Tax money is used to pay interest from borrowing it from the company Federal Reserve. And since they're not apportioned (evenly distributed by everyone) like the constitution says, those taxes are illegal
Bridges, driveways and all are paid with municipal/house taxes and others.
Bills are like leeches that latch on to idiots. Discover how to have free unlimited food/electricity/water/transportation/etc
@PHILIBOYLONDON - So your ascertion is that Obama borrowed money to pay off debt? Why did the USA's national debt go from $9 trillion to $16 trillion in the three years Obama was President?
@Rompcom George Bush allowed banks to fuck up the economy, to clean up his mess Obama has had to borrow money and put it into the economy to create growth or at least stagnate a recession. He also had to borrow billions to save the banks that Bush allowed to run with debts twenty times their worth. Had Obama not bailed out the banks(which does piss me off i must say) the economy would be ten times worse than it is now. Bush's administration de facto caused the recession, Obama's cleanin it up.
@PHILIBOYLONDON So far off the truth it is unreal. Bush didn't let the banks mess up the economy, he forced them to do it. All in the name of a property owning democracy. He passed a law that made banks lend to people with no job, no assets and poor credit because it was good for the country. He insured the loans through fannie and freddie which took away any chance of loss for the banks. No wonder there were so many ninja loans. Banks get blamed for following orders from the government!
@macphail8 I completely agree. I don't mean to point out Bush as the only one. The programme for home ownership was started with Clinton and Followed by Bush. It is the whole political system, with bad laws, easy credit, low interest rates, and overspending. Basically every President since FDR (maybe excepting Reagan) has been for more spending and bigger government taking control of our lives.
@Tareltonlives not really... did you see the part about having to pay taxes to pay for necessary gov't services at 3:10? they want their cake without having to pay for it.
@vedsgoc the free market can do anything better than coercive government. Have you ever complained to even the nicest DMV attendent? "shut up get in line and take a number" is what they'll say. Companies can manage services MUCH MUCH MUCH better than government. Scrooge would agree with me.
What utter bullshit. American Libertarianism is utopian rubbish with no basis in reality. Your "free market" fetish will lead to corporate feudalism in short order, restarting the long, slow and inevitable progression to where we are now. Go suck off Ayn Rand or something.
"Satism"?? What a false dichotomy. To be supportive of the necessary structures that allow society to function without falling into chaos is not to have some ideological bent towards the central state. Adhering to any ideology for the sake of ideology is destructive and foolish. As for your "liberty", if you mean liberty to be an asshole, to take from those who are weak, then there is no helping you. Go trample slaves with Callicles or better yet hang out with Nietzsche and cry about society.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 Liberty doesn't mean you get to take from those who are weak, it protects the weak from being coerced. We all have a right to be free from the interferrence of each other. If you don't think we should have the right to disagree and act freely on our beliefs then I'm not even gong to bother continuing this or even to insult you
Liberty might not mean that, but Libertarianism sure does, at least in practice. Liberty, however, is not an absolute for anyone who involves themselves in a social situation. You must make concessions when conducting yourself with people with other interests. It's called compromise. And as for beliefs, well you can believe what you like but if it is harmful to others then I don't think it should acted upon. This is just common, human sense, not something peculiar to "enlightened" individuals.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 I agree 100% with the second part, and thats what the whole purpose of "rights" is, to be free from others interference. I think you see the obvious benefits of living in a society and automatically assume that this gives some validity to the state. Where I see the state as the monopolist and abuser. and society being its victim
Sorry, but that's as sensible as thinking that the blind spot on a car is reason for getting rid of the frame. Without the state, there would be no society, at least in the sense that we know it. Large groups of humans always, *always*, organise themselves through structures such as the state. Why? Because it's fucking sensible and the only efficient method of dealing with large groups of people. The state is obviously not perfect, and in the case of the USA or other western polities could
easily be improved, but they are still an absolute necessity. Tell me, what do you think "society" would look like in the absence of the state? Because to be honest all I see is chaos and an utter lack of liberty, as of all the facilitators of liberty the state is the most important, as it allows us to act in an environment without constant fear and need to protect what meagre resources we can muster as individual actors.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 freedom isn't chaos. If you want to "organize yourself" with a totalitarian regime that treats you as a number and not a person, go right head, but you better leave me out of it.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 I don't know about you but I never "organised myself" with the state. I never signed up for social security, we don't volunteer to go to a public school. If you want to organize yourself go right on ahead, but I want to organize myself that doesn't take 30 cents of every dollar I earn, and pretend like it has my best intentions in mind. I really don't know where you get off making out like the state is a voluntary thing. And anyways theres no way you can convince me that ..
Oh yes, and define "peaceful" for me. I'm sure your idea differs from mine substantially. I don't count indirectly aggressive acts such as private property to be peaceful, although that said I don't think aggression in all it's forms is universally negative.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 but the bottom line is that if you don't think that individuals have a right to their property and therefore their own lives then I feel extremely sorry for you, and i've nothing more to say
I never said that it was individually voluntary, nor do I subscribe to the honestly contrived notion that acquiescence is universally inviolable. My point is that any person not burdened with either ideology or idiocy will, in the absence of pre-existing structures, join, found or otherwise participate in social situations. These situations, however, when larger than what amounts to a village in which everyone knows each other personally require a degree of organisation not directed directly by
every individual person. This is such an obvious concept that it takes a really warped and unrealistic ideology such as Communism or Libertarianism to misunderstand. As for "being voluntary", well I just don't see how that's an issue at all. Children are brought up by their parents without consent, I don't see how this is different for an individual born into a society. For their own good, which yes, is largely known better by the group than the child, the individual is brought up. You still
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 1) Communism is a form of statism. It gives control of property and even human beings to some central power.
2) Joining, founding, and participation are voluntary things. I don't know where I've stated that I'm against voluntary forms of interaction between individuals.
3) To my knowledge there has yet to be a society based entirely on the nonagression principal (thats my definition of "peacefull" But this is irrelevant. I'm sure abolitionists dealt with BS like this
You're thinking of Stalinism. Actual Communism is very similar to Libertarianism in its positions on the state, at least in that both think that ideally it should not exist. But I digress, I did not accuse you of being against voluntary participation, I said that voluntary participation is not an absolute positive, and that coercion is at times appropriate. This appears to be an axiomatic difference between us. The non-aggression principle is utter tripe, it only deals with some forms of
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 communism is in no way similar to libertarianism. Communists want to use force to achieve their means. Whereas libertarians follow the non-aggression axiom; their means ARE the ends. Look at history, collectivism is a nightmare. There is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people, so if "coercion is at times appropriate", your ends better well keep from being achieved.
Hmm forgot to finish the last comment. Oh well. Anyhoo all I meant in comparing Libertarianism and Communism is the mutual dislike of the state and their Utopianist ideals. Your absolutist approach is, to be frank, ridiculous. Your spurious definitions of "peaceful people" and "violence", as well as equating coercion with violence is simply nonsense and a semantic argument. Libertarianism like all absolutist ideologies is doomed to failure and abuse, another similarity with communism.
It is telling that you have yet to provide me with any examples of what your utopia would actually look like. All you have is hot air and no substance, as subconsciously even you must realise the incompatibility of Libertarianism with human nature and logic.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 well then we disagree. I just apply the non agression principal to my personal life, and It makes it much more enjoyable. You can rationalize the state any way you like, I just don't agree. But you have the right to live the way you want to IMO as long as it doesn't involve my complusion
So, you essentially live your life the way a normal person does except that you affect a wanker persona in order to look cool and intellectual? Unsurprising. I don't have a problem with Libertarians because, like most silly fads it doesn't actually make its adherents into walking Randroids, so in that I guess it's not too bad. Finally, though, I really want you to describe for me a "Libertarian society" if that ideology was applied to society at large. Can you do it?
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 since we agree that applying the non-agression principal to our lives is a good thing "normal" in your words, I don't understand why you wouldn't want it applied 100x's more consistently in politics and the market. I'll don't exactly know what a society without a monopoly on force would look like, but I'll give you my opinion. I think it would be extremely productive. You can either join into a collective, work and go into business on your own, or do a combination of both..
@natritious1 I just don't see a conflict of interests with anyone's ideology as long as it doesn't involve the using other individuals for uses beyond their consent
You miss interpreted what I meant. By saying you were "normal", I was implying that the only real way you used your axiom was as an ex post facto reasoning/justification for your actions. Out of curiosity, do you pay taxes?
The idea that a Libertarian society could be efficient in one of material productivity is one which I would agree with; with no protection from the government, cooperations could swap and change employees with extreme ease, and in general abuse the working class to their
hearts content. Think your Gilded Age but even more extreme. This does not translate into a happy society, however. Without protection and limits on business activities, there would be extreme market instability, with recessions and depressions occurring with great frequency. Workers rights would be nonexistent. "Private Property" could only exist if backed up by real and physical force. So, in essence, chaos and anarchy. Also known as the Feudal System, or at least its beginnings.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 Well I really disagree with you. I think laissez faire capitalism raised our standards of living to quite amazing heights and I think that there is an infinite amount of wealth to be created, all thats holding us back is the government. And of course I pay taxes everyone does whether they like to or not. That doesn't change the fact that forced taxation is evil
Um, laissez faire capitalism is *not* synonymous with Libertarianism. In general it is regulated to a degree by the government, and it is striking this balance which has been the key to our prosperity and freedoms. You do realise that without the government Laissez Faire would be impossible, right? You need structure for free trade, not chaos. Otherwise it is just abuse and exploitation of the strong on the weak.
And as for there being "infinite wealth" to be created, well you know that just belies a total lack of understanding of our economic system. I am not an economics student, but even I know that economics is based on the problem of scarcity and supply vs demand. There is emphatically *not* an infinite amount of resources or wealth, it must be managed carefully to ensure the prosperity of everyone. This is another failure of Libertarianism, it favours the strong over the weak.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 lol wealth creation is not a "zero sum game" (look it up) you sound like a Keynesian. The "structure for free trade" I already acknowledge and realize its much better when its 100% voluntary and not a monopoly on force.
What you totally fail to recognise is that "100% voluntary" is as meaningless as it is impossible. Even if one only counts circumstantial factors, decisions are always made with a degree of opportunity cost and out of necessity. A "monopoly on force" is absolutely necessary in order to prevent abuses such as those you indirectly advocate through your support of neo-feudalistic systems. Tell me, how do you prevent cooperate abuse without government controls? Answer within the bounds of reality.
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 you can have your totaltarianism. just stay away from me and my property or we've got a problem. If you don't think its good to follow the non agression principal in your life, you must be a total fucking prick. You can advocate statism and voilence all you like but you're never going to convince me its more than a powermongers' ratonalization of total evil. now fuck off an have a nice night
Hmm maroon? K... Anyhoo, I'm afraid that you are the one advocating totalitarianism, in effect, as Libertarianism allows for it. I am in no way advocating totalitarianism, unless you think that is what we have today, in which case you clearly don't live on this planet. Your "principle" is nothing more than an excuse to be an asshole to other people, through claiming absolute right to your artificially claimed "private property". You wish to have total autonomy at the cost of stability,
prosperity and liberty. Under your system no one would have any protection but the strong. The idea that people would actually follow the "non aggression principle" is ludicrous; when has any but a motivated few followed such Kantian ideals at any point in history? And you aren't taking away the power to abuse, you are allowing everyone who does have that power to exercise it. This "monopoly" of which you speak is what guarantees that you can make such petty claims.
You can advocate feudalism all you like but you'll never convince me that it's nothing more than "fuck you I've got mine". Have fun living in a fantasy world facilitated by the organisation of a society beyond your comprehension.
I'm not ashamed of those words. Coercion of children who touch flames is as justified as coercion of the selfish idiots who claim that all they have is the "sweat of their own browse". Do you event realise that everything that you "own" is only as such because society judges that it is yours? Your part in coming to own it is only partial; your house, your car and your job only exist at all because there is a society to facilitate it. Foolish person.
Yeah, I get that obviously!!! But, everyone needs healthcare. I live in the UK. HEalthcare is paid for by our taxes, very, very high taxes! Not being funny, but is there more to it than that? Becuase, if it is just "dont want to pay for other's healtcare" then, if people have that kind of selfish attitude, their opinion shouldnt count. Its about the Country surely, not the person. Lots of people here would not pay if they had a choice, and leave the poor people to suffer. Good job they dont!!!
Yeah, but its not just for lazy people? What about the millions who have worked for years. Just recently been laid off, lost their homes because of the reccession. Its for people like that too surely? I dont know much about it, but your country doesnt have 130 million hippies?
@MrJohanasBilderberg what happens in America is EVERYONES business unfortunately .... but soon that will change when the Dollar dies.. then all yanks will be singing a different tune :P it will be interesting to see what u do when u become that "leech" ur soo mad at...
Yer gotta admire Walt Disney's work. He was ae GREAAAT man, a genius of his time, and still are. Dead, sure, but his legacy lives on in Disney itself... ooh, if the cartoons could come back like they once were... memories...
Made by Disney while Unca Walt was still in charge, this is an excellent -- and honest -- primer on basic economics. The soulless corporate Disney of today would never make anything like this.
Damn Kyle is smart........PKA
Auzziable 1 month ago
They should show this in Wall street.
gininigin 1 month ago
This is a lie kids! None of this is true!
Tax money is used to pay interest from borrowing it from the company Federal Reserve. And since they're not apportioned (evenly distributed by everyone) like the constitution says, those taxes are illegal
Bridges, driveways and all are paid with municipal/house taxes and others.
Bills are like leeches that latch on to idiots. Discover how to have free unlimited food/electricity/water/transportation/etc
Kids, you are being manipulated since childhood!
Bid2Chance 2 months ago
Now is this maths right?
XlSlothXl 2 months ago
Can we make congress watch this?
maybrook1 2 months ago
Now times that billion by 4,000 and that's what Obama borrowed in two years.
Rompcom 3 months ago
@Rompcom well he had to pay of the debt george bush incurred, any republican would do the same.
PHILIBOYLONDON 3 months ago
@PHILIBOYLONDON - So your ascertion is that Obama borrowed money to pay off debt? Why did the USA's national debt go from $9 trillion to $16 trillion in the three years Obama was President?
Rompcom 2 months ago
@Rompcom George Bush allowed banks to fuck up the economy, to clean up his mess Obama has had to borrow money and put it into the economy to create growth or at least stagnate a recession. He also had to borrow billions to save the banks that Bush allowed to run with debts twenty times their worth. Had Obama not bailed out the banks(which does piss me off i must say) the economy would be ten times worse than it is now. Bush's administration de facto caused the recession, Obama's cleanin it up.
PHILIBOYLONDON 2 months ago
@PHILIBOYLONDON So far off the truth it is unreal. Bush didn't let the banks mess up the economy, he forced them to do it. All in the name of a property owning democracy. He passed a law that made banks lend to people with no job, no assets and poor credit because it was good for the country. He insured the loans through fannie and freddie which took away any chance of loss for the banks. No wonder there were so many ninja loans. Banks get blamed for following orders from the government!
Freedomnotforced 2 months ago
@Freedomnotforced Fannie and Freddy go back to Carter and were strengthened during the Clinton Administration...not everything is Bush's fault. ;)
macphail8 2 months ago
@macphail8 I completely agree. I don't mean to point out Bush as the only one. The programme for home ownership was started with Clinton and Followed by Bush. It is the whole political system, with bad laws, easy credit, low interest rates, and overspending. Basically every President since FDR (maybe excepting Reagan) has been for more spending and bigger government taking control of our lives.
Freedomnotforced 2 months ago
this represent saudi royal family loool
cispnum 3 months ago
This right here is why kids today are retarded - no scrooge mcduck cartoons anymore
alexander0the0gray 4 months ago 24
all of this educational crap yet he dives into solid gold coins like its a liquid
Ruldolphmaker 4 months ago
Koch brothers are dreaming of a room like Scrooge has. Why else could they be fucking the rest of the world over?
ssuuppeerrbbooyy 4 months ago 2
The lesson world leaders should take
nejckra 4 months ago
a Billion dollars on the ground! OMG! Dollars around the world!
MultiTrym 5 months ago
This is what Republicans dream about
Tareltonlives 6 months ago 10
@Tareltonlives not really... did you see the part about having to pay taxes to pay for necessary gov't services at 3:10? they want their cake without having to pay for it.
vjd55 3 months ago
@Tareltonlives Republicans dream about hoarding money, and Democrats dream about spending it.
snipetracker 1 month ago
Hmm... A very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long Dollar Tower/bridge
MultiTrym 6 months ago
LOL Check out my new original cartoon I created based on the scrooge now on my channel!!
dableeper 6 months ago
My whole college education in a nut shell. .....prepare you to be an employee and not a employer.
redrum235 7 months ago 4
this is awesome. except the taxes part. We can have those services without taxation and coercion.
natritious1 8 months ago
@natritious1 yeah, no we can't.
vedsgoc 8 months ago
@vedsgoc the free market can do anything better than coercive government. Have you ever complained to even the nicest DMV attendent? "shut up get in line and take a number" is what they'll say. Companies can manage services MUCH MUCH MUCH better than government. Scrooge would agree with me.
natritious1 8 months ago
@natritious1 well, if you've got a cartoon duck on your side, i won't argue!
vedsgoc 8 months ago
@vedsgoc thats right peasant
natritious1 8 months ago
What utter bullshit. American Libertarianism is utopian rubbish with no basis in reality. Your "free market" fetish will lead to corporate feudalism in short order, restarting the long, slow and inevitable progression to where we are now. Go suck off Ayn Rand or something.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 Statism is utter bullshit. Libertarianism is freedom.
natritious1 2 months ago
"Satism"?? What a false dichotomy. To be supportive of the necessary structures that allow society to function without falling into chaos is not to have some ideological bent towards the central state. Adhering to any ideology for the sake of ideology is destructive and foolish. As for your "liberty", if you mean liberty to be an asshole, to take from those who are weak, then there is no helping you. Go trample slaves with Callicles or better yet hang out with Nietzsche and cry about society.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 Liberty doesn't mean you get to take from those who are weak, it protects the weak from being coerced. We all have a right to be free from the interferrence of each other. If you don't think we should have the right to disagree and act freely on our beliefs then I'm not even gong to bother continuing this or even to insult you
natritious1 2 months ago
Liberty might not mean that, but Libertarianism sure does, at least in practice. Liberty, however, is not an absolute for anyone who involves themselves in a social situation. You must make concessions when conducting yourself with people with other interests. It's called compromise. And as for beliefs, well you can believe what you like but if it is harmful to others then I don't think it should acted upon. This is just common, human sense, not something peculiar to "enlightened" individuals.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 I agree 100% with the second part, and thats what the whole purpose of "rights" is, to be free from others interference. I think you see the obvious benefits of living in a society and automatically assume that this gives some validity to the state. Where I see the state as the monopolist and abuser. and society being its victim
natritious1 2 months ago
Sorry, but that's as sensible as thinking that the blind spot on a car is reason for getting rid of the frame. Without the state, there would be no society, at least in the sense that we know it. Large groups of humans always, *always*, organise themselves through structures such as the state. Why? Because it's fucking sensible and the only efficient method of dealing with large groups of people. The state is obviously not perfect, and in the case of the USA or other western polities could
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
easily be improved, but they are still an absolute necessity. Tell me, what do you think "society" would look like in the absence of the state? Because to be honest all I see is chaos and an utter lack of liberty, as of all the facilitators of liberty the state is the most important, as it allows us to act in an environment without constant fear and need to protect what meagre resources we can muster as individual actors.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 freedom isn't chaos. If you want to "organize yourself" with a totalitarian regime that treats you as a number and not a person, go right head, but you better leave me out of it.
natritious1 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 I don't know about you but I never "organised myself" with the state. I never signed up for social security, we don't volunteer to go to a public school. If you want to organize yourself go right on ahead, but I want to organize myself that doesn't take 30 cents of every dollar I earn, and pretend like it has my best intentions in mind. I really don't know where you get off making out like the state is a voluntary thing. And anyways theres no way you can convince me that ..
natritious1 2 months ago
@natritious1 theres such a thing as "good" violence against peacefull people. No way botha'
natritious1 2 months ago
Oh yes, and define "peaceful" for me. I'm sure your idea differs from mine substantially. I don't count indirectly aggressive acts such as private property to be peaceful, although that said I don't think aggression in all it's forms is universally negative.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 but the bottom line is that if you don't think that individuals have a right to their property and therefore their own lives then I feel extremely sorry for you, and i've nothing more to say
natritious1 2 months ago
I never said that it was individually voluntary, nor do I subscribe to the honestly contrived notion that acquiescence is universally inviolable. My point is that any person not burdened with either ideology or idiocy will, in the absence of pre-existing structures, join, found or otherwise participate in social situations. These situations, however, when larger than what amounts to a village in which everyone knows each other personally require a degree of organisation not directed directly by
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
every individual person. This is such an obvious concept that it takes a really warped and unrealistic ideology such as Communism or Libertarianism to misunderstand. As for "being voluntary", well I just don't see how that's an issue at all. Children are brought up by their parents without consent, I don't see how this is different for an individual born into a society. For their own good, which yes, is largely known better by the group than the child, the individual is brought up. You still
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
haven't shown me your vision of society without the state. Even if only out of interest, I want to see it.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 1) Communism is a form of statism. It gives control of property and even human beings to some central power.
2) Joining, founding, and participation are voluntary things. I don't know where I've stated that I'm against voluntary forms of interaction between individuals.
3) To my knowledge there has yet to be a society based entirely on the nonagression principal (thats my definition of "peacefull" But this is irrelevant. I'm sure abolitionists dealt with BS like this
natritious1 2 months ago
You're thinking of Stalinism. Actual Communism is very similar to Libertarianism in its positions on the state, at least in that both think that ideally it should not exist. But I digress, I did not accuse you of being against voluntary participation, I said that voluntary participation is not an absolute positive, and that coercion is at times appropriate. This appears to be an axiomatic difference between us. The non-aggression principle is utter tripe, it only deals with some forms of
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 communism is in no way similar to libertarianism. Communists want to use force to achieve their means. Whereas libertarians follow the non-aggression axiom; their means ARE the ends. Look at history, collectivism is a nightmare. There is no such thing as good violence on peaceful people, so if "coercion is at times appropriate", your ends better well keep from being achieved.
natritious1 2 months ago
Hmm forgot to finish the last comment. Oh well. Anyhoo all I meant in comparing Libertarianism and Communism is the mutual dislike of the state and their Utopianist ideals. Your absolutist approach is, to be frank, ridiculous. Your spurious definitions of "peaceful people" and "violence", as well as equating coercion with violence is simply nonsense and a semantic argument. Libertarianism like all absolutist ideologies is doomed to failure and abuse, another similarity with communism.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
It is telling that you have yet to provide me with any examples of what your utopia would actually look like. All you have is hot air and no substance, as subconsciously even you must realise the incompatibility of Libertarianism with human nature and logic.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 well then we disagree. I just apply the non agression principal to my personal life, and It makes it much more enjoyable. You can rationalize the state any way you like, I just don't agree. But you have the right to live the way you want to IMO as long as it doesn't involve my complusion
natritious1 2 months ago
So, you essentially live your life the way a normal person does except that you affect a wanker persona in order to look cool and intellectual? Unsurprising. I don't have a problem with Libertarians because, like most silly fads it doesn't actually make its adherents into walking Randroids, so in that I guess it's not too bad. Finally, though, I really want you to describe for me a "Libertarian society" if that ideology was applied to society at large. Can you do it?
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 since we agree that applying the non-agression principal to our lives is a good thing "normal" in your words, I don't understand why you wouldn't want it applied 100x's more consistently in politics and the market. I'll don't exactly know what a society without a monopoly on force would look like, but I'll give you my opinion. I think it would be extremely productive. You can either join into a collective, work and go into business on your own, or do a combination of both..
natritious1 2 months ago
@natritious1 I just don't see a conflict of interests with anyone's ideology as long as it doesn't involve the using other individuals for uses beyond their consent
natritious1 2 months ago
You miss interpreted what I meant. By saying you were "normal", I was implying that the only real way you used your axiom was as an ex post facto reasoning/justification for your actions. Out of curiosity, do you pay taxes?
The idea that a Libertarian society could be efficient in one of material productivity is one which I would agree with; with no protection from the government, cooperations could swap and change employees with extreme ease, and in general abuse the working class to their
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
hearts content. Think your Gilded Age but even more extreme. This does not translate into a happy society, however. Without protection and limits on business activities, there would be extreme market instability, with recessions and depressions occurring with great frequency. Workers rights would be nonexistent. "Private Property" could only exist if backed up by real and physical force. So, in essence, chaos and anarchy. Also known as the Feudal System, or at least its beginnings.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 Well I really disagree with you. I think laissez faire capitalism raised our standards of living to quite amazing heights and I think that there is an infinite amount of wealth to be created, all thats holding us back is the government. And of course I pay taxes everyone does whether they like to or not. That doesn't change the fact that forced taxation is evil
natritious1 2 months ago
Um, laissez faire capitalism is *not* synonymous with Libertarianism. In general it is regulated to a degree by the government, and it is striking this balance which has been the key to our prosperity and freedoms. You do realise that without the government Laissez Faire would be impossible, right? You need structure for free trade, not chaos. Otherwise it is just abuse and exploitation of the strong on the weak.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
And as for there being "infinite wealth" to be created, well you know that just belies a total lack of understanding of our economic system. I am not an economics student, but even I know that economics is based on the problem of scarcity and supply vs demand. There is emphatically *not* an infinite amount of resources or wealth, it must be managed carefully to ensure the prosperity of everyone. This is another failure of Libertarianism, it favours the strong over the weak.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 lol wealth creation is not a "zero sum game" (look it up) you sound like a Keynesian. The "structure for free trade" I already acknowledge and realize its much better when its 100% voluntary and not a monopoly on force.
natritious1 2 months ago
What you totally fail to recognise is that "100% voluntary" is as meaningless as it is impossible. Even if one only counts circumstantial factors, decisions are always made with a degree of opportunity cost and out of necessity. A "monopoly on force" is absolutely necessary in order to prevent abuses such as those you indirectly advocate through your support of neo-feudalistic systems. Tell me, how do you prevent cooperate abuse without government controls? Answer within the bounds of reality.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 You prevent the abuse by taking away their power to abuse. I'm done talking to you maroon
natritious1 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 you can have your totaltarianism. just stay away from me and my property or we've got a problem. If you don't think its good to follow the non agression principal in your life, you must be a total fucking prick. You can advocate statism and voilence all you like but you're never going to convince me its more than a powermongers' ratonalization of total evil. now fuck off an have a nice night
natritious1 2 months ago
Hmm maroon? K... Anyhoo, I'm afraid that you are the one advocating totalitarianism, in effect, as Libertarianism allows for it. I am in no way advocating totalitarianism, unless you think that is what we have today, in which case you clearly don't live on this planet. Your "principle" is nothing more than an excuse to be an asshole to other people, through claiming absolute right to your artificially claimed "private property". You wish to have total autonomy at the cost of stability,
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
prosperity and liberty. Under your system no one would have any protection but the strong. The idea that people would actually follow the "non aggression principle" is ludicrous; when has any but a motivated few followed such Kantian ideals at any point in history? And you aren't taking away the power to abuse, you are allowing everyone who does have that power to exercise it. This "monopoly" of which you speak is what guarantees that you can make such petty claims.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
You can advocate feudalism all you like but you'll never convince me that it's nothing more than "fuck you I've got mine". Have fun living in a fantasy world facilitated by the organisation of a society beyond your comprehension.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 "coercion is at times appropriate." your words and you're gonna try and use your weasle words on me. Fucking grease ball
natritious1 2 months ago
I'm not ashamed of those words. Coercion of children who touch flames is as justified as coercion of the selfish idiots who claim that all they have is the "sweat of their own browse". Do you event realise that everything that you "own" is only as such because society judges that it is yours? Your part in coming to own it is only partial; your house, your car and your job only exist at all because there is a society to facilitate it. Foolish person.
qazmlpwsxnko56473829 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 lol you have no right to your own life then you stupid slave
natritious1 2 months ago
@qazmlpwsxnko56473829 "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.
The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
natritious1 2 months ago
I love this pre-DuckTales piece. I remember watching this on Disney Channel a very long time ago.
PeachWookiee 8 months ago
0:35 Flintheart?
IvyLULZ 11 months ago
Obama needs to watch this.
MrJohanasBilderberg 1 year ago 2
Whats everyones problem with Obama? I live in scotland. Are you against healthcare for everyone?
BuckFastZombie 9 months ago
@BuckFastZombie
When it costs me money to pay for a hippie to have healthcare,,,,Yes.
MrJohanasBilderberg 9 months ago
Yeah, I get that obviously!!! But, everyone needs healthcare. I live in the UK. HEalthcare is paid for by our taxes, very, very high taxes! Not being funny, but is there more to it than that? Becuase, if it is just "dont want to pay for other's healtcare" then, if people have that kind of selfish attitude, their opinion shouldnt count. Its about the Country surely, not the person. Lots of people here would not pay if they had a choice, and leave the poor people to suffer. Good job they dont!!!
BuckFastZombie 9 months ago
@BuckFastZombie
I like low taxes and paying for my own insurance.
If the filthy hippies want healthcare they should get a job like normal people.
MrJohanasBilderberg 9 months ago
Yeah, but its not just for lazy people? What about the millions who have worked for years. Just recently been laid off, lost their homes because of the reccession. Its for people like that too surely? I dont know much about it, but your country doesnt have 130 million hippies?
BuckFastZombie 9 months ago
@BuckFastZombie
1. What happens in America is none of your business.
2. County hospitals provide emergency medical care to any resident even without insurance. It is not the Federal governments job to interfere,
3. Hippies are leeches on decent society.
MrJohanasBilderberg 9 months ago
@MrJohanasBilderberg what happens in America is EVERYONES business unfortunately .... but soon that will change when the Dollar dies.. then all yanks will be singing a different tune :P it will be interesting to see what u do when u become that "leech" ur soo mad at...
YOYOBadmojoJOJO 5 months ago
@MrJohanasBilderberg amen!
natritious1 2 months ago
A billion dolar don't mean the same as it did those years...
tkmariner 1 year ago 3
So how far would the 14+Trillion Dollar US debt reach? Haha..
EuroSon99 1 year ago
I wish I had seen this when I was a kid. I cannot budget well at all.
TGND333 1 year ago
fps kyle
ClubPenguin4Three 1 year ago
This is easily superior to ducktales..Much more charisma...So the cartoons started to become worse ever since the 60s and not the 90s ?
dubbeltid 1 year ago
I lol'd hard at 6:45 when Uncle Scrooge demands a fee from his naive nephews.
Easytoremembermember 1 year ago
LMAO@ petty cash. Hogwash
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago
I remember watching this on the Vintage Disney Channel.
BenJabituya 1 year ago
Investing in McDuck Enterprises. THERE'S the safest investment in history. WHo's with me on this?
Gunganfan 1 year ago 33
@Gunganfan sure unless he pulls a francisco de ancoinia
natritious1 8 months ago
I've always loved Scrooge! This is intense!
I almost choked when he said "Petty Cash"
redeemer1kamili 1 year ago 7
Yer gotta admire Walt Disney's work. He was ae GREAAAT man, a genius of his time, and still are. Dead, sure, but his legacy lives on in Disney itself... ooh, if the cartoons could come back like they once were... memories...
DreadLordBalnazaar 1 year ago
Correction, this isn't DuckTales -- it's one of the many educational cartoons released by Disney in the 50's.
AnotherIdiot 1 year ago
@AnotherIdiot 1967, actually - it was released shortly after Walt Disney's death.
AlantheOttoman 2 months ago
Made by Disney while Unca Walt was still in charge, this is an excellent -- and honest -- primer on basic economics. The soulless corporate Disney of today would never make anything like this.
Davidkevin 2 years ago