I am somewhat of a fan of Thunderf00t. I think his videos on creationists and Islam are well done, and should help educate people as to the evils of these doctrines.
However – he really does say some jaw-droppingly stupid things sometimes. I've learned more and more through the years that even for highly intelligent and educated people, ideology usually comes first. Sadly, Thunderf00t is an example of this principle.
Your traffic example reminded me of something very interesting I heard a while ago about a particular street in the Netherlands on which there is a big intersection with multiple roads leading into it. This spot has absolutely no traffic laws whatsoever. Instead, people who drive there are left to themselves to decide when to stop, when to go and when to allow or not allow someone to pass. Traffic accidents there are almost nonexistent, to the surprise of many. My memory on this is fuzzy, though
I know for a fact without a doubt that God is real. If you do not then you are the one preventing it, that's your choice. But if you knew what I know you would rush to know him. He already knows you. If you argue against this then it is only yourself you are bickering with.
i am all ears. theists seem to describe God as an eternal, unmovable, and all pervading presence. I know of only one candidate for this, awareness. i can look at it directly. it is a general presence that does not move while everything else in my consciousness is impermanent and fleeing. it is the only thing which is ALWAYS there, and from which i cannot be separated. is that God?
@junior00bacon00chee Have you ever read or listened to Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Alvin Plantinga? They are incredibly philosophers of religion (Christian)
you put sublims in your map. Right is right wrong is wrong and everone knows this down to the smallest thought or act. So these truths are the basis for all laws and punishments.
haha what the hell? that looks nothing like a whale, unless it's some kind of super deformed america resembling whale. then it looks like a giant whale.
And you think TF will watch this video? I you think even if he watches it (somehow) he will understand your point? I DOUBT. All ice caps will melt down faster rather than TF become an anarchist :D
nah, just trying to spread science and reason to the statist atheists. a lot of these religious zealots are so narrow minded tho that they refuse to listen b/c the science conflicts with their personal ideology.
luckily tho there are some intellectually honest ones who responded positively, so this wasn't a complete waste of time.
well this is exactly right, thunderfoot while a great scientific mind, has no clue about economics. And feels that somonehow a degree in biology qualifies him to talk on the issue as if his points are 100% accurate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thunderf00t will not respond to this because its moronic and inane. its just an ideological rant about small governement and tax abolition. it has nothing to do with f00ts point about control and order. junior is just pissed he got mentioned in a f00t video in a not so flattering light.
What difference does that make? f00t (who I actually like, btw -- been subbed for a long time) mentioned JBC "in a not so flattering light," probably not unlike what he did with VenomFangX.
Speaking of... you mean to tell me that the creationist argument isn't moronic and inane? Please. Come on, man, think this through. F00t was all about steamrolling the soft, easy creationist target, but right, wrong, or indifferent, he isn't showing any interest in a harder debate against a worthy opponent.
I would love t know what the 'market indicators' are for cleaning the fat out of the sewers! you fucking joke haha! you dont know what a publice service is, let alone how to provide it.
labor requires effort, does it not? and how much available effort should be sacrificed for cleaning sewers vs all other possible ventures? how much would it all cost? how can any of this be determined?
of course there are economic issues at stake, and questions only a market of voluntary economic transactions can answer. you are just a closed-minded near sighted jackass.
so please, you clearly know nothing of traffic management, fiscal studies / economics, engineering, maths, geography, contract procurement, the tender process or even what it means to be a decent human being. i at least have some experience of these. like you, i havent just read a best selling hard back for all my wisdom.
haha okay whatever man. at least i dont live off of extortion money...so im not sure how you consider yourself "decent." if people dont fork over the money to pay your paycheck then they are locked into cages like animals. how's that contract for ya? real classy.
go somewhere else, you have brought me all the same dogmatic crap that i hear almost every day, and it all comes from complete ignorance of economics. you clearly dont want to learn, so please go vomit on someone else's channel.
ok 1 last thing then i promise i will go vomit somewhere else. i admit i have been narrow minded. i work in the UK, we have our own way - but ur right, i cannot say it is the best. i can only say what works for us. every country has its own ways based on different theories and trains of thought.
but i maintain that the gvnt can provide public services cheaper than the 'privateers' as they are able to borrow for less. also they dont need to clear a profit etc.
but if they are privatised then public service provision (PSP) must be heavily regulated to ensure high standards of service and to prevent abuse of monopoly power.
turning public services into deregulated private ones would be far more expensive and wouldnt guarantee improvement in service as there are no regs to state what % should be reinvested. relying on competition alone is morally corrupt (for PSP). THAT is extortion.
"but i maintain that the gvnt can provide public services cheaper than the 'privateers' as they are able to borrow for less. also they dont need to clear a profit etc."
Why would you deliberately revolt against market indicators? Why is "borrowing for less" and incurring debt onto a fictional legal entity beneficial for non-state actors?
The US federal code provides a perfect definition for the only viable way of defining "inefficient" resource allocation...
US Federal code, "The term 'extortion; means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. "
This fictional legal entity which enforces the extortion/monopolization business model, as you say, can ignore profit/loss criteria. When a special class of people can legally extort the rest of society, they are not disciplined by losses, competition, etc.
"serve the people" now means neglect them the basic ability to secede from tyrannical political arrangements with their own livelihood.
How can the govt "ensure" anything? dont you see how you are placing arbitrary people on a pedestal?
All human actions involve making judgments about an uncertain future. Humans have wants and needs. Entrepreneurs in a hyp free market make judgments about future prcies, and allocate capital accordingly. All the state does is destroy economic indicators by institutionalizing involuntary economic arrangments.
Then we get are supposed to jump for joy b/c we get to complain on paper.
how is relying on competition extortion? were not just throwing around the word extortion. look it up. taxes are extortion. voluntary exchange is not.
I didnt say competition was extortion. the market can produce a brilliant product like the car etc, (although american cars are not so good). my real problem is with private companies managing or owning and delivering public services.
they're simply incompetent.
traffic lights in the uk aren't that unique, they all serve the same purpose, including roundabouts - thats to impose a restriction of movement on you for the overall benefit of all. how you do it doesnt matter so long as you do it
i dont buy american cars because theyre crap. i only buy japanese cars, so did my dad.
you SHOULD have a problem with the government selling monopoly rights to the highest bidder. there are no services that are too "public" for private companies to handle. for you to say competition is more incompetent than monopoly would be completely ignorant. were not saying government is an inneficient provider of services just because they are government. its because monopolies lack the feedback mechanism
when did I say competition is more incompetent than monopoly? I DO have a problem with the governement 'selling monopoly rights'. I dont want them 'selling' them full stop. these assets are not the governments to sell.
when awarding these contracts the LOWEST bidder will generally win in order to drive efficiencies and savings.
haha. ok that comment demonstrates that you dont understand the concept of price discovery. also you seem to be saying government should sell monopoly rights at a low price... monopolies should not exist, especially by government agency or government granting monopoly rights.
Do you understand the nature of competition and why it is the natural order of things? All competition is is choosing the best option that meets your needs from a set of choices, the broader the choices the more incentive there is to provide the best service. If I own a restaurant and there are 500 more someone could go to I will go out of my way to make mine stand out and stay in business. Go read man, you're indoctrination is nausia inducing.
i understand the nature of competetion perfectly. that's why i know you cant use competition to provide people with 'better traffic light systems'. its unfeasible, unworkable, illogical - really downright stupid. understand how traffic lights work. name me one place in the world were there are companies competing to provide them. there is NO COMPETITION. they provide NO REVENUE so you wont even get a private company wanting to take over their management.
no you don't. You seem to lack the common sense to. It's sad how brainwashed you are thinking a few hundred people can make better decisions than millions.
Exactly on the money. The have total power and don't have to worry about the consequences, they get their money from our taxes regardless of efficiency and benefit to the people. This is why it's better to privatize.
also, you do understand we are not against restriction of movement right? the common leftist/collectivist misconception about libertarians is that they prefer chaos demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concept.
well tell that to juniorbacon. he seems to think that the goverment shouldnt restrict us in any way because they dont know anything. only 'market indicators' can show what we really need.
all human actors make judgments about future conditions, and act accordingly based on their ends. you hold that a fictional legal entity called "the state" should grant special monopoly privileges to state/state-connected actors. they use funds extracted through threats to actively monopolize markets, and use ideological cover for the whole operation.
the whole "govt as a guarentee" is just the result of non rational conditioning.
well i can tell you that the reason you dont understand what he's talking about when he says that is because he sees it through the scope of a science that you are ignorant of. its called praxeology, which is the science of human action. economics is just a PART of praxeology.its no surprise that you cant comprehend what he's saying based on your neoclassical view of economics or 'market indicators'. he knows as well as i do that roads would work more efficiently if they were privately owned.
i dont know what you are responding to. neither of you are making any sense. your just saying words.
define what an 'efficient' road is. explain yourself. toll roads have less traffic because youre charged at the point of entry - if thats what you mean? youre talking bollocks basically. private / public roads really ownly refers to who is responsible for its maintenance.
thats a cowardly response and you wouldnt have responded to it if my comment if you didnt know it was to you.
private/public roads refers to who owns it. youre so narrow minded that you think tolls are the only possible source of revenue for road owners. im talking about traffic moving efficiently, without traffic jams. if a private toll road is too congested for traffic to move at the speed limit you would raise the price. read mises, learn praxeology.
you cant fucking read! you have misquoted me about four times now. youre an imbocile. i didnt say that monopolies should exist. i said thats how it is. im against private sector involvement altogether you dick.
but state-run "public" programs are monopolies. if they werent, they would have competition. its like you are saying that you are only supporting the existence of monopolies if competition is illegal... youre against private sector involvement in everything?
a democracy is not a monopoly. its not a monopoly when the public owns the industry that services its needs. i am pretty much against any private sector involvement in the public sector.
youre just flat out ignorant on this subject. a monopoly is any provider of a good or service that has no competition. youre just flat out ignorant on this subject. government services are a monopoly. youre arguing like a creationist now. facts and definitions dont matter, just your ideology...
fuck off mate. sadly i know more about roads, bridges, traffic lights, public services and privatisation then you would ever hope to. its you that doesnt have a clue what you are aguing. you make junior look like a bonafied genius. i asked you what an 'efficient road' was because Im a civil engineer and I have never come across that term. you cant just make up terms and facts. so whos the fucking creationist?
i know more about human action than you ever will. i didnt create a term by saying efficient roads you moron. im talking about roads being efficient. combining words...
typical statist reaction, you cant solve problems without violence. funny thing is, england is an entire country full of pussies begging the government to take care of them. go ahead and make the same mistake your inbred ancestors made and come over here and try to solve your problems with violence, i'll be waiting.
look up the definition of efficient. you can have a road that appears to be better than another road, but its wrong to say that road is more efficient. you MIGHT be able to refer to the efficiency of a road NETWORK.
inbred? talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
and are you french? cos thats who the english lost to, not a bunch of pilgrims with pitch forks. the french saved your miserable little country and look how you treat them!
a road is efficient if traffic flows freely. traffic jams = innefficiency.
yes, english people are inbred pussies.
wow, is that how you guys justify it? thats hilarious. do they also hide the fact that thomas jefferson was in france during the french revolution and was advising lafayette?
you cant just make up your own terms and definitions. the word you are looking for is congested. fuck it, call it what you want, you point is still moot.
have you been reading up on the revolution on wikipedia?
i do enjoy my nanny state. far more than i would living with you burger munching, bible bashing, neo-con, inward looking, overly aspirational rhinestone cowboys.
i already used the word congested in this thread or possibly another thread on this page or on the comments section of a diff response to thundertard's moronic video. youre an ignorant fool if you think im a neo-con, the term wouldnt even be in use if it werent for libertarians despising the neo-cons. youre calling me a bible-basher? you think neo-cons are anti-bible? you seem so terribly confused. read mises. study praxeology.
@londonoverground I think an efficient road (relative term) would be one that would better than other roads at transporting the greatest amount of stuff at the lowest possible cost.
You don't know anything you're just an arrogant idiot immersed in state indoctrination. The most dangerous people are the people who don't know they're sick.
you don't understand. A democracy is a facade. It's a joke. Power does what it wants. Both parties have the same agenda, more control, more power and tightening the bonds of the slaves. you're vote means nothing.
Oh really? Private companies are incompetent that's a new one. Because monopolies are so much more competent at providing good service with no incentive.
i live in chicago and the government of chicago was providing the service of parking meters at a much lower rate than a private company would have. this has caused so much pollution and congestion in chicago that people from dallas texas come here and comment about how our city smells. then the city realized if they sell the parking meters to a private company the rising price will mean less pollution and more people will choose to ride chicago's nearly bankrupt public transportation systems.
just to let you in on a little secret - Scotland is in the UK. we can add geography to list of things you dont know. the bridge contract was procured by westminster. initial quote £15m, went up to £25m then £90+. the way PFI works is the governemnt then buys back the asset over a 25 year period. British tax payers. thats £1.50 for every man woman and child. its ok though because i forget the Scottish Paliament pulled the plug and told them to fuck off.
and I know perfectly well what 'private' means. there is nothing wrong with my terminology, but yours is quite bizarre at times. i have written a paper on Britain flogging off its public services to private sector consortiums.
and i know you didnt say healthcare was efficient. you wouldnt be that stupid. i should have asked is it just? the answer again is an infatic no.
fair enough, when i think "british" i think of english people.
the point is that you and other people not involved directly with the bridge would not be concerned at all if the cost were not passed onto you through forced taxation. taxation is the problem...duh.
all you have done is demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of a traffic lights purpose. its to keep the junction from becoming congested. not sure why you would say my expertise is alleged. im a civil engineer and until recently recently a transport planner. every day i modelled road junctions for preliminary design. esentially i could tell if a junction would work efficiently before it was even built. thats what models do. something else you have completely failed to understand...
...by declaring it cant take into account evry possible scenario (whatever they are). er i know. thats not how you model. you keep talking about consumer choice - for traffic lights? that is just laughable. you cant introduce market competition into traffic lights. traffic lights are traffic lights. you dont have to pay to use them. signalised junctions are modelled on capacity and delay. we are looking for a reserve capacity of at least 10-15%. this allows the junction to operate on busy days
we consider 85-90% its capacity with the 10-15% spare just in case. the shorter the cycle time the better ie the time it takes to go from green back to green. adjusting the cycle time will affect the reserve capacity so its about balance. once we are satisfied all parameters are met, then the detail design can commence. this is just engineering. where does the market come in?
maybe there is a safer way? maybe there is a more efficient way? you cannot possibly know a priori how humans will react to any kind of regulation. sometimes traffic regulations can make things more dangerous.
and, moreover, for the LAST time, traffic regulation requires funding. if people werent extorted to pay for it, they could CHOOSE what kind of road they preferred. it is their car, their risk, why cant they drive on a completely unregulated road??
oh really, they are free? there is no cost to a traffic light? the taxpayers dont fund it?
you just assume you have knowledge that is impossible. you cannot, a priori, know the best way to create the most efficient traffic.
and what you keep electing to ignore is that even if you could, it doesnt matter, individual sovereignty would mean that people could choose what kind of road they want to drive on. absolutely no need to force shit onto people.
And thsi is before we even mention profiteering. I think last year californian HMOs made about $4bn in profits, and spent a further $6bn on admin and consultants. thas $10bn of californians hard earned cash that will never go any where near helping the sick. this is efficient? i promise you dude, your money is better off in the public purse.
when did i ever call the healthcare system "efficient?"
you are used to arguing with people who fall into your preconceived categories. as i see it "efficient" can only be defined insofar as it roots back to the subjective value judgments of the consumer, ie, people who actually are allocating resources which they obtained through voluntary means.
the govt has been heavily involved in US health care for decades. the "insurance" business interests use the state to cartelize industry.
with any service or product provided, the state must be responsible for ensuring it is fit for purpose from the outset - through legislation, standards and specifications. that is the purpose of the state. the private sector is incapable of doing this. they have no moral / legal accountability. in a free market sellers are under no obligation to provide a product fit for purpose. to argue competition alone will provide this is an unjustifiably sanguine view
the state ensures purpose? come on now. the state cannot ensure anything, it's not magical.
if people are extorted, where is the incentive to perform? everyone involved gets their paycheck regardless. the extortion model is certainly not MORE of an incentive to perform than having to compete for voluntary consumers who could freely remove their financial backing without fear of imprisonment.
there is accountability on a free market. the only way market actors can reap a profit (w/o the help of the state) is to outcompete other market actors in making better decisions about how to serve the more urgent wants and needs of consumers. as soon as they fail to do that they incur losses and eventually cease to exist.
the state however does not operate according to profit/loss. it extorts its "profit" and thus can never go out of business. there is no feedback mechanism.
i said the state is not magical, this also includes the free market. nothing can ever be ensured 100%, but the point is that profit and loss are essential in determining the best way to deliver what consumers want, ie, the people who actually earned the money.
there is a feedback mechanism! its called the ballot box.
to remove the state completely and ask the private market to take its place to me staggers belief. to think that the private market are in any way willing or capable of ensuring the needs of people are duly met is naive at the least. dont belive me? look at the mess britain has got herslef in over Private Finance Initiatives. Here the private sector has consistently failed to meet the needs of the public it serves and...
..all at a hugely over inflated price. why? because of the cost of borrowing. public sector bodies can borrow at far lower rate of interest than than the private sector. And why do you think the private sector will be willing to carry the the Risk of managing , lets say, low demand services. were do they offload that risk? - do a quick wiki on PFI and in particular, the Skye Bridge in Scotland. Every tax payer in the UK will be paying for this fiasco for the next 25 years...
why the fuck would british people be paying for a bridge in scotland? how do you think the cost of something which you had nothing to do with was unloaded onto you? that is what happens with taxation. investment is not tied to the investor...and so we enter bizarro land.
first understand what the state is. once you do that, you wont be confused about what "private" really means. "profiteering" is a result of state created cartels, ie, when resource allocation is not rooted in consumer demand b/c of taxation funded forced barriers to entry on markets.
the business cartels use the state to stamp out competition.
i cant explain all of economics in the comment section, if u are truly interested, go to:
so being able to scribble something down on paper while still being extorted is more of a check than entities having to actually compete for voluntary consumers without the threat of imprisoning them if they dont fork over some cash?
the ballot box is a joke.
what you call "private" i call "state-connected."
actual private property does not entail the extortion/monopolize for business interests economic model.
signalling theory, like any theory in any science is vital. i would love to see you attempt at controlling a signalised junction without any previous theory. you would be wasting your time, and money.
and the state ensures purpose with the the gun and the gavel. and talk of 'freely remove their financial backing'? dude, i cant walk form my phone contract. and this is in a regulated market. but you seek to tear down regulations? thats 'retarding' human development.
so signal theory can take into account every possible scenario and, on top of that, can know how unfathomably complex human brains will interact in all those possible scenarios, thus knowing what regulatory set-up will be the "best?"
If if you say yes, which would just be a lie, it doesn't solve the problem of economic calculation. Signal theory cannot tell people when there is "enough" invested in safety. i mean....why not have bumper lanes? wouldnt that be safer? when is it too much?
You can't even define what the "best" set up would be without it rooting back to the subjective choices of the consumer. if i have X money to allot, it is a means which can service a multitufe of ends. If i choose to cruise on slightly more expensive roads for the extra safety then i am rewarding the entrepreneur who invests more in safety. If i can't stand some over-regulated slow road, then maybe i go another route.
Maybe complete unregulation of the roads brings the safest result....
retarding human development is allowing your ignorance to justify extorting innocent people (at the threat of being locked into a government hellhole) so that the very business interests you "oppose" can bribe state actors to pass legislation (via the state monopolization of law) which protects them from competition and allows them to pass off costs onto the extorted. this effectively severs investment from the interest of "the people," ie, the extorted, ie, the taxpayers.
dude traffic lights are not a consumable item or service. theyre not affected market forces. you picked a bad example. the traffic regulation you talk of (by which you mean traffic signal design i think) can only be done one way. the right way. signal design is based on signal theory and modelling, not real life experimentations. i just dont understand why you think using the same methods to model and design junctions etc nationwide is harmful or why you think the state is responsible.
traffic lights are a means to an end, they arise as a result of economic interaction as does anything else. to say that they are not subject to market forces is absurd.
to say that you know the best way a priori is just flat out wrong given the complexity of human actions. private ownership of roads would mean that owners can experiment with different methods until the safest methods are discovered and modeled after.
for example, there is evidence that less road regulations can actually make roads safer. w/o testing this possibility in real life this could never have been discovered. there is no scientific theory which can predict all the possible outcomes of all the possible ways of regulating (or not regulating) traffic. "signaling theory" may be useful, it may be useless, only widespread experimentation could determine that.
moreover, the human complexity argument is only one factor.
implementing safety regulations requires money. if people paid for it according to their own free choice (rather than being extorted), the extent to which people are willing to pay for traffic safety can be determined. eventually, the non-specific factors of production would go to the production of more urgently valued wants and needs, rather than for more safety measures. no "signaling theory" can help in this.
fewer regulations make can make roads safer? if that were the case then vietnam would be the safest place in the world to drive. its not, its one of the most dangerous.
there are town centres in england where this is being trialed - semi pedestrianistion. im not a fan. i think regs help reduce the human complexity element you speak of. they will not catch on.
why factor in human actions? you cant model them. you model what you can quantify, then test that model against observations after the design stage to verify its veracity. you find that chaotic human behaviour is almost negated through a phenomenon called immergent behaviour.
what you are saying is completely irrelevant. even if you DID know the best way to regulate (which is not the case), all you are really claiming is that state actors can predict the future better than non-state actors. this is absurd. if your models, and alleged expertise on road safety, are really the "best," then entrepreneurs would choose them in order to try to outcompete rivals.
again, no need for the extortion/monopolization. it is barbaric and uncivilized to the extreme.
It is patently obvious by historical evidence than cooperation in large groups leads to the success of a society.... The Romans, the Egyptians, USA etc. Breaking down widespread infrastructure like road systems results in chaos when the likes of thunderf00t go on road trips. No state would leave groups of people vulnerable to attack by enemies, and there wouldn't exactly be men walkin on the moon under such a system.
The state would still exist if everyone thought it was "illegitimate." The state exists by force, not by people thinking it's "legitimate." Legitimacy is irrelevant.
You think taxes are voluntary? I don't see any "propaganda" being put out by the government saying it's your duty to pay taxes. They know they don't have to put out any. They have the force to tax. A person who sees taxes as illegitimate still has to pay them or go to jail.
The soviet union fell because it was a highly socialistic system. It was the mechanics of the system, not whether people say it as legitimate or not.
The more people view the state as legitimate the less likely actual force is necessary. The more violence is actually used the less people will believe the state is necessary. Legitimacy reduces the need for force, and there is a limited supply of state force that can be used.
i can neither confirm nor disconfirm whether or not he is "smarter," but i can say with great confidence that he is ignorant of economics. it's not upon my own authority, or alleged "smarts," that i make the claims that i do, they are based in scientific reasoning. maybe it's like some layman using copernican understanding to destroy ptolemy. ptolemy may be "smarter" but he has not achieved the simplification and organization of evidence/concepts that copernicus did.
I really don't understand what your arguing for. It's not like governments spring out of no where. They occur because people collectivize, socialize and of course weaponize.
I don't see the point of your argument. Just seems you use the word state in order to have a rhetorical devil that you think must be defeated. The boogeyman goin to get you if you don't pay your taxes. Religiosity at it's finest.
so it's not a "bogeyman," i dont imagine these things in my head. this is a reality. if you dont pay, and get caught, they'll be coming for you. all i am doing is pointing out that the extortion business model is not more apt to achieve the ends popularly assigned to it than the infinite other possibilities.
"if you dont pay, and get caught, they'll be coming for you."
This happens when you break a contract privately so what's your point?
By living in an area occupied by coercive force, you enter a contract with that group. You have a problem then move, stop paying taxes, stop working for those who are taxed etc...
so...by being born i enter into a contract? i thought contracts had to do with individual consent and agreement?
one may argue for force in enforcing a private contract, but it cannot be argued that private contract is analogous to your arrangement with the state. you are just using ideology to justify why arbitrary people can do something deemed criminal for the everyone else to engage in.
and move where? to another state? i would go to anarctica but the US state wont let me.
Ok here's my problem with you anarchist. You contradict yourselves WAY too much. I heard stefbot say the state doesn't exist. Yet you say the US won't let you go to Anarctica.
The you say force will be used if you violate a contract. But isn't your complaint to the state is their use of force? I thought all you needed was social ostracism.
2. i said someone might use force....but there is no entity which claims the ultimate say on what is legitimate, so whether or not their use of force was "legitimate" is not dictated this extortion funded cartel.
i dont know what ideology you are talking about. i do not positively advocate that arbitrary people belonging to this weird group should be able to aquire property in a manner that they deem "criminal" for others to engage in.
Insults are easy. Anarchy is a failed ideology. Anarchic societies have collapsed. "Statist" societies have collapse. They advent when certain conditions are true. Think of tyranny and anarchy as a pendulum.
insults are easier than trying to explain something to a person who doesn't wish to understand. Your understanding about anarchy is complete stereotipical. Firstly, it is not an ideology. It is a philosphy.
Philosophy so it's dogmatic. True false? Right wrong. No relative implications? Yea I'll stay away from your philosophy that again has failed many times over otherwise their would still be anarchic societies.
the corrections can be slow I will admit. but that is just like science. Progress doesn't occure in leaps and bounds. Its a slow process. Democracy is a looped system. And is capable of positive and negative feed back loops.
before I begin to ramble: This guy has missed the mark and should reevaluate his definitions. Sorry J00B00C you are a smart guy just a little misguided.
yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress.
sure democracy has a weak feedback mechanism. politicians fear getting voted out. but the point is that the state deliberately makes the feedback mechanism much less effective. what is the point of this?
government should be voluntarily funded, and the ability to secede should be infininte.
"yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress."
awesome
how do you guys come to a consensus? magic? what are you doing right now? when you convince someone democracy is a bad thing, you are actually participating in "the democratic process" for better or worse. I suspect you're on the side of Edward Bernays et al.
"the ability to secede should be infininte."
what does that even mean? that someone can secede from the universe? take it from an outsider: you sound ridiculous.
"yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress."
What would you suggest then? Somalia?
"government should be voluntarily funded, and the ability to secede should be infininte."
So how would you fund justifiable wars, Afghanistan in particular. If I had my way.. tax the shit out anybody who supported Iraq war by a vote and it automatically slaps a tax percentage. What about our Navy forces to protect merchant vessels? Navy gets paid shit.. its a bargain!!
I support Sucession to weed out fucking morons of Texas. Yet, how do you divide or transport the bases which are federally funded? You could sell them.. but could they really afford them?
You never thought this out to well.. libertarian ideology has some great utopian concepts. Yet, government is a necessary evil whether you like it or not.
If the FDA under Bush didn't privatize inspections my friend would still have his peanut farm in Virginia. The "processing plant" has salmonella issues and the farmer has to pay with his property, livelyhood, and everything else.
The CEO knew of the contamination and was basicly saying sell it anyways. Simple sanitation and pest control improvements could have saved many livelyhoods and his company. Yet, that profit margin was such an issue "fuck em all!"
Also a free market is not always the best form of "government" where people can "vote with their feet" or equivalently with their cash. Because ever expanding monopolys can develop thus limiting cash and options to many and putting cash and choice into the hands of the few. Voteing is NOT some meaningless "ritual" unlike sacraficing goats it has real world consequences. To exert choice is to exert power. Democracy is a self correcting system...
monopolization is a result of state granted privileges enforced through the marginal state and paid for through taxation.
basically you argue that extorting people and leaving them the ability to complain about it empowers them. the state is supposed to serve society, and the argument is that jotting down a check on paper is a better indicator of what consumers want than prices, competition, free entry, experimentation, profit and loss criteria, etc.
I think this guy is making a false analogy between government and religion. Maybe Orsen Wells keeps this guy up at night?
Also, just because a centralized power system can be cumbersom and slow and inefficient at times doesn't mean that they are not effective at others. Because any system where human choice comes into play the best system of government is one that can is average all the around. Slow to change but not impossible, slow to act but not sluggish.
I think another way to say what I'm saying is that fire burns, fire is torture, but fire is useful when it can be contained.
Similarly, a little fascism here, a little communism there, a little anarchy over here can all function together under the aegis of democracy and reverence for pluralism and respect for diversity and ironclad protection of the fundamental rights of all including especially the minority.
I've always found the people who are against paying taxes are one of three things. Idiots, complete dicks, or the type of person who describes paying taxes as "extortion" while having zero problem with corporations doing the exact same thing through the response with "The free market will take care of it". The third type is known as the hyperbolic douche.
I hate paying taxes, but I understand the purpose in the social perspective.
wow so you've got a lot of preconceived categories that you drop things into. that's not really a good way to learn new things.
corps are finctional legal entities created by the state. how do you think they get so large and inefficient? they bribe politicians via campaign funds to pass legislation that they write which protects them from competition in many various ways.
so we need a state to battle state created behemoths?
you can't solve anything w/o striking at the root.
So you are arguing that without the states, the corps wouldn't be so large? That is idiotic, you state yourself in your comment that they bribe politicians, that shows intent. The state didn't create the behemoths, the state was bypassed with greed, which just gives another reason for regulation in state and out to stop this kind of thing from happening.
You say it yourself, why do you completely ignore it?
You don't need a god to make or follow a religion.
taibunsuu 2 months ago
My left ear feels enlightened.
Tsicar 3 months ago
I believe if thunderfoot is for science then should have no problem defending his concrete beliefs of religion and rationality.
Gods0n1 10 months ago
Thumbs-up for the vid!
I am somewhat of a fan of Thunderf00t. I think his videos on creationists and Islam are well done, and should help educate people as to the evils of these doctrines.
However – he really does say some jaw-droppingly stupid things sometimes. I've learned more and more through the years that even for highly intelligent and educated people, ideology usually comes first. Sadly, Thunderf00t is an example of this principle.
OneCerebralSamurai 11 months ago
I noticed that Thunderf00t marked the video that this one is a response to private. I wonder why...
GoldCoinCollector 11 months ago
Comment removed
Houshalter 1 year ago
Your traffic example reminded me of something very interesting I heard a while ago about a particular street in the Netherlands on which there is a big intersection with multiple roads leading into it. This spot has absolutely no traffic laws whatsoever. Instead, people who drive there are left to themselves to decide when to stop, when to go and when to allow or not allow someone to pass. Traffic accidents there are almost nonexistent, to the surprise of many. My memory on this is fuzzy, though
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@IvanTheHeathen
absolutely, i've heard of that too. a YT user named guncriminal has footage from one of them in i think sweden.
here is the vid:
v=Su72bF8c2_w
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I know for a fact without a doubt that God is real. If you do not then you are the one preventing it, that's your choice. But if you knew what I know you would rush to know him. He already knows you. If you argue against this then it is only yourself you are bickering with.
orange70383 1 year ago
@orange70383
i am all ears. theists seem to describe God as an eternal, unmovable, and all pervading presence. I know of only one candidate for this, awareness. i can look at it directly. it is a general presence that does not move while everything else in my consciousness is impermanent and fleeing. it is the only thing which is ALWAYS there, and from which i cannot be separated. is that God?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Have you ever read or listened to Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Alvin Plantinga? They are incredibly philosophers of religion (Christian)
hrobertb 1 year ago
you put sublims in your map. Right is right wrong is wrong and everone knows this down to the smallest thought or act. So these truths are the basis for all laws and punishments.
orange70383 1 year ago
wooow, 3:52 USA looks like a giant WHALE!!!!!
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@MaikUniversum
haha what the hell? that looks nothing like a whale, unless it's some kind of super deformed america resembling whale. then it looks like a giant whale.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
And you think TF will watch this video? I you think even if he watches it (somehow) he will understand your point? I DOUBT. All ice caps will melt down faster rather than TF become an anarchist :D
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
You and thunderf00t are not crazy. He's a jerk-off that's actually not always right, and you're just kinda... dumb.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal
dumb like a fox?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Ramblings of a madman.
Are you reading something written in blood?
metalorg 1 year ago
@metalorg
nah, just trying to spread science and reason to the statist atheists. a lot of these religious zealots are so narrow minded tho that they refuse to listen b/c the science conflicts with their personal ideology.
luckily tho there are some intellectually honest ones who responded positively, so this wasn't a complete waste of time.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
I just unsubscribed from thunderfoot... I'm atheist too but never really liked how he trashed the other kid without any fringe of compassion.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
well this is exactly right, thunderfoot while a great scientific mind, has no clue about economics. And feels that somonehow a degree in biology qualifies him to talk on the issue as if his points are 100% accurate.
NoSz4 2 years ago
@NoSz4
He has no idea in Biology either.
TruthfulChristian2 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian2
Says the guy who cannot define adaptation...
sandpaperify 1 year ago
If so much talking is needed to prove a point, then there is an overwhelming chance that there is not much of a point to be proven.
Siddis33 2 years ago
Wow that is the stupidest thing I've read all day.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
I'm still pretty annoyed that f00t has yet to respond to this.
MusicalAdrian 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thunderf00t will not respond to this because its moronic and inane. its just an ideological rant about small governement and tax abolition. it has nothing to do with f00ts point about control and order. junior is just pissed he got mentioned in a f00t video in a not so flattering light.
londonoverground 2 years ago
well at least i have the comfort of knowing that im not a social parasite who can't get a job in the productive sector....
and look how muh vacation time they give you guys. you are all over this video still? dont have anything better to do?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
@junior00bacon00chee
thunderf00t is a f00l
TruthfulChristian 1 year ago
@TruthfulChristian he is not fool, he is actually very smart person, when he talks about science... in philosophy, yes, he is a TOOL.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
What difference does that make? f00t (who I actually like, btw -- been subbed for a long time) mentioned JBC "in a not so flattering light," probably not unlike what he did with VenomFangX.
Speaking of... you mean to tell me that the creationist argument isn't moronic and inane? Please. Come on, man, think this through. F00t was all about steamrolling the soft, easy creationist target, but right, wrong, or indifferent, he isn't showing any interest in a harder debate against a worthy opponent.
MusicalAdrian 2 years ago
I would love t know what the 'market indicators' are for cleaning the fat out of the sewers! you fucking joke haha! you dont know what a publice service is, let alone how to provide it.
londonoverground 2 years ago
labor requires effort, does it not? and how much available effort should be sacrificed for cleaning sewers vs all other possible ventures? how much would it all cost? how can any of this be determined?
of course there are economic issues at stake, and questions only a market of voluntary economic transactions can answer. you are just a closed-minded near sighted jackass.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
so please, you clearly know nothing of traffic management, fiscal studies / economics, engineering, maths, geography, contract procurement, the tender process or even what it means to be a decent human being. i at least have some experience of these. like you, i havent just read a best selling hard back for all my wisdom.
londonoverground 2 years ago
haha okay whatever man. at least i dont live off of extortion money...so im not sure how you consider yourself "decent." if people dont fork over the money to pay your paycheck then they are locked into cages like animals. how's that contract for ya? real classy.
go somewhere else, you have brought me all the same dogmatic crap that i hear almost every day, and it all comes from complete ignorance of economics. you clearly dont want to learn, so please go vomit on someone else's channel.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
ok 1 last thing then i promise i will go vomit somewhere else. i admit i have been narrow minded. i work in the UK, we have our own way - but ur right, i cannot say it is the best. i can only say what works for us. every country has its own ways based on different theories and trains of thought.
but i maintain that the gvnt can provide public services cheaper than the 'privateers' as they are able to borrow for less. also they dont need to clear a profit etc.
londonoverground 2 years ago
but if they are privatised then public service provision (PSP) must be heavily regulated to ensure high standards of service and to prevent abuse of monopoly power.
turning public services into deregulated private ones would be far more expensive and wouldnt guarantee improvement in service as there are no regs to state what % should be reinvested. relying on competition alone is morally corrupt (for PSP). THAT is extortion.
londonoverground 2 years ago
okay...let's take this apart.
"but i maintain that the gvnt can provide public services cheaper than the 'privateers' as they are able to borrow for less. also they dont need to clear a profit etc."
Why would you deliberately revolt against market indicators? Why is "borrowing for less" and incurring debt onto a fictional legal entity beneficial for non-state actors?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
The US federal code provides a perfect definition for the only viable way of defining "inefficient" resource allocation...
US Federal code, "The term 'extortion; means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. "
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
This fictional legal entity which enforces the extortion/monopolization business model, as you say, can ignore profit/loss criteria. When a special class of people can legally extort the rest of society, they are not disciplined by losses, competition, etc.
"serve the people" now means neglect them the basic ability to secede from tyrannical political arrangements with their own livelihood.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
How can the govt "ensure" anything? dont you see how you are placing arbitrary people on a pedestal?
All human actions involve making judgments about an uncertain future. Humans have wants and needs. Entrepreneurs in a hyp free market make judgments about future prcies, and allocate capital accordingly. All the state does is destroy economic indicators by institutionalizing involuntary economic arrangments.
Then we get are supposed to jump for joy b/c we get to complain on paper.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
how is relying on competition extortion? were not just throwing around the word extortion. look it up. taxes are extortion. voluntary exchange is not.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
its obvious to everyone outside of the uk that its NOT working for you guys...
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
sorry, what isn't working? I was actually refering to traffic light signalling at that point.
londonoverground 2 years ago
youre "way"
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
but i didnt know your traffic light system was so unique. one thing i like about europes traffic system is the roundabouts.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
I didnt say competition was extortion. the market can produce a brilliant product like the car etc, (although american cars are not so good). my real problem is with private companies managing or owning and delivering public services.
they're simply incompetent.
traffic lights in the uk aren't that unique, they all serve the same purpose, including roundabouts - thats to impose a restriction of movement on you for the overall benefit of all. how you do it doesnt matter so long as you do it
londonoverground 2 years ago
i dont buy american cars because theyre crap. i only buy japanese cars, so did my dad.
you SHOULD have a problem with the government selling monopoly rights to the highest bidder. there are no services that are too "public" for private companies to handle. for you to say competition is more incompetent than monopoly would be completely ignorant. were not saying government is an inneficient provider of services just because they are government. its because monopolies lack the feedback mechanism
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
when did I say competition is more incompetent than monopoly? I DO have a problem with the governement 'selling monopoly rights'. I dont want them 'selling' them full stop. these assets are not the governments to sell.
when awarding these contracts the LOWEST bidder will generally win in order to drive efficiencies and savings.
londonoverground 2 years ago
haha. ok that comment demonstrates that you dont understand the concept of price discovery. also you seem to be saying government should sell monopoly rights at a low price... monopolies should not exist, especially by government agency or government granting monopoly rights.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
They wouldn't exist if people didn't let them.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Do you understand the nature of competition and why it is the natural order of things? All competition is is choosing the best option that meets your needs from a set of choices, the broader the choices the more incentive there is to provide the best service. If I own a restaurant and there are 500 more someone could go to I will go out of my way to make mine stand out and stay in business. Go read man, you're indoctrination is nausia inducing.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
i understand the nature of competetion perfectly. that's why i know you cant use competition to provide people with 'better traffic light systems'. its unfeasible, unworkable, illogical - really downright stupid. understand how traffic lights work. name me one place in the world were there are companies competing to provide them. there is NO COMPETITION. they provide NO REVENUE so you wont even get a private company wanting to take over their management.
you go fucking read, cunt.
londonoverground 2 years ago
no you don't. You seem to lack the common sense to. It's sad how brainwashed you are thinking a few hundred people can make better decisions than millions.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Exactly on the money. The have total power and don't have to worry about the consequences, they get their money from our taxes regardless of efficiency and benefit to the people. This is why it's better to privatize.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
also, you do understand we are not against restriction of movement right? the common leftist/collectivist misconception about libertarians is that they prefer chaos demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the concept.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
well tell that to juniorbacon. he seems to think that the goverment shouldnt restrict us in any way because they dont know anything. only 'market indicators' can show what we really need.
londonoverground 2 years ago
im going to try to be as clear as i can.
all human actors make judgments about future conditions, and act accordingly based on their ends. you hold that a fictional legal entity called "the state" should grant special monopoly privileges to state/state-connected actors. they use funds extracted through threats to actively monopolize markets, and use ideological cover for the whole operation.
the whole "govt as a guarentee" is just the result of non rational conditioning.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
well i can tell you that the reason you dont understand what he's talking about when he says that is because he sees it through the scope of a science that you are ignorant of. its called praxeology, which is the science of human action. economics is just a PART of praxeology.its no surprise that you cant comprehend what he's saying based on your neoclassical view of economics or 'market indicators'. he knows as well as i do that roads would work more efficiently if they were privately owned.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
i dont know what you are responding to. neither of you are making any sense. your just saying words.
define what an 'efficient' road is. explain yourself. toll roads have less traffic because youre charged at the point of entry - if thats what you mean? youre talking bollocks basically. private / public roads really ownly refers to who is responsible for its maintenance.
londonoverground 2 years ago
thats a cowardly response and you wouldnt have responded to it if my comment if you didnt know it was to you.
private/public roads refers to who owns it. youre so narrow minded that you think tolls are the only possible source of revenue for road owners. im talking about traffic moving efficiently, without traffic jams. if a private toll road is too congested for traffic to move at the speed limit you would raise the price. read mises, learn praxeology.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
you cant fucking read! you have misquoted me about four times now. youre an imbocile. i didnt say that monopolies should exist. i said thats how it is. im against private sector involvement altogether you dick.
as for that toll road bit - ????
londonoverground 2 years ago
but state-run "public" programs are monopolies. if they werent, they would have competition. its like you are saying that you are only supporting the existence of monopolies if competition is illegal... youre against private sector involvement in everything?
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
a democracy is not a monopoly. its not a monopoly when the public owns the industry that services its needs. i am pretty much against any private sector involvement in the public sector.
londonoverground 2 years ago
youre just flat out ignorant on this subject. a monopoly is any provider of a good or service that has no competition. youre just flat out ignorant on this subject. government services are a monopoly. youre arguing like a creationist now. facts and definitions dont matter, just your ideology...
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
fuck off mate. sadly i know more about roads, bridges, traffic lights, public services and privatisation then you would ever hope to. its you that doesnt have a clue what you are aguing. you make junior look like a bonafied genius. i asked you what an 'efficient road' was because Im a civil engineer and I have never come across that term. you cant just make up terms and facts. so whos the fucking creationist?
serioulsy, fuck off you moron!
londonoverground 2 years ago
i know more about human action than you ever will. i didnt create a term by saying efficient roads you moron. im talking about roads being efficient. combining words...
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
fuck me! a road cannot be 'efficient' one way or the other! do you understand? there is no such thing as a road being efficient.
i'll show you a little human action by combining my fist with your nose.
londonoverground 2 years ago
roads cannot be efficient? youre a moron.
typical statist reaction, you cant solve problems without violence. funny thing is, england is an entire country full of pussies begging the government to take care of them. go ahead and make the same mistake your inbred ancestors made and come over here and try to solve your problems with violence, i'll be waiting.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
look up the definition of efficient. you can have a road that appears to be better than another road, but its wrong to say that road is more efficient. you MIGHT be able to refer to the efficiency of a road NETWORK.
inbred? talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
and are you french? cos thats who the english lost to, not a bunch of pilgrims with pitch forks. the french saved your miserable little country and look how you treat them!
enjoy living in the 3rd world amigo!
londonoverground 2 years ago
a road is efficient if traffic flows freely. traffic jams = innefficiency.
yes, english people are inbred pussies.
wow, is that how you guys justify it? thats hilarious. do they also hide the fact that thomas jefferson was in france during the french revolution and was advising lafayette?
enjoy living in the nanny-state c-dub!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
you cant just make up your own terms and definitions. the word you are looking for is congested. fuck it, call it what you want, you point is still moot.
have you been reading up on the revolution on wikipedia?
i do enjoy my nanny state. far more than i would living with you burger munching, bible bashing, neo-con, inward looking, overly aspirational rhinestone cowboys.
londonoverground 2 years ago
i already used the word congested in this thread or possibly another thread on this page or on the comments section of a diff response to thundertard's moronic video. youre an ignorant fool if you think im a neo-con, the term wouldnt even be in use if it werent for libertarians despising the neo-cons. youre calling me a bible-basher? you think neo-cons are anti-bible? you seem so terribly confused. read mises. study praxeology.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
They can't anymore the US control England just like most of the world.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
O_O
You shitting me? I'm not even very well educated on these topics, and I immediately think of two MASSIVE ways for roads to be inefficient:
1) Poor construction/potholes put excessive wear and tear of vehicles.
2) Poor route/layout results in loss of time/fuel efficiency for road users.
It might be time for you to stop talking for a little while :(
MusicalAdrian 2 years ago
@londonoverground I think an efficient road (relative term) would be one that would better than other roads at transporting the greatest amount of stuff at the lowest possible cost.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
You don't know anything you're just an arrogant idiot immersed in state indoctrination. The most dangerous people are the people who don't know they're sick.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
you don't understand. A democracy is a facade. It's a joke. Power does what it wants. Both parties have the same agenda, more control, more power and tightening the bonds of the slaves. you're vote means nothing.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Oh really? Private companies are incompetent that's a new one. Because monopolies are so much more competent at providing good service with no incentive.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
i live in chicago and the government of chicago was providing the service of parking meters at a much lower rate than a private company would have. this has caused so much pollution and congestion in chicago that people from dallas texas come here and comment about how our city smells. then the city realized if they sell the parking meters to a private company the rising price will mean less pollution and more people will choose to ride chicago's nearly bankrupt public transportation systems.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Exactly.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Comment removed
londonoverground 2 years ago
just to let you in on a little secret - Scotland is in the UK. we can add geography to list of things you dont know. the bridge contract was procured by westminster. initial quote £15m, went up to £25m then £90+. the way PFI works is the governemnt then buys back the asset over a 25 year period. British tax payers. thats £1.50 for every man woman and child. its ok though because i forget the Scottish Paliament pulled the plug and told them to fuck off.
londonoverground 2 years ago
and I know perfectly well what 'private' means. there is nothing wrong with my terminology, but yours is quite bizarre at times. i have written a paper on Britain flogging off its public services to private sector consortiums.
and i know you didnt say healthcare was efficient. you wouldnt be that stupid. i should have asked is it just? the answer again is an infatic no.
londonoverground 2 years ago
fair enough, when i think "british" i think of english people.
the point is that you and other people not involved directly with the bridge would not be concerned at all if the cost were not passed onto you through forced taxation. taxation is the problem...duh.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Good vid. Really gets people thinking. I think i'll have to watch it again to let it sink in.
flayed2 2 years ago
all you have done is demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of a traffic lights purpose. its to keep the junction from becoming congested. not sure why you would say my expertise is alleged. im a civil engineer and until recently recently a transport planner. every day i modelled road junctions for preliminary design. esentially i could tell if a junction would work efficiently before it was even built. thats what models do. something else you have completely failed to understand...
londonoverground 2 years ago
...by declaring it cant take into account evry possible scenario (whatever they are). er i know. thats not how you model. you keep talking about consumer choice - for traffic lights? that is just laughable. you cant introduce market competition into traffic lights. traffic lights are traffic lights. you dont have to pay to use them. signalised junctions are modelled on capacity and delay. we are looking for a reserve capacity of at least 10-15%. this allows the junction to operate on busy days
londonoverground 2 years ago
we consider 85-90% its capacity with the 10-15% spare just in case. the shorter the cycle time the better ie the time it takes to go from green back to green. adjusting the cycle time will affect the reserve capacity so its about balance. once we are satisfied all parameters are met, then the detail design can commence. this is just engineering. where does the market come in?
londonoverground 2 years ago
maybe there is a safer way? maybe there is a more efficient way? you cannot possibly know a priori how humans will react to any kind of regulation. sometimes traffic regulations can make things more dangerous.
and, moreover, for the LAST time, traffic regulation requires funding. if people werent extorted to pay for it, they could CHOOSE what kind of road they preferred. it is their car, their risk, why cant they drive on a completely unregulated road??
b/c of people like you.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
oh really, they are free? there is no cost to a traffic light? the taxpayers dont fund it?
you just assume you have knowledge that is impossible. you cannot, a priori, know the best way to create the most efficient traffic.
and what you keep electing to ignore is that even if you could, it doesnt matter, individual sovereignty would mean that people could choose what kind of road they want to drive on. absolutely no need to force shit onto people.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
And thsi is before we even mention profiteering. I think last year californian HMOs made about $4bn in profits, and spent a further $6bn on admin and consultants. thas $10bn of californians hard earned cash that will never go any where near helping the sick. this is efficient? i promise you dude, your money is better off in the public purse.
londonoverground 2 years ago
when did i ever call the healthcare system "efficient?"
you are used to arguing with people who fall into your preconceived categories. as i see it "efficient" can only be defined insofar as it roots back to the subjective value judgments of the consumer, ie, people who actually are allocating resources which they obtained through voluntary means.
the govt has been heavily involved in US health care for decades. the "insurance" business interests use the state to cartelize industry.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
he obviously doesnt understand why value is subjective. its a common problem in europe and its becoming more common everywhere.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
* not responsible, rather at fault
with any service or product provided, the state must be responsible for ensuring it is fit for purpose from the outset - through legislation, standards and specifications. that is the purpose of the state. the private sector is incapable of doing this. they have no moral / legal accountability. in a free market sellers are under no obligation to provide a product fit for purpose. to argue competition alone will provide this is an unjustifiably sanguine view
londonoverground 2 years ago
the state ensures purpose? come on now. the state cannot ensure anything, it's not magical.
if people are extorted, where is the incentive to perform? everyone involved gets their paycheck regardless. the extortion model is certainly not MORE of an incentive to perform than having to compete for voluntary consumers who could freely remove their financial backing without fear of imprisonment.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
there is accountability on a free market. the only way market actors can reap a profit (w/o the help of the state) is to outcompete other market actors in making better decisions about how to serve the more urgent wants and needs of consumers. as soon as they fail to do that they incur losses and eventually cease to exist.
the state however does not operate according to profit/loss. it extorts its "profit" and thus can never go out of business. there is no feedback mechanism.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
just one more comment....
i said the state is not magical, this also includes the free market. nothing can ever be ensured 100%, but the point is that profit and loss are essential in determining the best way to deliver what consumers want, ie, the people who actually earned the money.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
there is a feedback mechanism! its called the ballot box.
to remove the state completely and ask the private market to take its place to me staggers belief. to think that the private market are in any way willing or capable of ensuring the needs of people are duly met is naive at the least. dont belive me? look at the mess britain has got herslef in over Private Finance Initiatives. Here the private sector has consistently failed to meet the needs of the public it serves and...
londonoverground 2 years ago
..all at a hugely over inflated price. why? because of the cost of borrowing. public sector bodies can borrow at far lower rate of interest than than the private sector. And why do you think the private sector will be willing to carry the the Risk of managing , lets say, low demand services. were do they offload that risk? - do a quick wiki on PFI and in particular, the Skye Bridge in Scotland. Every tax payer in the UK will be paying for this fiasco for the next 25 years...
londonoverground 2 years ago
...and in the meantime we, the public, dont even own the 'assets' -hospitals, schools, roads etc. we pay for them, but don't own them? wtf?
londonoverground 2 years ago
why should i wiki another statist debacle?
why the fuck would british people be paying for a bridge in scotland? how do you think the cost of something which you had nothing to do with was unloaded onto you? that is what happens with taxation. investment is not tied to the investor...and so we enter bizarro land.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
* earlier i meant beggars belief or staggering. not staggers belief. there is no such phrase.
londonoverground 2 years ago
first understand what the state is. once you do that, you wont be confused about what "private" really means. "profiteering" is a result of state created cartels, ie, when resource allocation is not rooted in consumer demand b/c of taxation funded forced barriers to entry on markets.
the business cartels use the state to stamp out competition.
i cant explain all of economics in the comment section, if u are truly interested, go to:
mises (dot) org
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
so being able to scribble something down on paper while still being extorted is more of a check than entities having to actually compete for voluntary consumers without the threat of imprisoning them if they dont fork over some cash?
the ballot box is a joke.
what you call "private" i call "state-connected."
actual private property does not entail the extortion/monopolize for business interests economic model.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
signalling theory, like any theory in any science is vital. i would love to see you attempt at controlling a signalised junction without any previous theory. you would be wasting your time, and money.
and the state ensures purpose with the the gun and the gavel. and talk of 'freely remove their financial backing'? dude, i cant walk form my phone contract. and this is in a regulated market. but you seek to tear down regulations? thats 'retarding' human development.
londonoverground 2 years ago
so signal theory can take into account every possible scenario and, on top of that, can know how unfathomably complex human brains will interact in all those possible scenarios, thus knowing what regulatory set-up will be the "best?"
If if you say yes, which would just be a lie, it doesn't solve the problem of economic calculation. Signal theory cannot tell people when there is "enough" invested in safety. i mean....why not have bumper lanes? wouldnt that be safer? when is it too much?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
You can't even define what the "best" set up would be without it rooting back to the subjective choices of the consumer. if i have X money to allot, it is a means which can service a multitufe of ends. If i choose to cruise on slightly more expensive roads for the extra safety then i am rewarding the entrepreneur who invests more in safety. If i can't stand some over-regulated slow road, then maybe i go another route.
Maybe complete unregulation of the roads brings the safest result....
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
retarding human development is allowing your ignorance to justify extorting innocent people (at the threat of being locked into a government hellhole) so that the very business interests you "oppose" can bribe state actors to pass legislation (via the state monopolization of law) which protects them from competition and allows them to pass off costs onto the extorted. this effectively severs investment from the interest of "the people," ie, the extorted, ie, the taxpayers.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
dude traffic lights are not a consumable item or service. theyre not affected market forces. you picked a bad example. the traffic regulation you talk of (by which you mean traffic signal design i think) can only be done one way. the right way. signal design is based on signal theory and modelling, not real life experimentations. i just dont understand why you think using the same methods to model and design junctions etc nationwide is harmful or why you think the state is responsible.
londonoverground 2 years ago
traffic lights are a means to an end, they arise as a result of economic interaction as does anything else. to say that they are not subject to market forces is absurd.
to say that you know the best way a priori is just flat out wrong given the complexity of human actions. private ownership of roads would mean that owners can experiment with different methods until the safest methods are discovered and modeled after.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
for example, there is evidence that less road regulations can actually make roads safer. w/o testing this possibility in real life this could never have been discovered. there is no scientific theory which can predict all the possible outcomes of all the possible ways of regulating (or not regulating) traffic. "signaling theory" may be useful, it may be useless, only widespread experimentation could determine that.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
moreover, the human complexity argument is only one factor.
implementing safety regulations requires money. if people paid for it according to their own free choice (rather than being extorted), the extent to which people are willing to pay for traffic safety can be determined. eventually, the non-specific factors of production would go to the production of more urgently valued wants and needs, rather than for more safety measures. no "signaling theory" can help in this.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
fewer regulations make can make roads safer? if that were the case then vietnam would be the safest place in the world to drive. its not, its one of the most dangerous.
there are town centres in england where this is being trialed - semi pedestrianistion. im not a fan. i think regs help reduce the human complexity element you speak of. they will not catch on.
londonoverground 2 years ago
you cannot "reduce the human complexity" element. brains do not get any less complex b/c you've instituted a certain policy.
your not a fan. congratulations. does that mean you get to be a cheerleader for extorting others so that you can enforce your preferences onto them?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
why factor in human actions? you cant model them. you model what you can quantify, then test that model against observations after the design stage to verify its veracity. you find that chaotic human behaviour is almost negated through a phenomenon called immergent behaviour.
londonoverground 2 years ago
what you are saying is completely irrelevant. even if you DID know the best way to regulate (which is not the case), all you are really claiming is that state actors can predict the future better than non-state actors. this is absurd. if your models, and alleged expertise on road safety, are really the "best," then entrepreneurs would choose them in order to try to outcompete rivals.
again, no need for the extortion/monopolization. it is barbaric and uncivilized to the extreme.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
yea! awesome point, why factor in human action! hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
It is patently obvious by historical evidence than cooperation in large groups leads to the success of a society.... The Romans, the Egyptians, USA etc. Breaking down widespread infrastructure like road systems results in chaos when the likes of thunderf00t go on road trips. No state would leave groups of people vulnerable to attack by enemies, and there wouldn't exactly be men walkin on the moon under such a system.
5upercrab 2 years ago
Is there a contemporary example of a system that follows the no-state-intervention idea that actually works well?
mirrorfreespeech 2 years ago
Wow... great video.
I'm pretty sure Thunderfoot just got shut down. This video fires on all cylinders and pretty much nails TF to the wall.
Great work.
datalorez 2 years ago
I HAVE AN IDEA!
Let's break stuff and steal things!
terk0iz 2 years ago
wow, you'd make a great bureaucrat!
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Good job
You're in denial of objective morality, but otherwise you've got good ideas
Sam26100 2 years ago
The state would still exist if everyone thought it was "illegitimate." The state exists by force, not by people thinking it's "legitimate." Legitimacy is irrelevant.
DackBev 2 years ago
if that were the case the govt would have no incentive to propogandize, to create an ideology.
see the fall of the soviet union...
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
You think taxes are voluntary? I don't see any "propaganda" being put out by the government saying it's your duty to pay taxes. They know they don't have to put out any. They have the force to tax. A person who sees taxes as illegitimate still has to pay them or go to jail.
The soviet union fell because it was a highly socialistic system. It was the mechanics of the system, not whether people say it as legitimate or not.
DackBev 2 years ago
okay buddy. seems like you didnt even watch the vid.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
The more people view the state as legitimate the less likely actual force is necessary. The more violence is actually used the less people will believe the state is necessary. Legitimacy reduces the need for force, and there is a limited supply of state force that can be used.
comradepinko 2 years ago
Comment removed
DackBev 2 years ago
great video :)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thunderf00t owns you and he is smarter in the realm of science and politics and economy.
TheoryReviewGuy 2 years ago
i can neither confirm nor disconfirm whether or not he is "smarter," but i can say with great confidence that he is ignorant of economics. it's not upon my own authority, or alleged "smarts," that i make the claims that i do, they are based in scientific reasoning. maybe it's like some layman using copernican understanding to destroy ptolemy. ptolemy may be "smarter" but he has not achieved the simplification and organization of evidence/concepts that copernicus did.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
he is smarter in science FOR SURE, but he lacks knowledge in PHILOSOFY and critical thinking.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
I really don't understand what your arguing for. It's not like governments spring out of no where. They occur because people collectivize, socialize and of course weaponize.
I don't see the point of your argument. Just seems you use the word state in order to have a rhetorical devil that you think must be defeated. The boogeyman goin to get you if you don't pay your taxes. Religiosity at it's finest.
ocelot814 2 years ago
what are you saying? you dont go to prison for refusing to pay taxes?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Only if your are caught which is unlikely.
ocelot814 2 years ago
so it's not a "bogeyman," i dont imagine these things in my head. this is a reality. if you dont pay, and get caught, they'll be coming for you. all i am doing is pointing out that the extortion business model is not more apt to achieve the ends popularly assigned to it than the infinite other possibilities.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"if you dont pay, and get caught, they'll be coming for you."
This happens when you break a contract privately so what's your point?
By living in an area occupied by coercive force, you enter a contract with that group. You have a problem then move, stop paying taxes, stop working for those who are taxed etc...
ocelot814 2 years ago
so...by being born i enter into a contract? i thought contracts had to do with individual consent and agreement?
one may argue for force in enforcing a private contract, but it cannot be argued that private contract is analogous to your arrangement with the state. you are just using ideology to justify why arbitrary people can do something deemed criminal for the everyone else to engage in.
and move where? to another state? i would go to anarctica but the US state wont let me.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Ok here's my problem with you anarchist. You contradict yourselves WAY too much. I heard stefbot say the state doesn't exist. Yet you say the US won't let you go to Anarctica.
The you say force will be used if you violate a contract. But isn't your complaint to the state is their use of force? I thought all you needed was social ostracism.
Anarchy is a failed ideology. It creates tyranny.
ocelot814 2 years ago
1. i'm not stefbot
2. i said someone might use force....but there is no entity which claims the ultimate say on what is legitimate, so whether or not their use of force was "legitimate" is not dictated this extortion funded cartel.
i dont know what ideology you are talking about. i do not positively advocate that arbitrary people belonging to this weird group should be able to aquire property in a manner that they deem "criminal" for others to engage in.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
lol you sir are an idiot :DDD
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Insults are easy. Anarchy is a failed ideology. Anarchic societies have collapsed. "Statist" societies have collapse. They advent when certain conditions are true. Think of tyranny and anarchy as a pendulum.
ocelot814 2 years ago
insults are easier than trying to explain something to a person who doesn't wish to understand. Your understanding about anarchy is complete stereotipical. Firstly, it is not an ideology. It is a philosphy.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Philosophy so it's dogmatic. True false? Right wrong. No relative implications? Yea I'll stay away from your philosophy that again has failed many times over otherwise their would still be anarchic societies.
ocelot814 2 years ago
What's this video in response to? I'm a fan of Thunderf00t but also agree with a lot things you said. What did Thunderf00t say originally?
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago
I don't think it's a response to any specific video, Thunderfoot has made it clear that he is a heavy statist in many of his videos.
MrSuckmycube 2 years ago
thunderfoot got his ass kicked really hard
motokeiru 2 years ago 2
the corrections can be slow I will admit. but that is just like science. Progress doesn't occure in leaps and bounds. Its a slow process. Democracy is a looped system. And is capable of positive and negative feed back loops.
before I begin to ramble: This guy has missed the mark and should reevaluate his definitions. Sorry J00B00C you are a smart guy just a little misguided.
zulu2tango 2 years ago
yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress.
sure democracy has a weak feedback mechanism. politicians fear getting voted out. but the point is that the state deliberately makes the feedback mechanism much less effective. what is the point of this?
government should be voluntarily funded, and the ability to secede should be infininte.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress."
awesome
how do you guys come to a consensus? magic? what are you doing right now? when you convince someone democracy is a bad thing, you are actually participating in "the democratic process" for better or worse. I suspect you're on the side of Edward Bernays et al.
"the ability to secede should be infininte."
what does that even mean? that someone can secede from the universe? take it from an outsider: you sound ridiculous.
ChannelMikeG 2 years ago
i should say statist democracy, ie, involuntary democracy which taxes.
and maybe infinite isn't the best term, but i figured it was obvious what i meant. one should be able to secede from any existing political system.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"yes, the democratic process greatly retards human progress."
What would you suggest then? Somalia?
"government should be voluntarily funded, and the ability to secede should be infininte."
So how would you fund justifiable wars, Afghanistan in particular. If I had my way.. tax the shit out anybody who supported Iraq war by a vote and it automatically slaps a tax percentage. What about our Navy forces to protect merchant vessels? Navy gets paid shit.. its a bargain!!
plopo404 2 years ago
I support Sucession to weed out fucking morons of Texas. Yet, how do you divide or transport the bases which are federally funded? You could sell them.. but could they really afford them?
You never thought this out to well.. libertarian ideology has some great utopian concepts. Yet, government is a necessary evil whether you like it or not.
plopo404 2 years ago
If the FDA under Bush didn't privatize inspections my friend would still have his peanut farm in Virginia. The "processing plant" has salmonella issues and the farmer has to pay with his property, livelyhood, and everything else.
The CEO knew of the contamination and was basicly saying sell it anyways. Simple sanitation and pest control improvements could have saved many livelyhoods and his company. Yet, that profit margin was such an issue "fuck em all!"
plopo404 2 years ago
Also a free market is not always the best form of "government" where people can "vote with their feet" or equivalently with their cash. Because ever expanding monopolys can develop thus limiting cash and options to many and putting cash and choice into the hands of the few. Voteing is NOT some meaningless "ritual" unlike sacraficing goats it has real world consequences. To exert choice is to exert power. Democracy is a self correcting system...
zulu2tango 2 years ago
monopolization is a result of state granted privileges enforced through the marginal state and paid for through taxation.
basically you argue that extorting people and leaving them the ability to complain about it empowers them. the state is supposed to serve society, and the argument is that jotting down a check on paper is a better indicator of what consumers want than prices, competition, free entry, experimentation, profit and loss criteria, etc.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I think this guy is making a false analogy between government and religion. Maybe Orsen Wells keeps this guy up at night?
Also, just because a centralized power system can be cumbersom and slow and inefficient at times doesn't mean that they are not effective at others. Because any system where human choice comes into play the best system of government is one that can is average all the around. Slow to change but not impossible, slow to act but not sluggish.
zulu2tango 2 years ago
fascism - a head surgeon being obeyed during an operation
communism - a military owned by the state
anarchy - freedom in all situations unless someone's rights are being violated
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I think another way to say what I'm saying is that fire burns, fire is torture, but fire is useful when it can be contained.
Similarly, a little fascism here, a little communism there, a little anarchy over here can all function together under the aegis of democracy and reverence for pluralism and respect for diversity and ironclad protection of the fundamental rights of all including especially the minority.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
. . . when they can be, like fire, tightly contained.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I've always found the people who are against paying taxes are one of three things. Idiots, complete dicks, or the type of person who describes paying taxes as "extortion" while having zero problem with corporations doing the exact same thing through the response with "The free market will take care of it". The third type is known as the hyperbolic douche.
I hate paying taxes, but I understand the purpose in the social perspective.
snipzor 2 years ago
wow so you've got a lot of preconceived categories that you drop things into. that's not really a good way to learn new things.
corps are finctional legal entities created by the state. how do you think they get so large and inefficient? they bribe politicians via campaign funds to pass legislation that they write which protects them from competition in many various ways.
so we need a state to battle state created behemoths?
you can't solve anything w/o striking at the root.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
So you are arguing that without the states, the corps wouldn't be so large? That is idiotic, you state yourself in your comment that they bribe politicians, that shows intent. The state didn't create the behemoths, the state was bypassed with greed, which just gives another reason for regulation in state and out to stop this kind of thing from happening.
You say it yourself, why do you completely ignore it?
snipzor 2 years ago