Meh, I'm not done yet. As for Jim Crow laws, how does your "reflect the sentiment of southern whites" argument in any way, shape, or form, absolve the government from responsibility? Like I stated before, the government is a tool in which people can inflict force on others. Instead of preventing racism, it creates an environment in which people can promote it. But what about other areas that adversely affect minorities? The drug war? Public school system? Foreign wars? Try to defend that.
@injuredeternity It is a representative government moron. Used by the majority to take away the rights of the minority. The 'It is all the fault of the government' argument does not hold water. Jim Crow laws did reflect the sentiments of the Southern whites and if they do not today it is because there was a mammoth undertaking to that effect from elsewhere.
@dhimmi099 Actually, it is a monopoly on force that people can use for their own benefit, and the detriment of others. "Used by the majority to take away the rights of the minority." Now you're getting it! "The 'It is all the fault of the government' argument does not hold water." Weird how I never made that argument. In fact, I explicitly stated that the government is a tool in which racism could be promoted. Man, your fallacious arguments may take up four posts, how strange.
@injuredeternity Ok, this is interesting. We might have more in agreement that we realize. Unlike Shane, you do not seem to be trying to white wash the Confederacy.
@dhimmi099 Meh, the rest of your post was actually useless, so I'll skip it. I imagine you don't understand economics even on a superficial level, which explains your incompetence. It's actually quite disheartening that you support the struggles of minorities, and yet counter-productive and harmful social policies because of pseudo philanthropism. However, lucky for you, you aren't debating with an opponent that would mindlessly equate you with a racist because of what you don't know.
@injuredeternity I understand economics quiet well thank you very much. Which is why I recognize the concerned legal, ilegal and extra-legal measures put in place to keep a group of people from progressing economically. I am not a philanthropist per say, I believe in the dictum, 'You feed a man fish, you feed him once; you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.'
Half of this video deals with issues completely irrelevant to racism. The other half deals with pedantic arguing about whether the south was racist or not. None of the video provides any evidence that Shane is racist. Minimum wage laws? Are you joking? You mean the same laws that disproportionately force minorities into unemployment? Health care? Have you actually seen his video on it? Quite erudite. Bottom line: government is a political tool with adverse incentives that creates racism.
@injuredeternity Minimum wage laws disproportionately force minorities to unemployment eh? Did Ron Paul teach you this covert racism? Using words of concern to mask bigotry. I mean you just said to me that minorities are incapable of being contributing members of society. They can only work in low skilled low paying jobs. They are good for nothing else.
@dhimmi099 Nah, Ron Paul didn't, but fifteen years of combined research on the effects of increasing the minimum wage did. Check out the research by Neumark and Wascher called "Minimum Wages and Employment", as well as other academic works. Of course, the econometric models might be beyond your comprehension. Furthermore, you have a problem of making up positions of other people and attempting to bring them down. How fallacious of you. This might take a couple of posts.
@injuredeternity With good reason, economics is called the dismal science. And besides I am familiar with the strategy of dead dropping that you are trying to employ There is also the fact that the real world does not conform to econometric models, because there are no controlled experiments in social sciences. You think you are using reason to form conclusions but you are only picking among data to to conform your bias. Confirmation bias, it is called.
@dhimmi099 It's unfairly called the dismal science. If anything, that's a title meant for environmental science. Dead dropping? The fact that we cannot empirically test models with the rigor that is enjoyed by the physical sciences does not make these models useless. Actually, these are econometric models originally used by Card and Kreugger, who disingenuously tried to argue that raising the minimum wage increases employment. These guys are as liberal as it gets.
@injuredeternity If they do not make the conclusion you prefer that makes the disingenuous and politically motivated. Otherwise they are objective and reliable.
@dhimmi099 They were disingenuous for different reasons. The purpose of the scientific method (as it is applied today) is to subject your work to scrutiny. They, however, mindlessly "called" employers to get their statistics. In other words, they could have very easily made them up and no one could contest their findings. Neumark and Wascher, on the other hand, used actual labor statistics, and proved that the increase in minimum wage was followed by a decrease in employment.
@injuredeternity I can still say this is just the case of you being sensitive to the merits of the those that presented a conclusion that you find favorable as well as sensitive to the demerits of the conclusion that you find unfavorable. I won't say that. I think you are right.
@dhimmi099 Yeah, I could just be pedantic and continue arguing, but you get what I mean. The beauty of science is that no matter how biased or ignorant you are, facts will never change. No matter how pretty your prose is, or how vehemently you argue your position, you must be subject to the scrutiny of others.
@injuredeternity Facts may never change. Fact is an abstract concept. By definition they cannot change. But what was once considered to be fact once, may later turn out to be a mistake or a product of deciet. You can argue your way into making someone doubt their facts. In fact I am generally suspicious about people who are too sure of their facts. Some doubt is healthy although too much is not.
@dhimmi099 Now I can see how your pseudo-altruism comes crashing down. I never made one of those claims. The research, which is itself a quantitative measure, as opposed to a subjective "hurr durr they're low skilled this is what you actually believe hurr durr", actually shows that African American's face more unemployment than all other races, with Hispanics a close second. Of course, I could fallaciously call you a racist for holding political policies anyways, but that's idiotic.
@injuredeternity You never made those claims. They are implicit from what you claim. So what if statistically African Americans face more unemployment. What does that prove but that centuries of legal, illegal and extra-legal measures used to keep them down have worked?
@dhimmi099 "Implicitly", so in other words, I didn't make those claims, and you just mindlessly assumed I did? So what? YOU HOLD THESE POLICIES. That's what. Now you're arguing MY point. How completely contradictory of you. Now you are "implicitly" stating that they less skilled than the rest of us because of previous policies. And yet, of course you aren't a racist. At first I was going to excuse you, but your ignorance in the face of empirical evidence is unforgivable.
@injuredeternity Not mindlessly. I can infer things from what you say. I am not "implicitly" stating that they less skilled than the rest of us because of previous policies, I am "explicitly" stating that. Africans in present day who come and settle in America do not was the economic hardships that descandants of slaves do. There is a reason for that.
@dhimmi099 You never "explicitly" stated they were less skilled, only they were at a disadvantage, which I took to mean less skilled. Then you are still contradictory. If you support the minimum wage, even though it creates unemployment, and claim they are disadvantaged because of previous policies, what makes your current ones so different? Could your policies be part of the problem? As for the rest, I would like to see some statistical evidence.
@injuredeternity The problems accumulated over centuries cannot easily be solved in the span of decades.You have here people amongst whom the physically strong and mentally deficient where deliberately picked so that they can work like draft animals.They where not imbibed with any of the ettiqutte required for being enterprising.Obviously they are not in a capacity to pass that on to their children. They need help. But if they are helped too much then there is the problem of learned helplessness
@dhimmi099 I'm not seeing how centuries of bad policies and unfortunate events makes current policies any less detrimental. As for the rest of your statement, I could pick and choose things I agree with, but these aren't your real conclusions. Those are simply observations. You have yet to propose any solutions. Furthermore, I would contest that perhaps that isn't such a bad thing, but obviously I don't have enough room to write that out.
@injuredeternity You know about the crisis created by the present policies. You do not know about the crisis averted by it. That requires understanding. Things have improved. The situation has changed, maybe the policies need to be reviewed. But it can be tricky because there are some people eager to use the opportunity for review to turn the clock back.
@dhimmi099 Sounds intriguing, but go on. I especially like the "You do not know about the crisis averted by it." This comes dangerously close to Frederic Bastiat, who argued you must take into account both the seen, as well as the unseen. For instance, you see the so-called "created" jobs of the stimulus, but you don't see the jobs destroyed from taxation. As many studies will tell you, more jobs are lost through taxation than apparently "created" by spending.
@injuredeternity Again you have a presumption here about what could have been. Absent stimulus, you envision an economy rapidly recovering by itself with much more prosperity than the economy we have now resulting from the stimulus. You do not envision the majority of people in such a total and utter state of hopelessness that there is a revolution that breaks the very foundations of the Republic. That could have been the crisis averted by the stimulus.
@dhimmi099 This presumption is based on the negative effects of marginal taxation and marginal spending. I don't believe that it would have rapidly recovered, but I think that it would have decreased our future tax burden, and our future growth. As for the revolution, I highly doubt that at all. If anything, the stimulus might put us in a worse economic position, but even then I don't see that as being feasible.
@injuredeternity So you think something is unlikely. People who stand and win elections, successful businessmen and bankers who have a better pulse on the mood of the people and a better visibility to events and greater insight think otherwise. The crisis averted by the stimulus is greater than the crisis resulting from it. So the trade-off is good. You need not believe them. But then it is very difficult for one person to verify all these things. It is easy to jump to conclusions.
@dhimmi099 I still think the burden of proof is on you. I have quite a bit of evidence showing that the stimulus was ineffective at best, and detrimental at worst. If you think that stimulus spending is useful as a countercyclical fiscal policy, then please provide ANY evidence of that. I have yet to find any. If anything, I find countries like Japan that stagnated from such policies, as well as other countries facing austerity that grew dramatically.
I think policies need to be fluid enough to adjust to changing situations as they becomes more capable of standing on his own strength. Things are in fact much better than they ever have been, but there is still some work to be done. Coming to America itself is a challenge that only the most enterprising ad determined individuals from around the world dare to venture. That's why the modern African Americans feel at home, just like settlers from elsewhere. Slaves of course did not self-select.
@dhimmi099 Obviously, I would argue that things have been better because of growth driven by economic freedom. Furthermore, I can semi-agree with the rest. However, I assume your solution is government intervention, whereas I believe that to be the problem. Whether it's the war on drugs that destabilizes families and communities, or rent controls that distort housing prices and encourage homelessness, the government has been the problem. As for health care, Shane's vid is classic.
@injuredeternity You see, Shane being a libertarian presumes that private individuals do not take concerted effort to violate the liberty of others. That they can do it only through governments. There is no truth to it. Organized crime poses a challenge to this world view, so he tries to locate the problem for this in some government policy rather than have his cherished world-view challenged.
@dhimmi099 I don't think he believes that, only that government policy generally makes it worse. I think very few libertarians would contest that even in a libertarian society harm on others exists, but not nearly to the extent that it exists today. As for organized crime, I think you'll notice that more often that not it is, in fact, created by government.
@injuredeternity I rest my case. Organized crime poses a challenge to the notion that private individuals won't make a concerted effort to undermine the freedom of others. So you try to locate the source of their behavior in government policies. Somehow the people who commit the crimes are either innocent or at least less responsible than the government. It has to be that way all the time or the libertarian world view is challenged.
@dhimmi099 But your conclusion is completely non-sequitar. Just because injustice exists, does not meant you must apply an even greater injustice to counter it. My point isn't that we are destined to fail, but rather that government is destined to make it worse. I don't attempt to find it anywhere, but the causes generally come from one source. Furthermore, no one says they are innocent. But is the government itself innocent of making our lives worse? I would argue so.
@injuredeternity Non-sequitar? I say libertarians try to blame the government for organized crime after which you did and I said, 'See'. Dealing with injustice is not injustice, it is part of their job. Now granted not being omniscient and perfect, they cannot do it perfectly. But accusing them of causing the problems they are trying to solve is immoral. If you have a better way of solving it, suggest, it will be considered and if thrown out, you can try again next election.
@dhimmi099 It was non-sequitar because you assumed that since there are problems in the world, we need a government to tell us what to do. You conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Also, I never blamed all organized crime on the government, but a lot of the blame certainly falls there. If it were as simple as "dealing with injustice", then that would not be a problem. However, that is hardly the case. How is that immoral? Advocating the policies that do these things is immoral.
@injuredeternity The government derives power from the consent of the governed. It does not tell us what to do. We do what is needed through it. It is a representative government. We protect our liberties through it. That is what it is there for. It has no competition in this job because any organization that helps it towards that goal is an actual if not de facto arm of the government.
@dhimmi099 Isn't that the true beauty of democracy? Apparently we live in a society in which people can vote as to what I do with my own body. How great. Of course, you guys claim that mob rule is only plausible under a libertarian society. No, that is not the libertarian solution. The libertarian solution is to not make matters worse. If I have a headache, then perhaps I should let it go away, as opposed to cutting my head off to "do something."
@injuredeternity Since you can use your body to violate the liberties of others, expect people to want to have some say in how you use your body. You have for the same reason some say in how they use theirs. You have now stepped out of the state of nature and into the state of civilization. Congratulations.
@dhimmi099 Use my body to violate the liberties of others? That doesn't make sense. I only have a say in other peoples bodies as long as it involves my own, or those of other people. To use an old axiom, "The rights of my fist end at your nose." Actually, you have stepped out of the state of freedom, and into the state of government control. Tell me, isn't sky diving dangerous? Better pass a law preventing that, as well as scuba diving, rock climbing, hand gliding etc. etc.
@injuredeternity How simplistic. You probably have no problem with loud noises or smoke directed towards you. A good computer hacker may be able to hack into your account and steal all your money. That is an use of his body that does not touch your nose. It certainly does violate your liberties. When sky diving is proven to be objectively destructive of body and mind as well as addictive, I will lobby for its ban.
@dhimmi099 The analogy was created to show that harm, whether it is physical, financial, or whatever, is an intrusion on other people's rights. I thought you would have picked that up. That post wasn't directed to your "sound mind" post, so to recycle it for your advantage is fallacious. The fact of the matter is that we are rational people perfectly able to choose risk for ourselves. Furthermore, you seemed to avoid my tea and sugar example. I wonder why.
@injuredeternity I did not avoid your tea and sugar example. But the fact that it is nonsensical gives me enough reason to avoid it. As for intrusion of people's rights, one way to stealthly intrude on people's rights is by diminishing their capacity to protect them or even recognize them. Which is what you are arguing for.
@dhimmi099 Once again, it is perfectly sensible. If you cannot carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then how good is that argument? You mean people willingly choosing that? I'm not seeing how your argument follows. Like I said, no one forces you to do drugs. Not a single person. If you are rational enough to know that you shouldn't do drugs, then just how hopelessly are you in need of a baby sitter?
@injuredeternity You are not carrying the argument to the logical conclusion. You are ignoring key differences between tea and sugar compared to narcotics. I think it is delibrate. The baby sitter is not for me. Who pays for their own baby sitter anyway? It is for people with less control than me who still have enough soundness to help me help them. And of course for people who have not grown up. They are the ones that pushers target, to get hooked early and for life.
@dhimmi099 I believe I am. Actually, if they are potentially mind altering, then they are fair game, according to your logic. Which brings in video game addiction. Who pays for their own baby sitter? Haha, WE ALL DO. That's not the entire case, but I don't have enough room to argue about that. We could argue that even mentally handicapped people have special institutions where they work menial jobs to pay for homes and care.
@injuredeternity Bullcrap. We pay taxes to our representative government to do the job that we assign them. Not everyone who works for us is a baby sitter. Mentally handicapped people are hardly model citizens. You seem eager to reduce everyone to that state. My argument is not that 'if they potentially mind altering, then they are fair game'. That is your fiction. My argument is, 'if they are known to cause harm, they are fair game.'
@dhimmi099 Wow, it's doing a terrible job of doing what I assigned it. Weird. It's almost as if a majority have overruled my objections and I'm now forcefully paying for policies I don't advocate. Oh, wait. I chose mentally handicapped people specifically for their disadvantage, and even they get by without government getting too involved. If they're ok, then I think you'll be fine. Your last statement did not absolve you from my argument at all. You're just arguing semantics.
@injuredeternity Yeah. The government represents everyone majority and minority. Everyone's liberties are protected, but the needs of the majority are catered to. You can try to win over the majority to your side and improve the rules. Or you can stay on the fringes and rant. The mentally handicapped people are baby-sitted by the government in case you did not know.
@dhimmi099 Your last statement doesn't seem to make any sense. So many mutually exclusive statements. How can policies be for the majority, and yet for the whole? I would highly doubt the government has protected any of my liberties. If anything, it's killed people half war across the world, and stolen my liberties for "protection." So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Remember how you started this conversation calling me a racist? Yeah.
@injuredeternity I do not think you are a racist anymore. I think you are stupid. How can policies be for the majority, and yet for the whole? Everyone gets what the major it wants. 'I would highly doubt the government has protected any of my liberties' And I highly doubt whether you understand what your liberties are. So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Neither. You and your liberties are safe, you just do not know it or are unwilling to accept it.
@dhimmi099 I'd love to stay and chat, but sleep calls me. Have a good one, and stop being so melodramatic with that "Peaceful discussion on the internet requires government intervention to protect me" nonsense.
@injuredeternity You just made the whole thing up. I never said or implied that "Peaceful discussion on the internet requires government intervention to protect me". That truly is nonsense. But then again I should not be surprised. Many a time you have used distorted my argument into nonsense and argued against it.
@dhimmi099 "Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from." So apparently you believe I pose a threat to you somehow. Although it has only been YOUR policy recommendations that have proven detrimental. But let's go on and see why you feel threatened. "This interaction gives me good reason to consider that." Either your scared of my policies that don't infringe on you, or you're afraid of me. Either way, you run to your government for help.
@dhimmi099 "Everyone gets what the major it wants." That sentence doesn't even make sense, not to mention your weak point. "So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Neither." You're slowly becoming illiterate. Let's look at exactly what you said: "Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from." Apparently I pose a threat to you. "This interaction gives me good reason to consider that." This peaceful convo?
@dhimmi099 Furthermore, you could argue that private institutions that fight drug addictions are MUCH more efficient than government run ones. Not to mention only about 15 cents of your dollar actually reaches the institution when being taxed, while private institutions do 80 cents to the dollar. Point being: not only does your government promote drug crime, incarceration, and other harmful policies, but it's only genuine attempt to help people is inefficient.
@injuredeternity Well the private institutions that you so highly commend do not exist separate and apart from the government. They operate under government regulations and are instruments towards fulfilling state policy. In effect they are extensions of the state that you despise. Think about that when you argue for more privatization. It is just a more efficient means towards fulfilling a government agenda.
@dhimmi099 Which is why I stated they run fairly well with the amount of government regulation in existence, although I believe it could be a lot better. Not an extension per se, but I can definitely see the resemblance. The point is that people who are seemingly the least advantaged survive by their own means. The only "regulation", covers pedantic things like who watches them, what they do, and things that have historically been decided without government anyways.
@injuredeternity Yes you believe. And we must all follow you rather than successful politicians or businessmen who have a much better understanding of the situation. People who are the least advantaged survive on welfare. And historically there where problems, that is how the regulation came into being. To better manage things to avoid problems. Libertarian literature will avoid mentioning any of that.
@dhimmi099 Politicians barely have an understanding. Although businessmen have their own wealth at stake, so it's their job to know. Please tell me the regulation that helped us! Was it the heavy regulation that drove up medical costs and drove down medical care? What about the regulations that have been environmentally hazardous? What about the regulations that have created unemployment? Those ones?
@injuredeternity Politicians who do not understand lose elections. Even those that do understand are not guaranteed victory. The government not being perfect you can always find fault with any legislation especially when there are bad ones too.
@dhimmi099 Point being: you're a grown up. You don't need some government bureaucrat to tell you how to live your life. You're a rational person, and to argue otherwise would be an insult on your intelligence.
@injuredeternity The point is as a grown up I realize I cannot do all things on my own. The government bureaucrat is my salaried employee, my taxes pay his salary. He is my servant, he does the things he is good at so I am free to do what I am good at.
@dhimmi099 "I cannot do all things on my own." Then I would advise you get a nanny. Perhaps a baby sitter. Maybe they would be a little less counterproductive than a government. If you were willingly buying a baby sitter, then that wouldn't be a problem for me. Unfortunately, you've hired someone that can hold me at gunpoint to pay him to do a disservice to me. Speaking of force.
@injuredeternity Hogwash with a capital H. This is taxation with representation. There is no need to hold anyone at gun point to collect taxes, except of course for the few free-riders who enjoy the protection of liberties that their government affords, but are not willing to pay their fair share required for its protection.
@dhimmi099 Incorrect. You mean 51% of people voting to tax the other 49% into complete and utter poverty is taxation with representation? Wow. Actually, there is. If I avoid taxes, then I go to jail. If I choose not to go, then I am held at gun point. Haha, "fair" share. And weren't you the one arguing for objective standards or something to that extent? Tell me, what is your objective standard of "fair"?
@injuredeternity It does not work by simple majority. If you do not know it you are arguing from ignorance. Check your local, state and federal legislature. Find out how the system of taxation works. There is a reason why most people willingly pay taxes. It is not the threat of violence. That is a libertarian fiction.
@dhimmi099 Obviously that example was used to show that there is no such thing as "taxation with representation" for the population as a whole. Man, you really aren't picking these examples up? I never said that is why we pay taxes. Not once. If anything, I could very easily get out of it. But I choose to put my money into charities that are efficient, and only pay the bare minimum to that loan shark.
Loan shark? When did you take a loan from the government? Private charities too work under government regulations and cannot operate in any manner that is detrimental or burdensome towards the functioning of government. They too are in effect extensions of government. If it is for population as a whole then there is no need to use the term 'representation' right? If you do not like the tax structure, try convince your fellow voters and work to change it to make it more representative.
@dhimmi099 Apparently, your beloved stimulus plan was for me, and now I owe them. Not to mention the war in Iraq I apparently took out a loan for. You pretend that the government regulation is good. In reality, that generally loses them money, which could be used for the cause itself. Once again, they are not an extension of government, but government extends to them. I don't control how they vote. It's not my constant job to convince those around me to stop hurting me.
@injuredeternity You obviously do not know how the economy works. Maybe people like you should be convincing those around you to stop hurting you. Maybe hurting you is the right thing to do. Maybe hurting you is good for liberty. Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from. This interaction gives me good reason to consider that.
@dhimmi099 Apparently you don't know anything about the economy, because what you just mentioned has only miniscule ties with the economy. Taking my liberty is good for liberty? I imagine that is up to your subjective opinion. Will I get a say in it? Oh, just my one vote, compared to 299 million other people? Well shit. Hmm, peacefully debating on the internet is infringing on your personal liberty? You know what, maybe you do need a baby sitter.
@injuredeternity What you label as liberty may probably not be liberty at all. My interaction with you leads to me believe that. Hmm, peacefully debating on the internet is infringing on your personal liberty? That is just one thing you do.
@dhimmi099 Haha, this propaganda shows you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I just don't know my own liberty? Wow, is that how desperate you are? Of course, you aren't rational enough to decide what your liberty is, and you hire a baby sitter to define it for you. Perhaps you know nothing of your own liberty. Perhaps you're just another economically and politically illiterate teenager on the web. Well, that last part might be true.
@injuredeternity The irony of ironies, a libertarian knows least about liberty but is more sure about his complete knowledge on that subject than anyone else. Less than capable of living in a civil society these people have contempt for the representative government that protects the liberties they pretend to care about. They enjoy the benefits of civilization the comes because of this government, but do not want to pay for it. You are enjoying the fruits of your action right now. Enjoy!
@dhimmi099 You have yet to show me any reason to believe I know nothing of liberty. In fact, a majority of what you talk about is useless conjecture with no foundation whatsoever. Such as "crisis averted" nonsense and senseless accusations of racism and so on and so forth. Your inability to understand the simplest of economic and political concepts is telling of both your stubbornness and incompetence. You're no longer fun or interesting, sorry.
@injuredeternity I am not trying to make you believe that you know nothing about liberty. I think you know nothing about liberty and based on how you behaved here. You are trapped in a web of dogma where reason is just a peacock term that you throw around without fully understanding its meaning. The "crisis averted" is a page right out of Frederick Bastiat, part of the libertarian arsenal. When used against them, it is suddenly senseless. I am not trying to entertain you. Sorry I am not fun.
@dhimmi099 Trapped in dogma? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, whereas you've provided unsubstantiated and paranoid nonsense. As for crises averted, you dogmatically and ignorantly assumed that there would have been a crisis, and we did, in fact, avert it. All of which you claimed with no evidence, empirical or otherwise. Where is your evidence against the minimum wage? Evidence that we averted a crisis? Evidence of your beneficial regulation? You've provided none.
@injuredeternity Evidence? You are the judge of your own evidence. You judge what you say to be quality evidence and anything against it otherwise. Surprise! Surprise! Your idea of evidence is laughable. Yes. You are trapped in a web of dogma. Now you throw another peacock term 'evidence'. More efforts to safeguard your dogma.
@dhimmi099 Haha, you are the definition of ignorance. I provided evidence for you to scrutinize. You came up with nothing. Yet you claim I ignore evidence for my own dogma. How ironic. Perhaps if you actually provided evidence..Meh, who am I kidding? My idea of evidence? You mean econometric models and statistics aren't good enough because they don't agree with you? These are the methods economists actually use. Surprise! You know nothing of economics! Keep covering your ears, though.
@injuredeternity Your idea of evidence. You decide what is 'evidence', you present it, and everyone better agree with it. Because it is after all evidence, you said so and that should be enough. People see through that you know. Just because you use the words econometric models and statistics does not change that.
@dhimmi099 I placed evidence in front of you to scrutinize. Obviously no evidence is absolute proof of anything, but how can you complain when you refuse to acknowledge it? When evidence doesn't agree with you, then you should find out why. Either the evidence is wrong, or you are. Instead, you have a run and cover your ears policy. Also, are you afraid of words now? You should probably understand this stuff before you get a political opinion.
@injuredeternity I understand this stuff very well. So I know just because you use the word evidence does not mean you are actually dealing with evidence. You say what you want and you call what you want evidence and in order to make it all sound objective you say either the evidence is wrong or I am, when you actually mean either you are wrong or I am.
@dhimmi099 Actually, you haven't shown that you understand this stuff nearly as well as you claim you do. You could also say that just because you mindlessly say it is not evidence doesn't make it so, but that logic is faulty, which makes sense why you support it. Cover your ears and absolve yourself from any actual rebuttal. That's fine with me. Furthermore, your oversimplification of what I said excludes the possibility that we're both wrong, which could be possible, but I doubt it.
@injuredeternity I do not have to show you anything. This is my channel, I put up the video to put out my view and you willingly took up the burden of convincing me that I am wrong. You have obviously failed. Rather than accept it and try a different approach, you are just looking for ways to blame me for your failure.
@injuredeternity But the libertarian solution is to simply give up and give in and stop labeling the organized crime as crime. Well if you stop calling the headache a headache it does not go away.
@injuredeternity I on the other hand recognize that people left to themselves are as perfectly capable of violating others liberty to get their way as they are of getting their way in a manner that is respectful of liberties. So I can see a legitimate role for the government intervening in the affairs of private citizens so that they are never tempted to behave in a manner that violates a fellow citizens liberties.
@dhimmi099 "that is respectful of liberties." Explain further. "violates a fellow citizens liberties." But that's the problem, because government makes it worse. Do you think that the peaceful use of drugs infringes on our liberty? The government does. Do you think that people willingly choosing to work for a low amount of money is infringing on our liberties? The government does. Gay marriage? Prostitution? The list can go on. These aren't helping us in the slightest.
@injuredeternity I think the best safeguard for liberty is an enlightened citizenry. Drugs destroy body and mind, so does prostitution. Their do not contribute to the development of an enlightened citizenry so they need to be contained and minimized and when possible eliminated. As for Gay marriage, the government is a record keeper. I do not think all intervention is for the sake of liberty, but for its sake interventions are to be allowed.
@dhimmi099 If you don't think that they help you, then don't use them. Don't impose your own standards on other people. Furthermore, do you see the other adverse effects of these policies? By criminalizing drugs you are in effect creating drug cartels, stronger drugs, drug lords, throwing thousands of people in jail, and so on and so forth. Prostitution has other detrimental effects. I believe Uncle Milty say's it better than me, though: /watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
@injuredeternity It is not a matter of what I think. Objectively their destructive potential is known. The adverse effects of the policies if any are is part of the crisis averted. The crisis that would have been is the people stone-drugged that they sell their liberties for the needle, or in case of women sell their bodies for it. The spread of disease, the breakdown in social order. Criminalizing rape and murder creates rapists and murders. Why not decriminalize those?
@dhimmi099 I'm still waiting for any of that proof of the "crisis averted." Despite what Lenin says, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it any more true. Have you even watched the video I gave to you? Criminalizing drugs has actually made worse drugs, as well as forced people to get them from sketchy sources. If they're decriminalized, then the drugs become less deadly and cleaner.
@injuredeternity The crisis averted is the unseen crisis right? You see the situation without the anti-drug laws as being better off than present. I see it as being worse off. The problem with drugs is not that criminals sell them or that they are impure, they are 'bonus problems'. The problem is the capacity of these chemicals to destroy body and mind even as it makes both dependent on it. That is never going to change.
@dhimmi099 As for your rape and murder statement, those do not involve a scenario between voluntary partners, and therefore cannot be equated with free people choosing to sell their bodies or put drugs into them.
@injuredeternity To act voluntarily one needs sound mind and body. a drug addict has neither. You are not arguing for facilitating any voluntary transaction when you try to legalize drug addiction.
@dhimmi099 To stretch your argument to it's logical conclusion, then the momentary effects of sugar are therefore grounds for government intervention. Afterall, some do complain that sugar encourages them to make less than optimizing decisions. Should the state determine how much sugar we consume? How about tea? You know, caffeine is a drug. Forget the health benefits of tea, we aren't rational people! (notice your beloved government is also run by these not so rational people.)
@injuredeternity Unfortunately the effects of narcotics are not momentary. There are intelligent people who have studied these situations making decisions. But then again it does not take a genius to recognize the difference between sugar and pot, or heroine and tea or cocaine and coffee. Instead of addressing the point I made, you address a bastardized version of it. I am not surprised.
@dhimmi099 Actually, they are for quite a few drugs. You really should watch that video I recommended to you. Ever wonder why heroine and crack cocaine exist in the first place? I think you know what I'll say. That wasn't very bastardized, it was really the logical conclusion. Government should tell us to stop eating so much cheese, because cholesterol is bad. Big brother says sky diving is dangerous, and on and on.
@injuredeternity Cheese does not destroy body and mind. Does not impair one's capacity to make decisions. Does not wreck one's brains. Neither does sky diving. Although sky diving without a parachute might. There are strict safety regulations when it comes to sky diving believe it or not.
@dhimmi099 Actually, unhealthy food has proven to be addictive, as well as video games. Want your government to regulate those? Of course, I could send you to the video game addict website to get help. You mean strokes don't impair your brain health? Well believe it or not, people sky dive with parachutes before the government told them too. Imagine that!
@injuredeternity All the things you mentioned are in some way or the other already regulated. They where not regulated once before, that is correct. As time went on and the knowledge about the harm it caused was accumulated, regulations naturally came into play to minimize harm.
@dhimmi099 You are mixing up regulation, whether it be through distortionary taxes, negative externality taxes etc., and criminalization. Obviously, that isn't to avoid your point, it is a valid one, but I wanted to note the distinction. Actually, when the hell did they start regulating for video game addiction? Why the hell am I paying for that?
@dhimmi099, excellent exposure of ShaneDK's attitude and tactics. I've had a recent "debate" with him, and he's pulled all his usual weakling tactics. Yelling LIAR!, twisting words, and ultimately when he can't take being pwn'd any longer, he simply deletes posts and then claims they were racists. What an epic hypocritical liar. LOL
As for ShaneDK's injured arm, and ongoing payment plan, it would be ironic if the private health care he loves so much, sucks him bone dry and then into bankrupcy.
0:41 You're mocking a strawman. Businessmen, however racist, are still selfish and would take the opportunity to profit from people who had been denied service by other companies, and there is empirical evidence to support this (see link below).
I would highly recommend watching this to get the libertarian view on anti-racist laws: /watch?v=g6IJV_0p64s
@StatelessLiberty Few if any people restrict to simply playing the role of businessman all their lives. They are also voters, politicians, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, house wives, mothers, daughters, sons, wives and husbands. Plenty of roles meaning plenty of opportunity for bigotry to ooze out.
So why weren't they doing that prior to Jim Crow in the South? Not that having minorities relegated to niche services is much better when the vast majority is restricted by business (ie whites only restaurants).
That aside, "Libertarians" still actively say the South was tolerant and the laws were imposed (ie Shanedk).
@AndroidPolitician The laws where imposed alright. By the people of the South or more precisely the government they represented. They where using their local superiority in numbers to infringe on the rights of a minority. The "Libertarians" need to white wash history because they are Southerners with heritage pride, trying to salvage by deceit the pride of their shameful heritage. Might as well says they Nazis cared for Jews.
I have never had a civil conversation with him and I tried all types of ways of dealing with libertarians. They spammed and trolled me etc etc, I did it back, then they blocked me. Now I adopt the block key as a political weapon. They use it along with trolling and soap boxing. My channel is no longer going to be used for them to promote their dogma. Fuck them I say
Meh, I'm not done yet. As for Jim Crow laws, how does your "reflect the sentiment of southern whites" argument in any way, shape, or form, absolve the government from responsibility? Like I stated before, the government is a tool in which people can inflict force on others. Instead of preventing racism, it creates an environment in which people can promote it. But what about other areas that adversely affect minorities? The drug war? Public school system? Foreign wars? Try to defend that.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity It is a representative government moron. Used by the majority to take away the rights of the minority. The 'It is all the fault of the government' argument does not hold water. Jim Crow laws did reflect the sentiments of the Southern whites and if they do not today it is because there was a mammoth undertaking to that effect from elsewhere.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Actually, it is a monopoly on force that people can use for their own benefit, and the detriment of others. "Used by the majority to take away the rights of the minority." Now you're getting it! "The 'It is all the fault of the government' argument does not hold water." Weird how I never made that argument. In fact, I explicitly stated that the government is a tool in which racism could be promoted. Man, your fallacious arguments may take up four posts, how strange.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Ok, this is interesting. We might have more in agreement that we realize. Unlike Shane, you do not seem to be trying to white wash the Confederacy.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Meh, the rest of your post was actually useless, so I'll skip it. I imagine you don't understand economics even on a superficial level, which explains your incompetence. It's actually quite disheartening that you support the struggles of minorities, and yet counter-productive and harmful social policies because of pseudo philanthropism. However, lucky for you, you aren't debating with an opponent that would mindlessly equate you with a racist because of what you don't know.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I understand economics quiet well thank you very much. Which is why I recognize the concerned legal, ilegal and extra-legal measures put in place to keep a group of people from progressing economically. I am not a philanthropist per say, I believe in the dictum, 'You feed a man fish, you feed him once; you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.'
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I'm not sure how that follows from your previous statements, but alright. We are in some sort of agreement.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I understand you better than you understand me. Your arguments are not always sound, but you are sincere.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Seems you do understand me.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
Half of this video deals with issues completely irrelevant to racism. The other half deals with pedantic arguing about whether the south was racist or not. None of the video provides any evidence that Shane is racist. Minimum wage laws? Are you joking? You mean the same laws that disproportionately force minorities into unemployment? Health care? Have you actually seen his video on it? Quite erudite. Bottom line: government is a political tool with adverse incentives that creates racism.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Minimum wage laws disproportionately force minorities to unemployment eh? Did Ron Paul teach you this covert racism? Using words of concern to mask bigotry. I mean you just said to me that minorities are incapable of being contributing members of society. They can only work in low skilled low paying jobs. They are good for nothing else.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Nah, Ron Paul didn't, but fifteen years of combined research on the effects of increasing the minimum wage did. Check out the research by Neumark and Wascher called "Minimum Wages and Employment", as well as other academic works. Of course, the econometric models might be beyond your comprehension. Furthermore, you have a problem of making up positions of other people and attempting to bring them down. How fallacious of you. This might take a couple of posts.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity With good reason, economics is called the dismal science. And besides I am familiar with the strategy of dead dropping that you are trying to employ There is also the fact that the real world does not conform to econometric models, because there are no controlled experiments in social sciences. You think you are using reason to form conclusions but you are only picking among data to to conform your bias. Confirmation bias, it is called.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 It's unfairly called the dismal science. If anything, that's a title meant for environmental science. Dead dropping? The fact that we cannot empirically test models with the rigor that is enjoyed by the physical sciences does not make these models useless. Actually, these are econometric models originally used by Card and Kreugger, who disingenuously tried to argue that raising the minimum wage increases employment. These guys are as liberal as it gets.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity If they do not make the conclusion you prefer that makes the disingenuous and politically motivated. Otherwise they are objective and reliable.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 They were disingenuous for different reasons. The purpose of the scientific method (as it is applied today) is to subject your work to scrutiny. They, however, mindlessly "called" employers to get their statistics. In other words, they could have very easily made them up and no one could contest their findings. Neumark and Wascher, on the other hand, used actual labor statistics, and proved that the increase in minimum wage was followed by a decrease in employment.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I can still say this is just the case of you being sensitive to the merits of the those that presented a conclusion that you find favorable as well as sensitive to the demerits of the conclusion that you find unfavorable. I won't say that. I think you are right.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Yeah, I could just be pedantic and continue arguing, but you get what I mean. The beauty of science is that no matter how biased or ignorant you are, facts will never change. No matter how pretty your prose is, or how vehemently you argue your position, you must be subject to the scrutiny of others.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Facts may never change. Fact is an abstract concept. By definition they cannot change. But what was once considered to be fact once, may later turn out to be a mistake or a product of deciet. You can argue your way into making someone doubt their facts. In fact I am generally suspicious about people who are too sure of their facts. Some doubt is healthy although too much is not.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Now I can see how your pseudo-altruism comes crashing down. I never made one of those claims. The research, which is itself a quantitative measure, as opposed to a subjective "hurr durr they're low skilled this is what you actually believe hurr durr", actually shows that African American's face more unemployment than all other races, with Hispanics a close second. Of course, I could fallaciously call you a racist for holding political policies anyways, but that's idiotic.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You never made those claims. They are implicit from what you claim. So what if statistically African Americans face more unemployment. What does that prove but that centuries of legal, illegal and extra-legal measures used to keep them down have worked?
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 "Implicitly", so in other words, I didn't make those claims, and you just mindlessly assumed I did? So what? YOU HOLD THESE POLICIES. That's what. Now you're arguing MY point. How completely contradictory of you. Now you are "implicitly" stating that they less skilled than the rest of us because of previous policies. And yet, of course you aren't a racist. At first I was going to excuse you, but your ignorance in the face of empirical evidence is unforgivable.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Not mindlessly. I can infer things from what you say. I am not "implicitly" stating that they less skilled than the rest of us because of previous policies, I am "explicitly" stating that. Africans in present day who come and settle in America do not was the economic hardships that descandants of slaves do. There is a reason for that.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 You never "explicitly" stated they were less skilled, only they were at a disadvantage, which I took to mean less skilled. Then you are still contradictory. If you support the minimum wage, even though it creates unemployment, and claim they are disadvantaged because of previous policies, what makes your current ones so different? Could your policies be part of the problem? As for the rest, I would like to see some statistical evidence.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity The problems accumulated over centuries cannot easily be solved in the span of decades.You have here people amongst whom the physically strong and mentally deficient where deliberately picked so that they can work like draft animals.They where not imbibed with any of the ettiqutte required for being enterprising.Obviously they are not in a capacity to pass that on to their children. They need help. But if they are helped too much then there is the problem of learned helplessness
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I'm not seeing how centuries of bad policies and unfortunate events makes current policies any less detrimental. As for the rest of your statement, I could pick and choose things I agree with, but these aren't your real conclusions. Those are simply observations. You have yet to propose any solutions. Furthermore, I would contest that perhaps that isn't such a bad thing, but obviously I don't have enough room to write that out.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You know about the crisis created by the present policies. You do not know about the crisis averted by it. That requires understanding. Things have improved. The situation has changed, maybe the policies need to be reviewed. But it can be tricky because there are some people eager to use the opportunity for review to turn the clock back.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Sounds intriguing, but go on. I especially like the "You do not know about the crisis averted by it." This comes dangerously close to Frederic Bastiat, who argued you must take into account both the seen, as well as the unseen. For instance, you see the so-called "created" jobs of the stimulus, but you don't see the jobs destroyed from taxation. As many studies will tell you, more jobs are lost through taxation than apparently "created" by spending.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Again you have a presumption here about what could have been. Absent stimulus, you envision an economy rapidly recovering by itself with much more prosperity than the economy we have now resulting from the stimulus. You do not envision the majority of people in such a total and utter state of hopelessness that there is a revolution that breaks the very foundations of the Republic. That could have been the crisis averted by the stimulus.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 This presumption is based on the negative effects of marginal taxation and marginal spending. I don't believe that it would have rapidly recovered, but I think that it would have decreased our future tax burden, and our future growth. As for the revolution, I highly doubt that at all. If anything, the stimulus might put us in a worse economic position, but even then I don't see that as being feasible.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity So you think something is unlikely. People who stand and win elections, successful businessmen and bankers who have a better pulse on the mood of the people and a better visibility to events and greater insight think otherwise. The crisis averted by the stimulus is greater than the crisis resulting from it. So the trade-off is good. You need not believe them. But then it is very difficult for one person to verify all these things. It is easy to jump to conclusions.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I still think the burden of proof is on you. I have quite a bit of evidence showing that the stimulus was ineffective at best, and detrimental at worst. If you think that stimulus spending is useful as a countercyclical fiscal policy, then please provide ANY evidence of that. I have yet to find any. If anything, I find countries like Japan that stagnated from such policies, as well as other countries facing austerity that grew dramatically.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
I think policies need to be fluid enough to adjust to changing situations as they becomes more capable of standing on his own strength. Things are in fact much better than they ever have been, but there is still some work to be done. Coming to America itself is a challenge that only the most enterprising ad determined individuals from around the world dare to venture. That's why the modern African Americans feel at home, just like settlers from elsewhere. Slaves of course did not self-select.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Obviously, I would argue that things have been better because of growth driven by economic freedom. Furthermore, I can semi-agree with the rest. However, I assume your solution is government intervention, whereas I believe that to be the problem. Whether it's the war on drugs that destabilizes families and communities, or rent controls that distort housing prices and encourage homelessness, the government has been the problem. As for health care, Shane's vid is classic.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You see, Shane being a libertarian presumes that private individuals do not take concerted effort to violate the liberty of others. That they can do it only through governments. There is no truth to it. Organized crime poses a challenge to this world view, so he tries to locate the problem for this in some government policy rather than have his cherished world-view challenged.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I don't think he believes that, only that government policy generally makes it worse. I think very few libertarians would contest that even in a libertarian society harm on others exists, but not nearly to the extent that it exists today. As for organized crime, I think you'll notice that more often that not it is, in fact, created by government.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I rest my case. Organized crime poses a challenge to the notion that private individuals won't make a concerted effort to undermine the freedom of others. So you try to locate the source of their behavior in government policies. Somehow the people who commit the crimes are either innocent or at least less responsible than the government. It has to be that way all the time or the libertarian world view is challenged.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 But your conclusion is completely non-sequitar. Just because injustice exists, does not meant you must apply an even greater injustice to counter it. My point isn't that we are destined to fail, but rather that government is destined to make it worse. I don't attempt to find it anywhere, but the causes generally come from one source. Furthermore, no one says they are innocent. But is the government itself innocent of making our lives worse? I would argue so.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Wouldn't*
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Non-sequitar? I say libertarians try to blame the government for organized crime after which you did and I said, 'See'. Dealing with injustice is not injustice, it is part of their job. Now granted not being omniscient and perfect, they cannot do it perfectly. But accusing them of causing the problems they are trying to solve is immoral. If you have a better way of solving it, suggest, it will be considered and if thrown out, you can try again next election.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 It was non-sequitar because you assumed that since there are problems in the world, we need a government to tell us what to do. You conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Also, I never blamed all organized crime on the government, but a lot of the blame certainly falls there. If it were as simple as "dealing with injustice", then that would not be a problem. However, that is hardly the case. How is that immoral? Advocating the policies that do these things is immoral.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity The government derives power from the consent of the governed. It does not tell us what to do. We do what is needed through it. It is a representative government. We protect our liberties through it. That is what it is there for. It has no competition in this job because any organization that helps it towards that goal is an actual if not de facto arm of the government.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Isn't that the true beauty of democracy? Apparently we live in a society in which people can vote as to what I do with my own body. How great. Of course, you guys claim that mob rule is only plausible under a libertarian society. No, that is not the libertarian solution. The libertarian solution is to not make matters worse. If I have a headache, then perhaps I should let it go away, as opposed to cutting my head off to "do something."
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Since you can use your body to violate the liberties of others, expect people to want to have some say in how you use your body. You have for the same reason some say in how they use theirs. You have now stepped out of the state of nature and into the state of civilization. Congratulations.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Use my body to violate the liberties of others? That doesn't make sense. I only have a say in other peoples bodies as long as it involves my own, or those of other people. To use an old axiom, "The rights of my fist end at your nose." Actually, you have stepped out of the state of freedom, and into the state of government control. Tell me, isn't sky diving dangerous? Better pass a law preventing that, as well as scuba diving, rock climbing, hand gliding etc. etc.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity How simplistic. You probably have no problem with loud noises or smoke directed towards you. A good computer hacker may be able to hack into your account and steal all your money. That is an use of his body that does not touch your nose. It certainly does violate your liberties. When sky diving is proven to be objectively destructive of body and mind as well as addictive, I will lobby for its ban.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 The analogy was created to show that harm, whether it is physical, financial, or whatever, is an intrusion on other people's rights. I thought you would have picked that up. That post wasn't directed to your "sound mind" post, so to recycle it for your advantage is fallacious. The fact of the matter is that we are rational people perfectly able to choose risk for ourselves. Furthermore, you seemed to avoid my tea and sugar example. I wonder why.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I did not avoid your tea and sugar example. But the fact that it is nonsensical gives me enough reason to avoid it. As for intrusion of people's rights, one way to stealthly intrude on people's rights is by diminishing their capacity to protect them or even recognize them. Which is what you are arguing for.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Once again, it is perfectly sensible. If you cannot carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then how good is that argument? You mean people willingly choosing that? I'm not seeing how your argument follows. Like I said, no one forces you to do drugs. Not a single person. If you are rational enough to know that you shouldn't do drugs, then just how hopelessly are you in need of a baby sitter?
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You are not carrying the argument to the logical conclusion. You are ignoring key differences between tea and sugar compared to narcotics. I think it is delibrate. The baby sitter is not for me. Who pays for their own baby sitter anyway? It is for people with less control than me who still have enough soundness to help me help them. And of course for people who have not grown up. They are the ones that pushers target, to get hooked early and for life.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I believe I am. Actually, if they are potentially mind altering, then they are fair game, according to your logic. Which brings in video game addiction. Who pays for their own baby sitter? Haha, WE ALL DO. That's not the entire case, but I don't have enough room to argue about that. We could argue that even mentally handicapped people have special institutions where they work menial jobs to pay for homes and care.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Bullcrap. We pay taxes to our representative government to do the job that we assign them. Not everyone who works for us is a baby sitter. Mentally handicapped people are hardly model citizens. You seem eager to reduce everyone to that state. My argument is not that 'if they potentially mind altering, then they are fair game'. That is your fiction. My argument is, 'if they are known to cause harm, they are fair game.'
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Wow, it's doing a terrible job of doing what I assigned it. Weird. It's almost as if a majority have overruled my objections and I'm now forcefully paying for policies I don't advocate. Oh, wait. I chose mentally handicapped people specifically for their disadvantage, and even they get by without government getting too involved. If they're ok, then I think you'll be fine. Your last statement did not absolve you from my argument at all. You're just arguing semantics.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Yeah. The government represents everyone majority and minority. Everyone's liberties are protected, but the needs of the majority are catered to. You can try to win over the majority to your side and improve the rules. Or you can stay on the fringes and rant. The mentally handicapped people are baby-sitted by the government in case you did not know.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Your last statement doesn't seem to make any sense. So many mutually exclusive statements. How can policies be for the majority, and yet for the whole? I would highly doubt the government has protected any of my liberties. If anything, it's killed people half war across the world, and stolen my liberties for "protection." So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Remember how you started this conversation calling me a racist? Yeah.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I do not think you are a racist anymore. I think you are stupid. How can policies be for the majority, and yet for the whole? Everyone gets what the major it wants. 'I would highly doubt the government has protected any of my liberties' And I highly doubt whether you understand what your liberties are. So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Neither. You and your liberties are safe, you just do not know it or are unwilling to accept it.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I'd love to stay and chat, but sleep calls me. Have a good one, and stop being so melodramatic with that "Peaceful discussion on the internet requires government intervention to protect me" nonsense.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You just made the whole thing up. I never said or implied that "Peaceful discussion on the internet requires government intervention to protect me". That truly is nonsense. But then again I should not be surprised. Many a time you have used distorted my argument into nonsense and argued against it.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dhimmi099 "Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from." So apparently you believe I pose a threat to you somehow. Although it has only been YOUR policy recommendations that have proven detrimental. But let's go on and see why you feel threatened. "This interaction gives me good reason to consider that." Either your scared of my policies that don't infringe on you, or you're afraid of me. Either way, you run to your government for help.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dhimmi099 "Everyone gets what the major it wants." That sentence doesn't even make sense, not to mention your weak point. "So now it's a sin to be the minority, and it's simply my fault? Neither." You're slowly becoming illiterate. Let's look at exactly what you said: "Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from." Apparently I pose a threat to you. "This interaction gives me good reason to consider that." This peaceful convo?
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Furthermore, you could argue that private institutions that fight drug addictions are MUCH more efficient than government run ones. Not to mention only about 15 cents of your dollar actually reaches the institution when being taxed, while private institutions do 80 cents to the dollar. Point being: not only does your government promote drug crime, incarceration, and other harmful policies, but it's only genuine attempt to help people is inefficient.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Well the private institutions that you so highly commend do not exist separate and apart from the government. They operate under government regulations and are instruments towards fulfilling state policy. In effect they are extensions of the state that you despise. Think about that when you argue for more privatization. It is just a more efficient means towards fulfilling a government agenda.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Which is why I stated they run fairly well with the amount of government regulation in existence, although I believe it could be a lot better. Not an extension per se, but I can definitely see the resemblance. The point is that people who are seemingly the least advantaged survive by their own means. The only "regulation", covers pedantic things like who watches them, what they do, and things that have historically been decided without government anyways.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Yes you believe. And we must all follow you rather than successful politicians or businessmen who have a much better understanding of the situation. People who are the least advantaged survive on welfare. And historically there where problems, that is how the regulation came into being. To better manage things to avoid problems. Libertarian literature will avoid mentioning any of that.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Politicians barely have an understanding. Although businessmen have their own wealth at stake, so it's their job to know. Please tell me the regulation that helped us! Was it the heavy regulation that drove up medical costs and drove down medical care? What about the regulations that have been environmentally hazardous? What about the regulations that have created unemployment? Those ones?
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Politicians who do not understand lose elections. Even those that do understand are not guaranteed victory. The government not being perfect you can always find fault with any legislation especially when there are bad ones too.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Point being: you're a grown up. You don't need some government bureaucrat to tell you how to live your life. You're a rational person, and to argue otherwise would be an insult on your intelligence.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity The point is as a grown up I realize I cannot do all things on my own. The government bureaucrat is my salaried employee, my taxes pay his salary. He is my servant, he does the things he is good at so I am free to do what I am good at.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 "I cannot do all things on my own." Then I would advise you get a nanny. Perhaps a baby sitter. Maybe they would be a little less counterproductive than a government. If you were willingly buying a baby sitter, then that wouldn't be a problem for me. Unfortunately, you've hired someone that can hold me at gunpoint to pay him to do a disservice to me. Speaking of force.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Hogwash with a capital H. This is taxation with representation. There is no need to hold anyone at gun point to collect taxes, except of course for the few free-riders who enjoy the protection of liberties that their government affords, but are not willing to pay their fair share required for its protection.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Incorrect. You mean 51% of people voting to tax the other 49% into complete and utter poverty is taxation with representation? Wow. Actually, there is. If I avoid taxes, then I go to jail. If I choose not to go, then I am held at gun point. Haha, "fair" share. And weren't you the one arguing for objective standards or something to that extent? Tell me, what is your objective standard of "fair"?
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity It does not work by simple majority. If you do not know it you are arguing from ignorance. Check your local, state and federal legislature. Find out how the system of taxation works. There is a reason why most people willingly pay taxes. It is not the threat of violence. That is a libertarian fiction.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Obviously that example was used to show that there is no such thing as "taxation with representation" for the population as a whole. Man, you really aren't picking these examples up? I never said that is why we pay taxes. Not once. If anything, I could very easily get out of it. But I choose to put my money into charities that are efficient, and only pay the bare minimum to that loan shark.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
Loan shark? When did you take a loan from the government? Private charities too work under government regulations and cannot operate in any manner that is detrimental or burdensome towards the functioning of government. They too are in effect extensions of government. If it is for population as a whole then there is no need to use the term 'representation' right? If you do not like the tax structure, try convince your fellow voters and work to change it to make it more representative.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Apparently, your beloved stimulus plan was for me, and now I owe them. Not to mention the war in Iraq I apparently took out a loan for. You pretend that the government regulation is good. In reality, that generally loses them money, which could be used for the cause itself. Once again, they are not an extension of government, but government extends to them. I don't control how they vote. It's not my constant job to convince those around me to stop hurting me.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You obviously do not know how the economy works. Maybe people like you should be convincing those around you to stop hurting you. Maybe hurting you is the right thing to do. Maybe hurting you is good for liberty. Maybe you are the threat to liberty that the government I elected need to protect me from. This interaction gives me good reason to consider that.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Apparently you don't know anything about the economy, because what you just mentioned has only miniscule ties with the economy. Taking my liberty is good for liberty? I imagine that is up to your subjective opinion. Will I get a say in it? Oh, just my one vote, compared to 299 million other people? Well shit. Hmm, peacefully debating on the internet is infringing on your personal liberty? You know what, maybe you do need a baby sitter.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity What you label as liberty may probably not be liberty at all. My interaction with you leads to me believe that. Hmm, peacefully debating on the internet is infringing on your personal liberty? That is just one thing you do.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Haha, this propaganda shows you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I just don't know my own liberty? Wow, is that how desperate you are? Of course, you aren't rational enough to decide what your liberty is, and you hire a baby sitter to define it for you. Perhaps you know nothing of your own liberty. Perhaps you're just another economically and politically illiterate teenager on the web. Well, that last part might be true.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity The irony of ironies, a libertarian knows least about liberty but is more sure about his complete knowledge on that subject than anyone else. Less than capable of living in a civil society these people have contempt for the representative government that protects the liberties they pretend to care about. They enjoy the benefits of civilization the comes because of this government, but do not want to pay for it. You are enjoying the fruits of your action right now. Enjoy!
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 You have yet to show me any reason to believe I know nothing of liberty. In fact, a majority of what you talk about is useless conjecture with no foundation whatsoever. Such as "crisis averted" nonsense and senseless accusations of racism and so on and so forth. Your inability to understand the simplest of economic and political concepts is telling of both your stubbornness and incompetence. You're no longer fun or interesting, sorry.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I am not trying to make you believe that you know nothing about liberty. I think you know nothing about liberty and based on how you behaved here. You are trapped in a web of dogma where reason is just a peacock term that you throw around without fully understanding its meaning. The "crisis averted" is a page right out of Frederick Bastiat, part of the libertarian arsenal. When used against them, it is suddenly senseless. I am not trying to entertain you. Sorry I am not fun.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Trapped in dogma? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, whereas you've provided unsubstantiated and paranoid nonsense. As for crises averted, you dogmatically and ignorantly assumed that there would have been a crisis, and we did, in fact, avert it. All of which you claimed with no evidence, empirical or otherwise. Where is your evidence against the minimum wage? Evidence that we averted a crisis? Evidence of your beneficial regulation? You've provided none.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Evidence? You are the judge of your own evidence. You judge what you say to be quality evidence and anything against it otherwise. Surprise! Surprise! Your idea of evidence is laughable. Yes. You are trapped in a web of dogma. Now you throw another peacock term 'evidence'. More efforts to safeguard your dogma.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Haha, you are the definition of ignorance. I provided evidence for you to scrutinize. You came up with nothing. Yet you claim I ignore evidence for my own dogma. How ironic. Perhaps if you actually provided evidence..Meh, who am I kidding? My idea of evidence? You mean econometric models and statistics aren't good enough because they don't agree with you? These are the methods economists actually use. Surprise! You know nothing of economics! Keep covering your ears, though.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Your idea of evidence. You decide what is 'evidence', you present it, and everyone better agree with it. Because it is after all evidence, you said so and that should be enough. People see through that you know. Just because you use the words econometric models and statistics does not change that.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I placed evidence in front of you to scrutinize. Obviously no evidence is absolute proof of anything, but how can you complain when you refuse to acknowledge it? When evidence doesn't agree with you, then you should find out why. Either the evidence is wrong, or you are. Instead, you have a run and cover your ears policy. Also, are you afraid of words now? You should probably understand this stuff before you get a political opinion.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I understand this stuff very well. So I know just because you use the word evidence does not mean you are actually dealing with evidence. You say what you want and you call what you want evidence and in order to make it all sound objective you say either the evidence is wrong or I am, when you actually mean either you are wrong or I am.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Actually, you haven't shown that you understand this stuff nearly as well as you claim you do. You could also say that just because you mindlessly say it is not evidence doesn't make it so, but that logic is faulty, which makes sense why you support it. Cover your ears and absolve yourself from any actual rebuttal. That's fine with me. Furthermore, your oversimplification of what I said excludes the possibility that we're both wrong, which could be possible, but I doubt it.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I do not have to show you anything. This is my channel, I put up the video to put out my view and you willingly took up the burden of convincing me that I am wrong. You have obviously failed. Rather than accept it and try a different approach, you are just looking for ways to blame me for your failure.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@injuredeternity But the libertarian solution is to simply give up and give in and stop labeling the organized crime as crime. Well if you stop calling the headache a headache it does not go away.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I on the other hand recognize that people left to themselves are as perfectly capable of violating others liberty to get their way as they are of getting their way in a manner that is respectful of liberties. So I can see a legitimate role for the government intervening in the affairs of private citizens so that they are never tempted to behave in a manner that violates a fellow citizens liberties.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 "that is respectful of liberties." Explain further. "violates a fellow citizens liberties." But that's the problem, because government makes it worse. Do you think that the peaceful use of drugs infringes on our liberty? The government does. Do you think that people willingly choosing to work for a low amount of money is infringing on our liberties? The government does. Gay marriage? Prostitution? The list can go on. These aren't helping us in the slightest.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity I think the best safeguard for liberty is an enlightened citizenry. Drugs destroy body and mind, so does prostitution. Their do not contribute to the development of an enlightened citizenry so they need to be contained and minimized and when possible eliminated. As for Gay marriage, the government is a record keeper. I do not think all intervention is for the sake of liberty, but for its sake interventions are to be allowed.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 If you don't think that they help you, then don't use them. Don't impose your own standards on other people. Furthermore, do you see the other adverse effects of these policies? By criminalizing drugs you are in effect creating drug cartels, stronger drugs, drug lords, throwing thousands of people in jail, and so on and so forth. Prostitution has other detrimental effects. I believe Uncle Milty say's it better than me, though: /watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity It is not a matter of what I think. Objectively their destructive potential is known. The adverse effects of the policies if any are is part of the crisis averted. The crisis that would have been is the people stone-drugged that they sell their liberties for the needle, or in case of women sell their bodies for it. The spread of disease, the breakdown in social order. Criminalizing rape and murder creates rapists and murders. Why not decriminalize those?
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 I'm still waiting for any of that proof of the "crisis averted." Despite what Lenin says, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it any more true. Have you even watched the video I gave to you? Criminalizing drugs has actually made worse drugs, as well as forced people to get them from sketchy sources. If they're decriminalized, then the drugs become less deadly and cleaner.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity The crisis averted is the unseen crisis right? You see the situation without the anti-drug laws as being better off than present. I see it as being worse off. The problem with drugs is not that criminals sell them or that they are impure, they are 'bonus problems'. The problem is the capacity of these chemicals to destroy body and mind even as it makes both dependent on it. That is never going to change.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 As for your rape and murder statement, those do not involve a scenario between voluntary partners, and therefore cannot be equated with free people choosing to sell their bodies or put drugs into them.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity To act voluntarily one needs sound mind and body. a drug addict has neither. You are not arguing for facilitating any voluntary transaction when you try to legalize drug addiction.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 To stretch your argument to it's logical conclusion, then the momentary effects of sugar are therefore grounds for government intervention. Afterall, some do complain that sugar encourages them to make less than optimizing decisions. Should the state determine how much sugar we consume? How about tea? You know, caffeine is a drug. Forget the health benefits of tea, we aren't rational people! (notice your beloved government is also run by these not so rational people.)
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Unfortunately the effects of narcotics are not momentary. There are intelligent people who have studied these situations making decisions. But then again it does not take a genius to recognize the difference between sugar and pot, or heroine and tea or cocaine and coffee. Instead of addressing the point I made, you address a bastardized version of it. I am not surprised.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Actually, they are for quite a few drugs. You really should watch that video I recommended to you. Ever wonder why heroine and crack cocaine exist in the first place? I think you know what I'll say. That wasn't very bastardized, it was really the logical conclusion. Government should tell us to stop eating so much cheese, because cholesterol is bad. Big brother says sky diving is dangerous, and on and on.
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity Cheese does not destroy body and mind. Does not impair one's capacity to make decisions. Does not wreck one's brains. Neither does sky diving. Although sky diving without a parachute might. There are strict safety regulations when it comes to sky diving believe it or not.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 Actually, unhealthy food has proven to be addictive, as well as video games. Want your government to regulate those? Of course, I could send you to the video game addict website to get help. You mean strokes don't impair your brain health? Well believe it or not, people sky dive with parachutes before the government told them too. Imagine that!
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity All the things you mentioned are in some way or the other already regulated. They where not regulated once before, that is correct. As time went on and the knowledge about the harm it caused was accumulated, regulations naturally came into play to minimize harm.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099 You are mixing up regulation, whether it be through distortionary taxes, negative externality taxes etc., and criminalization. Obviously, that isn't to avoid your point, it is a valid one, but I wanted to note the distinction. Actually, when the hell did they start regulating for video game addiction? Why the hell am I paying for that?
injuredeternity 1 month ago
@injuredeternity You are too busy hating the government, you did not have time to check it all out.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
@dhimmi099, excellent exposure of ShaneDK's attitude and tactics. I've had a recent "debate" with him, and he's pulled all his usual weakling tactics. Yelling LIAR!, twisting words, and ultimately when he can't take being pwn'd any longer, he simply deletes posts and then claims they were racists. What an epic hypocritical liar. LOL
As for ShaneDK's injured arm, and ongoing payment plan, it would be ironic if the private health care he loves so much, sucks him bone dry and then into bankrupcy.
ZangaroZen 1 month ago
0:41 You're mocking a strawman. Businessmen, however racist, are still selfish and would take the opportunity to profit from people who had been denied service by other companies, and there is empirical evidence to support this (see link below).
I would highly recommend watching this to get the libertarian view on anti-racist laws: /watch?v=g6IJV_0p64s
StatelessLiberty 2 months ago
@StatelessLiberty Few if any people restrict to simply playing the role of businessman all their lives. They are also voters, politicians, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, house wives, mothers, daughters, sons, wives and husbands. Plenty of roles meaning plenty of opportunity for bigotry to ooze out.
dhimmi099 2 months ago
@StatelessLiberty
So why weren't they doing that prior to Jim Crow in the South? Not that having minorities relegated to niche services is much better when the vast majority is restricted by business (ie whites only restaurants).
That aside, "Libertarians" still actively say the South was tolerant and the laws were imposed (ie Shanedk).
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician The laws where imposed alright. By the people of the South or more precisely the government they represented. They where using their local superiority in numbers to infringe on the rights of a minority. The "Libertarians" need to white wash history because they are Southerners with heritage pride, trying to salvage by deceit the pride of their shameful heritage. Might as well says they Nazis cared for Jews.
dhimmi099 1 month ago
I have never had a civil conversation with him and I tried all types of ways of dealing with libertarians. They spammed and trolled me etc etc, I did it back, then they blocked me. Now I adopt the block key as a political weapon. They use it along with trolling and soap boxing. My channel is no longer going to be used for them to promote their dogma. Fuck them I say
franks2732 3 months ago