On TheTrueJoker's video, Race Realists are sneaky STATISTS. He said you can't assure racial separatism (which he confused as segregation) without force.
So I asked in turn how do you assure racial integration without force? Without anti - discrimination laws, how do you stop a businessman only employing Blacks or White people setting up a Whites only school for example.
He told me such action was against the great spirit of the American nation and blocked me! LOL.
Yeah, most regulations are arbitrary bullshit that the freemarket already follows with- the ones they don't follow are mostly illogical and detrimental to productivity.
Very few regulations actually benefit anyone.(cite me 10 and you get a cookie...)
@fringeelements A significant part of the country is against regulations Objectivists, Libertarians, Free market conservatives and so on. Of course, that doesn't answer the question, should there be state regulations that favor some people over others - which is what ALL regulations do. It violates the principle of a neutral government, ie government that treats x,y, and z equally.
I haven't watched the video this is a response to but it's funny how you criticize his use of the phrase "smart regulation" by pointing out that this implies his opposition is for "dumb regulation" or "no regulation" and then you do something similar; by implying that people like him can't stand freedom. Name a person in today's world who doesn't think of freedom as a virtue. NOBODY thinks of himself as being against freedom. Even Al-Qaeda considers itself pro-freedom.
@Jacnas Just because one may consider themselves pro-freedom doesn't mean they are; I don't think Ryan said that he is 100% anti-freedom anyway. Assuming Pooka is pro-"regulation", that means he is anti-freedom when it comes to economics. This is assuming the libertarian definition of "freedom" to be the most concise. That is a separate issue I suppose.
@Jacnas Anybody who supports the institution of taxation is anti-freedom in that regard. They think that free people cannot handle the freedom, be it due to a free rider problem or be it an appeal to utilitarian arguments that only force can allow for. At either rate, just say that "freedom with regards to X is bad" and don't pretend to be pro-freedom. If someone gets called a socialist and they are socialist because they think it is the best system, it isn't necessarily pejorative.
Whats the matter? Did my logic hurt yer butt to much? Learn2Logic and you wouldn't encounter so many people that can easily strip your rhetoric of any cogency.
Good luck censoring every single person who knows your wrong. Pretty soon you're going to have everyone blocked there'll be no more comments on your channels. Except for your two friends who agree with you. The only one you're deluding is yourself. I guess this is Fringeelements MO? I'm actually not surprised. Right wing censorship fail
An unrelated question: How would we stop states from being formed? It seems to me that states occur allmost naturally. There's always gonna be people who want to rule others and there's always gonna be drones who want to follow them.
There is the possibility a state could arise in a stateless society, but a state requires ideology behind it to function. Without it, a state would have to rely on sheer force. To accomplish simple tasks like taxing, they'd essentially have to raid every house with a SWAT team, which would very quickly lead to either people defending themselves or the wanna-be state bankrupting itself by spending much more on acquiring taxes than their worth.
@rolandselene That's just a bare assertion. Without ideology a wanna-be stae is indistinguishable from a gang. Without a state restricting people from acquiring the means of self defense, there's no reason why people couldn't defend themselves against wanna-be state. There are examples of anarchy and they were most if not all taken over by states via ideology not by pure force.
Plus it's much more profitable to simply trade with people, it requires far less effort and resources.
@rolandselene But let's for the sake of argument assume this to be true.
Does the fact that a stateless society was taken over by a state invalidate statelessness? By that logic having a state would be invalid as states have been conquered countless time throughout history.
@crazypants88 It doesn't invalidate anything but the plausibility of maintaining a stateless society. And its not only an assertion. Do you know what purpose the medieval extremely cruel public executions served? You guessed it:examples due to lack of resources to control enough. It worked.
The state is basicly a gang, true. So what? These stateless people who have armed themselves against said gang, would probably form a gang of their own as defence. And lo we have two states.
@rolandselene Well if it did invalidate the plausibility of defending a stateless society, than that must be applied equally to any other type of society, therefore the fact that states have been conquered invalidates the idea that states can protect themselves.
And yes it was an assertion, a claim without anything to back it up is an assertion.
Gangs don't equal states nor does an armed group of people. Wanna-be states are tantamount to gangs.
@crazypants88 It wasnt an assertion. I used a historical example to back it up, to show you that a state can just use more violence to control, if it lacks other resources to do so.
This was a reply to your Assertion that a state would run out of money because it would have to use SWAT teams to get taxes. While that maybe economically true, a state would never have to do so.
Gangs are early forms of states as you said, so I dont get your point about that.
@rolandselene No you didn't. At best you made vague reference to how medieval time folks punished crime. If that's your historical example, than that's total non-sequitur.
The violence it uses to control is irrelevant of the fact that without ideology, they'd have to rely pure force. For reasons I mentioned this would result in them spending far more resources in the act taxing than they'd ever get in return.
@crazypants88 Yes I did. Punishing crime severely was an example of control without the need to have a lot of resources.
It is completely relevant to your force / ideology assertion. No need for ideology or a lot of resources, if you have cruelty and the willingness to rule with whatever means possible.
@rolandselene Right and how does that refute the idea that ideology is a necessary component of states forming? Referencing a society which had the ideology for states and saying therefore ideology is not needed makes no sense.
"It is completely relevant to...whatever means possible."
Except medieval societies had the ideology for a state....yeah
@crazypants88 I didn't say defend but maintain. I was talking about a stateless society becoming a state/states again. The conqueror doesn't have to come from the outside.
It is totally possible to form a state with force alone. I'm sure that the first states had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with force. A strong man or a charismatic shaman got his tribe to do his bidding. Said tribe took over the lands and people of a weaker one and so on. No ideology needed.
@rolandselene Well defending something is a vital part of maintaining it but fair enough. I didn't say the state had to come from outside.
Yes ideology is needed and you kind of unwittingly proved my point. The shaman lays the foundation for the ideology in your very example. If the state controls a majority then yes it can take over a minority.
That's however predicated on the majority accepting the ideology.
@crazypants88 Ok I'll give in to the whole necessity of ideology notion if you call "I want power" an ideology. And so it probably is, but it is kinda built into to the formula mentioned.
Shaman proves it? Because he uses ideology as his hold over others instead of pure force?
Hmm... maybe ideology alone can be used to rule, but I think force is a way more common origin for a state. Probably they went hand in hand. But in no way is an ideology a necessity for a state.
@rolandselene That's not what the ideology entails, the ideology entails that the society with a state believes for the most part that a state is needed for society to function.
Yes the shaman example is an example of how ideology is far more important than force. Could the shaman have taken the first society over with pure force? I mean it is an hypothetical but it's still worthy of consideration.
Actually the historic origins of the state are based on ideology. The first states used religion to convince people they were a needed part of society. They communed with the gods and therefore their word was the word of the gods.
@crazypants88 True, religion has been a tool for gaining power from very early on. And maybe the first shaman on earth really heard voices in his head, but the second took the job for the power and ease of life. But the strongest ape in town as the ruler surely predates even this.
And while its true, that the military ruler often needed a sanction from the religious power holders, theres no contest over which is more critical to a state. Take away the force and the state falls
@rolandselene I disagree, again force is less important. This is pretty much factual. It would be far more costly to rule on force, if it were even possible, than through ideology.
Look at Britain and it's colonies. If what you contend is true and it's the through force that a state is maintained, why were there uprisings in their colonies and not in Britain itself. contd.
@crazypants88 You have convinced me on the importance of ideology in maintaining a state as states are now. They are just so big and spend so much that they probably have to rely on the majority paying willingly. Even though the basis of this willingness is in the ultimate threat of violence. The knowledge that you will go to jail unless you pay probably works on such a subconscious level for most people, that you might as well say that thay pay out their own volition.
@crazypants88 But I still find it very improbable that ideology had a lot to do with states forming. It just seems so much more plausible that the meanest tribe around subjected the others with force. I sincerely doubt that these early people wanted to be governed or that the "rulers" had any other idea than taking the others resources by force.
1. There's little evidence of large standing armies until after states formed
2. All de novo states had religion as their primary, and usually only, justification as far as anything is written down. Any idea that they formed from force is speculative. (By de novo I mean forming from within a stateless order. A state conquering a stateless area is not de novo state formation.)
3. Maintaining a state by force along is VERY hard. States can fight guerrilla wars since they have a tax base. But the initial conquering tribe has no tax base. Moreover, the population they are conquering has to be larger than them for the occupation to be worthwhile, which is something even modern states generally can't do. Also logistics were a bigger problem then than today.
4. Revolutions occurred in early theocratic states which the states couldn't force down.
And so I go with what ancient states say about themselves, with the idea that the justifications for the states that were recorded were also the ones that formed them initially, as that's what the archaeological evidence and our understanding of asymmetrical warfare would point to.
@fringeelements Was out drinking for a few days, so I have pretty much lost my train of tought. But you may be right. I imagine religion might have been a necessity to get large groups of people to do what you tell them to. The skydaddy told me that you must obey these rules "or else", must have been a convincing argument in the early days of man, given the fact that it still convinces most.
Maybe ruling by force alone is too hard even in small states. I have to think about it.
@crazypants88 It´s not a question about a lack of belief, but just what seems more logical. But to be honest I haven't thought about this a lot so my logic might be flawed.
@crazypants88 And just to be clear, I'm not an advocate of states. I would love a stateless society. And I absolutely hate democracy. I'm just innocently wondering how one would get a stateless society to work. A simple formula seems to f it up.
Power hungry assholes + moronic mobs -> states
And I don't mean anti-statists (or whaterever you are) should shut up until you solve this. Your input is still extremely important. But its something to keep in mind.
Well I've made my case why I think that formula is based on little else than assertions.
I'm fairly sure we can agree that greed and stupity is constant in any society.
Yet not all societies had states.
Medieval Iceland and Ireland, The stateless western territories in the USA.
If this formula holds true and we agree that greed and stupity is a constant factor, than there should always be states. Yet there weren't always states.
@crazypants88 Iceland and Ireland are states now aren't they? The question was about maintaining. Sure there can be instances of statelessness but they are short lived and geographically very limited. In my opinion this is due to the formula or some variant of it.
But they managed to maintain themselves and Iceland was incorporated into the Norwegian state via ideology, not by conquest.
Also the Iceland was stateless for 332 years, which I believe is almost 100 years more than the United States and many other states have maintained itself.
Well if we agree that greed and stupity is a constant in human society, then by your formula they should never have been stateless in the first place.
@crazypants88 Well you caught me with the Iceland. Did not know about that. Stupidity isn't so constant after all, and maybe there is still hope for us all. Too bad its a lot harder for smart and unconquering minded people to get away from the hordes of morons today.
That really doesn't change the argument or the formula much.
Power junkies + heaps of morons -> a state (except for those who can flee it to a remote place)
Such remote places are pretty much nonexistent these days.
@rolandselene Well I personally think stupidity is a constant, it's just not inherently a factor that leads to states.
Again by according to you formula Iceland should have always been statist.
Icelanders or Irish people are not necessarily any smarter than any other people.
Since ideology is such a important factor for states, it's not a matter of evading the sword (so to speak) as it is a matter of delegitimize the ideology of the state.
@crazypants88 The Icelander and Irish probably were smarter than the average human, but lets not get into that.
The case for the necessity of ideology in state formation has become a lot more credible in my eyes due to this conversation. I'll certainly give it some thought and maybe even read about it. Thanks and peace
What exactly is an atheist cult? You also say "otherwise you guys are just bound to make things up." Are you insinuating atheists just make things up? People who reject a concept because of a lack of evidence are the ones making things up? Atheists don't understand the other position? Seriously? You don't think atheists ever followed a religion? Maybe you should just not mix politics/economics and religion. You are really failing at it.
@LucidDreamz613 No, Atheistkult was a user. He wasn't saying atheism was a cult. <- is why I called you clueless for writing a whole paragraph assuming this.
@SanguineBullet667 Ah, that does change things. I feel almost as foolish as a guy who posts a 9 minute rant because someone says something that should be obvious but politicians never agree with.
SanguineBullet667 is right. You are clueless. Polycentric law =/= self-regulation. On the other hand a lot of critics of the market regulation are often muddled intheir thinking and confuse market/competitive regulation with self-regulation (which in practice, means cartel arrangements back supported by the state, i.e. another anti-market arrangement).
@utubehayter I think you are looking waaaaayyyyy too far into what I said. Pretty sure I made virtually no statements whatsoever except in response to one of the first things stated in the video.
6:22 This is a VERBATIM talking point people came up with to denigrate the work of Robert Rector and others to show how well off the poor are comparative to the past and to other countries. ONE of the MANY metrics he used was how many own refrigerators. Statists grab this and blab the quote, and say things like "you can't eat refrigerators," apparently not even bothering to READ the report where he ALSO includes things such as missed meals.
XD "Here be dragons" haha! Holy shit, Ryan, you just poked so many holes into "Mr. Pooka's" video and statements! You owned his ass, man! hahah, I love it, man. Your sarcasm cracks me right up. I don't like what I see of that friggin hippie. He's a little fanatical for my taste and I don't like being lied to at all, in general. Good response, dude.
You know who should regulate industry? I know we'll make a communal group, which everyone is forced to join, and then we all have 1 share of this, and we set it up as a corporation and we each have to pay into this corporation to get our share, and then we get to vote and we need at least a 70% majority to decide whether or not something should be regulated. It's not a government tho...i swear. It just seems like one but it's not, cause I named it a polycentric monotheistic abstract regulator
@hydeparkbarry It _is_ government. The difference is that it is not a state. It is a government that will have to appeal to an authority other than itself to justify its actions. This is what polycentrism means: It means peer review in law rather and is distinguished between arbitrary law that is defined in statutes and ruled upon in courts of the same entity.
@Ishpeck Polycentrism fails as a regulatory aspect since companies don't self regulate. The point that everyone missed is that Apple DID have regulations in china. However there were no laws which said they MUST adhere to their own regulations of dropping noncompliant vendors. So since they would take a profit hit having to fish for new suppliers, they ignore thier self regulations and just operate unethically anyways.
Polycentric regulation means competitive regulation. By "companies don't self-regulate" you just blew monocentric regulation out of the water. And your omitting private regulation agencies which set standards and inspect products/conditions, which DO exist. The American Dental Association, Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer's Report, American Hearth Association, etc. are examples. Check out fringe's "TheAmazingAtheist and Regulations" video.
On a related note, I like smart wars, smart income taxes, and smart police states.
I also like smartasses and not dumbasses. That explains why I subscribe to fringeelements and not TheTruePooka. I'm soooo smart! But "smart" regulators are so much more moral and....., well, smarter than the rest of us.
@Robinsonero Yes, I saw that too. It would be interesting if someone calculated the total number of state, local, and federal regulations. The list that fringe cited only includes federal regulations.
read it again, pal. It says *New* regulations. For the total regulations to decrease, those bars would have to be negative. Fringe described it wrong, but the reality is actually worse than what he was saying.
I think the quip about Republicans came from a Fox News expo that implied the poor in America don't have it too bad because most of them own "luxury" items like a refrigerator. Those usually come with 1 bedroom apartments in the hood, but I digress.
Oh come on bro, how else can we repackage this tripe into something that people will buy? You're a free marketeer - you know the need for marketing. Right?
Smart, contextual, social geo-libertarianism. It's the hip new thing! It's a free market, except for when anyone does anything, stands on any kind of surface or is not yet having their every desire completely satisfied.
@machwon China is not a free market. There are minimal regulations, but private property rights aren't protected aren't consistently enforced. The state directs and indirectly directs capital. That isn't a true free market. Also, it is state capitalism in China, not a free market.
In a free market there are no public-private partnerships, subsidies, mandates, etc.
What Chinese citizens get right is they save much or their incomes. That's where capital formation starts
You didn't mention the fact that the Chinese government makes it against the law for these workers to even discuss unionization. Labor Unions are an important aspect of free association and free markets. How would you propose that we prevent agents in a stateless, emergent system, from taking advantage of foreign states that enslave their people for them?
And American and European governments make it against the law to operate in defiance of the union monopolists. Labor unions themselves are one effect of the free market - the freedom to underbid those who are less efficient or more spoiled than yourself is one of its causes. -
- Unfortunately, the best thing you as an outsider can do for such a people is probably to open your borders to trade and migration. Accept anyone who has the drive to rise out of that hellhole, and supply the rest with the cheapest products possible That's true with or without a state.
@PanzerDivisionBOM No, the best thing that can happen is for people stop buying products that are made by slaves. There are two ways this can happen: 1) A state makes it a crime for companies to sell products made by slaves. 2) The public is properly informed by watchdog media organizations that this is happening and a sufficient number of people choose to boycott the business to make it no longer competitive with free market competitors.
In reality, that's probably not what would happen. People really, really dig buying this cheap stuff, and will probably, in my opinion, defy the law and the pervailing public opinion to do so.
But okay, we're in the fairytale land where the War on Drugs actually stopped drugs from being produced and sold, rather than creating Mexican drug lords and multinational crime syndicates. so the sweatshops just close down. Then what? The Chinese workers return to their -
- comfortable, suburban homes, work office jobs from nine to five and shop at Target?
Sweatshops are an effect of human misery, not a cause. Some people are just so poor that they can't do any better. Even when governments inhibit economic development and keep a segment of the population in poverty, workers still choose those sweatshops over whatever other forms of employment are available to them.
@PanzerDivisionBOM A cause of their misery is that the government has them enslaved. They can't get together and say "enough it enough" without being under its boot. Prohibition would cause a black market for goods made by slaves, but this would need to compete with a free market equivalent. Would the difference in expense between poor slaves and poor free market laborers in these same countries be great enough to make for a strong black market to emerge? I doubt it.
@hugesinker Labor unions do in practice almost always resort to violence to pursue their goals. "Strike" usually doesn't only mean a refusal to work but implies some act of sabotage, such as blocking entrance to premises, intimidation of strike breakers, etc. The union that is a voluntary association of free men is mostly a myth, in practice they are mobs. Outlawing them is a legal and ethical problem also, but that doesn't men they are a good thing.
@john42t Labor Union strikes are no more necessarily violent than a mob of people assembling to express passionate contrary opinion in any venue. In organized strikes, they set out to recognize the fact that it is better not to get arrested or beaten up in a frenzy. Those things are objectively counterproductive to an aim of eventually being rehired under improved conditions at the same factory. Membership need not be forced by law, and strike participation is always voluntary.
WELL SAID! I try to vocalize this to many big government types and get called a "fascist" for doing so. Funny thing is the fascists were actually in favor of big government themselves. I'd say the irony is lost on them.
Henry Rollins said it worst when he was doing a spoken word show in Spain and the audience didn't know english well.
He summed up his show by saying "there are things that are good, and we should do more of those things, and then there things that are bad and we should do less of those things."
I could not disagree more. I want to do fewer good things and more bad things because I like bad things (or stupid things) as opposed to good things (smart things).
I'd also recommend your old video, "TheAmazingAtheist and Regulation" be posted as a response to teach him the basics of the anti-statist regulation position.
That's pretty much how it works. Before Hannibal left I tried to pose a question that I thought was relevant to the debate. It was posed in a completely neutral way, but all I got in response was a block and about ten accusations of being a Fringe sock account from his zombies.
@SanguineBullet667 I argued with him before on another topic, and he accused me of being a "Glenn Beck wannabe" within two comments of the exchange. I wouldn't recommend arguing with him unless you're looking for entertainment.
@ 1:00 *ahem* BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!! ( I am of course only in favour of a moderate amount of blood for the blood god and only smart skulls for the skull throne.)
It's nice to know that Pooka's socialist fascist side comes out when it comes to deleting anything that goes against his opinion on the comments section. People who advocate for state control are practically psychological hysterics in their own right! Funny how that works. * Must .. Control .. Dissenting .. Opinion ... * Pooka really needs to get over himself or buy an ant farm to channel his domineering psychological disorder.
@SanguineBullet667 Like every true communist he knows he can't win a legit debate. That action after just looking at him does not surprise me in the least nor does his position.
I got myself banned from his channel because I pointed out the similarities between his faith in the state and Christian faith in God. He apparently thought he could mock me as a "free market believer" and egged me on, saying this is fun, lets keep doing this, but quickly banned me, without letting me tear him a new one. Funny how cowards operate.
puka is so retarded. I hate how liberals want to be taken care of by their governments and want their governments to give them rights, even if it's against democracy.
The Problem with smart regulation is that it requires smart people. Most people aren't smart. Thats the problem with condoms, because smart people tend to use them while dumb tend not to. This has implications on evolution. The solution therefor wouldn't be smart regulation but rather smart condoms. Patent Pending by Foxconn.
@quatroseven 99% of politicians aren't smart so that throws that idea out the window. Being greedy and able to win popularity contests =/ Intelligence.
you fail at trolling, you forget to grasp, going directly for the "i win cause you spell incorrectly/speak with not 100% correct words" there is no win, only an hidden " i admit i cant argue on the subject, so i argue the words used" you need to read up on the subject before you argue on it frindgebraincell.
the suicide in foxconn is due to CEO of foxconn offered accidental death related insurance payoff for every factory worker which far above the paid of the normal wages over decades. Some of those factory workers did the math and figure out they could use the insurance money for their family thus they commit suicide to get it.
On TheTrueJoker's video, Race Realists are sneaky STATISTS. He said you can't assure racial separatism (which he confused as segregation) without force.
So I asked in turn how do you assure racial integration without force? Without anti - discrimination laws, how do you stop a businessman only employing Blacks or White people setting up a Whites only school for example.
He told me such action was against the great spirit of the American nation and blocked me! LOL.
HellfireScorpio 1 week ago
Then there's straight up protectionism where regulations are written to protect monopolies who are themselves exempt from the regulations...
DackIsBack 2 weeks ago
lol, here be dragons...
Yeah, most regulations are arbitrary bullshit that the freemarket already follows with- the ones they don't follow are mostly illogical and detrimental to productivity.
Very few regulations actually benefit anyone.(cite me 10 and you get a cookie...)
DackIsBack 2 weeks ago
I am glad you made this video, I like it when you make these types of videos.
totheman 2 weeks ago
@totheman Yes, enough with the race videos. You might win debates, but you won't win hearts.
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
@JackofOneTrade567 "You might win debates" Yer, no.
totheman 2 weeks ago
@totheman What do you mean?
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
@JackofOneTrade567 I assume you're referring to the debate he had with skeptical heretic.
totheman 2 weeks ago
@totheman Never seen it.
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
@JackofOneTrade567 Fair enough, It's cringe worthy lets just say that much.
totheman 2 weeks ago
@totheman Why? Now i'm curious.
JackofOneTrade567 2 weeks ago
@JackofOneTrade567 Watch and you will find out :D
totheman 2 weeks ago
LOL, total ARMA 2 shit at 7:09.
'As FAR I know, YOU offer NO systemat— CHANGE.'
Tsicar 3 weeks ago 4
nobody is against regulation... thats not totaly true....
xX4monX4m4rthXx 3 weeks ago
@xX4monX4m4rthXx Eh... it's overwhelmingly true.
fringeelements 3 weeks ago 7
@fringeelements A significant part of the country is against regulations Objectivists, Libertarians, Free market conservatives and so on. Of course, that doesn't answer the question, should there be state regulations that favor some people over others - which is what ALL regulations do. It violates the principle of a neutral government, ie government that treats x,y, and z equally.
CosmicRayCathode 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from fringeelements
@xX4monX4m4rthXx
People want rats to excrete in burgers?
You're fucking retarded. Go watch "TheAmazingAtheist and Regulations" by the same uploader and learn something.
fountainherz 3 weeks ago
I want to join the Smart Party.
funkymonkey1930 3 weeks ago
@funkymonkey1930 don't read any books. Might end up like this guy. Is he ever even happy?
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
Good point. But clearly not as mad as drinkingwithbob or theangryvideogamenerd. Based on those guys' youtube videos, they're mad ALL THE TIME.
And actually I read books all the time. That's why I pronounce big words wrong quite often.
fringeelements 3 weeks ago
I haven't watched the video this is a response to but it's funny how you criticize his use of the phrase "smart regulation" by pointing out that this implies his opposition is for "dumb regulation" or "no regulation" and then you do something similar; by implying that people like him can't stand freedom. Name a person in today's world who doesn't think of freedom as a virtue. NOBODY thinks of himself as being against freedom. Even Al-Qaeda considers itself pro-freedom.
Jacnas 3 weeks ago
@Jacnas Just because one may consider themselves pro-freedom doesn't mean they are; I don't think Ryan said that he is 100% anti-freedom anyway. Assuming Pooka is pro-"regulation", that means he is anti-freedom when it comes to economics. This is assuming the libertarian definition of "freedom" to be the most concise. That is a separate issue I suppose.
BadgeringTheWitness1 3 weeks ago
@Jacnas Anybody who supports the institution of taxation is anti-freedom in that regard. They think that free people cannot handle the freedom, be it due to a free rider problem or be it an appeal to utilitarian arguments that only force can allow for. At either rate, just say that "freedom with regards to X is bad" and don't pretend to be pro-freedom. If someone gets called a socialist and they are socialist because they think it is the best system, it isn't necessarily pejorative.
BadgeringTheWitness1 3 weeks ago
Pooka says he has liberatrian values and then talks about regulations
/head desk
justintempler 3 weeks ago
Whats the matter? Did my logic hurt yer butt to much? Learn2Logic and you wouldn't encounter so many people that can easily strip your rhetoric of any cogency.
Good luck censoring every single person who knows your wrong. Pretty soon you're going to have everyone blocked there'll be no more comments on your channels. Except for your two friends who agree with you. The only one you're deluding is yourself. I guess this is Fringeelements MO? I'm actually not surprised. Right wing censorship fail
failcensorshipfail 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from fringeelements
@failcensorshipfail
?
fountainherz 3 weeks ago
An unrelated question: How would we stop states from being formed? It seems to me that states occur allmost naturally. There's always gonna be people who want to rule others and there's always gonna be drones who want to follow them.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene herpa derpa perpa nerpa! I'm tired of answering that, I don't want to answer it.
fringeelements 3 weeks ago
@fringeelements I understand. I think I asked you a question that had fundamentally the same idea on another video. I had forgotten about that.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene I'll give it a go.
There is the possibility a state could arise in a stateless society, but a state requires ideology behind it to function. Without it, a state would have to rely on sheer force. To accomplish simple tasks like taxing, they'd essentially have to raid every house with a SWAT team, which would very quickly lead to either people defending themselves or the wanna-be state bankrupting itself by spending much more on acquiring taxes than their worth.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Add enough violence to the first few raids and people would pay out of fear.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene That's just a bare assertion. Without ideology a wanna-be stae is indistinguishable from a gang. Without a state restricting people from acquiring the means of self defense, there's no reason why people couldn't defend themselves against wanna-be state. There are examples of anarchy and they were most if not all taken over by states via ideology not by pure force.
Plus it's much more profitable to simply trade with people, it requires far less effort and resources.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene But let's for the sake of argument assume this to be true.
Does the fact that a stateless society was taken over by a state invalidate statelessness? By that logic having a state would be invalid as states have been conquered countless time throughout history.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 It doesn't invalidate anything but the plausibility of maintaining a stateless society. And its not only an assertion. Do you know what purpose the medieval extremely cruel public executions served? You guessed it:examples due to lack of resources to control enough. It worked.
The state is basicly a gang, true. So what? These stateless people who have armed themselves against said gang, would probably form a gang of their own as defence. And lo we have two states.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene Well if it did invalidate the plausibility of defending a stateless society, than that must be applied equally to any other type of society, therefore the fact that states have been conquered invalidates the idea that states can protect themselves.
And yes it was an assertion, a claim without anything to back it up is an assertion.
Gangs don't equal states nor does an armed group of people. Wanna-be states are tantamount to gangs.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 It wasnt an assertion. I used a historical example to back it up, to show you that a state can just use more violence to control, if it lacks other resources to do so.
This was a reply to your Assertion that a state would run out of money because it would have to use SWAT teams to get taxes. While that maybe economically true, a state would never have to do so.
Gangs are early forms of states as you said, so I dont get your point about that.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene No you didn't. At best you made vague reference to how medieval time folks punished crime. If that's your historical example, than that's total non-sequitur.
The violence it uses to control is irrelevant of the fact that without ideology, they'd have to rely pure force. For reasons I mentioned this would result in them spending far more resources in the act taxing than they'd ever get in return.
contd.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Yes I did. Punishing crime severely was an example of control without the need to have a lot of resources.
It is completely relevant to your force / ideology assertion. No need for ideology or a lot of resources, if you have cruelty and the willingness to rule with whatever means possible.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene Right and how does that refute the idea that ideology is a necessary component of states forming? Referencing a society which had the ideology for states and saying therefore ideology is not needed makes no sense.
"It is completely relevant to...whatever means possible."
Except medieval societies had the ideology for a state....yeah
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene contd.
And yes they would have to use force to tax an unwilling, how else would they do it?
Count on the people that are unwilling to be ruled by them to give them the funds?
The "gangs" point was to illustrate the importance of ideology to a state. It can't exist without, at least not as a state. As a gang sure.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 I didn't say defend but maintain. I was talking about a stateless society becoming a state/states again. The conqueror doesn't have to come from the outside.
It is totally possible to form a state with force alone. I'm sure that the first states had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with force. A strong man or a charismatic shaman got his tribe to do his bidding. Said tribe took over the lands and people of a weaker one and so on. No ideology needed.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene Well defending something is a vital part of maintaining it but fair enough. I didn't say the state had to come from outside.
Yes ideology is needed and you kind of unwittingly proved my point. The shaman lays the foundation for the ideology in your very example. If the state controls a majority then yes it can take over a minority.
That's however predicated on the majority accepting the ideology.
contd.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Ok I'll give in to the whole necessity of ideology notion if you call "I want power" an ideology. And so it probably is, but it is kinda built into to the formula mentioned.
Shaman proves it? Because he uses ideology as his hold over others instead of pure force?
Hmm... maybe ideology alone can be used to rule, but I think force is a way more common origin for a state. Probably they went hand in hand. But in no way is an ideology a necessity for a state.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene That's not what the ideology entails, the ideology entails that the society with a state believes for the most part that a state is needed for society to function.
Yes the shaman example is an example of how ideology is far more important than force. Could the shaman have taken the first society over with pure force? I mean it is an hypothetical but it's still worthy of consideration.
contd.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene contd.
Actually the historic origins of the state are based on ideology. The first states used religion to convince people they were a needed part of society. They communed with the gods and therefore their word was the word of the gods.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 True, religion has been a tool for gaining power from very early on. And maybe the first shaman on earth really heard voices in his head, but the second took the job for the power and ease of life. But the strongest ape in town as the ruler surely predates even this.
And while its true, that the military ruler often needed a sanction from the religious power holders, theres no contest over which is more critical to a state. Take away the force and the state falls
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene I disagree, again force is less important. This is pretty much factual. It would be far more costly to rule on force, if it were even possible, than through ideology.
Look at Britain and it's colonies. If what you contend is true and it's the through force that a state is maintained, why were there uprisings in their colonies and not in Britain itself. contd.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene contd.
Because the ideology was far stronger in Britain than in the colonies. If what you say was true, it should be reversed
To be fair there were probably uprisings in Britain, but I'm fairly sure they were far more common in their colonies.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 You have convinced me on the importance of ideology in maintaining a state as states are now. They are just so big and spend so much that they probably have to rely on the majority paying willingly. Even though the basis of this willingness is in the ultimate threat of violence. The knowledge that you will go to jail unless you pay probably works on such a subconscious level for most people, that you might as well say that thay pay out their own volition.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 But I still find it very improbable that ideology had a lot to do with states forming. It just seems so much more plausible that the meanest tribe around subjected the others with force. I sincerely doubt that these early people wanted to be governed or that the "rulers" had any other idea than taking the others resources by force.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
1. There's little evidence of large standing armies until after states formed
2. All de novo states had religion as their primary, and usually only, justification as far as anything is written down. Any idea that they formed from force is speculative. (By de novo I mean forming from within a stateless order. A state conquering a stateless area is not de novo state formation.)
fringeelements 3 weeks ago
3. Maintaining a state by force along is VERY hard. States can fight guerrilla wars since they have a tax base. But the initial conquering tribe has no tax base. Moreover, the population they are conquering has to be larger than them for the occupation to be worthwhile, which is something even modern states generally can't do. Also logistics were a bigger problem then than today.
4. Revolutions occurred in early theocratic states which the states couldn't force down.
fringeelements 3 weeks ago
And so I go with what ancient states say about themselves, with the idea that the justifications for the states that were recorded were also the ones that formed them initially, as that's what the archaeological evidence and our understanding of asymmetrical warfare would point to.
fringeelements 3 weeks ago
@fringeelements Was out drinking for a few days, so I have pretty much lost my train of tought. But you may be right. I imagine religion might have been a necessity to get large groups of people to do what you tell them to. The skydaddy told me that you must obey these rules "or else", must have been a convincing argument in the early days of man, given the fact that it still convinces most.
Maybe ruling by force alone is too hard even in small states. I have to think about it.
rolandselene 2 weeks ago
@rolandselene Also just to add to fringe's response, your lack of belief in something happening isn't really an argument against it.
Personal incredulity is not an argument.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 It´s not a question about a lack of belief, but just what seems more logical. But to be honest I haven't thought about this a lot so my logic might be flawed.
rolandselene 2 weeks ago
@rolandselene contd.
In all the prior examples the wanna-be state was the minority trying to impose itself on the majority.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 And just to be clear, I'm not an advocate of states. I would love a stateless society. And I absolutely hate democracy. I'm just innocently wondering how one would get a stateless society to work. A simple formula seems to f it up.
Power hungry assholes + moronic mobs -> states
And I don't mean anti-statists (or whaterever you are) should shut up until you solve this. Your input is still extremely important. But its something to keep in mind.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene
Well I've made my case why I think that formula is based on little else than assertions.
I'm fairly sure we can agree that greed and stupity is constant in any society.
Yet not all societies had states.
Medieval Iceland and Ireland, The stateless western territories in the USA.
If this formula holds true and we agree that greed and stupity is a constant factor, than there should always be states. Yet there weren't always states.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Iceland and Ireland are states now aren't they? The question was about maintaining. Sure there can be instances of statelessness but they are short lived and geographically very limited. In my opinion this is due to the formula or some variant of it.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene Yes they do now have states.
But they managed to maintain themselves and Iceland was incorporated into the Norwegian state via ideology, not by conquest.
Also the Iceland was stateless for 332 years, which I believe is almost 100 years more than the United States and many other states have maintained itself.
Well if we agree that greed and stupity is a constant in human society, then by your formula they should never have been stateless in the first place.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 Well you caught me with the Iceland. Did not know about that. Stupidity isn't so constant after all, and maybe there is still hope for us all. Too bad its a lot harder for smart and unconquering minded people to get away from the hordes of morons today.
That really doesn't change the argument or the formula much.
Power junkies + heaps of morons -> a state (except for those who can flee it to a remote place)
Such remote places are pretty much nonexistent these days.
rolandselene 3 weeks ago
@rolandselene Well I personally think stupidity is a constant, it's just not inherently a factor that leads to states.
Again by according to you formula Iceland should have always been statist.
Icelanders or Irish people are not necessarily any smarter than any other people.
Since ideology is such a important factor for states, it's not a matter of evading the sword (so to speak) as it is a matter of delegitimize the ideology of the state.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
@crazypants88 The Icelander and Irish probably were smarter than the average human, but lets not get into that.
The case for the necessity of ideology in state formation has become a lot more credible in my eyes due to this conversation. I'll certainly give it some thought and maybe even read about it. Thanks and peace
rolandselene 2 weeks ago
@rolandselene Peace :)
crazypants88 2 weeks ago
Yeah I reckon you are right. That guy has grown complacent.
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
""
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
The three pillars of sustainability are, Financial or Economic,+ Environmental+, and Social or Societal. Thanks and ChaCha.
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
He is saying that "sustainability" of population requires refrigeration.
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
I chose "polycentric legal order."
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
Regulations are always stupid.
Evaporator134a 3 weeks ago
What exactly is an atheist cult? You also say "otherwise you guys are just bound to make things up." Are you insinuating atheists just make things up? People who reject a concept because of a lack of evidence are the ones making things up? Atheists don't understand the other position? Seriously? You don't think atheists ever followed a religion? Maybe you should just not mix politics/economics and religion. You are really failing at it.
LucidDreamz613 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613 Fringeelements is an atheist, although he despises most atheists.
DoctorCapitalist 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613 *facepalm* clueless aint ya
SanguineBullet667 3 weeks ago
@SanguineBullet667 Trollin aint ya.
LucidDreamz613 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613 No, Atheistkult was a user. He wasn't saying atheism was a cult. <- is why I called you clueless for writing a whole paragraph assuming this.
SanguineBullet667 3 weeks ago
@SanguineBullet667 Ah, that does change things. I feel almost as foolish as a guy who posts a 9 minute rant because someone says something that should be obvious but politicians never agree with.
LucidDreamz613 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613 You sir win the smartass of the year award. Congratulations.
SanguineBullet667 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613
SanguineBullet667 is right. You are clueless. Polycentric law =/= self-regulation. On the other hand a lot of critics of the market regulation are often muddled intheir thinking and confuse market/competitive regulation with self-regulation (which in practice, means cartel arrangements back supported by the state, i.e. another anti-market arrangement).
utubehayter 3 weeks ago
@utubehayter I think you are looking waaaaayyyyy too far into what I said. Pretty sure I made virtually no statements whatsoever except in response to one of the first things stated in the video.
LucidDreamz613 3 weeks ago
@LucidDreamz613
My bad...That comment was for hydeparkbarry, not you.
utubehayter 3 weeks ago
6:22 This is a VERBATIM talking point people came up with to denigrate the work of Robert Rector and others to show how well off the poor are comparative to the past and to other countries. ONE of the MANY metrics he used was how many own refrigerators. Statists grab this and blab the quote, and say things like "you can't eat refrigerators," apparently not even bothering to READ the report where he ALSO includes things such as missed meals.
Basic creationist-style ad hominem.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
XD "Here be dragons" haha! Holy shit, Ryan, you just poked so many holes into "Mr. Pooka's" video and statements! You owned his ass, man! hahah, I love it, man. Your sarcasm cracks me right up. I don't like what I see of that friggin hippie. He's a little fanatical for my taste and I don't like being lied to at all, in general. Good response, dude.
jeremyshaw 3 weeks ago
You know who should regulate industry? I know we'll make a communal group, which everyone is forced to join, and then we all have 1 share of this, and we set it up as a corporation and we each have to pay into this corporation to get our share, and then we get to vote and we need at least a 70% majority to decide whether or not something should be regulated. It's not a government tho...i swear. It just seems like one but it's not, cause I named it a polycentric monotheistic abstract regulator
hydeparkbarry 3 weeks ago
@hydeparkbarry It _is_ government. The difference is that it is not a state. It is a government that will have to appeal to an authority other than itself to justify its actions. This is what polycentrism means: It means peer review in law rather and is distinguished between arbitrary law that is defined in statutes and ruled upon in courts of the same entity.
Ishpeck 3 weeks ago
@Ishpeck Polycentrism fails as a regulatory aspect since companies don't self regulate. The point that everyone missed is that Apple DID have regulations in china. However there were no laws which said they MUST adhere to their own regulations of dropping noncompliant vendors. So since they would take a profit hit having to fish for new suppliers, they ignore thier self regulations and just operate unethically anyways.
hydeparkbarry 3 weeks ago
@hydeparkbarry
Polycentric regulation means competitive regulation. By "companies don't self-regulate" you just blew monocentric regulation out of the water. And your omitting private regulation agencies which set standards and inspect products/conditions, which DO exist. The American Dental Association, Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer's Report, American Hearth Association, etc. are examples. Check out fringe's "TheAmazingAtheist and Regulations" video.
fountainherz 3 weeks ago
ryan stop pwning retards and take on Spawktalk already.
His latest vids are pissing me off.
TheAntiSPLC 3 weeks ago 12
@TheAntiSPLC That's his goal. He is trolling, but he is serious about these positions of his. He gets off on making libertarians irritated.
BadgeringTheWitness1 3 weeks ago
Hey Fringe your voice changed O_O
DoctorCapitalist 3 weeks ago
Would Smart regulations suffice during the transition to Perfect regulations?
j1mmyZeta 3 weeks ago
On a related note, I like smart wars, smart income taxes, and smart police states.
I also like smartasses and not dumbasses. That explains why I subscribe to fringeelements and not TheTruePooka. I'm soooo smart! But "smart" regulators are so much more moral and....., well, smarter than the rest of us.
joepeeler34 3 weeks ago
according to the chart you showed, the amount of regulations shrunk slightly between 1940 and 1950...
Robinsonero 3 weeks ago
@Robinsonero Yes, I saw that too. It would be interesting if someone calculated the total number of state, local, and federal regulations. The list that fringe cited only includes federal regulations.
joepeeler34 3 weeks ago
@Robinsonero I think that chart gave the size of the increase, and fringe just described it incorrectly.
SteelHamburger 3 weeks ago
@Robinsonero
read it again, pal. It says *New* regulations. For the total regulations to decrease, those bars would have to be negative. Fringe described it wrong, but the reality is actually worse than what he was saying.
StatelessEuphoria 3 weeks ago
@StatelessEuphoria Oh, wow, that makes that chart a lot scarier.
Robinsonero 3 weeks ago
I think the quip about Republicans came from a Fox News expo that implied the poor in America don't have it too bad because most of them own "luxury" items like a refrigerator. Those usually come with 1 bedroom apartments in the hood, but I digress.
Nawledge1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Nawledge1 3 weeks ago
what a clown (TheTrueEPerv i mean)
DanishGreatDane 3 weeks ago
Oh come on bro, how else can we repackage this tripe into something that people will buy? You're a free marketeer - you know the need for marketing. Right?
Smart, contextual, social geo-libertarianism. It's the hip new thing! It's a free market, except for when anyone does anything, stands on any kind of surface or is not yet having their every desire completely satisfied.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
FYI: China is a completely free deregulated market. Damn commies are unamerican!
machwon 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@machwon China is not a free market. There are minimal regulations, but private property rights aren't protected aren't consistently enforced. The state directs and indirectly directs capital. That isn't a true free market. Also, it is state capitalism in China, not a free market.
In a free market there are no public-private partnerships, subsidies, mandates, etc.
What Chinese citizens get right is they save much or their incomes. That's where capital formation starts
joepeeler34 3 weeks ago
@joepeeler34 Perhaps I forgot to put my unicode sarcasm symbol after that.
machwon 3 weeks ago
@joepeeler34 I know right. Typical statist tactic to blame capitalism and the free-market whenever a govt fucks over an economy.
Truepooka even said in a past video that lobbying and bribing was an aspect of capitalism. WOW.
JackofOneTrade567 3 weeks ago
You didn't mention the fact that the Chinese government makes it against the law for these workers to even discuss unionization. Labor Unions are an important aspect of free association and free markets. How would you propose that we prevent agents in a stateless, emergent system, from taking advantage of foreign states that enslave their people for them?
hugesinker 3 weeks ago
@hugesinker
And American and European governments make it against the law to operate in defiance of the union monopolists. Labor unions themselves are one effect of the free market - the freedom to underbid those who are less efficient or more spoiled than yourself is one of its causes. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
-
- Unfortunately, the best thing you as an outsider can do for such a people is probably to open your borders to trade and migration. Accept anyone who has the drive to rise out of that hellhole, and supply the rest with the cheapest products possible That's true with or without a state.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM No, the best thing that can happen is for people stop buying products that are made by slaves. There are two ways this can happen: 1) A state makes it a crime for companies to sell products made by slaves. 2) The public is properly informed by watchdog media organizations that this is happening and a sufficient number of people choose to boycott the business to make it no longer competitive with free market competitors.
hugesinker 3 weeks ago
@hugesinker
In reality, that's probably not what would happen. People really, really dig buying this cheap stuff, and will probably, in my opinion, defy the law and the pervailing public opinion to do so.
But okay, we're in the fairytale land where the War on Drugs actually stopped drugs from being produced and sold, rather than creating Mexican drug lords and multinational crime syndicates. so the sweatshops just close down. Then what? The Chinese workers return to their -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
-
- comfortable, suburban homes, work office jobs from nine to five and shop at Target?
Sweatshops are an effect of human misery, not a cause. Some people are just so poor that they can't do any better. Even when governments inhibit economic development and keep a segment of the population in poverty, workers still choose those sweatshops over whatever other forms of employment are available to them.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 weeks ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM A cause of their misery is that the government has them enslaved. They can't get together and say "enough it enough" without being under its boot. Prohibition would cause a black market for goods made by slaves, but this would need to compete with a free market equivalent. Would the difference in expense between poor slaves and poor free market laborers in these same countries be great enough to make for a strong black market to emerge? I doubt it.
hugesinker 3 weeks ago
@hugesinker Labor unions do in practice almost always resort to violence to pursue their goals. "Strike" usually doesn't only mean a refusal to work but implies some act of sabotage, such as blocking entrance to premises, intimidation of strike breakers, etc. The union that is a voluntary association of free men is mostly a myth, in practice they are mobs. Outlawing them is a legal and ethical problem also, but that doesn't men they are a good thing.
john42t 3 weeks ago
@john42t Labor Union strikes are no more necessarily violent than a mob of people assembling to express passionate contrary opinion in any venue. In organized strikes, they set out to recognize the fact that it is better not to get arrested or beaten up in a frenzy. Those things are objectively counterproductive to an aim of eventually being rehired under improved conditions at the same factory. Membership need not be forced by law, and strike participation is always voluntary.
hugesinker 3 weeks ago
"frequent explosions"
Sneezes?
hitssquad 3 weeks ago
WELL SAID! I try to vocalize this to many big government types and get called a "fascist" for doing so. Funny thing is the fascists were actually in favor of big government themselves. I'd say the irony is lost on them.
CRTV1982 3 weeks ago
@CRTV1982 When that happens to me I ask if they support a mixed economy and if they answered yes I'd say "You are a supporter of fascism my friend"
Darkwizzrobe 3 weeks ago
ryan faulk // heck yeah!!
rabbitholism 3 weeks ago
Henry Rollins said it worst when he was doing a spoken word show in Spain and the audience didn't know english well.
He summed up his show by saying "there are things that are good, and we should do more of those things, and then there things that are bad and we should do less of those things."
I could not disagree more. I want to do fewer good things and more bad things because I like bad things (or stupid things) as opposed to good things (smart things).
intercourseman69 3 weeks ago
@MrHerrIQ2 its social construct
trilerkiler 3 weeks ago
wonderful!
GhostOfMisterRogers 3 weeks ago
I'd also recommend your old video, "TheAmazingAtheist and Regulation" be posted as a response to teach him the basics of the anti-statist regulation position.
fountainherz 3 weeks ago 2
Ah yes, Dumb Regulation. My favorite type of regulation.
rhettrongun 3 weeks ago
Dumb regulation might also be fun to watch from a safe distance.
Stonegolem42 3 weeks ago
@Stonegolem42 Oh wait ...
trilerkiler 3 weeks ago
I'm against all regulation. But not because I think it would be sound policy. More because I would find it personally amusing.
Stonegolem42 3 weeks ago
just good ol' Ryan Fauke
TotalAnomy 3 weeks ago
i loled
twistedbydsign99 3 weeks ago
ivote4smartparty
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 weeks ago
Listening to a military brat talk about why he's better and knows better than everyone gets old really quick, wow.
resincoatedlungs 3 weeks ago
Here be dragons!!!
MrGreeneggsnham 3 weeks ago
LOL fringe, the moron thinks I'm a sock account for you just because I support your position instead of his. How sad is that?
SanguineBullet667 3 weeks ago
@SanguineBullet667
That's pretty much how it works. Before Hannibal left I tried to pose a question that I thought was relevant to the debate. It was posed in a completely neutral way, but all I got in response was a block and about ten accusations of being a Fringe sock account from his zombies.
Tr3xKuro 3 weeks ago
@SanguineBullet667 I argued with him before on another topic, and he accused me of being a "Glenn Beck wannabe" within two comments of the exchange. I wouldn't recommend arguing with him unless you're looking for entertainment.
SteelHamburger 3 weeks ago
@ 1:00 *ahem* BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!!! ( I am of course only in favour of a moderate amount of blood for the blood god and only smart skulls for the skull throne.)
AsymmetricalWarfare 3 weeks ago
It's nice to know that Pooka's socialist fascist side comes out when it comes to deleting anything that goes against his opinion on the comments section. People who advocate for state control are practically psychological hysterics in their own right! Funny how that works. * Must .. Control .. Dissenting .. Opinion ... * Pooka really needs to get over himself or buy an ant farm to channel his domineering psychological disorder.
SanguineBullet667 3 weeks ago 11
@SanguineBullet667 Like every true communist he knows he can't win a legit debate. That action after just looking at him does not surprise me in the least nor does his position.
Luigi84289 3 weeks ago
@SanguineBullet667
I got myself banned from his channel because I pointed out the similarities between his faith in the state and Christian faith in God. He apparently thought he could mock me as a "free market believer" and egged me on, saying this is fun, lets keep doing this, but quickly banned me, without letting me tear him a new one. Funny how cowards operate.
utubehayter 3 weeks ago
Where i grew up a refrigerator was a luxury. LOL
hellavadeal 3 weeks ago
Watching TheTruePooka's vid is like reading "The Jungle" all over again x_x;
kmelfina 3 weeks ago
I'm eating a cupcake. This is relevant information
FaggotFairyPrincess 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
FaggotFairyPrincess 3 weeks ago
9 minutes. Fuck yes this will be good.
tossThislnTrash 3 weeks ago
"It's not even wrong, it's NON-COGNITIVE" - brilliant :D
yuberries 3 weeks ago
HERE BE DRAGONS
diogeneslaertius666 3 weeks ago
brutal and awesome
diogeneslaertius666 3 weeks ago
I love you, Ryan
SpaceProbeSeven 3 weeks ago
I am an atheist. Your argument is invalid.
StatelessLiberty 3 weeks ago
LOL
The middle ground fallacy is my pet-peeve
yuberries 3 weeks ago
Smart people will build the roads!
RaymondDundas 3 weeks ago
@RaymondDundas Yeah right. Without regulations even smart people would build stupid ass roads. They'd probably build up a tree or something.
paradoarify 3 weeks ago 3
@paradoarify Nah, we'd just build a giant donut..
JackofOneTrade567 3 weeks ago
puka is so retarded. I hate how liberals want to be taken care of by their governments and want their governments to give them rights, even if it's against democracy.
lovingsingleton 3 weeks ago
Thank you. I had a great time watching this.
TheLegalImmigrant05 3 weeks ago
AhteistKult: assign two sides to every issue and take middle position. brag about how "balanced" you are.
junior00bacon00chee 3 weeks ago
capitalism is bad.
QED.
junior00bacon00chee 3 weeks ago
>braces for inevitable atheistkult backlash
nojokemisanthrope 3 weeks ago
The Problem with smart regulation is that it requires smart people. Most people aren't smart. Thats the problem with condoms, because smart people tend to use them while dumb tend not to. This has implications on evolution. The solution therefor wouldn't be smart regulation but rather smart condoms. Patent Pending by Foxconn.
quatroseven 3 weeks ago 13
@quatroseven Smart condoms FTW!
DeltaNordicAdvance 3 weeks ago 10
@quatroseven 99% of politicians aren't smart so that throws that idea out the window. Being greedy and able to win popularity contests =/ Intelligence.
Luigi84289 3 weeks ago
I support "stupid" regulation! All hail ThePooka!
sticksquash 3 weeks ago
What ever happend to your tumblr ryan?
TrollTheToll 3 weeks ago
you fail at trolling, you forget to grasp, going directly for the "i win cause you spell incorrectly/speak with not 100% correct words" there is no win, only an hidden " i admit i cant argue on the subject, so i argue the words used" you need to read up on the subject before you argue on it frindgebraincell.
painterQjensen 3 weeks ago
the suicide in foxconn is due to CEO of foxconn offered accidental death related insurance payoff for every factory worker which far above the paid of the normal wages over decades. Some of those factory workers did the math and figure out they could use the insurance money for their family thus they commit suicide to get it.
flynn2008 3 weeks ago
@flynn2008 I made that argument to somebody and frankly I didn't even know for a fact they had work place insurance. I just thought it was obvious.
Visfen 3 weeks ago
@Visfen
Think it is truly a case of people responding to incentives.
flynn2008 3 weeks ago