Actually have been in e-mail discussion involving at least one Randroide. The discussion was on the subject of a class action law suite against Wal-Mart that claims that women were being paid less then men, not being promoted, ect. Some of us ended up catching him up with his argument that these folks were not being harmed if this is the case (they are and probably being lied to about it). Difficult to be a rational, reasoning economic entity when you're world is full of lies.
"Libertopia" doesn't exist? Isn't Somalia a libertarian paradise? Minimally intrusive government, no government taking of property for public use, no restriction of freedom by civil authorities, no unjust laws (or any, for that matter), everybody able to rise as high as they are able through the efforts of their own ingenuity... Sounds like the ultimate expression of libertarian ideals to me. I would think libertarians would be wanting to emigrate there in droves.
@artgoat Libertarians believe in a government existing to protect civil and individual natural rights. However, speaking of poor, war-torn African countries, you might be interested to learn that Somalia is better off by almost every metric compared to the brutal dictatorship it previously had and better off than its neighbors as well.
@artgoat I don't support shari'a law or consider it to be an improvement over modern western republics. Shari'a law is against many individual rights, including those derived from secularization. I really think you have no idea what a libertarian is.
@hugesinker Somalia=Shari'a law. "Better off by almost every metric?"
"Libertarian" is a blanket label that defines nothing, being the blanket, universal, opposition party to everybody. It's a blessing that libertarian candidates don't hold many offices, because then they would actually have to have a platform and start to agree on beliefs, and that would be the end of them. If Glenn Beck and Rand Paul can both call themselves "libertarian" then it REALLY needs to be better defined.
@artgoat Hey, I think I can be of some assistance here... type "libertarian party" into the search engine of your choice. You may be surprised to find an actual registered political party, both nationally and in most states. Go to one of those websites. There, you'll find a link that says "Platform". Click it. You'll read several specific positions on every major political issue. A few agree with the position that the democrats or republicans purportedly hold. Glad I could help!
Esh, the Constitution DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU! Otherwise, why would any government official need to swear an oath to it? Where is this contract you are talking about. I want to read it.
@hugesinker Government officials swear an oath to UPHOLD and PROTECT the Constitution. You simply accept your duty to OBEY the rule of law by not renouncing your citizenship and not leaving the country. And the contract you are looking for is the constitution.
@BusterXXXL The idea that I accept a duty to obey any law just because the government has a default claim over my life or property unless I fight it off is absurd on its face. It justifies all the atrocities any government has ever committed as long as it had also followed a consistent method for formulating and enacting that law. Genocides have been passed into law in such a way. You need to draw a line somewhere between the justifiable purview of government legitimacy and individual rights.
@BusterXXXL I've never accepted a duty to uphold the law, and there is no such duty mentioned in the constitution. The only reason I obey any given law at all is one or more of these reasons:
1- The law is legitimately necessary to protect individual rights and property.
2- The law is the government's own business and has no detrimental effect on individual rights and property
3- I personally agree with the law.
4- By threat of force.
When the fourth one stands alone, the law is illegitimate.
@hugesinker You accepted, and keep, your citizenship, and you stay in the territory, where the law is valid. Therefor, you are bound by law, and if you break the law, you will be punished.
@BusterXXXL Did you read a single sentence I wrote? You're really not going to address anything I said? So segregation WAS legitimate, everything the government wants to do to you is legitimate-- kill you, take your shit, whatever-- "You accepted, and keep, your citizenship, and you stay in the territory, where the law is valid."
I'm sorry, but if you can't deal with these issues seriously or hold a conversation about them,I'm going to need to write you off as a complete tool. What a shame.
@PostITnoteGUY This is hilarious. Yeah, run up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt and then refuse to pay it and see if all that happens is their cutting off your service. Let us know how that works out for you.
Oh, and I see by "contract" you don't actually mean "contract," you just mean any sort of vague, unstated agreement or assumption of roles. Another evil consequence of randroidism and libertardation: the chronic misuse of and redefinition of plain English terms.
@PostITnoteGUY Ebay and credit card companies certainly use the threat of force to enforce their contracts. I don't make "contracts" with loved ones, so I don't know what you're referring to. And I'm not conflating anything...oh, wait, I see what you're doing here. You're saying that using force to prevent someone from taking your best Elvis painting is "defense" and using force to prevent someone from dodging taxes is "aggression." IOW, using force in a way you approve of is "defense."
@PostITnoteGUY As DJW has pointed out several times, even the most extreme libertarian utopia is just as "founded on violence." How does the libertarian or anarchist propose to enforce contracts or protect property, if not with the same threat of violence with which taxes are collected?
I must say, I really like your description of taxes. I already knew that the "why should my money go to..." argument is fallacious, but I haven't heard such a neat description of why before.
Is it just me or is libertarianism to politics what the essentially nihilistic approach to objective reality is to philosophy? Yes yes, there may not be any such thing as objective reality. And yet the only methodologies that have any efficacy function assuming there is. If I grant that property is invalid please demonstrate the exception the the rule of society in which the premise that property is valid is required for a functionality.
You can't claim to know that it does, by your own reasoning. Since you cannot know whether the state's act of conquest lead to a morally superior outcome than would otherwise have obtained.
You are right. Lordthawkeye lives in a fantasy land. He is the ultimate idealist, telling you what he thinks the world SHOULD be like instead of how it acctually is. And obviously you can't reason with him because he is unreasonable.
How, in your view, does one gain legitimate ownership of a thing? (or: what theory of property rights is your belief that the state is the legitimate owner of the land it claims based on?)
@bitbutter It would be more accurate to characterize my beliefs as, if there is such a thing as legitimate property, then the US legitimately own governing rights to its territory. If this is true, then it is true by the same means as anyone (or anything) else has gained property over the ages: purchase, donation, bequeathment or conquest. As for whether property is legitimate, it depends on whether the fruits of initiation of force (or credible threat of same) is moral.
@DavidJohnWellman Essentially, property is "legitimate" (and therefore really "property") if we as a society get together and agree that it is. That's what "legitimacy" means, essentially--there's a consensus that we're all in agreement that you own something.
If there _isn't_, then you cannot demonstrate the validity of the social contract idea by reference to renting, ordering food in a restaurant or any of the other usual precendents. Your argument against secession also falls through.
@DavidJohnWellman "As for whether property is legitimate, it depends on whether the fruits of initiation of force (or credible threat of same) is moral."
Even on this definition there's plenty of room to remain skeptical about the legitimacy of the state's claim to the land it possesses (is the absence of a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force always morally worse than it's presense? you don't know). So this renders the soundness of the social contract argument indeterminate.
"And you can tell you're dealing with an objectivist when you hear the phrase 'fallacy of the stolen concept'"
No you can't. I'm not an objectivist.
The first half of my vid shows how 'property is theft' commits the stolen concept fallacy without reference to definitions of aggression. It's a shame you ignored that.
Yes 'property is invalid' would be a formulation that doesn't have the problems of Proudon's version.
@DavidJohnWellman Great video David. I believe in private property as a convenience rather than a real thing. While I believe that land cannot be owned. Land is common. I adopted the idea from John Locke and his Second Treatise of Civil Government.
@PostITnoteGUY as I said "system (or rather lack of system)"
Will make a video to explain this to you, because 500 characters never seem to be enough. I always have to leave out something that I couldn't fit the explanation for.
@PostITnoteGUY Yes, the people as a whole are very willing to bear a *just* burden of social responsibility. It is the injustice greed and avarice of the mega-rich and their (purchased) governments that we are unwilling to bear.
@DonSSanders "It is the injustice greed and avarice of the mega-rich and their (purchased) governments that we are unwilling to bear."
Many who self identify as libertarians (myself included) agree with you wholeheartedly about this. We can count on the coercive apparatus of the state being co-opted by the rich and unscrupulous.
@bitbutter Indeed, any political theory must take into account the tendencies of the aristocracy to conspire to destroy obstacles to further their power and status, rather than compete fairly -- and yes, they have often used the power of the state to that end. But it seems naive to assume that coercive apparatuses will be unavailable to the aristocracy, or even less available. Libertarianism, I think, simply eliminates the middleman while eliminating an apparatus for regulation.
@DavidJohnWellman "But it seems naive to assume that coercive apparatuses will be unavailable to the aristocracy, or even less available."
A precondition for a successful stateless society, imo, is a widespread agreement that the state is not legitimate--quite different from our current situation to be sure. Against this background it would be exceedingly difficult for any party to become a state (which is in effect what you're describing).
@bitbutter I think with enough money and power, the aristocracy could easily set up a state without the people realizing it. Or they could launch a PR campaign to change their minds.
There's something I'm curious about. I've been informed that there's a difference between state and government, but exactly what function would government serve in a stateless society? A simple advisory council, whose suggestions the populace would be free to adhere to or ignore as they saw fit? Something more?
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture."
@PostITnoteGUY As I said in a previous video, the US can display receipts of ownership for all the land it governs.
But I'm done with you. I can just barely deal with a guy who is completely immersed in a fantasy world; dealing with someone immersed in at least TWO, mutually contradictory fantasy worlds is beyond my limit. Bye bye.
To paraphrase Oliver Wendall Holmes...Taxes are the price of civilization. How much civilization would you like? Liberty without a social contract become the very epitome of unbridled selfishness.
Some times it's mind-numbing to see how easy it is to refute these anarchists' arguments when contrasting it with the system (or rather lack of system) that they're proposing and see them still going on with the same bullshit.
Whenever they point to legitimate problems we say "Great. We agree on something. Let's fix it!" and they always say they just want to throw it out and not replace whatever system it was. I'll have to do a video some day. For some reason I don't have a time limit on them.
@MrRepzion I actually don't play wow these days, but I have several 80s waiting when I get back. And as I said in the description, the calendar belongs to Mrs. DJW, and comes from fckh8.com.
Libertarian atheists: guys who laugh at people who think an invisible man will fix all their problems...but have no trouble thinking an invisible hand will.
@Virgil0211 Absolutely not, and I'm kind of puzzled as to why you're following this line of reasoning, since I said nothing about evolution or science or creationism in my post.
@roentgen571 Because the invisible hand you mock is the same mechanism as natural selection in evolution. You cannot mock one as being 'ridiculous' or sounding 'supernatural' without levying the same criticism at the other. In fact, Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand in the marketplace inspired Darwin by prompting him to apply that same concept to the development of organisms over the course of history.
If you accept evolution, you cannot pretend to find the invisible hand foolish.
@Virgil0211 The difference is, markets are not naturally occurring. There is no other mechanism for nature to use, and just because an organism survives does not mean it is the "best" organism of it's kind.
@IamLiterallyRetarded True. And note that humans do not live by strict Darwinian processes. We're aware of them, and we go against them and/or use them to our advantage when we desire.
@Virgil0211 THere is a difference. Biological creatures start out the same, in libertarian capitalism you dont. It doesnt matter if you are extremely smart and have the potensial of becomming a "saviour" (for a lack of a better word) for society. If you arent born in a family with allot of money, you cant go to school. And pleas, dont try to make up some shit about how the market will make schools cheaper, just study history.
@roentgen571 That comment you made; it's fucking brilliant. I don't know if you stole that from someone or if you just made it up, but it's doesn't matter 'cause it's mine now bitch. Muahaha >)
sea steading? BIOSHOCK
stewie1974 6 months ago
You rock sir.
Actually have been in e-mail discussion involving at least one Randroide. The discussion was on the subject of a class action law suite against Wal-Mart that claims that women were being paid less then men, not being promoted, ect. Some of us ended up catching him up with his argument that these folks were not being harmed if this is the case (they are and probably being lied to about it). Difficult to be a rational, reasoning economic entity when you're world is full of lies.
DrIzixs 8 months ago
"Libertopia" doesn't exist? Isn't Somalia a libertarian paradise? Minimally intrusive government, no government taking of property for public use, no restriction of freedom by civil authorities, no unjust laws (or any, for that matter), everybody able to rise as high as they are able through the efforts of their own ingenuity... Sounds like the ultimate expression of libertarian ideals to me. I would think libertarians would be wanting to emigrate there in droves.
artgoat 8 months ago
@artgoat Libertarians believe in a government existing to protect civil and individual natural rights. However, speaking of poor, war-torn African countries, you might be interested to learn that Somalia is better off by almost every metric compared to the brutal dictatorship it previously had and better off than its neighbors as well.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@hugesinker You consider shari'a law to be an improvement, even to the red hats? I guess we'll just have to differ on that.
artgoat 8 months ago
@artgoat I don't support shari'a law or consider it to be an improvement over modern western republics. Shari'a law is against many individual rights, including those derived from secularization. I really think you have no idea what a libertarian is.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@hugesinker Somalia=Shari'a law. "Better off by almost every metric?"
"Libertarian" is a blanket label that defines nothing, being the blanket, universal, opposition party to everybody. It's a blessing that libertarian candidates don't hold many offices, because then they would actually have to have a platform and start to agree on beliefs, and that would be the end of them. If Glenn Beck and Rand Paul can both call themselves "libertarian" then it REALLY needs to be better defined.
artgoat 8 months ago
@artgoat Hey, I think I can be of some assistance here... type "libertarian party" into the search engine of your choice. You may be surprised to find an actual registered political party, both nationally and in most states. Go to one of those websites. There, you'll find a link that says "Platform". Click it. You'll read several specific positions on every major political issue. A few agree with the position that the democrats or republicans purportedly hold. Glad I could help!
hugesinker 8 months ago
i watched this becuase the thumbnail looked like bubbles
MsReefmaster 8 months ago
thats ''mom's basement'' wall in the background isnt it lol
onemanjazzfuneral 8 months ago
Esh, the Constitution DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU! Otherwise, why would any government official need to swear an oath to it? Where is this contract you are talking about. I want to read it.
hugesinker 10 months ago
@hugesinker Government officials swear an oath to UPHOLD and PROTECT the Constitution. You simply accept your duty to OBEY the rule of law by not renouncing your citizenship and not leaving the country. And the contract you are looking for is the constitution.
BusterXXXL 8 months ago
@BusterXXXL The idea that I accept a duty to obey any law just because the government has a default claim over my life or property unless I fight it off is absurd on its face. It justifies all the atrocities any government has ever committed as long as it had also followed a consistent method for formulating and enacting that law. Genocides have been passed into law in such a way. You need to draw a line somewhere between the justifiable purview of government legitimacy and individual rights.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@BusterXXXL I've never accepted a duty to uphold the law, and there is no such duty mentioned in the constitution. The only reason I obey any given law at all is one or more of these reasons:
1- The law is legitimately necessary to protect individual rights and property.
2- The law is the government's own business and has no detrimental effect on individual rights and property
3- I personally agree with the law.
4- By threat of force.
When the fourth one stands alone, the law is illegitimate.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@hugesinker You accepted, and keep, your citizenship, and you stay in the territory, where the law is valid. Therefor, you are bound by law, and if you break the law, you will be punished.
BusterXXXL 8 months ago
@BusterXXXL Did you read a single sentence I wrote? You're really not going to address anything I said? So segregation WAS legitimate, everything the government wants to do to you is legitimate-- kill you, take your shit, whatever-- "You accepted, and keep, your citizenship, and you stay in the territory, where the law is valid."
I'm sorry, but if you can't deal with these issues seriously or hold a conversation about them,I'm going to need to write you off as a complete tool. What a shame.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY This is hilarious. Yeah, run up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt and then refuse to pay it and see if all that happens is their cutting off your service. Let us know how that works out for you.
Oh, and I see by "contract" you don't actually mean "contract," you just mean any sort of vague, unstated agreement or assumption of roles. Another evil consequence of randroidism and libertardation: the chronic misuse of and redefinition of plain English terms.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Ebay and credit card companies certainly use the threat of force to enforce their contracts. I don't make "contracts" with loved ones, so I don't know what you're referring to. And I'm not conflating anything...oh, wait, I see what you're doing here. You're saying that using force to prevent someone from taking your best Elvis painting is "defense" and using force to prevent someone from dodging taxes is "aggression." IOW, using force in a way you approve of is "defense."
roentgen571 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY As DJW has pointed out several times, even the most extreme libertarian utopia is just as "founded on violence." How does the libertarian or anarchist propose to enforce contracts or protect property, if not with the same threat of violence with which taxes are collected?
roentgen571 11 months ago
I must say, I really like your description of taxes. I already knew that the "why should my money go to..." argument is fallacious, but I haven't heard such a neat description of why before.
raizumichin 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Am I reading this correctly? A libertarian asking for a handout? lol
roentgen571 11 months ago
Is it just me or is libertarianism to politics what the essentially nihilistic approach to objective reality is to philosophy? Yes yes, there may not be any such thing as objective reality. And yet the only methodologies that have any efficacy function assuming there is. If I grant that property is invalid please demonstrate the exception the the rule of society in which the premise that property is valid is required for a functionality.
dookiecheez 11 months ago
Let me get this straight...
Are you working off the theory that I don't own my house but rather I rent it from Steven Harper? (Canadian Prime Minister)
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye You own your house in a limited sense. Canada owns governing rights to your land.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidJohnWellman "Canada owns governing rights to your land."
You can't claim to know that it does, by your own reasoning. Since you cannot know whether the state's act of conquest lead to a morally superior outcome than would otherwise have obtained.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Who owns Canada?
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 day ago
@DavidJohnWellman
You are right. Lordthawkeye lives in a fantasy land. He is the ultimate idealist, telling you what he thinks the world SHOULD be like instead of how it acctually is. And obviously you can't reason with him because he is unreasonable.
Man you guys are geeks.
okbyme1000 1 month ago
djw; life is too short to waste it by debating creotards or randroids.
chrisbuxton1958 11 months ago
How, in your view, does one gain legitimate ownership of a thing? (or: what theory of property rights is your belief that the state is the legitimate owner of the land it claims based on?)
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter It would be more accurate to characterize my beliefs as, if there is such a thing as legitimate property, then the US legitimately own governing rights to its territory. If this is true, then it is true by the same means as anyone (or anything) else has gained property over the ages: purchase, donation, bequeathment or conquest. As for whether property is legitimate, it depends on whether the fruits of initiation of force (or credible threat of same) is moral.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Essentially, property is "legitimate" (and therefore really "property") if we as a society get together and agree that it is. That's what "legitimacy" means, essentially--there's a consensus that we're all in agreement that you own something.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "if there is such a thing as legitimate property"
If there _isn't_, then you cannot demonstrate the validity of the social contract idea by reference to renting, ordering food in a restaurant or any of the other usual precendents. Your argument against secession also falls through.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "As for whether property is legitimate, it depends on whether the fruits of initiation of force (or credible threat of same) is moral."
Even on this definition there's plenty of room to remain skeptical about the legitimacy of the state's claim to the land it possesses (is the absence of a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force always morally worse than it's presense? you don't know). So this renders the soundness of the social contract argument indeterminate.
bitbutter 11 months ago
"And you can tell you're dealing with an objectivist when you hear the phrase 'fallacy of the stolen concept'"
No you can't. I'm not an objectivist.
The first half of my vid shows how 'property is theft' commits the stolen concept fallacy without reference to definitions of aggression. It's a shame you ignored that.
Yes 'property is invalid' would be a formulation that doesn't have the problems of Proudon's version.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Pre-existing property was inherent in your definition of theft.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidJohnWellman "Pre-existing property was inherent in your definition of theft."
Correct. This doesn't change the fact that I'm not an Objectivist. So your assertion was false.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman Great video David. I believe in private property as a convenience rather than a real thing. While I believe that land cannot be owned. Land is common. I adopted the idea from John Locke and his Second Treatise of Civil Government.
FearedBliss 1 month ago
@PostITnoteGUY as I said "system (or rather lack of system)"
Will make a video to explain this to you, because 500 characters never seem to be enough. I always have to leave out something that I couldn't fit the explanation for.
coladict 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Yes, the people as a whole are very willing to bear a *just* burden of social responsibility. It is the injustice greed and avarice of the mega-rich and their (purchased) governments that we are unwilling to bear.
DonSSanders 11 months ago
@DonSSanders
A lot of people want to get ass-fuckingly rich (but they can't).
odenskrigare 11 months ago
@DonSSanders "It is the injustice greed and avarice of the mega-rich and their (purchased) governments that we are unwilling to bear."
Many who self identify as libertarians (myself included) agree with you wholeheartedly about this. We can count on the coercive apparatus of the state being co-opted by the rich and unscrupulous.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Indeed, any political theory must take into account the tendencies of the aristocracy to conspire to destroy obstacles to further their power and status, rather than compete fairly -- and yes, they have often used the power of the state to that end. But it seems naive to assume that coercive apparatuses will be unavailable to the aristocracy, or even less available. Libertarianism, I think, simply eliminates the middleman while eliminating an apparatus for regulation.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "But it seems naive to assume that coercive apparatuses will be unavailable to the aristocracy, or even less available."
A precondition for a successful stateless society, imo, is a widespread agreement that the state is not legitimate--quite different from our current situation to be sure. Against this background it would be exceedingly difficult for any party to become a state (which is in effect what you're describing).
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I think with enough money and power, the aristocracy could easily set up a state without the people realizing it. Or they could launch a PR campaign to change their minds.
There's something I'm curious about. I've been informed that there's a difference between state and government, but exactly what function would government serve in a stateless society? A simple advisory council, whose suggestions the populace would be free to adhere to or ignore as they saw fit? Something more?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@DavidJohnWellman "I've been informed that there's a difference between state and government"
I disagree. Though there is a difference between the state and governance, the latter can be distributed and non-monopolistic.
bitbutter 11 months ago
Sea-steading?
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture."
ShadowPa1adin 11 months ago
@ShadowPa1adin The world needs an Andrew Ryan; minus the widespread, homicide-inducing, commercially-widespread gene splicing of course.
hugesinker 8 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY As I said in a previous video, the US can display receipts of ownership for all the land it governs.
But I'm done with you. I can just barely deal with a guy who is completely immersed in a fantasy world; dealing with someone immersed in at least TWO, mutually contradictory fantasy worlds is beyond my limit. Bye bye.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Again, you're joking, right?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY You're joking, right?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So you want us to GIVE you some of the land? For free?
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Nor is anyone sent a form saying, If you rob your local bank, you will go to jail." Doesn't mean you get to rob banks.
Fortunately for you, your right to withdraw did not expire after you turned 18.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY Threat of force is the basis of ALL contract enforcement.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY addressed in part 2
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
Are you going to pwn a libertarian/objectivist for the Pwnage Olympics?
[has some in mind]
HomoCyborgZombie 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You appear to have a lot of contempt for these other philosophies.
DiwataMan 11 months ago
To paraphrase Oliver Wendall Holmes...Taxes are the price of civilization. How much civilization would you like? Liberty without a social contract become the very epitome of unbridled selfishness.
DonSSanders 11 months ago
Some times it's mind-numbing to see how easy it is to refute these anarchists' arguments when contrasting it with the system (or rather lack of system) that they're proposing and see them still going on with the same bullshit.
Whenever they point to legitimate problems we say "Great. We agree on something. Let's fix it!" and they always say they just want to throw it out and not replace whatever system it was. I'll have to do a video some day. For some reason I don't have a time limit on them.
coladict 11 months ago
I know this is off topic, but what is your character and level in WoW? And why is there a calender of a shirtless dude? lol
MrRepzion 11 months ago
@MrRepzion I actually don't play wow these days, but I have several 80s waiting when I get back. And as I said in the description, the calendar belongs to Mrs. DJW, and comes from fckh8.com.
DavidJohnWellman 11 months ago
Libertarian atheists: guys who laugh at people who think an invisible man will fix all their problems...but have no trouble thinking an invisible hand will.
roentgen571 11 months ago 23
@roentgen571 LMAO, good one.
And good video, DJW. I'm loving this.
Saukko31 11 months ago
@roentgen571 so you're a creationist?
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Not at all. I'm an atheist and a buddhist.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@roentgen571 So you're an atheist that rejects evolution?
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Absolutely not, and I'm kind of puzzled as to why you're following this line of reasoning, since I said nothing about evolution or science or creationism in my post.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@roentgen571 Because the invisible hand you mock is the same mechanism as natural selection in evolution. You cannot mock one as being 'ridiculous' or sounding 'supernatural' without levying the same criticism at the other. In fact, Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand in the marketplace inspired Darwin by prompting him to apply that same concept to the development of organisms over the course of history.
If you accept evolution, you cannot pretend to find the invisible hand foolish.
Virgil0211 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 I I don't remember mocking any invisible hands. I DO remember mocking people who view them as some sort of savior.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 The difference is, markets are not naturally occurring. There is no other mechanism for nature to use, and just because an organism survives does not mean it is the "best" organism of it's kind.
IamLiterallyRetarded 11 months ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded True. And note that humans do not live by strict Darwinian processes. We're aware of them, and we go against them and/or use them to our advantage when we desire.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@Virgil0211 Naturalistic fallacy.
blackplatypus 3 months ago
@Virgil0211 THere is a difference. Biological creatures start out the same, in libertarian capitalism you dont. It doesnt matter if you are extremely smart and have the potensial of becomming a "saviour" (for a lack of a better word) for society. If you arent born in a family with allot of money, you cant go to school. And pleas, dont try to make up some shit about how the market will make schools cheaper, just study history.
gulbirk 3 months ago 4
@roentgen571 Do you even know what Adam Smith meant by invisible hand?
DKshad0w 11 months ago
@DKshad0w I ought to, and I'm pretty sure I do.
roentgen571 11 months ago
@roentgen571 I'm stealing this.
Bellantoni 8 months ago
@Bellantoni stealing what? lol
roentgen571 8 months ago
@roentgen571 That comment you made; it's fucking brilliant. I don't know if you stole that from someone or if you just made it up, but it's doesn't matter 'cause it's mine now bitch. Muahaha >)
Bellantoni 8 months ago
@roentgen571 haha I thought the same.
FearedBliss 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrRepzion 11 months ago
6:15
Hahah, yeah, they can go build their own Rapture.
TheAtheistPaladin 11 months ago
This is an excellent series, keep up the good (and rational) work!
Theophage 11 months ago
Great video your very well spoken. You pwn the arguments in seconds :)
All love and respect
Eopyk 11 months ago
I can actually foresee someone putting "Property is Invalid" on a T-Shirt... And selling it. ;)
JoelCornah 11 months ago 14
@JoelCornah I'm gonna do that. Just to fuck with 'em!
TheLaughingOut 11 months ago