Great video. It's great to hear the truth. I hope Obama does something next term if he gets re-elected. We also need to take control again and get something done in congress this time. Or revolt and camp out in washington until real change happens. Our government will probably shoot us in the streets if that happens.
@dontOVERREACT -- I advocate liberty, justice, and individual rights -- all protected by government. I do NOT advocate anarchy. But virtually everything WILL be "sunshine and butterflies" if the state is confined to protecting life, liberty, property, and privacy -- and NOT "benefiting" us or "helping" us via coercive welfare statism. A loving Big Brother is neither necessary nor desirable -- nor even possible.
@dontOVERREACT -- I'm not an anarchist. I think when government was invented 5300 years ago in Mesopotamia that was a GOOD thing. But the purpose of government is to protect the Holy Individual and his sacred life. To protect life, liberty, property, and privacy. NOT to "legislate morality" or to regulate "predatory" Big Business.
Limit powers of the government (as stated by the founding fathers) or tyranny will ensue.
This is EXACTLY what you have today!
Cash for clunkers, government take over of health care system, unmandated wars, never ending welfare, unemployment benefits, Feds printing dollars into the trillions,debt, executive orders by the president with no congressional approval.
its not what party youre in, but an OBVIOUS TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT!
I don't care about the moonlanding and technology although I work in the field.
Industrial revolution was made by individuals trying to produce more working for less not by a centralized government. iphone is used for communcations in iraq by the military. can you imagine that? a centralized entity spent billions for r&d and they use something a private company did. think about it.
This doesn't really sound like anarchism nor libertarianism. It has valid points, and both parties are fucking horrible. They're both funded by corporate money to help pass bills that would be looked upon as favorable, and help stop bills that would be bad. Congress is like fucking NASCAR, just without tangible logo sticks.
To say that our current system needs to be destroyed, is not the same as saying we need no system.
@dethdakiller0 We DO need a system: one based upon liberty, justice, and individual rights. We need laissez-faire capitalism. The current Welfare State system creates a civil war of "all against all," as Hobbes would put it. Big Biz bribes both parties to "legally" steal and exercise tyranny on their behalf. The excuse for this illiberalism and evil is "democracy." We need pure FREEDOM -- not democracy.
@dethdakiller0 Socialism is slavery -- the worst socio-economic system EVER. If you and your evil, idiotic, lunatic buddies like it, you should go off on an island somewhere, and try to live under it. But let the rest of us live in freedom.
Socialism isn't slavery, shut the fuck up with your lies. Its not 'the worst socio-economic system EVER' either, that would be anarcho-capitalism. And if i wanted to live under it, which i plan to, i would, and will, move to sweden. The rest of you can live under whatever shitty system you want.
Shut the fuck up, youre retarded. I don't wish to argue you with anymore. You might think thats because youre right and i know i'm wrong (or whatever retarded thought you wish to think), but no, its because youre too stupid and too uninformed to actually hold this conversation. Youre just repeating whatever retarded ideas your favorite Fox News caster said, most likely Glenn Beck.
Why should people have the good will to take care of strangers? Are you a stranger in need of help? If yes, I can see why you need the government forcing others to take care of you. If no, I don't see why you need the government to force you help others? I mean, if you really want to help others why would you need the government to put a gun to your head so that you do what you want to do. It makes no sense.
Your post is one huge strawman of anything libertarians advocate, and as such, does not address a single point raised in this video and can be safely ignored.
Brutally, savagely, mercilessly attacked and obliterated?
This sounds like something right from the filthy mouth of Maximilien Robespierre...
Seriously, even if you want to make a strong point, I would hesitate to use such language... It's just not healthy for a real conversation.
Besides, why is the individual a sacret thing? Are we not a social species as well? Even Thomas Paine thought that a mans "mind is unfitted for perpetual solitude"...
What does us being social species has to do with installing a coercive top-down apparatus to run our lives? I don't need a state to socialize anymore than I need to believe in the gods to be an ethical individual.
@Akatam0t0ma Yes, you can socialize very well without any state....
I think the "need" for installing a coercive top-down apperatus is the result of a large scale society. Maybe we chose to sacrifice freedom for abundance... (abundance for some at least).
My point was that when you interact with other individuals you probably will make compromises to some individual wishes/urges in order to keep the peace.
Individualism is not sacred or untouchable, we modify it daily to be able to co-exist.
@DeletedDelusion -- I agree that the language I used was extremely strong and could easily mislead. But this is a STYLISTIC choice. Some people ENJOY intellectual passion and polemics (like me). I advise everyone to just consider whether or not my words are TRUE. :-)
Not that I think either party in America is of any great value, but because he uses empty rhetoric to denounce them (and quite violently) while offering no suggestion whatsoever as to what his concept of an "ideal" society might entail. As our current system is the result of sociopolitical evolution over centuries, it must exist until a much better solution is proposed.
Oh, and his equation of "the individual" to a minority is silly and rings of libertarianism.
"it must exist until a much better solution is proposed."
Actually, there are plenty of better ideas out there, it's just that statists like you are too narrow minded to consider them, and are afraid to make some of your pet philosopher, politician or intellectual sad in the pants by doing so.
"...is silly and rings of libertarianism"
Yeah, that EVIL idea of freedom! Who needs it anyway, when we can all have a group of all-wise omnibenevolent bureaucrats to run our lives!
@Akatam0t0ma What exactly is a statist? Someone who thinks we need some kind of organizing principle in order to govern humanity? Well the only alternative to that would be anarchy which is childish.
Libertarianism is ONE kind of "freedom." The implication that it's the ONLY acceptable form of government (and many libertarians seem to believe this) is a religious belief.
I guess it's a matter of wether you want to be part of a caring civilization, or just a pack of animals who fend for themselves. Even Neanderthals cared for their sick. If we don't pool our resourses together, it's not possible to have the things that make us a civilization, like infrastructure, police, and firemen. You take countless things for granted that wouldn't be possible without taxes. Our system may be flawed, but what's the alternative.
"I guess it's a matter of wether you want to be part of a caring civilization"
What does being "part of a caring" civilization has to do with taking my wealth at the point of a gun and having a group of (supposedly) all-wise and omnibenevolent bureaucrats redistributing it as they think it should be distributed, and not as YOU think it should be, you economically illiterate statist drone?
"If we don't pool our resourses together, it's not possible to have the things that make us a civilization"
I don't have problem with people pooling resources together, I just object to it being done at the point of a gun. What part of people objecting to have their resources distributed by bureaucrats AT THE POINT OF A GUN fails to get into your narrow-minded statist brain?
Your reasoning is PRECISELY like that of religiotards who say "but if you don't believe in MY god..."
"...what keeps you from going around butchering babies and pushing old ladies under a car herp derp?", but instead of a belief in a supernatural god that supposedly keeps humanity from descending into total chaos and barbarism, you have the coercive apparatus of the state.
Well, I can't say that I subscribe to any particular economic school of thought, but yeah, I suppose my current economic views correspond best with those of the Austrian school, of which my main understanding consists mainly of listening to YouTube commentaries of its proponents and reading several articles. I still need to do a shitload of reading material from the various schools of economics to have a better understanding of where I actually stand.
@Akatam0t0ma Just thought i'd to point something out. Economic freedoms really differs from political freedom. My country for example Singapore, is rated top in the world for economic freedom. We got no social security, no minimum wage, everything runs quite lasseiz faire here. It works preety well. But we are also like the worlds best example of a soft authoritarian, nanny state and it sucks. =/ Check out joseph stilitz's view on Keynesian economics. I think he makes quite a arguement.
"You take countless things for granted that wouldn't be possible without taxes."
Actually, not only ALL of them are possible without taxes, but would be provided at a much BETTER quality without the coercive apparatus of the state taking people's money at the point of a gun and then providing it to you.
"what's the alternative."
How about a society in which things are done voluntarily WITHOUT taking people's wealth at the point of a gun?
@Akatam0t0ma Fallacy my ass. It's a fact that thousands of people get life threatening illnesses that cost more to treat than anybody other than a millionare could afford to pay for out of pocket no matter how good they are at saving. The fact that people are emotional about death doesn't make my arguement a fallacy. You know it's BS to say that people could just save for healthcare, so you just cried fallacy.
Save for medical care? So you have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up in case you get an illness more serious than the flu? One of the times that I had a blood clot, just the pharmaceutical part of the bill was $16,000, and that's nothing compared to things like cancer, and chronic debilitating diseases. So I guess you think that anybody who isn't a multi-millionaire should just die when they get sick.
Great video. It's great to hear the truth. I hope Obama does something next term if he gets re-elected. We also need to take control again and get something done in congress this time. Or revolt and camp out in washington until real change happens. Our government will probably shoot us in the streets if that happens.
baxtar1963 10 months ago
@dontOVERREACT -- I advocate liberty, justice, and individual rights -- all protected by government. I do NOT advocate anarchy. But virtually everything WILL be "sunshine and butterflies" if the state is confined to protecting life, liberty, property, and privacy -- and NOT "benefiting" us or "helping" us via coercive welfare statism. A loving Big Brother is neither necessary nor desirable -- nor even possible.
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT -- I'm not an anarchist. I think when government was invented 5300 years ago in Mesopotamia that was a GOOD thing. But the purpose of government is to protect the Holy Individual and his sacred life. To protect life, liberty, property, and privacy. NOT to "legislate morality" or to regulate "predatory" Big Business.
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
Comment removed
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT Your black and white argument is lame.
Limit powers of the government (as stated by the founding fathers) or tyranny will ensue.
This is EXACTLY what you have today!
Cash for clunkers, government take over of health care system, unmandated wars, never ending welfare, unemployment benefits, Feds printing dollars into the trillions,debt, executive orders by the president with no congressional approval.
its not what party youre in, but an OBVIOUS TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT!
geekstreat 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT
I don't care about the moonlanding and technology although I work in the field.
Industrial revolution was made by individuals trying to produce more working for less not by a centralized government. iphone is used for communcations in iraq by the military. can you imagine that? a centralized entity spent billions for r&d and they use something a private company did. think about it.
logossfera 1 year ago
This doesn't really sound like anarchism nor libertarianism. It has valid points, and both parties are fucking horrible. They're both funded by corporate money to help pass bills that would be looked upon as favorable, and help stop bills that would be bad. Congress is like fucking NASCAR, just without tangible logo sticks.
To say that our current system needs to be destroyed, is not the same as saying we need no system.
dethdakiller0 1 year ago
@dethdakiller0 We DO need a system: one based upon liberty, justice, and individual rights. We need laissez-faire capitalism. The current Welfare State system creates a civil war of "all against all," as Hobbes would put it. Big Biz bribes both parties to "legally" steal and exercise tyranny on their behalf. The excuse for this illiberalism and evil is "democracy." We need pure FREEDOM -- not democracy.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
We need nothing about this capitalism of which you speak. Socialism works better. Deal with it.
Also, fuck democracy. I support technocracy.
dethdakiller0 11 months ago
@dethdakiller0 Socialism is slavery -- the worst socio-economic system EVER. If you and your evil, idiotic, lunatic buddies like it, you should go off on an island somewhere, and try to live under it. But let the rest of us live in freedom.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
Socialism isn't slavery, shut the fuck up with your lies. Its not 'the worst socio-economic system EVER' either, that would be anarcho-capitalism. And if i wanted to live under it, which i plan to, i would, and will, move to sweden. The rest of you can live under whatever shitty system you want.
dethdakiller0 11 months ago
@dethdakiller0 My "shitty system" is called laissez-faire capitalism -- and people like you are NOT allowed inside. :-)
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
Well thats very silly, because, as if now, i am part of your shitty system. And let me tell you, it sucks.
dethdakiller0 11 months ago
@dethdakiller0 America is a socialist or welfare state -- only remotely libertarian and capitalist.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
Shut the fuck up, youre retarded. I don't wish to argue you with anymore. You might think thats because youre right and i know i'm wrong (or whatever retarded thought you wish to think), but no, its because youre too stupid and too uninformed to actually hold this conversation. Youre just repeating whatever retarded ideas your favorite Fox News caster said, most likely Glenn Beck.
dethdakiller0 11 months ago
@dontOVERREACT
Why should people have the good will to take care of strangers? Are you a stranger in need of help? If yes, I can see why you need the government forcing others to take care of you. If no, I don't see why you need the government to force you help others? I mean, if you really want to help others why would you need the government to put a gun to your head so that you do what you want to do. It makes no sense.
logossfera 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT:
Your post is one huge strawman of anything libertarians advocate, and as such, does not address a single point raised in this video and can be safely ignored.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago 2
Brutally, savagely, mercilessly attacked and obliterated?
This sounds like something right from the filthy mouth of Maximilien Robespierre...
Seriously, even if you want to make a strong point, I would hesitate to use such language... It's just not healthy for a real conversation.
Besides, why is the individual a sacret thing? Are we not a social species as well? Even Thomas Paine thought that a mans "mind is unfitted for perpetual solitude"...
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
@DeletedDelusion:
"Are we not a social species as well?"
What does us being social species has to do with installing a coercive top-down apparatus to run our lives? I don't need a state to socialize anymore than I need to believe in the gods to be an ethical individual.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Yes, you can socialize very well without any state....
I think the "need" for installing a coercive top-down apperatus is the result of a large scale society. Maybe we chose to sacrifice freedom for abundance... (abundance for some at least).
My point was that when you interact with other individuals you probably will make compromises to some individual wishes/urges in order to keep the peace.
Individualism is not sacred or untouchable, we modify it daily to be able to co-exist.
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
@DeletedDelusion -- I agree that the language I used was extremely strong and could easily mislead. But this is a STYLISTIC choice. Some people ENJOY intellectual passion and polemics (like me). I advise everyone to just consider whether or not my words are TRUE. :-)
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
Pompous, vapid twit.
Not that I think either party in America is of any great value, but because he uses empty rhetoric to denounce them (and quite violently) while offering no suggestion whatsoever as to what his concept of an "ideal" society might entail. As our current system is the result of sociopolitical evolution over centuries, it must exist until a much better solution is proposed.
Oh, and his equation of "the individual" to a minority is silly and rings of libertarianism.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
@notthecheatr:
"it must exist until a much better solution is proposed."
Actually, there are plenty of better ideas out there, it's just that statists like you are too narrow minded to consider them, and are afraid to make some of your pet philosopher, politician or intellectual sad in the pants by doing so.
"...is silly and rings of libertarianism"
Yeah, that EVIL idea of freedom! Who needs it anyway, when we can all have a group of all-wise omnibenevolent bureaucrats to run our lives!
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma What exactly is a statist? Someone who thinks we need some kind of organizing principle in order to govern humanity? Well the only alternative to that would be anarchy which is childish.
Libertarianism is ONE kind of "freedom." The implication that it's the ONLY acceptable form of government (and many libertarians seem to believe this) is a religious belief.
notthecheatr 1 year ago
I guess it's a matter of wether you want to be part of a caring civilization, or just a pack of animals who fend for themselves. Even Neanderthals cared for their sick. If we don't pool our resourses together, it's not possible to have the things that make us a civilization, like infrastructure, police, and firemen. You take countless things for granted that wouldn't be possible without taxes. Our system may be flawed, but what's the alternative.
Primalxbeast 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
"I guess it's a matter of wether you want to be part of a caring civilization"
What does being "part of a caring" civilization has to do with taking my wealth at the point of a gun and having a group of (supposedly) all-wise and omnibenevolent bureaucrats redistributing it as they think it should be distributed, and not as YOU think it should be, you economically illiterate statist drone?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
"If we don't pool our resourses together, it's not possible to have the things that make us a civilization"
I don't have problem with people pooling resources together, I just object to it being done at the point of a gun. What part of people objecting to have their resources distributed by bureaucrats AT THE POINT OF A GUN fails to get into your narrow-minded statist brain?
Your reasoning is PRECISELY like that of religiotards who say "but if you don't believe in MY god..."
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
"...what keeps you from going around butchering babies and pushing old ladies under a car herp derp?", but instead of a belief in a supernatural god that supposedly keeps humanity from descending into total chaos and barbarism, you have the coercive apparatus of the state.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma I like your views on economics, do u subscibe to the Austrian school of thought ?
JulianThePhilosopher 1 year ago
@JulianThePhilosopher:
Well, I can't say that I subscribe to any particular economic school of thought, but yeah, I suppose my current economic views correspond best with those of the Austrian school, of which my main understanding consists mainly of listening to YouTube commentaries of its proponents and reading several articles. I still need to do a shitload of reading material from the various schools of economics to have a better understanding of where I actually stand.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Just thought i'd to point something out. Economic freedoms really differs from political freedom. My country for example Singapore, is rated top in the world for economic freedom. We got no social security, no minimum wage, everything runs quite lasseiz faire here. It works preety well. But we are also like the worlds best example of a soft authoritarian, nanny state and it sucks. =/ Check out joseph stilitz's view on Keynesian economics. I think he makes quite a arguement.
JulianThePhilosopher 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
"You take countless things for granted that wouldn't be possible without taxes."
Actually, not only ALL of them are possible without taxes, but would be provided at a much BETTER quality without the coercive apparatus of the state taking people's money at the point of a gun and then providing it to you.
"what's the alternative."
How about a society in which things are done voluntarily WITHOUT taking people's wealth at the point of a gun?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma Fallacy my ass. It's a fact that thousands of people get life threatening illnesses that cost more to treat than anybody other than a millionare could afford to pay for out of pocket no matter how good they are at saving. The fact that people are emotional about death doesn't make my arguement a fallacy. You know it's BS to say that people could just save for healthcare, so you just cried fallacy.
Primalxbeast 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
"It's a fact that thousands of people get life threatening illnesses that cost more to treat"
And that justifies taking people's wealth at the point of a gun...how?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
Oh, BTW, ALL your points on healthcare are addressed and debunked(As they were trillion times before) here:
jacobspinneyDOTcom/blog/
In the top entry titled "Can Inaction Be Aggression?".
So please kindly avoid bringing up similar points in the future, because they are absolutely ridiculous.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Thank George Washington that he was against the notion of political parties and remains the only president to not have an official party.
greenjoker713 1 year ago
Right. We're getting hit by both sides.
216trixie 1 year ago
Save for medical care? So you have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up in case you get an illness more serious than the flu? One of the times that I had a blood clot, just the pharmaceutical part of the bill was $16,000, and that's nothing compared to things like cancer, and chronic debilitating diseases. So I guess you think that anybody who isn't a multi-millionaire should just die when they get sick.
Primalxbeast 1 year ago
@Primalxbeast:
Well, in America's corporatized uncompetitive system of course you get high prices.
Yes, American healthcare system is bad, but a coercive system which you have to pay for at the point of a gun is not a solution either.
"So I guess you think that anybody who isn't a multi-millionaire should just die"
Buzzz! Appeal to emotion! Logical FALLACY! TRY AGAIN!
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago