc.
If that were true and we could secede our own property from the state, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the government.
Houshalter 4 weeks ago
@ContractorTwobitz Except that charity IS an investment, just not a monetary one. If you actually understood capitalism is more than just "MONIES!!", you'd know that.
Governments deficit spend, that means you are consuming more than you are producing and is all the proof you need.
The approval rating for the state in general in the US right now is 6%. If your "we are the state" mantra were true, the US gov would be doing a HUGE overhaul right now. They are not.
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago 2
@lordthawkeye Perhaps he does have an inkling of a valid point. Maybe, just maybe, forcing people to do what the free market would otherwise "punish" them for may be counter intuitive. After all those investments may provide the job that will make the charity recipient's life worth living.
Xtro2005 4 weeks ago
@Xtro2005 The free market doesn't punish you for donating to charity. It's a voluntary exchange and thus carries mutual benefits, whether it's good PR or just the satisfaction of a job well done. This guy is rolling with the idea that capitalism means "Money at all costs" which he would know is not so if he bothered to take 5 minutes to look up the definition.
Capitalism only means exchange without coersion. It does NOT neccessarily mean monetary exchange.
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago 4
@lordthawkeye The point I was trying to make was, if what he is saying were true, then it would behoove him to reconsider involuntary charity as coercion is clearly working against the well being of the provider by his own statement. If this were so, then he should consider other alternatives that may be more equitable to all parties.
Xtro2005 4 weeks ago
8:45 "the strength of one, means the weakness of the other" A lot of people think like this. I've asked a friend of mine about something and he replied with, "if the other country goes down, our country will go up". I
abeismain 1 month ago
@abeismain An argument a thief could make yet I doubt your friend would take the thief's side.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye I guess It's like being two-faced, is that what you are saying? :)
abeismain 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Honestly speaking i would have chosen the "greater good" argument as number 1.
Xtro2005 1 month ago
@Xtro2005 Yeah, that's a popular one too though it does kinda fit into number 2.
Besides, is the very essence of evil not "the ends justify the means"?
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago
@abeismain Not to mention a zero sum fallacy.
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Lol...that's funny, I had totally ignored that the 'zero sum fallacy'... thanks! :D
abeismain 1 month ago
You can't get 30 people to agree on pizza toppings but you can get 300,000,000 to agree on a list or arbitrary rules put forth by the state. See, the social contract is valid.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
I knowww the Elderly are TOTAL THIEVES and LEACHES!!!
The Elderly are the Least Productive Members in society, yet they have the greatest amount of health problems.
Stop giving Grandma and Grandpa government handouts...let's let those LAZY LEACHES simply die off!!! Thumbs up for Population Control! :D
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain The elderly generation right now is the richest generation in human history and they got that by supporting an immoral ponzi scheme that has cheated the younger generation out of untold wealth and opportunity.
Kinda makes it hard to sympathize with them when the government said to them "hey! Want free stuff at the cost of your children's future?" and they jump on it with no opposition.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lordthawkeye
"cheated the younger generation out of untold wealth and opportunity"
Right on Brother...screw the Elderly!!!
Just because the elderly can't get affordable health insurance (due to their constant annoying health problems) doesn't mean they should become blood-sucking leaches and feed off of the younger generations.
Suck it Grandma and Grandpa!
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain Richest generation in history. Don't skip that part.
And health insurance is expensive because the government monopolizes it. Don't get mad at me about that. Get mad at them.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye
"And health insurance is expensive because the government monopolizes it."
Right, the private health insurance companies setting their prices high is all the government's fault right?
A private Corporation would never jack up their rates on Elderly because the Elderly have the biggest health problems...I'm sure the private insurance companies will keep the rates low out of the kindness of their hearts!
I'm glad you're so trusting.
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain Your argument presupposes that a violent monopoly who gets to charge you by force rather than win you over like a private company has to would NEVER overcharge for services despite having nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
Is it really too much to ask for an argument that DOESN'T exempt the government itself for no logical reason? Really?
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye
"And health insurance is expensive because the government monopolizes it."
Right, the private health insurance companies setting their prices high is all the government's fault right?
A private Corporation would never jack up their rates on Elderly because the Elderly have the biggest health problems...I'm sure the private insurance companies will keep the rates low out of the kindness of their hearts!
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain If you're genuinely concerned for people having money to live on after they've retired, then might I suggest that you stop supporting an institution that steals from people before they're even born, and decreases the value of what money they do have through inflation?
mrplow8 1 month ago
@mrplow8 He's not concerned, that's just an excuse. He's a window breaker who wants free stuff like all his kind.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye You're probably right, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyhow.
mrplow8 1 month ago
@mrplow8
“He's a window breaker who wants free stuff like all his kind….You're probably right, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyhow.”
Uhhh Ohhhh….here come the Baseless, Immature comments. I’m really sorry, you must be running out of arguments at this point and getting desperate if you have to resort to these immature comments. Mad Bro? :D
I’m not surprised…I suppose you 2 just make random stuff up about people all the time, and try to pass it off as the truth. Great Job!
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain Why are you addressing this comment while ignoring my other comment where I did make a point about you claiming to care about people having money to retire on while simultaneously supporting an institution that steals from them. It's weird that you would ignore that comment, the one that was directed at you, and instead address my other comment, which was directed at someone else. Do you not have a response to my comment that was directed at you?
mrplow8 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrplow8
"Why are you addressing this comment while ignoring my other comment"
Because I found those comments by you and lordhawkeye weak and immature, and it was an easy target for me to show what kind of pathetic name calling you resort to.
"Do you not have a response to my comment"
Well, I don't even know what your premise is...you need to clarify what you mean by "stealing from them"?
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Yeah, making up random stuff about people is not cool...like claiming that capitalists want old people to suffer and die?
Practice what you preach. You'll be taken way more seriously.
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye
"claiming that capitalists want old people to suffer and die?"
I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth...that's simply the outcome of taking away medicare options for elderly, when they're left with unaffordable health insurance costs.
ACTUALLY, I was referring to your petty ad hominem name calling. In my experience, these immature insults typically come from those with weak arguments, whose only choice is to resort to grade-school style attacks.
BalazarsBrain 4 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
“He's not concerned”
What Hawkeye can’t seem to wrap his head around is the simple truth that Private health insurers will JACK UP the prices on Elderly because they have the Highest Health Costs.
The Free-market answer to that is to take away Medicare for the Elderly and simply let Grandma and Grandpa die off…because they have no option for affordable health care.
Is that a fair summary?...tell me specifically what about these 2 statements is wrong?
BalazarsBrain 1 month ago
@BalazarsBrain You are confusing free markets with corporatism, that's what's wrong.
In a free market, if you overcharge, your competition will just undercut you and steal your business.
Corporatism is when firms lobby governments for regulations that benefit them and cripple their competitors. Such as...the FDA's monopoly on drugs or the AMA's monopoly on doctors?
Monopolies need state support. So if a monopoly is overcharging, who's fault is that?
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
"In a free market, if you overcharge, your competition will just undercut you and steal your business."
Your grasp of the free-market system is astounding!
In what business model would a Private Insurance Company be able to pay for the HIGH Costs of the Elderly's health insurance costs, yet be able to charge them low, affordable rates???
LMAO, good luck making a profit!
BalazarsBrain 4 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain that's the point of a free market. People pay for their own expenses, not force others to do it for them.
Houshalter 4 weeks ago
@Houshalter
I agree completely. Meaning that when an disabled person can't work to pay his own bills, we tell those leaches and thieves to get lost...you ain't gettin any of my money!
That's probably the Jesus-like thing to do.
BalazarsBrain 4 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain If someone's in need, people will be charitable as they always have. Moreso in fact because they'll have far more wealth to give.
What you're suggesting is taking wealth by force and if you truly believe the ends justify such means, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
"taking wealth by force "
By force, or by choice? No matter how hijacked our democracy is, its still one man and one vote with our elected officials. So maybe you have an authority, but at least you have some say in it.
With Corporate Authority, you simply have a dictator (whoever owns the most shares) running the shots.
Take your choice...authority by choice, or dictatorship by wealth.
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Yeah, just keep telling yourself that as politicians continue to break all their campaign promises and get away with it.
Money is not power. I have more money than the homeless guy downtown but does that mean I have power over him? Hardly...
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police, no nukes, no prisons. Who's the only one who has those things AND the free pass that state boot lickers like you give them to use them?
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
"Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police"
A big mistake that anarchists, anti-statists, many Ron paul supporters make is that they focus on government power, and naively overlook other forms of power.
If we get rid of formal government completely...do you think we're going to form some sort of peaceful kumbaya existence? NOPE...humanity will prop up another authority and it will be back to business as usual. Congrats...you will have achieved nothing!
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain "NOPE...humanity will prop up another authority and it will be back to business as usual. Congrats...you will have achieved nothing!"
A: You have no proof of that.
B: Even if it were true, that's a complete nirvana fallacy. We shouldn't try to solve a problem because another might someday spring up? Wouldnt' get much done if we followed such a cowardly, defeatist position now would we?
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
“humanity will prop up another authority….You have no proof of that”
Ummm how about the history of the World?...there’s always been authority. I hope you realize that formal government is not the only power structure. Whether you decide to give more power to the government, Corporations, others…someone will always be lording over you.
Could you please explain a scenario when we would ever achieve this authority-free kumbaya utopia?
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain "Ummm how about the history of the World?...there’s always been authority"
The status quo should be the status quo because it is the status quo.
Circular reasoning fail...
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The status quo should be the status quo because it is the status quo."
LMAO putting words in my mouth again...I never said "should be" i said WILL BE. There always has been authority, and there always WILL BE...and the proof is in the entire history of human civilization.
You going to keep question dodging?...Could you please explain a scenario when we would ever achieve this authority-free kumbaya utopia?
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Democracy at best means 49% of the population is oppressed by the other 51%. Of course only 10-20% of people vote for the winners in each election, and you'd be hard pressed to argue those winners actually represent the people that voted for them. For most people the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is pretty small.
Houshalter 3 weeks ago
@Houshalter
“the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is pretty small”
Granted, our democracy isn’t perfect but one man one vote sounds infinitely better than one dollar (1 share) one vote.
That would be the day when Wallstreet starts regulating itself, or a manufacturing plant self-regulates how much pollution it spews out.
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Ahem! Government = worst polluters in the world even if you don't count wars which you should.
Now I KNOW you didn't actually watch the vid.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye
"Ahem! Government = worst polluters in the world even if you don't count wars which you should."
A. You assume with no Formal Government there would be no wars....good luck w that logic. Not sure if you've noticed, but humans have a history of violence and war.
B. Government at least regulates Corporate pollution, granted not the best.
Under your system you have no solution do you?...you don't seriously expect plants to self-regulate pollution they spew out?
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain most people would want to have insurance to avoid that exact scenario.
Houshalter 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Houshalter
"most people would want to have insurance to avoid that exact scenario."
Good luck to you and your family...you're 1 precarious step away from a terrible expensive disease, and financial devastation...aka poverty!
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain "In what business model would a Private Insurance Company be able to pay for the HIGH Costs of the Elderly's health insurance costs, yet be able to charge them low, affordable rates???"
Yes, if you've been paying for insurance all your life which any sensible person would do. If you waited until you got sick and then tried to get insurance, it's kinda self defeating to demand that everyone else take the fall for your negligence.
lordthawkeye 4 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye Also it would be germane to state that such a policy wouldn't be insurance at all. It would be a health subsidy.
Xtro2005 4 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
So you live in a world where people never get laid off, and lose their affordable private health insurance. A world where the elderly's insurance rates NEVER go up with their age. And if they have any pre-existing conditions, the insurance companies will simply IGNORE that, and charge low rates out of the kindness of their hearts...
Sounds brilliant, and I'm sure Santa and the Tuth-fairy will chip in as well.
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Appeal to apocalypse is not an arguments.
Bald assertions are not arguments.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Huh? The elderly's health insurance IS costly. It is not overcharging when you charge them for this. A company will charge what they need to stay in business, if another company can charge less, they will. The state's solution is to not worry about it, we will force someone to pay when you get old. This does not make it less expensive, never mind that at some point this scheme will collapse and no one will have saved for the future at all, since saving is punished in this scheme.
mortalisk 4 weeks ago
@mortalisk
The free market solution is to give the best healthcare to the rich, mediocre health-care to the middle-class, and none (if any) to the poor who can't afford anything.
Under 1 system, people who can't afford healthcare will be dying in the streets without proper care. Disabled and Elderly have the highest costs of health-care...how will you feel when you see your disabled and elderly relatives dying in the street?
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain The free market does not have a THE solution to anything being as it's simply a matrix of competing ideas.
Had you actually bothered to look up your definitions before trying to debate rather than reciting nonsense you heard off a Micheal Moore film like a lemon, you'd know that and wouldn't be here humiliating yourself.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
"off a Micheal Moore film like a lemon, you'd know that and wouldn't be here humiliating yourself."
LMAO, Michael Moore films???? Like a lemon??? HAHAHA Another example of you simply making up false things about me. I have no idea WTF you mean about a lemon, and I don't watch Michael Moore.
Nice try next time...try to stay away from your baseless ad-hominem attacks in the future....shows a sign of how weak your arguments are, if all you can do is make stuff up.
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain "baseless ad-hominem attacks"
You mean like accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being in favor of killing old people? Duly noted.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain I won't let them! Who would? Why is health care different than any other thing. Surely there are things more important than health care. Like food distribution. If you had some sort of forced one supplier of food, and standing in line all day for a piece of bread and eventually people starving, you would be saying the same thing. Sure, freedom means differences, but everyone is better off. It is impossible at any moment in time to provide infinitely good health care to everyone.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk All wealth is made possible by trade. If there were no trade we would be like animals, with no health care, supermarkets or anything,. Not even streets to die in. Trade is mutually beneficial, but the ones who are best at it get the most out of it.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
@mortalisk
Mortalisk, sure there's a trade off between absolute freedom and fairness. In the case of the elderly, who have the highest health costs, but the least benefit to society...I say we subsidize them.
I'm sorry if you disagree, and think it's ok to simply let Grandma and Grandpa die off because they don't produce the highest amount of GDP in this country.
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain Once again, you're refuting an argument that nobody here is making...
I'm really getting the impression here that you didn't even actually watch the vid, you simply took a quick glance at a few comments and lept at the offensive with marxist cliches, that's the only reason why you're making arguments that were already clearly addressed in the vid.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@lordthawkeye
"lept at the offensive with marxist cliches,"
LMAO, again you're making stuff up...what Marxist cliche did I ever make? If anything, you anti-statists remind me of Karl Marx with your delusions that if we simply get rid of the state, we will form some kind of peaceful, Kumbaya society...much like Marx's delusions that a social state will do same.
You naively overlook that there will ALWAYS be an authority, formal government or not...deal w it!
BalazarsBrain 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain "what Marxist cliche did I ever make?"
That capitalism is all about profit at all costs.
That a welfare state is the only way to support the needy
That socialism is a fair and moral system.
Need I go on?
"there will ALWAYS be an authority"
Bald assertion. Back your statement up or retract it.
lordthawkeye 3 weeks ago
@BalazarsBrain I say let's support those who cannot support them selves. GDP is the most stupid socialist thing ever to be a basis for talking about anything, so I can't follow that thinking. I think old people are a huge benefit to me and everyone I know thinks the same. And please stop using straw man arguments like everyone who does not want to use force to do things are against doing those things. Force does not work in the long run. It always ends up in disaster.
mortalisk 3 weeks ago
If you privatize the schools, then corporations and rich people will provide education! Then there would be inequality of income. Poor people wouldn't be able to read or get healthcare! Corporations would pay the lowest wages possible to teachers. (This is what someone actually said to me)
mjbarrowful 1 month ago
@mjbarrowful Pretty much all those things happen now so what's his point?
Well, except the teacher pay part but that's because they're in bed with the state so...
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye He was saying that it would get worse if there wasn't a government provider. He said he was anti-government but pro-public education. go figure
mjbarrowful 1 month ago
@mjbarrowful And I'm a tall short person! ^^
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
Where's "but who will build the roads?" That one always gets me.
1000g2g3g4g800999 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@1000g2g3g4g800999 That was included in number 8.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Whoa, fail short term memory here. I was just disappointed it wasn't number 1 tho.
1000g2g3g4g800999 1 month ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 It certainly wins the award for most common argument but none can beat the social contract for just sheer evil bullshit hypocrisy.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
What's a statist? Person against the system of having states! Ooohhh!
abeismain 1 month ago
@abeismain It's someone who believes in the legitimacy of government power.
As an anarchist, I view politicians as a bunch of guys in costumes with made up titles who force you at gun point to fund their excessively long role playing game.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye You mean a Statist person is in an agreement with what Government recently has done? As oppose to a Statesman like Ron Paul, right?
abeismain 1 month ago
@abeismain In a sense yes. Ron Paul most definetely does not agree with what the state is doing these days. The only thing we part ways on is he thinks it can be redeemed and I don't.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye at least you will vote for Ron Paul! :D hahaha! He will lower taxes and end the fed! :)
abeismain 1 month ago
the environmental counter argument is silly. its as vacuous as a creationist defending their sociopathic god, by claiming "atheist mass murder has also occurred, so whats the difference?"
you fail to address the fact their is no mechanism to protect everyones interest in the environment.....
scottpastry 1 month ago
@scottpastry Except that atheist mass murder never actually happened.
Actually there is. A land owner won't pollute his own land as that hurts the bottom line. (land is worth less than what you bought if for) Polluting someone else's land gets you sued and ostracized.
Governments have no vested interest in maintaining the value of resources since they just take them by force. Governments pollute because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye "Except that atheist mass murder never actually happened." i agree. just the first analogy i thought of.
"A land owner won't pollute his own land as that hurts the bottom line."
generally i agree.
"Governments have no vested interest in maintaining the value of resources "
i agree.
"Polluting someone else's land gets you sued and ostracized."
this is the problem. youre assuming i agree to the laws that allow me to be sued, yes? its either that or coercion.....
scottpastry 1 month ago
@scottpastry Yes, it's quite logical to assume that if you want to be covered for damages commited against you, that means you must also contractually accept charges laid against you.
Sure, you can not get coverage but then who's going to agree to deal with you?
And yes, you can not pay the restitution when ordered but then you get your credit rating shot and again, nobody will want to deal with you until you settle your accounts.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye i dont need to be looked after. i will sort out my own problems. my ability/inability to settle my debts or obligations is not really your concern in this scenario. in fact, its not inconceivable that i profit partly from business practices that exploit the environment (dumping waste in the bay)
the people willing to accept the mutual contracts for mutual benefit that you speak of are statists, submitting to an arbitrator, whether you call it government , archon ...
scottpastry 1 month ago
@scottpastry Wrong. A government is a monopoly that's forced on you. Not even CLOSE to the same thing.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye People won't pollute their own land? Ever hear of a superfund site?
blurglide 1 month ago
@blurglide What about them? The danger of radioactive waste is grossly overstated and without government regulations in the way, we could set up thorium reactors who don't produce anywhere near the amount of waste that uranium reactors do, making the entire issue moot.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
Comment removed
blurglide 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye Where'd I mention radioactive waste? Superfund sites deal with all kinds of toxic pollution. There's some abandoned waterfront in Portland, for example, that is riddled with chemicals used to treat timber.
The point is, "people won't pollute their own land" is unfortunately false.
blurglide 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Are you also a nuclear scientist in addition to a cook and professional gamer?
MaryJo1950 1 month ago
@MaryJo1950 oooo ooooo me me, I know how to make pizza, play video games, and I'm studying to be a physicist. and just incase you meant cuckoo or bonkers then I'm also an anti-statist. Have a good day, try not to get shot at by those benevolant legitimized force initiators.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I live in the real world not some lala land make believe world of my own creation like yourself. Yeah just get rid of the state and people will just automatically act nice towards one another, treat each with respect and then sit around holding hands and signing kumbaya.
MaryJo1950 1 month ago
@MaryJo1950 Are you saying you go around and stab people in the eyes the minute the government isn't watching? tsk...
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye All you have to do is look to see what has happened when there is no government or no enforcing agency to protect the rights of all or when a government did not enforce those rights. What do you get? Things like the mobs in the old south who lynched people, warlords taking over little patches of territory and terrorizing those who happen to live there. The list is endless.
MaryJo1950 1 month ago
@MaryJo1950 "All you have to do is look to see what has happened when there is no government or no enforcing agency"
And at no point have I ever said we should not have one. Do try and keep up here won't you?
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@MaryJo1950 cool story bro it's too bad you can't see that the great majority of people aren't assholes and aren't looking to commit any type of violence whether it's considered lawful or unlawful and besides I don't just think the state should vanish. W.e. it's prodviding should be provided privatle before the state is gone. And it's not just automatic, or magic because there will still be laws governing interactions, its just that everyone will be law takers, no law makers.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience All you have to is look at history to see what people have done to each other when there was either no government or no enforcing agency to protect the rights of all.
MaryJo1950 1 month ago
@MaryJo1950 all you have to do is looke at history my good friend and you will see that slavery is absolutly nessisary. Sorry but the, "it's never been done before" crap isn't an argument AT ALL. So everything you just said right there was, in totality, pointless. Tell me if people are so bad they how did they come together to make the lovely caring and ohhhh sooo kind state? Oh thats right, people for the most part aren't assholes unless sick, genetically disposed or brainwashed
MirageScience 1 month ago
While I agree that a smaller government is necessary, I think you are a bit deluded if you think no government is a viable option. Who pays for the schools for the children who's parents can't afford it. Who provides the money to build projects which benefit everyone. I know you said in your argument that projects would be given money according to their merits but what is to stop people from simply not paying for anything which they will certainly use, like roads if there is no obligation to pay
evildog100 1 month ago
It seems there are 3 kinds of people. Those who trust the corporations - libertarians, those who trust the governments - liberals, and those who trust the police and the military - conservatives.
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n Corporations are a legal entity created by governments.
No governments = no corporations
So your assertion is just a betrayal that you don't actually know what a corporation is. Well done!
lordthawkeye 1 month ago 2
@lordthawkeye Aah, true :) Darnit, thanks :P So basically... hmm.. then what do libertarians support? Because it seemed to me that they place a lot of trust into corporations :\
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n Couldn't be more wrong. Corporations are a government created entity. No government = no corporations. IN fact it's very hard for a company to grow past a certain point in a free market.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Hmm, really?! I'm sorry to keep bothering you but, could you explain why it'd be hard for a company to grow past a certain point in a free market? I thought monopolization would be the end goal of any corporation, why would it be hard to achieve that in a free market?
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n law of diminishing marginal returns
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n and if you narrowly define the good McDonalds is a monopoly because it's they are the only company that sells Big Macs. Monopolies are everywhere. Burger King has a monopoly Whoppers. Honda has a monopoly on Civics. Tiger Woods has a monopoly on playing golf like Tiger Woods. Anonymous247n is a monopolist on Anonymous247n services if you beleive you are a unique person. You better turn yourself in the the SEC.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Aah i see, good point! Well how about monopolies in a very wide sense? Like the coca cola company? Plus you must take into account the possibility of.. um, shall we call them... cartels?
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n Coca Cola isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of other cola companies out there and if you want to start your own, there isn't a thing they can do to stop you.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Anonymous247n To achieve a monopoly, you need to lobby the government to regulate away all your competition. In a free market, that's not an option.
The reason why it's harder is because the bigger a company gets, the more people it can reach but the harder it gets to serve the needs of your customers promptly because there's more middlemen to go through so like MrGreen said, you start getting diminishing returns from expansion.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Aaah now i see, good point good point! Diminishing returns, plus if something becomes too widespread, the "think different" mentality kicks in when people don't want to be too "mainstream", i guess there are some pretty good limiters to monopolization! OK thanks ;)
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n
You do realize that the police and the military, are by definition, part of the government too, right?
Which would imply that conservatives = liberals by your logic. A conclusion which seems to be true.
vspqbd 1 month ago
1:29 LOL... good analogy! I loved it.
abeismain 1 month ago
"These go to 11!" --Spın̈al Tap
shanedk 1 month ago
FFF- To argument number 11. I'll say this. The state doesn't legitimately own the land you live on, or for that matter any land at all really, calling dibs and placing imaginary lines isn't really a valid method. You should always point this out. They love to just dance around it.
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 month ago
@JakkaLakkaDingDing Many like to say "Because the state is sovereign" which is really just politico speak for "Because we said so."
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
Good video, except one thing. Don't belittle your opposition. You'll only manage to drive them further away. When a person is approached by a new argument, the first thing they see is the person delivering it. This sets the tone for the rest of the discussion and the person receiving it will either view it in an inquisitive manner or a defensive manner. If you start attacking the opposition this will only serve to drive them closer to their established philosophy.
Doublicon 1 month ago
@Doublicon Oh sure, there are genuinely curious people who I'm always glad to answer questions to.
This video isn't directed at them. This is for the dogmatists who will never change because they've already invested too much of their ego into their mythology to back out.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
Always bothers me how statists use Godwin's law as if it were some sort of logical fallacy, which it isn't. It's like they think just saying someone used godwin's laws means they therefore win the debate.
crazypants88 1 month ago
@crazypants88 A corollary to Godwin's Law (which says you've lost the debate if you CALL your opposition a Nazi, not make any sort of reference to the Nazis at all) is the concept that if you CLAIM Godwin's Law and win the debate when you HAVEN'T been compared to the Nazies, you've lost the debate.
shanedk 1 month ago
Good video
crazypants88 1 month ago
This is possibly my favorite video on all of Youtube. I think I'm just going to start sending people the link to this video from now on whenever I hear them making any of these arguments. You can't imagine how much time you've saved me in the long run.
mrplow8 1 month ago
anybody with a Doug Walker reference deserves a cluon....this therefore deserves a cluon.
Albukhshi 1 month ago
Godwin's law is bullshit anyway, WW2 was is trumpeted as the most important event in the 20th century for most western countries, shutting off one of the pivotal leaders in tat conflict from reference is nothing if not censorship.
If people are too dilled with mind-numbing hatred for Nazis to remain rational when they are used in debate 1st) its on them for being irrational 2nd) shouldn't they be interested in how something is similar to Nazis? After all the law was made because people hate em.
Hashishin13 1 month ago
@Hashishin13 Godwin's law is really only applicable when you compare your opponent to Nazis purely as an ad hominem attack. If you can actually logically back up your comparison, then there is a point to be made.
But as I said, I wasn't comparing anyone to Nazis. Merely explaining how their argument would justify it. Much like how if a scientific theory could prove something obviously wrong, then the theory is flawed.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
I've always found it hysterical that statists look down on libertarians for relying heavy on free markets while statists are so certain they're idea is better they want everyone on the tax farm to obey.
lettherebedots 1 month ago
Great video. The only point I really have trouble with is the part about the environment. The government is actually pretty good about keeping other organizations from polluting too much. Just because they pollute themselves (I'd like to see your source, if possible) doesn't mean they aren't good at reducing overall pollution. Protecting endangered species, for example, would be difficult without government. We're eye-to-eye on every other point, but I have trouble with this.
blurglide 1 month ago
@blurglide The endangered species act is a failure on every level.
The act says that if the feds find an endangered species living on your property, they basically get to seize your land from you and you can't do a damn thing about it.
So the act basically became a hit list. If you see this animal on your land, shoot the thing, bury it and don't tell anyone.
Use violence to solve problems and you always get the opposite result.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Failure on every level? A lot of animals have come back from the brink.
blurglide 1 month ago
@blurglide There are 2500 and change animals on the US ESA list. Since the act went into effect, only 40 have been delisted. Of those 40, 9 are extinct and 16 were taken off because they were put on accidentally.
Of the 15 left, they were all either ESA taking credit for something it had nothing to do with or species that weren't even actually endangered at all.
I'm somewhat less than impressed by those numbers.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@blurglide Another good one would be the fisheries up here in Canada. For 300 years, we fished them fine. Then the government took over to "preserve the fish population" and they ruined it all in less than a generation.
They took bribes, caved in to political pressure and let people plunder the water dry.
Governments have no vested interest in maintaining the value of resources, that's why they pollute more, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in doing so.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@blurglide Look up "depleted uranium" specifically its BILLION+ YEAR long half-life. The militaristic governments of the west like the US, Britain and Israel are shooting this stuff all over their war-zones. They've been doing it since the mid 90s. Its radioactive waste, literally, and it causes cancer and birth defects where ever it's been used and even in the people who use it. They test and train with it on their own bases, exposing their own troops. Soo environmentally friendly!
Hashishin13 1 month ago
In regards to your ten point: Derp? So everything the government pays for is not worth you tax money? Not even fire fighters are worth you red cent?
You you call other people out on stupid arguments?
LuckyAssult 1 month ago
@LuckyAssult The government does not produce any wealth so how could it pay for anything?
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
The ruling "popular socialist" party in Denmark, SF, recently came up with another brilliant argument.
They believe that if you have ever been "helped" by the state in any form you can't dislike it later on. Because of an effective taxrate of 66 % almost everyone gets some kind of "aid" at some point in their life because it is impossible to save up (the state taxes private savings).
So yeah, according to my government I can't dislike them because I went to (shitty) public schools.
pete2314 1 month ago 8
@pete2314
Not a new argument.
I've heard it before.
I believe Fringeelements put it best: watch?v=cF2359mSCzk
vspqbd 1 month ago
@pete2314 "A government dogmatist is someone who, after government has legislated away all non-government alternatives, says that Libertarians are hypocrites for not using those alternatives." -- Shanedk
lordthawkeye 1 month ago 6
@pete2314 You could look at it like Ayn Rand did... that you accept state "help" as restitution for institutionalized theft.
VolkOseba 1 month ago
@VolkOseba I like to think of it as "If a slave accepts a meal from his master, does he thus condone slavery?"
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@pete2314 I guess people who were worked to death in Stalin's labor camps should not complain either becuase they ate government provided food! Hypocrites!
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
womens*
MirageScience 1 month ago
FUCKING LIKED AND FAVOURITED!
Tsicar 1 month ago
I think i should write a consitution and have people on the street sign it because they will sign anything. I will give myself the right by social contract to be the prevailing emperor over all of the continent of North America. It's legit look I wrote it on nice paper. ( I will make sure it's on very nice paper)
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience That reminds me of an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit where they had someone go to some outdoor environmental convention asking people if they wanted to sign a petition to ban dihydrogren monoxide (water). Low and behold tons of people signed it.
ilazernerd 1 month ago
@ilazernerd there is a nice one to end wemons suffrage xD
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I liked "The Man Show" episode where they got people to sign a petition banning women's suffrage.
blurglide 1 month ago