There can be no "right to enslave"

[4dsouzaluiz]

@jjtb4v

Social Welfare is good to controll the masses and keep them enslaved. Politics love to help the poor with other people's money and became "cool" in the eyes of the massas. Brazilian govenment, for instance, is giving money and apartaments to everybody, and Dilma is becoming a star because of that. It is much easier than create jobs so everybody has their own money to buy a house. If poors are to succeed, the rich must be recognised for their value and helped, not the other way around.

[RikJamezBich]

I have a Midterm for History. Quite ironic that folks fled Britain to escape persecution, yet enslaved Africans, killed even peaceful Indian tribes and had servants from their own poor class of Europeans. I wonder why in High School they spared the degree of violence and betrayal throughout history. Sure slavery was discussed, but depending on what you read for instance Columbus could be described as a pirate or a saint.

[waketheoblivious]

The only system that generates abundance theoretically is Capitalism. The principle of Self interest guarantys shortages and scarcity in any other system but Capitalism. All me are born Capiatalists based on the fact, out of self interest we took our first breath. The world will be oriented towards a Godless universe by those promoting a New World Order Agenda. Actually is a very Old World Order controlled by Satanists. Ayn Rand, is merely a clever Satanist taking advantage of ignorance.

[waketheoblivious]

Top 10 Things Satanists Enjoy: 1. Savoring the endorphine laden blood of a stolen child 2. Reading Atlas Shrugged & Satanic Bible 3. Relishing in the facial expressions of murdered molested child 4. Re-read Atlas Shrugged & Satanic Bible 5. Secret Society Meetings Evoking Satan 6. Reading Atlas Shrugged & Satanic Bible 7. Stomp to death neighbors whimpering puppies 8. Reading Atlas Shrugged & Satanic Bible 9. Eating from toilet, flushing dead puppies 10. Reading Atlas Shrugged

[arzoyan]

Capitalism is the final chapter in historic evolution of THE TYRANNY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity, a Market mechanism where minority interest is the NEGATION OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY IN COOPERATION and HARMONY. We shall overcome the structure of minority power and oppression and reclaim our planet for a world of cooperation for our common neeand well being, expressing our energetic creative divinity in freedom of being.

[sonrouge]

@arzoyan I almost worry about screwballs like you.

[4dsouzaluiz]

Social Welfare is compulsory donation. Only benefits those entitled to distribute it. Doesn t take much to see it is theft and defies reality. Corruption would no be so rampant if government kept out of economics.

[jjtb4v]

@4dsouzaluiz Apparently, you know nothing of history or are intentionally lying.

[ManiBromden]

Ayn Rand's view fails to address how the fruits of labour may be attributed variously to one's own talents & efforts, collaboration with others, exploitation of natural resources and other enabling inputs. Where the correlation with own effort is obvious, certainly the individual must be the primary and largest beneficiary. There can be no appropriation without transparent laws and the individual's consent.

[ManiBromden]

Contd from previous post.......but not so anymore because of the skewing of

resources through laws that have favoured concentration of resources in fewer hands. With the exception of the welfare economies (Capitalist as well as Socialist) 'Civilization' has been regressive in that respect.

[ManiBromden]

Contd from previous..... Also, a person's output has a large correlation with inputs and whether he/ she started with a relatively privileged background or a

disadvantaged one. The correlation would be just as valid in a country like the US.

The whole point about a right to education or healthcare is about access to resources, which was kind of universal in the pre-civilized days or in the lives of tribals...... Contd in the next post

[ManiBromden]

For sure, you are entitled to the fruits of your own labour and you are also free from forced labour and enslavement, but there are multiple dimensions to this. This argument on entitlement to the fruits of one's efforts is fully valid only in environments where resources or enabling parameters are near universally available, which would exclude large parts of the world (the third world, for example)...... Contd in the next post

[sicktoaster]

There is no reason you couldn't have a republic that is a big government because people voted 4 big government or a king who decided not to make that many laws. & Left/right is 2 complex and nuanced 2 b simplified as "big gov versus small gov". You should take a course in political science. You might actually learn something 4 a change.

[sicktoaster]

The video conflates completely separate aspects of politics. It conflates left/right, big government/small government, & type of government. Other than that anarchy=no government by definition everything is unrelated...

[sicktoaster]

You can quit your job and live on the streets and then no product of your labor will go to taxes so you're not a slave.

[yakyakyak69]

@sicktoaster

Watch these films on YouTube:

The American Form of Government (Our Founders FEARED Democracy)

The Story of Your Slavery (How Humans are really farmed like Cows)

The Philosophy of Liberty (What REALLY is Liberty?)

[sicktoaster]

@yakyakyak69

Anybody with any background or understanding in political science will tell you that "the American Form of Government," the video is bs. Things like "monarchy" and "republic" have nothing 2 do with the size of government & "Anarchy" is traditionally a left-wing political philosophy. It meshes these 3 things(left/right), (big gov/small gov), and type of government(monarchy, democracy, republic...) togehter when theyre really separate things.

[yakyakyak69]

@sicktoaster The ONLY thing wrong in this video is that Anarchy always leads to Totalitarianism. To complete the video, connect the Anarchy & Totalitarianism ends and form a circle.

[sicktoaster]

@yakyakyak69

So tell me if I was a libertarian king would my regime magically count as a "republic" just because it has a small government? According to that video it would.

[yakyakyak69]

@sicktoaster OK, some basic education:

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence, mournful optimist, libertarian king or republic monarchy.

Watch the video again and again until you understand. Try watching before smoking pot, downing drugs or drinking those 8 beers. If all else fails, watch with an adult and ask them to explain it to you.

[sicktoaster]

@yakyakyak69

A libertarian king would not be an oxymoron(at least according to the capitalist definition of libertarian). What if a king only has laws limited to protecting life, liberty, and "property" even though he theoretically could do more?

[Neuwo]

Well made video Sidewinder77.

Favourited :)

[Masebrock]

Who are you to determine what is "overpaid" and "underpaid"? Who are you to determine what is an acceptable contract and what is unacceptable? I do not think that the right to make contract must be suspended, otherwise society will collapse. When you say that they only have a "right to die" , do you mean that you think people must enslave each other in order to survive? How fascist of you. Even if that were true, I would rather die than enslave another man.

[lordhighexecutioner]

Who decides what the "fruits of your labour" are to be? For most, it's the result of a deal between the very strong and the very weak... thus, most people are underpaid for their labour, whilst a small amount is vastly overpaid. This thus must be remedied... either by increasing the workers' bargaining power through trade unions and the existence of laws favourable to these, or though other policies... failure to do this causes a massive imbalance in society that can cause its destruction...

[HighlandFreePress]

Google "Freeman on the Land"

[Masebrock]

Property is the product of you time, energy, and ultimately your life, funneled into a physical form. Owning property is as natural as owning your body. Those who claim to support life, but not the product of life, are truly confused.

[casablanca1972]

good point of view, close to budism

[m3141592]

"Owning property? is as natural as owning your body."

Natural?

Like scabies, 50% infant mortality and the strong raping the weak? Must be a good thing then.

[rmcdaniel423]

Collectivists see "self-interest" and falsely call it "greed". It is not greedy or morally wrong to expect to keep the fruits of one's labor and use it as he or she desires. What IS greedy is expecting someone else to pay for your own needs, whether they want to or not. When collectivists claim everything is a right, they force accountability for the provision of those "rights" onto others against their will. What's moral about that?

[jjtb4v]

@rmcdaniel423 Your perception is skewed. You assume that all production comes from one individual and those who are paid to work in that process are paid fairly. Wrong. Wrong and wrong. Greed is when one takes MORE than they have EARNED. And that is exactly what capitalists do. You cannot have capitalism without slavery. Just as China and India.

[jekk23]

Money is utterly meaningless and works against our survival. Don't take my word for it, just look about yourself and think.

[casablanca1972]

i agree

[richardcadbury]

fuck fdr

[Tasadaru]

This vid presents a fantastic arguement. But all Americans should understand that we do not live in a capitalist society. We live in a banker fascist society. As long as fractional reserve banking exists in this nation, we the people will never be free from the whims of bankers. The next amendment in the Constitution should be 100% reserve backing of all loans and leverages. Otherwise, major booms and busts will continue.

[sunlightallgodsworld]

＾v＾

[Crashtest517]

I agree with this argument however I can't see how it could possibly work. I agree people should be allowed to charge whatever they please for their services, however when those services are needs like health care the danger is that companies can form cartels and force the public into paying their price no matter how high. If there could be a way where health care could be affordable, I would support it, but that just doesn't seem possible unfortunately.

[jscottupton]

The fallacy in your argument is that cartels never last very long. Every time someone tries to set up a cartel, it starts falling apart almost immediately. The reason is that there are ALWAYS alternatives. In health care, when the price is too high people seek alternatives...which are always there.

[wade2bosh]

work----->money---->taxes ----> govt ---->economic rights/public jobs----->opportunity to improve society

welfare is a joke though....

[SoCalSocialism]

Is Ayn Rand stupid? That's what capitalists do, take the product of the workers because they own the means of production. The working class is left absolutely poor.

She's right about one thing, in order for their to be rich capitalists there has to be poor exploited enslaved workers.

"Free the slaves!", say the capitalists, "We need free men to enslave."

There are no "economic rights" only:

Job cuts!

Home foreclosures!

Pension cuts!

Heath care gone!

Capitalism doesn't work!

[wood9670]

Um, you voluntarily give your labor in exchange for wealth. You CONSENT!!! Slaves don't consent.

[SoCalSocialism]

Capitalists are all for 'freedom' but you have to understand that they claim to praise that because, 'in order for ca[italists to enslave men those men must be free first.'

[wood9670]

Thats not an argument against my point.

Tell me, do you work or plan too?

Do you expect to get paid? Do you expect to get paid more for having certain skills?

Can you, id desired, quit a job and find another employer?

If you answer yes to any of these then you are not a slave and are a CAPITALIST.

Abusive systems of dependency do emerge in capitalism but that is true in most social/economic institutions. Even socialism.

[RCWorks]

I expect to keep ALL that I earn, not having to give any to socialist pigs in Washington to piss away.

[m3141592]

And as long as you don't use public roads, the infrastructure for clean drinking water, FDA approved drugs, the services of the police or the protection of the armed forces that's perfectly fine.

Presumably your lifestyle is that of a prehistoric nomad or hunter gatherer (or you're a hypocrite).

[Masebrock]

How is getting a small portion of what is stolen from you returned "hypocritical?"

It seems like a pretty consistent application of property rights to me.

[m3141592]

I don't know what you're talking about. So that makes two of us.

[Masebrock]

You said that unless you are living the life of a nomad or hunter, you are being a hypocrite for wanting to keep all of what you earn.

[m3141592]

So you're saying that publicly funded services (i.e. civilised societies) are possible without taxation? I don't see how. Unless you mean an authoritarian communist state?

The fact remains, if you don't agree with taxes, you shouldn't use the services which they pay for.

[Masebrock]

First off, I disagree with your definition of "civilized societies". I think civilization is very possible without publicly funded services.

"The fact remains, if you don't agree with taxes, you shouldn't use the services which they pay for. "

But why not? If you disagree with someone taking your wallet, are you acting hypocritically if you are able to take back a few dollars?

[m3141592]

"I think civilization is very possible without publicly funded services."

Perhaps you're right. Do you have an example?

"If you disagree with someone taking your wallet, are you acting hypocritically if you are able to take back a few dollars"

I don't think so. But what does that have to do with it?

If a shopkeeper takes your money in exchange for goods or services, should you be allowed to have that money back AND keep what you bought?

[Masebrock]

Yes, but it depends on how you define "civilization". If you go to the root word "civility", it implies a society where the rights of each individual are respected. So, a group of people interacting with each other, and not violating anyone's rights, would be a civil society. A typical family would be a good example.

"But what does that have to do with it?"

The act of taking a wallet by force is similar to the act of taking money by force. It is similar to taxation.

[m3141592]

"it implies a society where the rights of each individual are respected. So, a group of people interacting with each other, and not violating anyone's rights, would be a civil society. A typical family would be a good example."

By that definition so would a wolf pack or an ant colony.

[Masebrock]

"If a shopkeeper takes your money in exchange for goods or services, should you be allowed to have that money back AND keep what you bought? "

It depends on HOW the shopkeeper took your money. If he took it through voluntary exchange or some form of contract, then the money is rightfully his. But if he takes through the threat of violence for non-compliance, then you deserve either your money back, or at least something of equal value. (taxation is not voluntary)

[m3141592]

"taxation is not voluntary"

Emigrate.

"The act of taking a wallet by force is similar to the act of taking money by force. It is similar to taxation. "

A valid comparison IF you don't use the roads, police, municipal services, protection of the army, subsidised food and travel etc, or IF the thief you mentioned gave you back something of equal value that you would have needed anyway.

Which is a bit different.

[Masebrock]

The "love it or leave it" argument only brings up the question of who is entitled to occupy the space to begin with. I believe that the individual members of the public are the rightful sovereigns over land, not the governing authorities of the State.

[m3141592]

Masebrock;

Perhaps you are right though. I have communist and anarchist leanings myself occasionally, so I don't entirely disagree with your points.

My doubts regard the feasibility of your suggested system in the modern world. Personally I think we'd be best of if we'd kept tribal societies, but I think it is too late for that.

You've certainly given me something to think about.

[Stigmata742]

@Masebrock: I wouldn't disagree with Person A taking a wallet from Person B, if that wallet was originally Person A's wallet and was stolen by Person B.

[Stigmata742]

@m3141592: If someone went to your house when you were asleep, washed your car, and left a bill on the windshield, would you be obligated to pay for that service? No. You never agreed to the service in the first place, even though you used it. You can't force someone to agree to a contract that they didn't sign.

Also, people benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but just because they benefit doesn't mean that I can charge them every time I shower. Benefit doesn't equal debt.

[m3141592]

"washed your car"

Depends if you've decided to live on a street where car washing is included in your rent.

The fact remains that all of human history shows that this or some equivalent is necessary to prevent civil war and the collapse of society.

[Masebrock]

Most rent is payed through some form of voluntary contract...with the state no such contract exists. It is like they just assume from the fact that you live there that you want your car washed, and no consent is ever asked.

[m3141592]

"voluntary contract...with the state no such contract exists."

You've tried to leave the country and they won't let you? Those bastards!

[Masebrock]

Come on, did you really just use the same "love it or leave it" type argument that you used three months ago? :P

[m3141592]

"argument that you used three months ago"

Did you just squirm out of it without answering?

[AshillaBeige]

So if you opened a small business, say you sold flowers, and you hired a worker who sells the flowers that you pay $8 an hour for their time and work, are they your slave? Hm?

That worker is benefiting from you, and you are benefiting from your worker. If the worker takes more responsibility, they get a raise, and if they feel you are not paying enough for their work i.e. robbing them, then they leave and work somewhere else. Is that what you call slavery too?

[SoCalSocialism]

Socialism doesn't care about small businesses it only cares about huge corporations and natural resources.

Nationalize the big 3 auto manufacturers and no one loses their jobs or homes and the profits go to build better schools, better roads, hospitals etc.

Expropriate the oil companies and the natural resources and the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits go to fund college grants, better judicial systems, better law enforcement, and schooling etc.

[jscottupton]

I never consented to have government take my money to spend on welfare programs (I do, however, freely donate to charity). Anticipating a possible rebuttal, the true "social contract" is part of negative law...I will leave you alone if you leave me alone. The collectivists have tried to pervert the "social contract"...claiming it applies to positive law (they claim that government is sovereign, not the individual).

[fntime]

RIght, charity is a 'human' quality,

altruism is a con job, preying upon the

basic generousity, charity and decency

of 'men', using virtue against the virtuous.

Jud/Christianity is responsible for

this 'con game' and it has been used by

every tyrant whether governmental or

religious, to remove from their 'instincts'

and allow them to accept being a 'slave'

or 'enslaving' others.

[sicktoaster]

@jscottupton

I never consented to have government take my money to spend on wars, on corporate welfare, or on bailouts.

[AshillaBeige]

You forget that the evil capitalist is the one providing the worker with wages and thus providing him with the means to survive in VOLUNTARY exchange for his services. No one person can make a pencil. No one steel worker can produce steel. The capitalist you speak of organizes the product and uses labour paid for to create. Without one, you can't have the other. Stop being part of the collective and start thinking for yourself. Wealth =/= evil. Force =/= evil.

[bobsager]

I think this is part of another presentation on 'the wealth of nations'. Does anyone know who produced it and where the whole thing can be seen?

[manlycouncil]

Little bit far fetched but most Americans are happy stepping over the sick, homeless and dying.

[sicktoaster]

There's property in a state of nature?

Doesnt property require force? You have to have the right to use force against anyone going on your property or using things that are your property or at least the right to have others(police) use force for you or else property is meaningless.

Where does property emerge in a state of nature? It seems that for it to emerge you'd have to go somewhere or grab something and then use force to stop others from being where you are or using what you have.

[TheRealMikeSmith]

The person who trespassed your property is the initiator of the force. You are only defending your property.

[sicktoaster]

But where did it become property(before it started being exchanged) and what made that legitimate?

[Seiku]

This is something I try to explain to people but they are so dead set into believing they are born with the right to have health care. Oh geez

[lordhighexecutioner]

They have only the right to die... why are people so determined to create Hell on Earth? Perhaps they should abolish sewage systems - the rich used to oppose that as an unnecessary waste of money and it was usually the poor who got the epidemics... only that some figured out that these diseases affected them too.

[Brainaide]

The saddest thing about this presentation is that it has only 379 views since march :(

Should be 300 millions. (just to be safe)

[murphycline]

FDR was a schmuck. Any man who has the hubris to serve four terms as president is not worthy of my respect.

[spiderveloce]

not sure how that's hubris...

[mikebutak]

Such a rare perspective, so insightful

[CrazyCarl15367]

Nice quotes from Ayn Rand's "The Rights of Man." I liked the presentation. I've actually got this exact passage highlighted in my copy.

[politEgoEgonomics]

heAR! heAR!

[tradingbr]

nice