Take shirt off. Subtly highlight tattoo's. Speak politics. Say atheists are the ones who speak out to be cool. Reference - your video called 'atheists are just as stupid'. I'm going to go shower after listening to you speak. Feel unclean. Please uninstall.
@CreepyMuffin This is 4 months old, but where the fuck do you get the first part from? Also this sexy beast is an atheist himself, dumb shit. He's referencing youtube liberal statheists.
Democracy brings a false sense of power to the average joe, which is not the case. Democracy is flawed because it lets the people at least thing they have power. The people are stupid. The majority of people is not everyone, there will always be someone who is unhappy, and sometimes those people end up in power. There is no "perfect" way to rule, no perfect way for anything. So deal with it.
I love how they call it the people, but in reality it's the statists in government pushing their agenda. Not a single law out there has ever been written by a single collective agreement of the masses. It's asinine to follow a single person that wishes to subjugate an entire group to promote their own desires. That used to be called slavery, but now it's called freedom in democracy.
As a last point, may I ask what you consider an alternative to a mixed regime republic? Really the only other alternatives are a principality, an aristocracy, or a democracy (pure democracy which is real mob rule, not the republic we live in).
So if you don't advocate anarchy in the state of nature, and you don't like democracy, do you really feel an aristocracy or principality would be better at all in providing you with these "freedoms" you want?
Do you completely reject the notion of a social contract, simply because it's inconvenient to your position? From 8 minutes on, you just rambled a bit through talking points about legitimized theft (which I assume you mean taxes) without providing real backing to why tax is actually theft and not what it is defined as. A payment.
@Proletariat12 That's not how a promissory works. Not even in Canon Law does it work in that manner. You can not be born into servitude or debt. Using the system that exists does not qualify the debt in my name. In fact the entire system is voluntary. If the state does not offer the opt-out pathway, then it is not valid under Common Law. In the US we are supposed to be following Common Law practices, even though the Federal Government treat's everything under Canon Law.
@Joe11Blue Who said you were born into servitude and debt? You are born into a nation that you are free to leave if you disagree with the fundamental aspects of it.
I explained that by remaining you are tacitly consenting to the law, therefore you pay. If you want to go further and explicitly consent, that is up to you. You can contribute to the governing of the society, and the making of policy.
@Proletariat12 You don't see the irony behind your statement? I can either accept the system placed upon me by foolish choices made in the past that subjugate a person to unjustifiable debt and servitude by the mere circumstance of where I was born, or I can leave. Oddly, I don't remember reading about any of that sort of thing in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration of Independence. What this country is now, is nothing like the fundamental's it was founded on.
@Joe11Blue No, if you listened, I said you can either accept the system by tacitly consenting, or leave by natural right, OR you can explicitly agree by contributing to the society and being involved in the policy making. Three choices.
And no, I don't see the irony at all. Care to explain how that's ironic?
But more importantly, you have to acknowledge that people WILL be born into already established nations. That's just a simple truth of society. But to counteract thisyou have the choice CONT
@Proletariat12 Leaving by natural right's is quite frowned upon by the government. The Sovereign Individual idea also tends to get the JBT's kicking in your door's for tax evasion. That's not Freedom or Liberty. That's the irony of your suggestion.
Born into the nation is obvious. Being born into debt is not legally part of that deal.
@Joe11Blue The point of the social contract is to allow a system of security and freedom for the people who agree to it. If you don't want to live in a society, you do have the option to leave. Social contracts work best anyway without people who leech on the system without contributing. So it might be better if you do leave.
Unless you are too lazy or enjoying the comforts here too much, then you agree by staying to pay.
@Proletariat12 Social Contract? That went out the door when the Federal Government decided it had the right to bust down your door if they "think" you have a particular plant in your home. Furthermore when they decided that you have to violate the Constitution and tell them how much money you make every year.
Leech? How many years did you serve this country? How many award's for doing so? How have you contributed to society? Invent anything? Volunteer your time to educate?
@Proletariat12 cont.. Furthermore by simply living here, that does not place the debt I did not sign for onto me. For a person to even think in that manner, I have to question their motives. Consenting to the law mean's that I abide by the social structure of that country. That does not mean I have to abide by criminality of the Government that exists prior to my birth.
The choice you are suggesting suggest that we live in Tyranny. If you read the Constitution, we are to govern ourselves.
@Joe11Blue "he choice you are suggesting suggest that we live in Tyranny."
No need to get melodramatic here. Nothing I suggest, and nothing suggested by the social contract is tyrannical. Throwing out random spurious statements like that contributes nothing to any discussion.
@Proletariat12 Read my statements. There is no melodrama in them whatsoever. It's the rational conclusion through logical discovery. If you truly believe you are free, then I have some suggestion's for you. First if you think you own your home, don't pay your taxes on it. If you think you own your vehicle, try to export it. If you think you own your income, try to travel with most of it in cash.
That entirely depends on the definition of freedom. I would say yes I am free to pursue my interests and live safely and comfortably in a society. No, I am not free to act on any whim if those are destructive to society.
It's understood and never hidden that for a social contract to work there will be sacrifices of certain types of freedom to gain other freedoms.
Personally I don't want to live in a state of nature, but you can if you want.
@Proletariat12 So this brings me to ask, where is the social contract, and to what end should the Government abide by?
This also makes me wonder with all of the stuff going on with market manipulation, search and seizures of private property, TSA, the description of Veteran's as terrorists. The endless war's, and etc... You are perfectly fine and comfortable with your life here? You see nothing wrong with how the Federal Government has virtually stripped you of the Bill of Right's?
@Joe11Blue "You are perfectly fine and comfortable with your life here?"
I never said that. Where did I say that? What said is that I have the rights to do so. I can either accept the current situation, leave, or strive to change it.
" where is the social contract"
It's conceptual. Does it need more clarification than that?
"and to what end should the Government abide by?"
The contract is between the people and the state after all, so they are bound to protect our rights. If not, we can protest
@Proletariat12 So what you are saying is that I should accept it our leave. You don't seem to get by actively discussing the situation like I have been for 12 years, I'm putting the minds around me to look for a way to change it?
That's right, it's conceptual, and if the Federal Government doesn't abide by it, I have no obligation to either.
They haven't followed the social contract since at least the 1800's. I think time for protesting has passed. A passive revolt is required ATM.
@Joe11Blue I don't understand how I can explain to you clearly the options you have, yet you still don't get it. Are you consciously pretending I only said those two options just so you can dismiss the statement, or did you not read fully?
Also, I'm unsure if you really have been discussing this for 12 years. If you have, you wouldn't be asking the simple questions that you have, and you'd understand the obligations you actually do have.
@Proletariat12 I read and understand what you are suggesting. The problem is the premise of your suggestions. I should not have to leave my country of birth because the Federal Government has grown beyond a sustainable and reasonable size. That the same idiotic argument of telling people that we are going to promote nation building and the mass murder of innocent's in the name of Freedom and mob rule, and you can either like it or leave. You don't have that right.
@Proletariat12 The question's are simple, because there's no need to over complicate something when the principles are based on such a basic idea as personal Liberty. The way you are trying to lead the conversation is to bring it into a metaphysical and to obfuscate the very basic Principles of the country's founding. This is my land, and I did the work to make it here, and to turn it into something of worth. I should not be obligated to comply with demands backed by force.
@Joe11Blue What you don't seem to understand is that the social contract is between the people and the state. Not individuals. You don't personally have a right to not follow the contract, unless you want to put yourself in the state of nature. If you want to not follow the rules, you should realize the potential consequences. Why do you expect anybody to be able to not follow the rules in any society, and not be affected?
@Proletariat12 The Social Contract is non-existent. There's no binding understanding of it, and it's clear that the mere idea of it is not upheld by the very people whose existence is owed to us the people in the very least, if not through the compliance subjugated through the threat of force.
We never left nature. We are still limited by it no matter what the idealist Ivory Tower institution's like to spout off about the greatness of their technological achievement's.
@Proletariat12 Rules? Who agreed to the rules? Are these rules within the guidelines of the Constitution? Does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to debase my personal wealth to further their agenda? Does it allow them to regulate the trade of between private individual's to the extend that I would end up in their state sponsored prison if I do not comply and report what I'm doing in a position of state sponsored confess of possible guilt?
@Proletariat12 Let me break it down for you, the way you are describing the situation in the very basic principles is that I'm guilt unless I comply with the demand's of the Federal Government, and give them complete and total access to every aspect of my life. So you are justifying servitude in the name of the public good. That is in essence what you are advocating here.
I seriously would recommend you go back and read the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution with this in mind.
@Joe11Blue No, not the demands of the state, the demands of society. The General Will of society, the aggregate desires of the nation is what you are compelled to obey, otherwise you have the option of leaving, or striving to change the general will.
So please, stop trying to straw man me into your well rehearsed slave to the state argument I'm sure you have practiced.
As long as we are on the topic of recommended readings, please go read Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Constant, and Montesquieu
@Proletariat12 Society didn't chose to use a Fiat currency, or choose to have a Federal Income tax. We also didn't chose to invade Iraq, or bomb Libya. Did you miss those, or is your love of the state that great?
I'm not compelled to do anything, and there's nothing you could do to force me to.
LOL! Yep, I practiced by living.
Read their work already. What did you think I wouldn't because I don't agree with them?
@Joe11Blue You are getting childishly snarky, so this is becoming a waste of time. I told you to read those since the way you were arguing with me demonstrated you had no idea what you were talking about. I highly doubt you read all of them and actually understood what they were saying.
Perhaps you can reread them but this time slower so you can wrap your mind around the ideas presented.
@Proletariat12 I'm getting snarky but you are turning to personal insult's because I don't bow down to your so called glorious insight here.
I don't care what you think about me having read them. I know I have. I also know I understood them, and found them to be just as bad as the modern Neo-Con telling me I'm supposed to spread Democratic idealism around the world. The US was established as a Constitutional Republic with law's not precedence and guilt trip's being the ruling authority.
@Joe11Blue Saying you sound like you don't know what you are talking about isn't an insult if it's true.
Also, why are you trying to make that distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic? Our nation is technically a democratic constitutional republic. Don't forget that we are a democracy.
"So called"? Do you even understand what that phrase means? It means I actually have to use those words to describe my words. I haven't. So what are you even talking about here?
@Proletariat12 The odd thing is that you would sit here and try to convince me that it's true. Even if you knew deep down that it's not. I must threaten your conventional wisdom here or something of that nature. How odd that you are behaving like a reactionary against the very idea of Liberty you claim to support.
So tell me, do you readily ignore the writing's of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, because you think I owe you something?
@Proletariat12 We are not a democracy. Having Democratic election's do not a democracy make. Only a person that knows nothing about what a democracy truly is, would state that. Democracy is Mob-rule, nothing more. A republic is to prevent that mob-rule by having base law's.
Look another nitpick. You don't have to use the word's, if it's inferred. Nice try though.
@Joe11Blue There are many forms of democracy, and I'm sad to hear that you know next to nothing about political theory. You should perhaps begin your understand by realizing that democracy and republics are not mutually exclusive.
With this thought I wish you luck. You just don't know enough to talk to me. Sorry.
@Proletariat12 I know nothing, say's who? You, some dipshit with leftist propaganda for his nickname? Give me a fucking break.
The only thing you understand about Political Theory is that you are aware that guilt is the only method that work's in getting others to play your BS game.
Democracy is Mob-rule, even the fucking Greek's and Roman's knew this. Read some Plato you dipshit.
distribute the defense and arms to small bodies instead of collecting them together. As a social species we thrive together, and our history has demonstrated that necessity to do so. The state is not an arbitrary entity by any means. It's something we formed to secure freedoms.
"It's basically saying give all the power and all the guns to an arbitrary entity"
You haven't provided reason as to why it is arbitrary. It's far from it. The reason we as a species formed into nation-states, and nations from tribes is that it is stable. Corporations have in the past formed their own armies to an extent (like the East India Trading Company) But only off of the stability and solidarity of an established state. It's been demonstrated empirically time and again to
Are under a nation that has a codified set of parameters of how they will act, what they will do, and even in the US constitution gives you the right to travel, meaning you can leave if you want. Once you reach the age of reason you have the right, the negative freedom to obtain your own means of "escape", only if you have the will.
You are arguing against something you seem to enjoy taking part of. Sort of like biting the hand that feeds you, isn't it.
"It's hypocritical to say we are for freedom, then force somebody else to do something like that."
The term freedom can be defined so many different ways, it seems very irresponsible to blurt it out as something being violated under a State, while by definition the State was formed and exists to provide us freedom from the sate of nature. I know you aren't advocating anarchy, but to say the state takes away our freedom by its very existence as being a state without understanding that we
I agree but I disagree. I think it should come naturally for people to work for eachother, the collective not for themselves. The only way to get to that point is to have a major shift in politics, indeed away from democracy. But since I don't want to force 'the people' into a position they don't want to be in, I have to be for democracy. That's not hypocricy in my eyes, that's believing something but leaving room for other beliefs. Communism without dictatorship.
You talk about being conditioned from youth to believe something, but I believe the same goes for directly being rewarded for labour, therefore breeding egotism. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' only doesn't work because people are programmed to only work for themselves. I'd want people to be able to take up this notion, but I wouldn't want them to be forced to, so in the end I just vote as far left as I can. Where is the discrepancy? I don't see it.
When people get together to agree on something, there's nothing wrong with the "democratic" PROCESS of coming to an agreement (aka voting).
The problem comes when they agree to use force against others who refuse to cooperate with them. There are many euphemisms for such agreements, like "collective will" or "political will". However, these agreements only turn an individual's crime into a conspiracy. Also, you can't give a representative a "right" that you yourself do not have.
Here is one issue with your thinking. The few you are saying are being stolen from because of their influence end up controlling all of the politics and putting up barriers to potential competitors using government. States rights and the right of secession is one of the best ways.
@1Atomtan I fully support secession right down to the individual. And I think its also a good way to break up the large states like the USA for example. But I don't think say California seceding and then becoming just as tyrannical as DC is any progress. Secession needs to be able to go right down to the individual if they so choose.
Even with parents who believe in non-coercive association the necessary dependency of the child may instil in the child the idea of positive rights, which parents would need to overcome when the child is old enough to understand the logical arguments against the coercive entitlement culture, but before they are old enough to be expected to care for themselves and be part of the process that perpetuates statism. I suddenly have a greater respect for the parents that do get it right.
@thetapheonix Yes I do, however what you define those terms as may be different then how I do. So I don't want to have the confusion on what I support ect.
@thetapheonix We prefer the term voluntaryism, or agorism.
Anarchism in my opinion is violent people wearing bandannas to hide their faces smashing up property, thinking they're entitled to the product of other people's labour, in this case capital goods.
In Australia the State takes a back seat to federal parliament. The states are really benign and in-effectual but they are there from a historical perspective.
I don't like democracy because the majority basically dictates to the minority when really the minority have rights as well and this is why I dont like democracy. I think that a new form a democracy is forming where the minority has a equal voice in the house of parliament. The majority opinion is often malformed and basic and not how a collective should operate. The majority should pursue a more intelligent opinion often from a minority where more rationale thought is carried out or formed .
Free association. Let the greedy be with the greedy, Society can not progress with out a free association of beliefs. Beliefs cause hunger. Hunger makes a person wake up, as it destroys the slavery complex of 30 years...then buy a house and go die. Rather like snot rags, recyclable. So...who exactly will you vote for?
You sound like a disillusioned American placing his last bet on some variation of the ever hackneyed laissez-faire model, in fact that is what you are, the sad part is that your criticism of democracy misses the mark only to bash what it actually does well, namely managing very important monopolies (keeping people healthy, clothed and fed, regulating the market etc.) These are things which the free market failed to do in Hongkong for example.
@maqrux Disillusioned American placing his bet on laissez-faire? Sounds about right.
I would argue that democracy doesn't create what you listed there, though. It can try, but it doesn't gaurentee it. People like us argue that it isn't our responsibility to keep everyone healthy, fed, and keep the marget "regulated." Would it be a tough world? Probably, but all we ask for is the ability to secede from the state without violence being imposed on us.
@TombaFanatic You're too far out drifting on the philosophical slow-boat to nowhere. The people of Hongkong who experienced the laissez-faire-like economy it had in the past shun the whole concept altogether, people didn't prosper, they only had it marginally better than in China. The Chicago school is dead, the only reason people are still discussing it is because they big corporations won't stop lobbying with their invention of think tanks.
1. When you don't regulate an economy a majority of the people will prosper while a few seem to suffer for whatever reason.
2. When there is a monopoly on who can build on the land (and the land they can build on is limited in scale in the first place) then the quality of life for the poor goes down.
Excellent video... reminds me of when I first came into t/ University of MN and was bombarded with positive freedom group-think on a scale that I wasn't accustomed to. I became universally despised for attacking the very concept of involuntary association for utilitarian purposes. In 5 years my views have not changed, except maybe I've become more radicalized and mostly dropped profanity 2 appeal 2 a wider audience of cons&Libertarians.Nothing wrong w/ a swear or 2 to emphasize a point though.gj
You've got alot more reading and analyzing to do. "Democracy is mob absolutism."??? In ten years, you'll look back and wonder what you were thinking. You don't exist in a vacuum. You are existentially obligated to share the sandbox. Like it or not, you're gonna have to work things out with other people. I listen to stuff like this and it reminds me of a three-year-old demanding, "I want it MY way!" The "group" you're fleeing in dissatisfaction is in fact reality itself. Respectfully, grow up.
Do you realize that your response is non-specific enough to apply to almost any relationship? Alter the quotation, and you could employ it against e.g. the abolitionist and early feminist movements. "You want to be able to disassociate from your employer/husband? That means you're selfish and immature, you have no respect for other people, and you should feel ashamed."
I agree that he probably will not be able to secede from the US, because doing so offends most people's sensibilities at this time. Does that fact alone make his arguments less valid, or his contempt less appropriate?
@PanzerDivisionBOM Remember, there's the private realm and the public (civic) realm. In your private life, you should be free to do anything you damn well please, including dumping an abusive partner, or a nurturing one for that matter, or just being selfish if you like. Your choice. No one else's input needed. Real democracy concerns itself with the public realm, where common interests intersect or private freedoms overlap; then, you just work it out. That way, private liberty can be maximized.
But democracy has nothing to do with "common interests", or "maximizing liberty". Its defining characteristic is that it allows the majority to hedgemonically avail themselves of the lives and property of the minority - a clear breach of liberty, and always built on a disparity of private interests, not a commonality.
As Calhoun pointed out, it wouldn't make sense to imagine a state trying to operate on any other principle than coercive redistribution.
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes, and it takes a grown-up to realize it. You can't let your kid just walk into the street and get run-over, which is a perfect analogy here I'm afraid, so let me gently pull you in before a big corporation gone rouge puts you in a slave camp in your "utopia sine democracy"
@maqrux Theres a difference between protecting your children and coercing people to hand over the product of their labor. Even a child knows stealing is wrong, but obviously you can't grasp that. And talking down to people doesn't make you or your position look any better. And as for corporations they're products of the state, so you're going the long way around to solving the issue.
@InTheEndIWasRight In small scale, direct democracy, people sit down and hash out only those issues where their lives intersect, like coming to a consensus about where to build this bridge or how to design that sewer. There are 2 spheres: private & public. Real democracy leaves your private interests alone until they conflict with someone elses; then people work it out. There's "force" only to the extent that you're forced to acknowledge reality, that is, someone else's interests and freedoms.
@2Majesties Did you watch the first few minutes of this video? Working with people I said I am not opposed to, nor am I opposed to democracy which allows for the minority to opt out of the majority decision. As for the force, there is force in statist democracy or direct democracy when the majority coerces the minority into compliance using threats, theft, violence or a combination thereof.
I just started a new video series called Hypoliticals, my next video is going to be about alternatives to democracy, I might post it as a response to this one.
@InTheEndIWasRight Hey I was wondering do you combine different spectrum's of anarchism? such as syndicalism, individualism, "Free" Market, ect because you seem to be saying similar stuff to my sought of politics which is Anarchist-communism, I find that you are more tolerant than most anarcho-capitalists...or have I missed something? :L
@MrIKILLFASCISTS Well I don't call myself an "anarchist" but I suppose the easiest label you can use for me is anti-state, pro capital free market. But as for being more tolerant, I try to be more of a kind guy. I personally would work with anti-state "collectivist" types, but that being said a lot of anarcho-collectivists seem to want to bash capitalism more then what I assume would be our shared goal of abolishing the state.
Specifically who is being forcibly taken from (Taxpayers are taken from but you seemed to be suggesting that the wealthy minority/elite are unjustly stolen from as well)? I would also question whether the mentality of our society is in fact a "greater good, collectivized" mentality. The mentality seems to be more cutthroat/fuck people over to me as it manifests in the day to day actions of the vast majority of people, and as our economic system encourages.
@techjunkie92 Each taxpayer is taken from. The rich are stolen from just as the poor. Also the politically connected rich pay virtually no taxes. Fascism encourages a select minority of corporations and the state to dominate virtually all aspects of economy. As for people, the rational thing is to look out for yourself first, but I don't think the average person (as much as americans for example are portrayed) will try to always fuck over the other guy seeing as that has consequences even now.
Democracy is a Lie, Period,,It's Fake Altogether,,not even the "Mob Rules" Concept of It Applies, When They Don't even Bother to Count the Votes Anymore. You Have a Machine Tell You What the Outcome Is..Now Isn't that another whole Topic of Irony..LMaO
that guy you played is just wrong, he thinks freedom is the safe feeling he gets when he goes to sleep, its not, freedom is dangerous- a wild gazelle is free but it is a lot less safe because of it- that doesnt mean it would prefer living in a zoo though, i dont think that any animal is 'designed' to choose safety over freedom, and it feels as if humans are no different and that everybody should feel the same about how state politics has so much power nowadays.. but seems like a minority :/
I know a lot of 20something who still don't get that they can now free associate the hell away from their f*cked up families and build a social group/choose their behaviors without measuring every step by what "they" would think. ~Israel
i find it hard to articulate this point as well but i am on exactly the same level and agree with you absolutely on this subject
democracy is now a synonym for freedom though, and it takes a real mental shift for people to disassociate statist democracy from freedom now, they come as a package in people's minds and it takes a few lectures on the mises website plus some creative intelligence to untangle them..
@sony8877 Yea, Im trying to cut things down and get them more articulated. But thanks very much and I agree. But I would also say we are seeing a real shift though towards real liberty.
I love his point that we need a special class of incorruptible people called experts to make decisions for the people even if it goes against what the people want. That sounds more like an arugment for a Platonic monarchy then for a democracy.
@Caveman135 It sounds like what he meant to put in for "a special class of incorruptible people..." was God. Or Angels. Platonic aristocracy WOULD be better than what we currently have, but how do we figure out who ACTUALLY are the philosopher kings who ought to rule their peers? Democracy? lulz.
I sometimes think that a random lottery of the popluation would be more suitable for finding "a philosopher king" then a democracy. Election Politics draws a very, how should I say, peculiar bunch.
@whyyoumadlol Yeah like cut my head off. What;s stopping the majority getting together and wanting to chop the heads off the minority. Fucking democracy authoritarian
The idea of free stuff being freedom is freedom equivocating. In that sense, freedom is just an adjective or a condition (at that point, it loses its original meaning), it becomes synonymous with words like "good" or "ideal", words that we already have enough of. The word "freedom" has simply become a sensational word, it no longer specifies or ascribes anything.
But yes, democracy in the sense of forcing others to obey it's decisions is totally lame. You didn't even mention the corrupt politicians but it's not like it's necessary considering the ideas you were responding to....that guy sounded kind of creepy.
@TheGravenIdol lol its summer. But yes, either people don't want to address democracies inconsistencies or in perhaps a lighter sense are actually ignorant of them, but I doubt that.
I made it roughly halfway through Das's video. I was very surprised to hear that he was a Marxist. But I think 8 minutes in or so I had posted 4 refutations to his nonsense and just couldn't continue doing it.
@AtheistAltar Yea marxist was a little surprising, I didnt think people actually thought that was still a logical position to hold, but evidently. I listened too the whole thing, but had to pause just because it was so bad.
well, you both made excellent videos as far as I am concerned. I see weak points in both. But you definitely addressed his weakest point... "at no cost to anyone". I sorts of dropped my jaw when he said that because it makes no sense. I figured he should have seen that it didn't work with the rest of what he said hehe.
@tattooskin72 I mean you know I don't have a problem with people practicing what they prefer so long as its not imposed involuntarily. My major issue with DAA is he is a statist. And yea, when I saw that I was like "what the fuck?" Now perhaps I misunderstood what he meant but I don't think so and thats what really provoked a response. I mean "at no cost to anyone" thats flat out completely wrong.
@InTheEndIWasRight Definitely wrong, must mostly inconsistent with the rest of the argument he was making. I just found that to be unusual coming from him. I think my issue with yours might be more how you view early development within the family. It's hard for me to put into words where I differ from you.
@tattooskin72 I mean if I was wrong on it, I hope he'll let me know but I don't see him responding to much but I'd respond if I need too. And as for the family thing, I don't mean that with all people, it appears to be that with democratic psychology that the "for the group" thing seems to transition into the social democracy thing. Not saying this is the case with everybody. But we always have to look at nature vs nurture for sure.
if the social dem oriented YT atheists ever had to confront actual rationality and consistency in economics it would obliterate every single one of their world views.
great vid here, i didnt think it was too long, you kept me interested the whole way through.
@junior00bacon00chee It was absolutely horrible. And yes, the social dem statists are the ones I have the most scorn for. However I have to always remind myself its not the people, its the system that infects these people. So hate the system. But it just confounds me how they can't see the blatant irrationality and inconsistency in their own positions. And thanks man, I was hoping it wasn't too bad.
yes, i agree, if you have the patience for it, then i think it's best to approach people in a non confrontational sort of way. sometimes i just get so goddamn frustrated with it tho, i just want to slap them into little pieces.
but like you say, if you just remind yourself that approaching it in this way is a much bigger slap in the face to the state then it's much easier to do.
@junior00bacon00chee Yea its hard for me since I can get so frustrated with these people too. I'd like to hope I can be less condescending but we're dealing with so much here its hard not to get passionate about it. I just gotta remember, hate the game, not the playas.
@ElShadaiLives Yea I wish I could articulate and condense better, but that would require a script for me, and just talking seems to be better. But true lol perhaps I should have a limit. I'll try for the 6 min max like I've been doing on the next one though.
A cost to no one? There's always a cost somewhere.
But of course, the hardcore statists will never get it. They'll just continue to believe in their fake morality and use it to push their preferences onto others. Only serious crises will get to them I think, hence the opportunity of these times.
@dannypantsgm I'll prolly elaborate more soon. Plus I honestly thought it was a horrible video. But I have to remind myself, hate the game, not the playas.
@crazypants88 You do after all live in one of the so called socialist utopias so your opinion would automatically be taken more seriously than a capitalist american pig's would be. I know there are alot of libertarian icelanders, but they dont make many libertarian videos that arnt jokes, or mere Milton Freidman dubs.
@TheVikingNinja thank ya. yea i was wondering if the length would be an issue on people watching and buffering. it worked for me, maybe give it some time and see if it loads?
Democracy: The God that failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. watch?v=4WLFZKLqxEA
SocietyIncollapse 2 weeks ago
Democracy is the legitimization of mobs and mob rule.
carcabe 4 weeks ago
Take shirt off. Subtly highlight tattoo's. Speak politics. Say atheists are the ones who speak out to be cool. Reference - your video called 'atheists are just as stupid'. I'm going to go shower after listening to you speak. Feel unclean. Please uninstall.
CreepyMuffin 6 months ago
@CreepyMuffin This is 4 months old, but where the fuck do you get the first part from? Also this sexy beast is an atheist himself, dumb shit. He's referencing youtube liberal statheists.
sticksquash 1 month ago
Democracy brings a false sense of power to the average joe, which is not the case. Democracy is flawed because it lets the people at least thing they have power. The people are stupid. The majority of people is not everyone, there will always be someone who is unhappy, and sometimes those people end up in power. There is no "perfect" way to rule, no perfect way for anything. So deal with it.
rockon646 7 months ago
The double-think is strong with the masses.
Esoparagon 8 months ago
Politics is just a bunch of BULL!
seriously! :P
dylanluver93 10 months ago 3
I love how they call it the people, but in reality it's the statists in government pushing their agenda. Not a single law out there has ever been written by a single collective agreement of the masses. It's asinine to follow a single person that wishes to subjugate an entire group to promote their own desires. That used to be called slavery, but now it's called freedom in democracy.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
Put a shirt on
unshakenpeace 11 months ago
As a last point, may I ask what you consider an alternative to a mixed regime republic? Really the only other alternatives are a principality, an aristocracy, or a democracy (pure democracy which is real mob rule, not the republic we live in).
So if you don't advocate anarchy in the state of nature, and you don't like democracy, do you really feel an aristocracy or principality would be better at all in providing you with these "freedoms" you want?
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Do you completely reject the notion of a social contract, simply because it's inconvenient to your position? From 8 minutes on, you just rambled a bit through talking points about legitimized theft (which I assume you mean taxes) without providing real backing to why tax is actually theft and not what it is defined as. A payment.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12 Payment for what? Where did we sign up for that payment?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue The payment is for using the product of those taxes.
You tacitly agree to it by living in this nation and using the resources.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 That's not how a promissory works. Not even in Canon Law does it work in that manner. You can not be born into servitude or debt. Using the system that exists does not qualify the debt in my name. In fact the entire system is voluntary. If the state does not offer the opt-out pathway, then it is not valid under Common Law. In the US we are supposed to be following Common Law practices, even though the Federal Government treat's everything under Canon Law.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue Who said you were born into servitude and debt? You are born into a nation that you are free to leave if you disagree with the fundamental aspects of it.
I explained that by remaining you are tacitly consenting to the law, therefore you pay. If you want to go further and explicitly consent, that is up to you. You can contribute to the governing of the society, and the making of policy.
You have a choice.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 You don't see the irony behind your statement? I can either accept the system placed upon me by foolish choices made in the past that subjugate a person to unjustifiable debt and servitude by the mere circumstance of where I was born, or I can leave. Oddly, I don't remember reading about any of that sort of thing in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the Declaration of Independence. What this country is now, is nothing like the fundamental's it was founded on.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue No, if you listened, I said you can either accept the system by tacitly consenting, or leave by natural right, OR you can explicitly agree by contributing to the society and being involved in the policy making. Three choices.
And no, I don't see the irony at all. Care to explain how that's ironic?
But more importantly, you have to acknowledge that people WILL be born into already established nations. That's just a simple truth of society. But to counteract thisyou have the choice CONT
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Leaving by natural right's is quite frowned upon by the government. The Sovereign Individual idea also tends to get the JBT's kicking in your door's for tax evasion. That's not Freedom or Liberty. That's the irony of your suggestion.
Born into the nation is obvious. Being born into debt is not legally part of that deal.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue The point of the social contract is to allow a system of security and freedom for the people who agree to it. If you don't want to live in a society, you do have the option to leave. Social contracts work best anyway without people who leech on the system without contributing. So it might be better if you do leave.
Unless you are too lazy or enjoying the comforts here too much, then you agree by staying to pay.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Social Contract? That went out the door when the Federal Government decided it had the right to bust down your door if they "think" you have a particular plant in your home. Furthermore when they decided that you have to violate the Constitution and tell them how much money you make every year.
Leech? How many years did you serve this country? How many award's for doing so? How have you contributed to society? Invent anything? Volunteer your time to educate?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 cont.. Furthermore by simply living here, that does not place the debt I did not sign for onto me. For a person to even think in that manner, I have to question their motives. Consenting to the law mean's that I abide by the social structure of that country. That does not mean I have to abide by criminality of the Government that exists prior to my birth.
The choice you are suggesting suggest that we live in Tyranny. If you read the Constitution, we are to govern ourselves.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue "he choice you are suggesting suggest that we live in Tyranny."
No need to get melodramatic here. Nothing I suggest, and nothing suggested by the social contract is tyrannical. Throwing out random spurious statements like that contributes nothing to any discussion.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Read my statements. There is no melodrama in them whatsoever. It's the rational conclusion through logical discovery. If you truly believe you are free, then I have some suggestion's for you. First if you think you own your home, don't pay your taxes on it. If you think you own your vehicle, try to export it. If you think you own your income, try to travel with most of it in cash.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue " If you truly believe you are free"
That entirely depends on the definition of freedom. I would say yes I am free to pursue my interests and live safely and comfortably in a society. No, I am not free to act on any whim if those are destructive to society.
It's understood and never hidden that for a social contract to work there will be sacrifices of certain types of freedom to gain other freedoms.
Personally I don't want to live in a state of nature, but you can if you want.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 So this brings me to ask, where is the social contract, and to what end should the Government abide by?
This also makes me wonder with all of the stuff going on with market manipulation, search and seizures of private property, TSA, the description of Veteran's as terrorists. The endless war's, and etc... You are perfectly fine and comfortable with your life here? You see nothing wrong with how the Federal Government has virtually stripped you of the Bill of Right's?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue "You are perfectly fine and comfortable with your life here?"
I never said that. Where did I say that? What said is that I have the rights to do so. I can either accept the current situation, leave, or strive to change it.
" where is the social contract"
It's conceptual. Does it need more clarification than that?
"and to what end should the Government abide by?"
The contract is between the people and the state after all, so they are bound to protect our rights. If not, we can protest
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 So what you are saying is that I should accept it our leave. You don't seem to get by actively discussing the situation like I have been for 12 years, I'm putting the minds around me to look for a way to change it?
That's right, it's conceptual, and if the Federal Government doesn't abide by it, I have no obligation to either.
They haven't followed the social contract since at least the 1800's. I think time for protesting has passed. A passive revolt is required ATM.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue I don't understand how I can explain to you clearly the options you have, yet you still don't get it. Are you consciously pretending I only said those two options just so you can dismiss the statement, or did you not read fully?
Also, I'm unsure if you really have been discussing this for 12 years. If you have, you wouldn't be asking the simple questions that you have, and you'd understand the obligations you actually do have.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 I read and understand what you are suggesting. The problem is the premise of your suggestions. I should not have to leave my country of birth because the Federal Government has grown beyond a sustainable and reasonable size. That the same idiotic argument of telling people that we are going to promote nation building and the mass murder of innocent's in the name of Freedom and mob rule, and you can either like it or leave. You don't have that right.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 The question's are simple, because there's no need to over complicate something when the principles are based on such a basic idea as personal Liberty. The way you are trying to lead the conversation is to bring it into a metaphysical and to obfuscate the very basic Principles of the country's founding. This is my land, and I did the work to make it here, and to turn it into something of worth. I should not be obligated to comply with demands backed by force.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue What you don't seem to understand is that the social contract is between the people and the state. Not individuals. You don't personally have a right to not follow the contract, unless you want to put yourself in the state of nature. If you want to not follow the rules, you should realize the potential consequences. Why do you expect anybody to be able to not follow the rules in any society, and not be affected?
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 The Social Contract is non-existent. There's no binding understanding of it, and it's clear that the mere idea of it is not upheld by the very people whose existence is owed to us the people in the very least, if not through the compliance subjugated through the threat of force.
We never left nature. We are still limited by it no matter what the idealist Ivory Tower institution's like to spout off about the greatness of their technological achievement's.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Rules? Who agreed to the rules? Are these rules within the guidelines of the Constitution? Does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to debase my personal wealth to further their agenda? Does it allow them to regulate the trade of between private individual's to the extend that I would end up in their state sponsored prison if I do not comply and report what I'm doing in a position of state sponsored confess of possible guilt?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Let me break it down for you, the way you are describing the situation in the very basic principles is that I'm guilt unless I comply with the demand's of the Federal Government, and give them complete and total access to every aspect of my life. So you are justifying servitude in the name of the public good. That is in essence what you are advocating here.
I seriously would recommend you go back and read the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution with this in mind.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue No, not the demands of the state, the demands of society. The General Will of society, the aggregate desires of the nation is what you are compelled to obey, otherwise you have the option of leaving, or striving to change the general will.
So please, stop trying to straw man me into your well rehearsed slave to the state argument I'm sure you have practiced.
As long as we are on the topic of recommended readings, please go read Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Constant, and Montesquieu
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 Society didn't chose to use a Fiat currency, or choose to have a Federal Income tax. We also didn't chose to invade Iraq, or bomb Libya. Did you miss those, or is your love of the state that great?
I'm not compelled to do anything, and there's nothing you could do to force me to.
LOL! Yep, I practiced by living.
Read their work already. What did you think I wouldn't because I don't agree with them?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue You are getting childishly snarky, so this is becoming a waste of time. I told you to read those since the way you were arguing with me demonstrated you had no idea what you were talking about. I highly doubt you read all of them and actually understood what they were saying.
Perhaps you can reread them but this time slower so you can wrap your mind around the ideas presented.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 I'm getting snarky but you are turning to personal insult's because I don't bow down to your so called glorious insight here.
I don't care what you think about me having read them. I know I have. I also know I understood them, and found them to be just as bad as the modern Neo-Con telling me I'm supposed to spread Democratic idealism around the world. The US was established as a Constitutional Republic with law's not precedence and guilt trip's being the ruling authority.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue Saying you sound like you don't know what you are talking about isn't an insult if it's true.
Also, why are you trying to make that distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic? Our nation is technically a democratic constitutional republic. Don't forget that we are a democracy.
"So called"? Do you even understand what that phrase means? It means I actually have to use those words to describe my words. I haven't. So what are you even talking about here?
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 The odd thing is that you would sit here and try to convince me that it's true. Even if you knew deep down that it's not. I must threaten your conventional wisdom here or something of that nature. How odd that you are behaving like a reactionary against the very idea of Liberty you claim to support.
So tell me, do you readily ignore the writing's of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, because you think I owe you something?
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 We are not a democracy. Having Democratic election's do not a democracy make. Only a person that knows nothing about what a democracy truly is, would state that. Democracy is Mob-rule, nothing more. A republic is to prevent that mob-rule by having base law's.
Look another nitpick. You don't have to use the word's, if it's inferred. Nice try though.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
@Joe11Blue There are many forms of democracy, and I'm sad to hear that you know next to nothing about political theory. You should perhaps begin your understand by realizing that democracy and republics are not mutually exclusive.
With this thought I wish you luck. You just don't know enough to talk to me. Sorry.
Proletariat12 11 months ago
@Proletariat12 I know nothing, say's who? You, some dipshit with leftist propaganda for his nickname? Give me a fucking break.
The only thing you understand about Political Theory is that you are aware that guilt is the only method that work's in getting others to play your BS game.
Democracy is Mob-rule, even the fucking Greek's and Roman's knew this. Read some Plato you dipshit.
Joe11Blue 11 months ago
distribute the defense and arms to small bodies instead of collecting them together. As a social species we thrive together, and our history has demonstrated that necessity to do so. The state is not an arbitrary entity by any means. It's something we formed to secure freedoms.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
"It's basically saying give all the power and all the guns to an arbitrary entity"
You haven't provided reason as to why it is arbitrary. It's far from it. The reason we as a species formed into nation-states, and nations from tribes is that it is stable. Corporations have in the past formed their own armies to an extent (like the East India Trading Company) But only off of the stability and solidarity of an established state. It's been demonstrated empirically time and again to
CONT
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Are under a nation that has a codified set of parameters of how they will act, what they will do, and even in the US constitution gives you the right to travel, meaning you can leave if you want. Once you reach the age of reason you have the right, the negative freedom to obtain your own means of "escape", only if you have the will.
You are arguing against something you seem to enjoy taking part of. Sort of like biting the hand that feeds you, isn't it.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
"It's hypocritical to say we are for freedom, then force somebody else to do something like that."
The term freedom can be defined so many different ways, it seems very irresponsible to blurt it out as something being violated under a State, while by definition the State was formed and exists to provide us freedom from the sate of nature. I know you aren't advocating anarchy, but to say the state takes away our freedom by its very existence as being a state without understanding that we
CONT
Proletariat12 1 year ago
Don't be a chump !
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
I agree but I disagree. I think it should come naturally for people to work for eachother, the collective not for themselves. The only way to get to that point is to have a major shift in politics, indeed away from democracy. But since I don't want to force 'the people' into a position they don't want to be in, I have to be for democracy. That's not hypocricy in my eyes, that's believing something but leaving room for other beliefs. Communism without dictatorship.
Nocturnuz 1 year ago
You talk about being conditioned from youth to believe something, but I believe the same goes for directly being rewarded for labour, therefore breeding egotism. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' only doesn't work because people are programmed to only work for themselves. I'd want people to be able to take up this notion, but I wouldn't want them to be forced to, so in the end I just vote as far left as I can. Where is the discrepancy? I don't see it.
Nocturnuz 1 year ago
When people get together to agree on something, there's nothing wrong with the "democratic" PROCESS of coming to an agreement (aka voting).
The problem comes when they agree to use force against others who refuse to cooperate with them. There are many euphemisms for such agreements, like "collective will" or "political will". However, these agreements only turn an individual's crime into a conspiracy. Also, you can't give a representative a "right" that you yourself do not have.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Here is one issue with your thinking. The few you are saying are being stolen from because of their influence end up controlling all of the politics and putting up barriers to potential competitors using government. States rights and the right of secession is one of the best ways.
1Atomtan 1 year ago
@1Atomtan I fully support secession right down to the individual. And I think its also a good way to break up the large states like the USA for example. But I don't think say California seceding and then becoming just as tyrannical as DC is any progress. Secession needs to be able to go right down to the individual if they so choose.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
democracy is one of the most dangerous, instable, and often unjust systems of governance.
GrandArchitect3D 1 year ago
Even with parents who believe in non-coercive association the necessary dependency of the child may instil in the child the idea of positive rights, which parents would need to overcome when the child is old enough to understand the logical arguments against the coercive entitlement culture, but before they are old enough to be expected to care for themselves and be part of the process that perpetuates statism. I suddenly have a greater respect for the parents that do get it right.
amlorusso 1 year ago
LOL you talk about an "oxymoron"? Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. You are a walking contradiction.
thetapheonix 1 year ago
@thetapheonix I don't know what "anarcho-capitalism" is.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight You have a yellow and black flag as an avatar. That is an anarchocapitalism symbol. You might know it better as Libertarianism.
thetapheonix 1 year ago
@thetapheonix Yes I do, however what you define those terms as may be different then how I do. So I don't want to have the confusion on what I support ect.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@thetapheonix We prefer the term voluntaryism, or agorism.
Anarchism in my opinion is violent people wearing bandannas to hide their faces smashing up property, thinking they're entitled to the product of other people's labour, in this case capital goods.
DoctorCapitalist 1 month ago
@thetapheonix If you think capitalism requires a state you haven't studied capitalism at all.
DMU555 7 months ago
In Australia the State takes a back seat to federal parliament. The states are really benign and in-effectual but they are there from a historical perspective.
ghauff 1 year ago
I don't like democracy because the majority basically dictates to the minority when really the minority have rights as well and this is why I dont like democracy. I think that a new form a democracy is forming where the minority has a equal voice in the house of parliament. The majority opinion is often malformed and basic and not how a collective should operate. The majority should pursue a more intelligent opinion often from a minority where more rationale thought is carried out or formed .
ghauff 1 year ago
Free association. Let the greedy be with the greedy, Society can not progress with out a free association of beliefs. Beliefs cause hunger. Hunger makes a person wake up, as it destroys the slavery complex of 30 years...then buy a house and go die. Rather like snot rags, recyclable. So...who exactly will you vote for?
tcnyc243 1 year ago
You sound like a disillusioned American placing his last bet on some variation of the ever hackneyed laissez-faire model, in fact that is what you are, the sad part is that your criticism of democracy misses the mark only to bash what it actually does well, namely managing very important monopolies (keeping people healthy, clothed and fed, regulating the market etc.) These are things which the free market failed to do in Hongkong for example.
maqrux 1 year ago
@maqrux Disillusioned American placing his bet on laissez-faire? Sounds about right.
I would argue that democracy doesn't create what you listed there, though. It can try, but it doesn't gaurentee it. People like us argue that it isn't our responsibility to keep everyone healthy, fed, and keep the marget "regulated." Would it be a tough world? Probably, but all we ask for is the ability to secede from the state without violence being imposed on us.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@TombaFanatic You're too far out drifting on the philosophical slow-boat to nowhere. The people of Hongkong who experienced the laissez-faire-like economy it had in the past shun the whole concept altogether, people didn't prosper, they only had it marginally better than in China. The Chicago school is dead, the only reason people are still discussing it is because they big corporations won't stop lobbying with their invention of think tanks.
maqrux 1 year ago
@maqrux Also, Hong Kong shows 2 things.
1. When you don't regulate an economy a majority of the people will prosper while a few seem to suffer for whatever reason.
2. When there is a monopoly on who can build on the land (and the land they can build on is limited in scale in the first place) then the quality of life for the poor goes down.
TombaFanatic 1 year ago
@maqrux lulz you think private monopolies exist. Just another statist who defends government monopolies
chorizo1337 1 year ago 9
@chorizo1337 No company strives for competition, they strive to monopolize the market, a little 101-logic, thanks for playing though.
maqrux 1 year ago
Excellent video... reminds me of when I first came into t/ University of MN and was bombarded with positive freedom group-think on a scale that I wasn't accustomed to. I became universally despised for attacking the very concept of involuntary association for utilitarian purposes. In 5 years my views have not changed, except maybe I've become more radicalized and mostly dropped profanity 2 appeal 2 a wider audience of cons&Libertarians.Nothing wrong w/ a swear or 2 to emphasize a point though.gj
ProdigalSonofLiberty 1 year ago
@ProdigalSonofLiberty Here here man
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
You've got alot more reading and analyzing to do. "Democracy is mob absolutism."??? In ten years, you'll look back and wonder what you were thinking. You don't exist in a vacuum. You are existentially obligated to share the sandbox. Like it or not, you're gonna have to work things out with other people. I listen to stuff like this and it reminds me of a three-year-old demanding, "I want it MY way!" The "group" you're fleeing in dissatisfaction is in fact reality itself. Respectfully, grow up.
2Majesties 1 year ago
@2Majesties
Do you realize that your response is non-specific enough to apply to almost any relationship? Alter the quotation, and you could employ it against e.g. the abolitionist and early feminist movements. "You want to be able to disassociate from your employer/husband? That means you're selfish and immature, you have no respect for other people, and you should feel ashamed."
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
I agree that he probably will not be able to secede from the US, because doing so offends most people's sensibilities at this time. Does that fact alone make his arguments less valid, or his contempt less appropriate?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Remember, there's the private realm and the public (civic) realm. In your private life, you should be free to do anything you damn well please, including dumping an abusive partner, or a nurturing one for that matter, or just being selfish if you like. Your choice. No one else's input needed. Real democracy concerns itself with the public realm, where common interests intersect or private freedoms overlap; then, you just work it out. That way, private liberty can be maximized.
2Majesties 1 year ago
@2Majesties
But democracy has nothing to do with "common interests", or "maximizing liberty". Its defining characteristic is that it allows the majority to hedgemonically avail themselves of the lives and property of the minority - a clear breach of liberty, and always built on a disparity of private interests, not a commonality.
As Calhoun pointed out, it wouldn't make sense to imagine a state trying to operate on any other principle than coercive redistribution.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@2Majesties So forcing other people to do what you want in some cases is working with them?
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes, and it takes a grown-up to realize it. You can't let your kid just walk into the street and get run-over, which is a perfect analogy here I'm afraid, so let me gently pull you in before a big corporation gone rouge puts you in a slave camp in your "utopia sine democracy"
maqrux 1 year ago
@maqrux Theres a difference between protecting your children and coercing people to hand over the product of their labor. Even a child knows stealing is wrong, but obviously you can't grasp that. And talking down to people doesn't make you or your position look any better. And as for corporations they're products of the state, so you're going the long way around to solving the issue.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight In small scale, direct democracy, people sit down and hash out only those issues where their lives intersect, like coming to a consensus about where to build this bridge or how to design that sewer. There are 2 spheres: private & public. Real democracy leaves your private interests alone until they conflict with someone elses; then people work it out. There's "force" only to the extent that you're forced to acknowledge reality, that is, someone else's interests and freedoms.
2Majesties 1 year ago
@2Majesties Did you watch the first few minutes of this video? Working with people I said I am not opposed to, nor am I opposed to democracy which allows for the minority to opt out of the majority decision. As for the force, there is force in statist democracy or direct democracy when the majority coerces the minority into compliance using threats, theft, violence or a combination thereof.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@2Majesties
@InTheEndIWasRight
Or in other words a vote is permissible in matters of discretion, but is not in matters of justice.
WorBlux 1 year ago
I just started a new video series called Hypoliticals, my next video is going to be about alternatives to democracy, I might post it as a response to this one.
Libertarianist 1 year ago
@Libertarianist Sure, go right ahead man.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Hey I was wondering do you combine different spectrum's of anarchism? such as syndicalism, individualism, "Free" Market, ect because you seem to be saying similar stuff to my sought of politics which is Anarchist-communism, I find that you are more tolerant than most anarcho-capitalists...or have I missed something? :L
MrIKILLFASCISTS 1 year ago
@MrIKILLFASCISTS Well I don't call myself an "anarchist" but I suppose the easiest label you can use for me is anti-state, pro capital free market. But as for being more tolerant, I try to be more of a kind guy. I personally would work with anti-state "collectivist" types, but that being said a lot of anarcho-collectivists seem to want to bash capitalism more then what I assume would be our shared goal of abolishing the state.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Specifically who is being forcibly taken from (Taxpayers are taken from but you seemed to be suggesting that the wealthy minority/elite are unjustly stolen from as well)? I would also question whether the mentality of our society is in fact a "greater good, collectivized" mentality. The mentality seems to be more cutthroat/fuck people over to me as it manifests in the day to day actions of the vast majority of people, and as our economic system encourages.
techjunkie92 1 year ago
@techjunkie92 Each taxpayer is taken from. The rich are stolen from just as the poor. Also the politically connected rich pay virtually no taxes. Fascism encourages a select minority of corporations and the state to dominate virtually all aspects of economy. As for people, the rational thing is to look out for yourself first, but I don't think the average person (as much as americans for example are portrayed) will try to always fuck over the other guy seeing as that has consequences even now.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Democracy is a Lie, Period,,It's Fake Altogether,,not even the "Mob Rules" Concept of It Applies, When They Don't even Bother to Count the Votes Anymore. You Have a Machine Tell You What the Outcome Is..Now Isn't that another whole Topic of Irony..LMaO
Mindcrime1994 1 year ago
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...non-insanity
EkulNamwob 1 year ago
@EkulNamwob the water of life haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
that guy you played is just wrong, he thinks freedom is the safe feeling he gets when he goes to sleep, its not, freedom is dangerous- a wild gazelle is free but it is a lot less safe because of it- that doesnt mean it would prefer living in a zoo though, i dont think that any animal is 'designed' to choose safety over freedom, and it feels as if humans are no different and that everybody should feel the same about how state politics has so much power nowadays.. but seems like a minority :/
sony8877 1 year ago
I know a lot of 20something who still don't get that they can now free associate the hell away from their f*cked up families and build a social group/choose their behaviors without measuring every step by what "they" would think. ~Israel
WeAllJuggleKnives 1 year ago
i find it hard to articulate this point as well but i am on exactly the same level and agree with you absolutely on this subject
democracy is now a synonym for freedom though, and it takes a real mental shift for people to disassociate statist democracy from freedom now, they come as a package in people's minds and it takes a few lectures on the mises website plus some creative intelligence to untangle them..
sony8877 1 year ago
@sony8877 Yea, Im trying to cut things down and get them more articulated. But thanks very much and I agree. But I would also say we are seeing a real shift though towards real liberty.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I love his point that we need a special class of incorruptible people called experts to make decisions for the people even if it goes against what the people want. That sounds more like an arugment for a Platonic monarchy then for a democracy.
Caveman135 1 year ago
@Caveman135 Very good point, I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@Caveman135 It sounds like what he meant to put in for "a special class of incorruptible people..." was God. Or Angels. Platonic aristocracy WOULD be better than what we currently have, but how do we figure out who ACTUALLY are the philosopher kings who ought to rule their peers? Democracy? lulz.
Decentralism 1 year ago
I sometimes think that a random lottery of the popluation would be more suitable for finding "a philosopher king" then a democracy. Election Politics draws a very, how should I say, peculiar bunch.
Caveman135 1 year ago
@Caveman135 I don't think I can disagree with that!
Decentralism 1 year ago
democracy isnt barberism, democratic societies do way more than just cut peoples hair. stupid anarchist.
whyyoumadlol 1 year ago
@whyyoumadlol Yeah like cut my head off. What;s stopping the majority getting together and wanting to chop the heads off the minority. Fucking democracy authoritarian
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337 some one didnt c wut i did there
whyyoumadlol 1 year ago
@donroche Yup, spontaneous order
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. --Thomas Jefferson
bradleyshorwith 1 year ago
Wir sind der Staat!
The idea of free stuff being freedom is freedom equivocating. In that sense, freedom is just an adjective or a condition (at that point, it loses its original meaning), it becomes synonymous with words like "good" or "ideal", words that we already have enough of. The word "freedom" has simply become a sensational word, it no longer specifies or ascribes anything.
BloodiCheeseCake 1 year ago
@BloodiCheeseCake lol Alle fur den Staat!
And alas yes, in this case it becomes meaningless.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Yay! A video with no shirt on! =D
But yes, democracy in the sense of forcing others to obey it's decisions is totally lame. You didn't even mention the corrupt politicians but it's not like it's necessary considering the ideas you were responding to....that guy sounded kind of creepy.
TheGravenIdol 1 year ago
@TheGravenIdol lol its summer. But yes, either people don't want to address democracies inconsistencies or in perhaps a lighter sense are actually ignorant of them, but I doubt that.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
YOU JUST HATE GOD & AMURRRRHKA!!!
SonOfTanit 1 year ago
@SonOfTanit lol guilty as charged
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I made it roughly halfway through Das's video. I was very surprised to hear that he was a Marxist. But I think 8 minutes in or so I had posted 4 refutations to his nonsense and just couldn't continue doing it.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
@AtheistAltar Yea marxist was a little surprising, I didnt think people actually thought that was still a logical position to hold, but evidently. I listened too the whole thing, but had to pause just because it was so bad.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
well, you both made excellent videos as far as I am concerned. I see weak points in both. But you definitely addressed his weakest point... "at no cost to anyone". I sorts of dropped my jaw when he said that because it makes no sense. I figured he should have seen that it didn't work with the rest of what he said hehe.
tattooskin72 1 year ago
@tattooskin72 I mean you know I don't have a problem with people practicing what they prefer so long as its not imposed involuntarily. My major issue with DAA is he is a statist. And yea, when I saw that I was like "what the fuck?" Now perhaps I misunderstood what he meant but I don't think so and thats what really provoked a response. I mean "at no cost to anyone" thats flat out completely wrong.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Definitely wrong, must mostly inconsistent with the rest of the argument he was making. I just found that to be unusual coming from him. I think my issue with yours might be more how you view early development within the family. It's hard for me to put into words where I differ from you.
tattooskin72 1 year ago
@tattooskin72 I mean if I was wrong on it, I hope he'll let me know but I don't see him responding to much but I'd respond if I need too. And as for the family thing, I don't mean that with all people, it appears to be that with democratic psychology that the "for the group" thing seems to transition into the social democracy thing. Not saying this is the case with everybody. But we always have to look at nature vs nurture for sure.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
wow that dude's video was so painful to watch.
if the social dem oriented YT atheists ever had to confront actual rationality and consistency in economics it would obliterate every single one of their world views.
great vid here, i didnt think it was too long, you kept me interested the whole way through.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee It was absolutely horrible. And yes, the social dem statists are the ones I have the most scorn for. However I have to always remind myself its not the people, its the system that infects these people. So hate the system. But it just confounds me how they can't see the blatant irrationality and inconsistency in their own positions. And thanks man, I was hoping it wasn't too bad.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight
yes, i agree, if you have the patience for it, then i think it's best to approach people in a non confrontational sort of way. sometimes i just get so goddamn frustrated with it tho, i just want to slap them into little pieces.
but like you say, if you just remind yourself that approaching it in this way is a much bigger slap in the face to the state then it's much easier to do.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Yea its hard for me since I can get so frustrated with these people too. I'd like to hope I can be less condescending but we're dealing with so much here its hard not to get passionate about it. I just gotta remember, hate the game, not the playas.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I only had to watch the first minute XD
AnarchistOpposition 1 year ago
@AnarchistOpposition Lucky lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@AnarchistOpposition But thats a good thing though lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Good video and the mumblyness is defintely less then it used to be :)
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 Thank you. And oh good, there was a lot I thought I had to cover and I wasn't sure lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
WEBSTER G. TARPLY is the one U want to listen to !
Tomorer 1 year ago
@Tomorer lol you're not serious are you?
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I've been part of a collective hive of individuals since I was created so I lack a frame of reference...
PinkProgram 1 year ago
I love Democracy!
The Democracy of the market, that is!
Political Democracy... Nahhh.
asperin 1 year ago
I agree, too long. Does babbling come to mind? Maybe YT should cut you back to 10 minutes, would that help? =)
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Yea I wish I could articulate and condense better, but that would require a script for me, and just talking seems to be better. But true lol perhaps I should have a limit. I'll try for the 6 min max like I've been doing on the next one though.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Come on InTheEndIWasRight, we all know that humanity is cooperative, so we need a coercive State to do everything to be cooperative. DUH!
rockandrock44 1 year ago
@rockandrock44 I never thought about it like that! You're right! : D
lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@rockandrock44 You're crazy, we all know that humans are untrustworthy, that's why we need one group of humans to control others.
silentbob36 1 year ago
@silentbob36 Immaculate logic Sir, can I get Ur Will ?
Tomorer 1 year ago
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper!
ElShadaiLives 1 year ago
@ElShadaiLives Tyranny tastes so good!
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
God Damn It! thems fightin Words!
oldhacks 1 year ago
@oldhacks self defense yo
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
"Freedom = free stuff!"
A cost to no one? There's always a cost somewhere.
But of course, the hardcore statists will never get it. They'll just continue to believe in their fake morality and use it to push their preferences onto others. Only serious crises will get to them I think, hence the opportunity of these times.
GuardofLiberty 1 year ago 3
@GuardofLiberty Agreed and watch the video, I thought it was a satire at first, but then I got unsettled.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I'm very glad you chimed in here. Watching Das' video almost made me do my first anti-state video.
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
@dannypantsgm I'll prolly elaborate more soon. Plus I honestly thought it was a horrible video. But I have to remind myself, hate the game, not the playas.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Right on.
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
@dannypantsgm You should definetely though make some anti-statist videos, we always need more.
crazypants88 1 year ago 3
@crazypants88 you mean like all the anti state videos you make.
lengthyounarther 1 year ago
@lengthyounarther Believe it or not, being a hypocrite is very time consuming.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 You do after all live in one of the so called socialist utopias so your opinion would automatically be taken more seriously than a capitalist american pig's would be. I know there are alot of libertarian icelanders, but they dont make many libertarian videos that arnt jokes, or mere Milton Freidman dubs.
lengthyounarther 1 year ago
@lengthyounarther Good points. I'll think about it.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@dannypantsgm holy shit!
youre an anti statist too?
high five!
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman *high fives* Yea, I have FearsEdge to thank for that mostly. All the arguments I lost with him. ; )
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
That clip you played made me cringe real bad.
silentbob36 1 year ago
@silentbob36 That was the most unsettling part of his whole video. When I heard it the first time I just said "what the fuck are you talking about?"
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Das American Atheist sounds like the talking head from 1984.
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago 8
@Worldslargestipod haha word
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@Worldslargestipod I honestly thought he was trolling until I saw his follow up video.
theradioschizo 1 year ago
good video. It stopped working at 10:27 for me for some reason
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja thank ya. yea i was wondering if the length would be an issue on people watching and buffering. it worked for me, maybe give it some time and see if it loads?
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago