I'm 18 and none of the things at the end stop me from holding my money. Fuck the system, get your own safe and forget these fuckers. Seriously, my parents talk about banking like it's a rite of passage. I am not putting my money there, and even still, I hate the fact that it is a fiat currency. It's not safe, it is privatized and controlled by a bunch of greedy bastards. The world is crazy, I just want to get it done my way.
Google: Steve Keen. It was the failure of neo-classical economics (theoretical perspective) adopted by most economics that contributed the financial crisis. It is the private banking system that creates the money supply, not the government. All the 'how rosy it was 200 hundred years ago - free market wank - pro gold standard' simply misses the crucial issues that need to be understood for effective reform to take place.
RawMouseMeat said: @kropotkinbeard1 "Ban guns ASAP and reduce deaths by 98%."
"We're done here." meatless
Good argument, meat! I should have said 99.83%. That would have been more appropriate. Gotta' gun, eh? Makes you feel "secure", eh? Sort of wish you play Steven Segal, eh? Polishing that barrel sort of feels good, eh? Rubbing it and contemplating your "freedom", eh? Just waiting for that socialist to come try and tax some of "your" money as taxes, eh? Protect yourself from "the gov.", eh?
why do your purchase things with your hard earned dollars? Why do you voluntarily trade your money for an apple or a pencil? Because you value the product more than that sum of cash, and the produce values your money more. Both are winners. Competition does not imply a zero sum game.
@Equity213 If you're speaking to me, no, I didn't at all. However, for the intellectually handicapped it's sometimes necessary to have to spell out things in lots of mice simple words. And even then it's becoming increasingly apparent that even these aren't to be understood. Poor things.
who are you kidding. I read every word and its 80% ad hominim. Your whole argument rests on your assumption thaty property rights do not exist, but you do not try to prove this, you simply asserted it.
Thankfully I have had that argument explained to me properly in other places so I understand what your trying to say.
But its ok, thank you for being understanding of us intellectual midgets. Being in such lofty places you could have been a total douche about it.
@Equity213 I don't make ad homenim attacks, so this can be dropped from the outset. ah attacks are usually used in order not to deal with the subject, by attacking the messenger. I don't do this. I deal with the subject quite thoroughly and then I call the messenger a "drooler" in response to something they've already said. Quite different. So, your whining is simply not going to go anywhere. Just try and deal with the subjects. This should be your concern. Regarding supposed "property rights",
@Equity213 ...I've already dealt with this as well. Firstly, there are no such things as "rights" of any kind in the real world i.e.where I'm from. Rights are created by men (See 'men' in dictionary). That being said, property rights are whatever people determine them to be. If the population decides that there are none, then there are none. If they decide there are X amount, then there are X amount. It'S hardly rocket science. Also, I haven't written a sentence saying that people shouldn't..
@Equity213 ..shouldn't own property, nor would any socialist/democratically-minded person. Regarding what you think it is I'm trying to say, then you should say exactly what "it" is that you've had "pointed out". Don't know what you're specifically referring to. And why wouldn't I be understanding of you intellectual midgets? I've kept coming here and repeating myself so that at some point one might understand something, even the basics. But this is just an expression of my evil altruism at work
@Equity213 Yes, I could have been a total douche about it quite easily, but that's not my style. I refrain from saying anything provocative or ad hominem unless it's in response. Non-issue. I've noticed a significant drop off here in whiners ever since I offered one of the hundreds of thought experiments which show the absurdity of the Lib. position on "mob rule". Where have they all gone? Perhaps they're finally putting their Rand books next to public toilets in case the toilet paper runs out.
A few years ago, fresh out of school, I had the misfortune of being unemployed for an extended period (though happily no longer). My benefits were posted to me in gyro form, and I'd collect the cash from my local post office.
At some point, the job centre made it policy to ONLY work through a bank account. No more gyros, and no more cash. The UK government made it POLICY for the unemployed to have bank accounts. You can't escape the system even if you try.
I'm really glad that I took the time to listen to that presentation, I liked the way you simplified the history of the limited liability as it relates to banks.
So, which is it you promote? A free market, or rules on top of rules to reguate it? Because whichever one you choose, I feel that you are bound to lose.
@aurora7207 everyone gains in a freemarket. People engage in voluntary trade because they feel that they would be better off as a result of the transaction
@DollFacePeter Respectfully, I must disagree. The only way that everyone could feel like they were better off, is if at least one of the parties lacks true situational awareness. There is no such thing as a true equal exchange. Both may feel that they benefitted, but this is due to lack of information. You say everyone gains in a freemarket? Does every team in football win the superbowl? Competition means winners, and losers. And better (less empathic) competitors, just create more losers.
@aurora7207 respectfully, you are wrong. value is entirely subjective, and both sides of a free market transaction profit by definition. lets say i am a talented artist and you are a talented farmer. i have lots of great paintings that i cannot eat, and you have way more food than you need, but bare walls. i am happy to trade a painting to you for some of your food. who loses in this deal? neither side loses, we both win.
It upsets me that you keep focusing on the minute details of the monetary system, neglecting to realize that the reason for such complex rules is the inherent unfairness of the system.
I seriously doubt that the shareholders would be liable for losses. The contract would allow for limited liability. It is perfectly conceivable that I might enter a contract with someone else who wants a clause that in case of a default etc. he will be liable for such and such amount.
Thank you Stefan. Any history is necessarily selective, so I hope that you will supplement this insightful overview with an analysis of the rise of central banking. You mention inflation and fiat money toward the end, but that only underscores the need for the primary source of those--namely, central banks.
A great start to shielding ourselves from so much unproductive legislation would be to repeal the 17th amendment in order to take power from the Federal types to get some sort of reasonable competition going again. When the Federals lay blanket laws over us all it stifles what small ability the people have to vote with their feet.
@stebot I think you went overboard on this one. I have no dispute with what you said, rather with how you portray it.
For example. Shareholder liability was also government enforced, yet by ommission you make it appear to be a free market choice.
Clearly this is false. One could easily re-define the term "share" as "loan". A loan to the bank, or other firm, that is not callable, is transferable, and pays interest (dividends) at will. I have never seen a claim that a loan carries liability.
@stefbot People, shareholders, managers, owners, and depositors wish to avoid risk. In a free market they will come to some form of mutually acceptable arrangement.
I doubt very much it will involve full shareholder liability. Note that such liability isn't even meaningful. There is no guarantee the shareholder has any additional resources.
Unfortunately currency is an utility, like drinking water, natural gas or electricity. If you want to improve the quality of the utility you must either intervene or open the utility business to competition. Now, as we cannot think to have ten different water pipes entering our home we may not be able to create ten different banking systems competing each other either; hence, the solution is intervention; which is totally against the free market. Oligopoly or diversity? and how?
@edcugata You pretty much asserted your case. Did you even watch the video? No, you didn't. And you can certainly subject utilities to competition via the market for corporate control (currently neutered by poison pill legislation.) Of course, mainstreamers define competition as many firms competing in the same market but this is garbage. A market's nature and structure will determine the optimal number of firms in it, be it one or a hundred or a thousand. Currency is certainly not -
@Moragauth - even remotely similar to a utility. Intervention by a monopoly into the economy is a curious notion, anyway. I mean Molyneux went to great pains to explain why banks have been conslidated. I am under the impression you don't understand currency.
Get back to school, you say. But don't you know how hard it is to get real, good information about economics in school or anywhere else? What institution is going to tell you the things that you talk bout in this video, about the banks, state, the police, fiat currency, savings, the relationships between them? I looked for years and couldn't find a source that could explain things as clearly as this video does.
Thank you so much for mentioning the tax benefit of debt financing vs equity financing. I always get dumb looks from people when I tell them the tax code is set up to funnel money into the banking system. (Which banks then use to buy short term treasuries funding government debt.)
Thank you for the great video. This is an excellent video on the facts driving the financial crises. I see the source of the Bank of England but are there not more sources (resources or references) for the facts in the video? Are the resources or references at the Freedomain Radio website?
Thank you, professor Stefan~! This information sheds light on why my 3G grandfather is NOT known as the wealthiest man of the early 19th century in america; that title went to John Jacob Astor who lobbied the government to change laws and regulations depriving great grandfather the competitive advantage as a visionary as well as a respected merchant/trader(furs) in the North-West Indian Territory.
So much more of your ideological utopianism, lies amd praise of the market as the absolute demonization of black sheeps like the bankers and the state etc etc etc... typical radical idealouge.
@Moragauth Who is a "typical statist ideologue"? Not I, nor anyone I ever use as a reference, unless it's to show what's wrong with government, and that is the interference from private tyrannies. It's quite simple. Democracy, socialism, anarchism, of the left variety anyway, are opposed to this in pretty much all it's forms, as all the writings make clear. You know, pretty much the opposite of "anarcho-capitalism" which I believe would probably be vastly worse than anything Stalin accomplished
@kropotkinbeard1 What are "private tyrannies"? What is the government but the enabler of tyranny and the oldest monopoly in history? Democracy is mob tyranny and is worthless as a concept to me. I don't give two fucks about socialism, if you want to try it go ahead, just don't pretend you've the right to force it upon others. You're quite right that democracy and anarcho-capitalism are opposites, because democracy is just another glorified form of mob rule anyway.
@Moragauth What do you mean "What are private tyrannies"? Google it. One simple and obvious example is a corporation. Power goes from top down. No one working there has any input into what is done, how it's done, what's done with it, or much of anything else. There are many other examples. And, yes, governments which are not made up of, by, and for the people are bad. Hence, they're not socialist or democratic, as both of these theories and systems require. USSR was the opposite of socialist
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm aware of how the term is used. Unless one takes large corporate entities as private arms of the state in some cases where they are very active beneficiaries of its laws, regulations and wealth transfers, it is moonshine. If one does do so then they are merely referring to another arm of the state, "private" or otherwise. As for hierarchy and whether contracted service providers should have any say over how the assets of those with whom they contract are used, it is -
@Moragauth - certainly not a matter of right to have a "say" in it. As a matter of efficiency it might be favoured by some larger firms. Yet precious few libertarians defend corporations in their present state, as opposed to socialists who waffle on about how they've hijacked an entity that has existed and oppressed for thousands of years and merely opportunistically co-opted as much of wealth production as it can. If you want a say, form a mutual/coop firm...
@Moragauth Oh God, here we go with the "tyranny of the mob" nonsense. That being said, it's still better than tyranny of the minority. Fortunately, in the real world where I live, the mob i.e.citizens of free people living within a free society, who are free to do whatever they deem necessary to make things better only have this option because of democracy. Again, you are just another in a LONG line of folks who haven't the foggiest idea of how democracy works in the real world.
@kropotkinbeard1 Free to do whatever they want... unless 50% +1 disapprove of it and vote to ensure they cannot. I have a pretty good idea of how democracy works in the "real" world, and I'd rather have none of it. It is fine in voluntary contexts where everyone is agreed to submit to it but that has absolutely fuck-all to do with it as a system of state governance.
@Moragauth Okay, let's dumb this down. Let's say that 50% voted for X, and 50% voted for Y. You are the last one to cast your vote. Well, I'll assume you are going to forfeit your vote, yes? I mean, after all, if you vote for either X or Y, then you have become part of the "mob rule", yes. So, it's safe to assume from step one that voting for you isn't even an option, yes. Secondly, given that you don't plan to vote in the system in which you currently live, how do you plan to change things?Cry?
@kropotkinbeard1 You're not even making sense. We're discussing mob rule, you're saying democracy is forced upon me and the only way to change things. It isn't the only way but it is forced upon me, yes. What is your fucking point?
@Moragauth "Mob rule" is a nonsense term and concept which simply has little to do with the real world. It makes for a good diversion from reality though by folks who wish for less freedom i.e.Libertarians, etc...though they do this quite unwittingly. And the mistakes are just SO basic and obvious. Anyway, you OWE the "mob" for having decided long ago to allow you the opportunity to make silly statements, try and change things, ideas, etc...No democracy, you would have none of these rights.
@kropotkinbeard1 But democracy literally means that 50%+1 can tell me how to dispose of my body or my resources simply because they're the majority. The term certainly has manifested as mob rule in the real world so I am not sure why you even deny this and it is most definitely not nonsense. And no, I don't "owe" the mob anything, particularly not for unsolicited "goods" (or bads in some cases) or "rights" that are often not even rights but expressions of wishes.
@Moragauth Also, why on earth would anyone think of, or even refer to, 51% as a "mob"? The notion of "mob" is itself concocted by elitists who simply believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else (See Plato and Socrates). They desired a society where philosopher kings would rule. These are basically the ideas you're unwittingly supporting. Aristotle sort of realized later than even with all the shortcomings of demo. that the probability of improvement increases, as has happened.
@Moragauth Okay, since you've mentioned "rights" now, I will say my piece on this notion. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "natural right" in the real world. Rights are created BY people. They come from nowhere else. And this is a good thing, too. This means that they notion is flexible and not stagnant. Took MANY years to convince slave owners that other people had rights because they considered slavery natural. But, thanks, again, to democratic thinking, these were created, and still are.
@kropotkinbeard1 What mistakes is Moragauth making when we is comparing Decmoratic Republicanism with "mob rule", because you dont mention those basic and obvious mistakes, and what exactly has the mob do in order that we have the right to say things?, you are not making any sense
@megatherium100 Firstly, it's the mistake which is usually made. And it's a trivial mistake. The people make up the system. The people decide the hows, whys, and whats of the system. That it has been decided that allowing people to freely participate, after all, if you can't participate you are not free. Ask anyone who has left a country in which they've not been allowed to vote. And if the population decide that it should be one man, one vote, which, unfortunately it isn't, then that's it.
@kropotkinbeard1 "The people decide the hows, whys, and whats of the system. " No, they do not. The framework for translating the "will of the people" into systemic changes is --imposed--.
@iamacyborg If it's a democracy then they do by definition. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. And, if they don't, the solution is by no means to throw out democracy, but rather make sure it's actually working. This is the primary problem with the U.S. today i.e.a moving away from any meaningful democracy and toward unaccountable private tyrannies where no one has a voice. Perhaps you prefer centralized unaccountable tyrannies. I don't, nor does any democratically-minded person.
@iamacyborg I've already offered this to another less than shining example of intellect here, but I'll give it to you, too. I will assume that you don't vote, yes? I sure hope not. I mean, you wouldn't want your one vote to tip the balance thereby siding you with the "mob rule". See any problem here? If not, let me know. There are only several hundred thousand such example to demonstrate the triviality of your position, but I'm game. Glad to offer you as many as necessary to cure you if possible
@megatherium100 The notion that everyone is simply going to be able to do what they want is not even a serious option, so that can be shelved from step one. Besides, it's absurd and would diminish freedom quite rapidly for obvious reasons. There are only a thousand scenarios you can find all over the place giving examples of the absurdity of the notion. So, what you paranoid folks refer to as "mob rule", those of us who are democratically minded refer to as being compromising & consenting adults
@megatherium100 Also, "mob rule" means that the people which make up the society decide. As I've repeatedly said, sometimes what you would like will be in the ascendancy and sometimes not. That's called living in the real world. And, this goes for most anything I can imagine, even slavery. If the majority freely decided to reinstate slavery, although I would be against it, and would fight against it, that's what it would be. Of course this is an extreme and absurd example because it was....
@megatherium100 ...precisely the democratically minded folks who put an end to slavery, who fought for civil rights, who fight for the environment, and who fight for most of the moral things which have led to progressive change. Having a free society in which one is allowed to participate, or not, fight for what the believe in without the threat by a minority of criminal types, such as those the U.S. often supports IS freedom. Very basic and very simple. I'm not making sense to you because
@kropotkinbeard1 So having a say in things and then having it overridden when the other 51% (or even less in some 'democracies') win a majority and their own preferred solution foisted upon you is "freedom"?
@Moragauth kropotkinbeard1 is off the deep end. When it suits him, government is the source of all good. When shown the evil it commits, he denies any part of it.
I'm not a mental health expert, but schizophrenia comes to mind.
@jeffiek Yeah, you keep making this claim, and yet provide no evidence. "And I saw a Big Foot and Elvis fly by my apartment this morning!" Well, does this make it true? Is not evidence something someone might think of asking for in your world? Creationist, huh? Home-schooled drop out? What? I've asked for evidence in virtually every response thus far, and you just persist on making claims pulled from your butt. Please just present something and quit the whining. Schzio. would come to your mind.
@jeffiek Also, I've said nothing about the government being the source of all good or all evil. Attempting to make this an either "all good" or "all evil" shows a totalitarian mind at work. A black and white "thinker". It must either be 100% this, or 100% that. I am a mental health expert, well, at least somewhat, as I have a MA in clinical psy. and a different term comes to mind for those who see the world in all black or white. You figure out which one.
@kropotkinbeard1 "I've said nothing about the government being the source of all good"
Really? YOUR WORDS:
"e.g. the computer you're using now, the Internet you're using now, telecommunications, avionics, and on and on...ALL of it came from the state system and the taxes which you were "compelled" to pay, "
@jeffiek Uhhh....Yes. Not a word. Simply because the socialist aspects of the U.S. system developed all of the things I've mentioned, which they did, and which is uncontroversial, this doesn't mean that I think they're the source of ALL good, as I stated. These aspects could be considered good and I'm sure you think so given you're using them now. Arguments could be made though that the people weren't in on the decision making (anti-democratic), and would have perhaps wanted something else.
@jeffiek Sorry, Dude, but your tendency to make things all or none would be better appreciated on a right wing blog somewhere, or right wing drool talk radio. Perhaps some fundamentalist cult where you can dance around with a snake around your neck, freely of course, speaking in tongues, drooling, babbling about "theft", being "compelled", and all the rest of the crap. The world is gray. Get used to it. Democracy recognizes this and it's built into the theory.
@Moragauth Yes. How about a petty example. Firstly, I'll assume that you don't vote, and therefore have sacrificed your option of participation, as democracy allows you. So, probably you shouldn't really have much to say, and should therefore just sit back and allow others to decide for you. Secondly, if you are going to try and have some say so in the system, then you will vote. So, if there is a vote at hand, and at present all votes are in, and it's a 50/50 tie, and your vote will....
@Moragauth (con't)...and your vote will tip the balance, I will assume that you will opt out and not vote at all. Is that correct. And if the vote was between X and Y, you preferring Y, you would simply not vote in order to get it, yes? Or perhaps you could give your vote to someone who had just arrived in the country, and who may wish to vote for X. No problem for you? My hunch is that you'd have little or no problem being that one vote which made a difference for your particular interest, yes?
@megatherium100 This was dealt with in one of the many videos I've offered, and done so simply, not that this should have even been necessary. I've already said why they referred to themselves as socialist about a dozen times now as well, ad how absurd the entire notion is. I even wrote it in big, easy to read, letters. And yet you are still fighting it. Well, indoctrination is precisely why. This is why I don't blame you. If you want references on propaganda, especially US, just ask.
@Moragauth And when you even have Libertarian cheerleaders admitting that heir worldviews had been wrong all along, say Alan Greenspan (of course this will just go to show he wasn't 'really' a Libertarian), gang member of the Ayn Rand droolfest, then I think it's probably about time to look for another theory. But then again, I really don't expect that this conversation is going to go anywhere. I used to deprogram cult members, and Libs are often a close approximation to Scientologists.
@kropotkinbeard1 Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest statists in the world, and his admissions are as worth as much as low quality toilet paper to me. His ideology wasn't even operative so one wonders what he was on about. Your sort are pathetic when confronted with libertarians and you are reduced to frothing at the mouth labelling of them as "cultists" and the like. It is typical. Coupled with the definition of anarchism as "whatever makes me feel good". Kindly, grow up.
@Moragauth As I figured...Ayn Rand's cohort, and one of her staunchest admirers, and great proponent of pushing her so-called "philosophy", wasn't really a Randian. And where do you think Lib would eventually lead, were it even a remotely serious theory? It would lead to the same place, but worse. Even Greenspan, during his schooling was still trying to learn these basics. And that such an anti-democratic person could manage to get so high into the semi-democratic system shows a failure of educ.
@kropotkinbeard1 He wasn't, no, since he didn't really adopt anything remotely close to her ideology in practice. I would think a libertarian would abolish the Fed, not chair it. Greenspan concocted an excuse for the Fed's inability to prevent bubbles in that they could not even be identified in practice, which is rubbish. His writings and his actions were contradictory.
@Moragauth Every man for himself is as Randian as one can get. It's nothing but Survival of the shittest. He was intelligent enough to know that given that there was system already in place when he cam into the game, that working from within the system was probably the best way to make real change. This goes for everyone who follows Rand's depraved and juvenile philosophy. Regarding what you think a lib would do with the fed, yes, it seems that way, huh. However, were a society really
From your posts its clear you ascribe to the axiom "might makes right"..."My group is bigger than yours so I get to dominate you."
Its no wonder purveyors of this kind of ancient barbarism hide behind terms like "democracy" and "socialism"...they wouldn't be taken seriously if they didn't.
And you'd have us believe you're for PROGRESS? Please...
"Me bigger, stronger than you...you do what me say or me club you!"
@ashane77 No, the axiom "might makes right" has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Nothing. And your "mob rule" nonsense is just that, nonsense. But of you have a single example of where I think might makes right, please show it. I've been arguing for democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with "might" anything. This is a red herring and nonsense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of democracy. And of course I'm for progress. Things have ONLY progressed due to democracy.
@kropotkinbeard1 Your ideology had its chance...100's of MILLIONS murdered by democracies and govts. proved how well it worked. It takes a religious-like dedication to statism to overlook this inconvenient FACT. And, really, that's all statism is: A RELIGION. Govt=God Politicians/Bureaucrats=Priests Citizens=Congregation Those disobeying legal prohibitions=Sinners Written laws/constitutions=Bible Man=Inherently Evil (needs "god/govt" to straighten him out) Fuck you and your religion...
@ashane77 It did? Where? 100's of millions (nonsense, but fine)? Where? Don't know (haha) what you're referring to. But I WILL assume that it's NOT the USSR. They were the opposite of democracy. It takes a truck stop wall and getting kicked out of home-schooling NOT to know that. Nothing else you've babbled has anything to do with anything I've said. And what "religion"? The religion of freedom? Fine. I'll accept that. No, when the veins on your head go back down, go to the library.
@ashane77 If I wsihed to hear Rush or Glenn Beck I'd listen to right-wing anti-democratic radio. Or if I wished to read or hear really right wing depravity on a more intellectual level, but not much, I'd read Hoppes.
@kropotkinbeard1 It's pretty obvious that democracy is your god. Why should we be convinced that taking away so many rights and decision making from people is a good idea, but then give them power to vote for the one with the biggest mouth and most well financed campaign to make all our decisions for us?
@nurbSoldier Oh, really? My God? Haha...No, it's nothing of the sort. It's simply the most logical, moral, and natural system yet devised. And there's still a LONG way to go in order to make it flourish even more. Most of the problems around the world right now, and throughout history for that matter, have been from a lack of democracy. A ten second look at history shows this clearly. Taking away what rights? Democracy has been what has led to virtually ever right which exists. Where on earth...
@kropotkinbeard1 "Most of the problems around the world right now, and throughout history for that matter, have been from a lack of democracy." funny how world wars 1 and 2 did not occur until there were plenty of democracies. Also take a look at how so many governments around the world are spending themselves into absurd debts. That did not happen with kings.
Also, kings taxed us less and interfered with our lives less than governments under democracies.
@nurbSoldier Yeah, and we can tell how many kingdoms still exist and how much better things were then. Haha..Go live under a king then. And those countries which are somewhat socialist don't complain about putting funds into the system i.e. from where they got it in the first place, in order to make society better. It's worked all over the place. And it hasn't worked in the anti-Democratic countries.
@nurbSoldier ...did you folks get the notion that democracy takes away rights? It doesn't in the real world. It may in the fantasy world of "mob rule", but it doesn't in the real world i.e.the one I'm interested in. If someone is making decisions for you then it's not democracy. The people voted for X to represent their interests. If you didn't vote, you have nothing to complain about. Now, Obama has NOT carried though on many things he would have liked to do, and as his supporters expected,
@kropotkinbeard1 "did you folks get the notion that democracy takes away rights? It doesn't in the real world. It may in the fantasy world of "mob rule"
I guess we are just crazy for pointing out that democracy was the means Socrates was voted to be executed, various dictators around the world go into office, gay marriage was voted to be banned in California, world wars supported, behind alcohol and marijuana prohibition, Hamas getting into office, voted for creationism, etc.
@nurbSoldier ..but this, again, if from a LACK of democracy being implemented and instead interfered with by private tyrannies, money, and power i.e.the opposite of democracy. So, I' ll ask you. No one here has answered yet. It's VERY simple. If there is a vote to ban all guns, and the vote is 50-50, and your one vote can tip the balance, thereby making you the "mob ruler", would you do it? As for me, if I voted against the guns, which I would have, and you made the deciding vote, and won, then
@kropotkinbeard1 "but this, again, if from a LACK of democracy being implemented and instead interfered with by private tyrannies, money, and power i.e.the opposite of democracy."
lack of democracy? What evidence do you claim to prove this? What evidence shows that MORE democracy makes things better?
private tyrannies can only be that way with the power of government. Because Walmart can't possibly legally invade your house. But the swat team can.
@nurbSoldier ...I wouldn't whine about it on a blog. I'd get off my butt, go out and try to persuade people that folks simply have no business with guns, talk about how they actually take away peoples freedom, etc...so that the next time there's a vote my side may win. I can handle the loss. I will lose some and I will wing some. This is the real world, and the world which adults usually live in. You should try. You guys sound like a of spoiled rich kids who spent too much time at Toys R' Us.
@kropotkinbeard1 "If I wsihed to hear Rush or Glenn Beck I'd listen to right-wing anti-democratic radio. Or if I wished to read or hear really right wing depravity on a more intellectual level, but not much, I'd read Hoppes."
when all someone has to offer is argument ad-hominem and outright insults, it usually means that person does not have much in the way of evidence or logic.
Rush, Beck, blah, blah, blah...you can't even break out of the phony "Right" VS "Left" model, can you? BTW, these "right-wingers" believe in democracy just as much as you do...they've never disputed govt. has the power to kill and steal. You're on the SAME side as them.
100's of MILLIONS dead...that, my misguided barbarian friend, is what YOUR might-makes-right RELIGION produced...
@ashane77 Uhh...Sure I can. It's quite easy as I'm not either. That being said, it's hardly a secret that many supposedly "libertarian" ideas are precisely right wing. In fact, those approaching anarcho-capitalism would be considered extremely far right, and far worse than even the Republitards which drool all over everything now. MUCH worse. I'm not on the same side as them in any way, shape, or form. 100 of millions killed by who? "Might makes right" has nothing to do with anything I've said.
Libertarians are 'rightwingers', blah, blah,blah...you're not saying anything worth a shit here...you've simply placed people you label "libertarians" into a neat little political box that you think 'proves' they're 'bad'. Its pathetic that you believe people can only fit into 2 little boxes ("Left" VS "Right")...that you can't conceive of reality outside of politics.
Your religion (statism/democracy) has killed 100's of MILLIONS--fact.
@ashane77 Yes, in many ways they are. I'm saying LOTS worth more than shit. You simply don't understand the words and concepts due to your indoctrination. You're an amusing plaything. That's about it. And I didn't say that ALL anyone was bad. Nor do I think everything is in some exclusively left/right dichotomy, though there are tendencies. Already dealt with this about 3-4 times now via videos which you have either not watched, perhaps due to your indoctrination, or not understood.
@ashane77 Perhaps. But this is something which needs to be demonstrated, not divined from your horoscope and throwing chicken bones or wherever you get your information from. Also, I've seen little evidence anywhere here than many of you have the foggiest what a "left-winger" is. Probably a good idea to know what it is before trying to talk about it. Otherwise you'll end up says dumbass things like 'The USSR was an example of democracy', or something worse. Read a book.
@ashane77 My non-existent religion, democracy, has never killed a single person. In fact, it's save millions. Please promise me you'll read at least one book before your 90th birthday. Democracy has never killed a soul. A few may have died fighting against democracy, and god knows that MANY have died fighting for democracy, but those who died as they preferred the anti-democratic forces, who cares? The worlds better of without such deviants.
@ashane77 When you assert the term "again", this is factually inaccurate. Or at least you have demonstrated nothing of the sort yet. Always a first time though. Keep trying. Of course I was right that democracy didn't kill anyone. And, no, that which killed people, if you are referring to the USSR or whoever, did so precisely by moving away from democracy. Has nothing to do with "might makes right". This is both a red herring and a straw man. Keep trying though.
@ashane77 Uhh...Yes, I did. Democracy AND developments created by the pooling of money which went into R&D, etc...This isn't an issue. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you make a charge with providing evidence. I've already provided a small sample (Internet, computers, avionic, telecommunications, etc...). Your ignorance is spectacular. Where do you think these things came from? "Self made men" and "rugged individualists". Haha..Not a single one. This even goes for Edison. Hahaha
Again, you're no different than a religious Christian nut who claims god is the only reason we have what we do. Instead of the Christian god, you use "democracy" as a catch-all...
No, electricity doesn't exist because of the work of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE like Edison, no sir! It exist through the grace of democracy! Let's get down on our knees and thank democracy for blessing us!
@ashane77 Your opening statement has no supporting evidence, so there's nothing to comment on. Provide evidence to support your claims, or just keep them to yourself and quit wasting space on the state developed Internet and computer you're using. Regarding Edison, you are wrong. Edison did precisely nothing by himself. He had 20+ people working with him on this at the time. Again, VERY rarely does ANYONE create these things on their own. ALso, his was built off the work of earlier people. Sorry
@ashane77 Horatio Alger doesn't exist, ash. And NONE of the items I mentioned were created by the non-existent "rugged individualist" which you seem to believe exist everywhere. And, yes, you should most definitely get down on your knees and than democracy. That, or get the hell out of any and all democratic countries and see how you like them. Usually totalitarian-minded people as yourself are attracted to such systems anyway, though often unwittingly. You have provided no evidence for the ill
Just the other day, my car broke down and I had to get it towed...
Silly me, I thought it was towed by a man using a tow-truck, working for a tow-truck company (all of which I paid w/money I made from MY job) when, in fact, it was towed by democracy!
There are tomatoes that grow in my yard that somehow end up on my plate...boy am I glad democracy planted, cared-for, and harvested them for me!
Bless Holy Democracy...thank Democracy for creating the world and everything in it!
@ashane77 Well, yes, if you put your money into a pot whereby you were able to use it when it became necessary, it was towed precisely because of democracy. You don't out into the pot, you don't get towed, unless the people decide to tow even those who don't contribute. But the poorer folks usually do. The rich would be more likely to try and get out of it somehow. Your growing tomatoes has nothing to do with democracy. As far as that goes, there is MUCH property ownership in socialism.
@ashane77 Where on earth would have come up with the absurd notion that democracy, or even socialism, would have anything to say about your garden? You really don't have a clue as to anything about democracy, do you? Why are you here, by the way? And your babble at the end is obnoxious drool. That being said, yes, to a great extent, you DO owe democracy MUCH more than it owes you. That you are oblivious to this simply demonstrates your inability to appreciate your elders. Frat boy!
You say you're "anti-gun"...ahhh...how do you think the 'laws' passed through the 'democratic' process are ENFORCED? With GUNS you IDIOT! So, you're NOT anti-gun...you're anti-people-who-disagree-with-you ("Might Makes Right").
And you said "people determine reality"...which means you think reality is subjective...which means you really ARE insane...wait, maybe not...
"...it was towed precisely because of democracy." LMFAO!!!!
@ashane77 Yes, I am anti-gun, and force has nothing to do with anything. I'm not anti-people who disagree with me either. People who are pro-gun have their opinion, and I have mine. We disagree on this point. This is one point. So what? And right now guns are legal, and I'd prefer if they weren't. Again, so what? This is what I have to deal with as a democratically-minded free adult. I will continue to try and persuade folks that guns actually deprived freedom, and can do so freely.
@ashane77 I'm anti-gun and always have been. I say you focus on what you believe yourself to be as you've gotten what you believe me to be incorrect in just about every assertion you've made. Regarding people determining reality, this was in reference to the "reality" of the laws which are passed as you mentioned. Has nothing to do with objective or subjective anything. You did have one correct comment though "wait, maybe not..." One point for you. Regarding the towing, yes, that's correct.
@kropotkinbeard1 If you are anti gun then you live in a dream world. A black market exists for anything that is banned, and often for things that are taxed highly as well. Perhaps you like it when criminals rob you all the time, most people don't. When you ban guns, fighting, knives, the criminals don't care. Many criminals will continue doing what they do until they get caught regardless of the punishments.
@RaWBLooD Guns exist in the real world. I am anti- those guns. Has nothing to do with a "dream world". I'm aware that a black market exists for anything that's band. That's whatever "It" is is much harder to get, and therefore less of a chance for "it" to do damage. I'd MUCH rather take a chance with a criminal trying to rob me with a knife than a gun, so, yeah, I'm anti-gun. But I live in Japan now so I needn't worry about being robbed or shot. WOmen can walk around anywhere at 2 a.m. without
@kropotkinbeard1 I don't think you understand what a black market entails. When you ban guns you just take guns out of the hands of people that accept the laws. You don't have any lower chance of the criminal having a gun. If you think all black markets are more expensive then you don't understand the facts and a discussion between us would require we both have the facts at least.
@RaWBLooD Yes, I do. And while I'm sure your theory follows some sort of logic, it simply has little to do with the real world. I live in Japan. Almost no one has gun, nor do they want them, nor would they even if given the choice. Why? That would would even need to ask "Why?" already demonstrates a mental disorder in my opinion. I can probably prove this, too. That aside, there may very well be a black market for guns here, and probably is within the Yakuza world....(1)
@RaWBLooD However, the number of folks killed with them is almost nil, and the ones who are are usually other criminals, too. So, yes, were the people mental ill enough to desire to have guns floating around, then, yes, there might be a black market. However, most people on the planet, I'd estimate around 98%, would prefer for ALL guns of every type to be gotten rid of. Well, what's in the way? Demonstrates a lack of democracy. The facts are quite simple. Ban guns ASAP and reduce deaths by 98%.
@RaWBLooD ..without worrying about being shot by some gun wielding dumbass who is drunk and angry because his team lost the World Series, or he is even more delusional and believes the "commie socialist democrats" are out to take his "freedoms", or whatever. Also, it's probably a good idea to get at what is behind why there is so much crime rather than just ignoring it and passing out guns as a solution. This is an admission failed society. So, life in prison or McDonald's if caught with a gun.
@kropotkinbeard1 your caricatures of things that would rarely occur in reality are childish and retarded. it's ironic that you mention an imaginary "gun-wielding dumbass" who is okay with shooting someone because his sports team lost, then mention delusion after that, when clearly from your unrealistic bullshit scenarios you crop up you're the one who's delusional. sadly it takes fools of your caliber experiencing personal tragedy to understand the simple & obvious error of your ways.
@regresseur Boring. Says nothing. Not an argument. Calling a scenario "bullshit" means nothing. You must demonstrate how it's bullshit. I mean, just so you know the difference between making a claim and proving something. And given that there are usually between 15-20,000 gun deaths a year, well, the probability that some, if not most, are precisely for such dumbass reasons is high. I've been anti-gun for years precisely because of knowing people killed by such dumbasses. Argument or just gas?
@kropotkinbeard1 "Also, it's probably a good idea to get at what is behind why there is so much crime"
1. child abuse, and in the case of the actual welfare state(s), systemic boredom combined with zero aspirations, as well, which per se are the end result of the subsidization of these persons lives (stagnation)
2. multi-racial society, which japan, "funny enough," is not
@regresseur 1)Child abuse is quite likely. Unfortunately, were there a MUCH bigger and more advanced welfare state such things would most likely disappear. Most abuse comes from a lack of a civil welfare system, as ALL evidence demonstrates. And your "systemic boredom" and "zero aspirations" are projections on your part. There is exactly NO correlation between a progressive welfare system and either of these things, first grade propaganda aside. 2)So, you're a racist? Most shootings are racial?
@kropotkinbeard1 The fact that you support prison the way it is right now is insane.
If you have facts of most people that have guns waving them around when drunk or after a sports games then please post the facts. Fact is that you aren't backing up your claims but you require others to do it. There really is nothing to discuss with you when you are a hypocrite. have a good day.
@RaWBLooD I haven't said a word, nor even inferred that I thought the prison system was good the way it is now. I don't at all. Where did you get this idea? The reason it's the way it is now is again, from a lack of democracy. The facts are that tens of thousands of folks die by guns every year in the U.S., and it's FAR more than most all the wars taking place combined in any given year. And I don't expect anyone to back up my claims. I can do fine on my own. See something incorrect?
@ashane77 Or were you "forced" or "compelled" against your wishes to pay into a pit so that your car might be able to be towed if necessary? This is a perfect example of collectivism in action. Nothing but. You're funny.
@ashane77 "Entrepreneurial, creative, and risk-taking INDIVIDUALS have." Hahahaha...Not a SINGLE one. Sorry, Dude, but you have been duped by the Horatio Alger fairy tale. True I have been speaking primarily of the more dynamic sectors like ALL electronics, Internet, avionics, telecommunications, etc...There have been a few things invented outside tax money, but NONE of the things I've mentioned were created anywhere but via "theft" (tax dollars) Please read at least ONE book before you turn 60.
@ashane77 Yeah, majority vote is a good thing, too. No evidence to the contrary in the real world. There are fairy tale examples, like, if 51% decided to re-institute slavery, etc...but these are simply nonsense. Most all improvements and advances in humanitarianism e.g.women's rights, minority rights, etc...ALL of them, have come precisely from democratically-minded people. If you are unaware of such basics you really have no business being here. Perhaps a knitting blog somewhere?
@ashane77 You're sorry okay, but for all the wrong reasons. Majority vote is the only reason you or anyone else has been given the option of building a building, etc...No democracy, no choice. It's a simple as that. Perhaps were you living 200+ years ago and there was still land around which hadn't been spoken for, by others claiming the same property rights as you seem to believe people have, a myth, something like that might be vaguely possible. Whether or not a single vote can alter reality..
@ashane77 ...vote can alter reality isn't even remotely a serious question. Of course it can. And you should be thankful that you have the opportunity to alter reality. But, as you've already repeatedly demonstrated, reality doesn't seem to really be something you're interested in, so why bother. Yes, I agree with you. Don't vote. I'll be happy to take your vote for you. Regarding the 50.1% voting, of course, I agree 100%. And this is what democracy works towards. Perhaps you should look to see
@ashane77 ...see who is continually opposing such aims. Bottom line is that those who oppose democracy usually oppse freedom, and the entire history of progressive change bears this out. Sorry. And when are you going to respond to your being the deciding vote? Sort of stuck there, huh? Yeah, well, there are hundred of other such palces which will demonstrate your non-position to hit a wall. So, where did you say a good example was of a Libertarian society? I don't recall. Regarding "Democracy..
@ashane77 ...Democracy determining reality". Not at all. People determine reality. People determine democracy, and have done so for very specific reasons, primarily that of freedom, rights, etc...You really don't have a clue about democracy, do you? This is pathetic and sad. But, being the humanitarian I am, we can just right it off to your having been kicked out of home-school for not showing up to class.
@ashane77 Regarding "altering reality" uhhh....This isn't even a serious question. Of course it can. As a matter of fact, the example you just gave to criticize democracy would be an example. So, again, there is a vote coming up regarding guns. 50 people have voted to ban them (the rational people), and 50 voted to allow them. Your one vote will decide the difference. Well, if you vote for guns, then you ARE the "mob rule" supporter. If you don't vote, you have simply sacrificed your freedom to
@ashane77 ...to determine your future life with guns. Not wishing to be a part of the "mob", as you despise it so much, I'll assume that you won't vote at all, right? Then perhaps I'll vote in your place, and cast my vote toward the anti-gun rational camp, and you will just have to adjust, as I would had I lost. I wouldn't sit around whining about my self-perceived "rights" having been stolen like a spoiled child. If I lost I'd concede defeat, adjust to the loss, and try and change voters minds
@ashane77 Huh? I've been anti-gun since junior high school, and belonged to several anti-gun organizations, and still do. Are you on drugs, again? You think democratically-minded people like guns or something? I mean, there are no doubt some who do. But there is absolutely nothing in democracy which states that one should be pro-gun. Quite the opposite. Most everyone I know who is anti-gun are from the left. That being said, I might make exceptions in order to protect democracy from criminals.
@ashane77 I believe in democracy, which imposes nothing on anyone who is free. Free people in a free society decide what they want. This is democracy. If they decide not to have guns, no guns. It's that simple. If you don't like it, quite whining and try to change the law. Break the law and have a gun. You're free to shoot yourself with it too thanks to democracy. Also, your anti-democratic drool is the only thing resembling a religion here, and you keep projecting it onto me. Won't work. Sorry.
@ashane77 ...And the freedom which democracy entails in it allows this very thing. If you despise democracy so much I suggest going to live in a country which is even less democratic that the U.S. already is. North Korea has precisely no democracy. Go there. Somalia has none. Go there. Many places for you to go so as to exercise your perceived, yet delusional, freedom. If you have any freedoms at all, it's due to democratically-minded people fighting to get them for your unappreciative ass.
@ashane77 As for your last line, this has precisely nothing to do with democracy, contrary to popular, well, in some naive circles, fantasy. Ranks right up there with the nonsense about "compelling" "theft", and all the rest of it. Perhaps you should study a little about what democracy is before jumping onto and clinging to elementary school arguments as to it's evils. After all, democracy is the ONLY reason you are here right now able to speak at all. Nothing to do with "natural rights" either.
Maybe you define it differently, but if you do,well...then you're merely making up your own definition for the word.
And, no, sorry, but "democracy" has nothing to do w/me being here speaking my mind. Computers, the internet, the economy, and myself weren't created by majority vote.
Stick to peddling your particular version of "might-makes-right" to ignorant children...anarchists WILL call BULLSHIT on you EVERY time...
@ashane77 Yeah, and majority rule is a good thing. Much better than minority rule.
No, I'm defining it as democratic thinkers always have.
And, yes, democracy has everything to do with your being here, speaking your mind.
Regarding the Internet, etc...True, these weren't voted on by the public, and therefore democracy was again ignored in their development, but using the tax dollars which were garnered through the democracy, illegally, not in the sense that that they were taxes, but...
@ashane77 ...but in the sense that the taxes were used without any democratic input as to their use. All this demonstrates is that even when democracy isn't working properly that things can be developed. This is precisely what happen in the USSR. Not remotely democratic, but great advances in many areas. No connection at all that I'm aware of. Regarding "Might makes right", it has nothing to do with anything I've offered, other than to show that this prevails when democracy is ignored.
@ashane77 As for your last line, I simply must laugh. I AM an anarchist as all of my ideas here have demonstrated. What on earth are you talking about? Perhaps you know as little about what anarchism is as you do what democracy is. Here is a very short video which might assist you on your path to basic understanding. If you still don't get it after this, I'm not sure I can help you. Perhaps some books? youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0
Respond to this video... From your posts its clear you ascribe to the axiom "might makes right"..."My group is bigger than yours so I get to dominate you."
Its no wonder purveyors of this kind of ancient barbarism hide behind terms like "democracy" and "socialism"...they wouldn't be taken seriously if they didn't.
And you'd have us believe you're for PROGRESS? Please...
"Me bigger, stronger than you...you do what me say or me club you!"
@kropotkinbeard1 Nope, Rand doesn't advocate every man for himself or survival of the "shittest". Takes an astounding amount of ignorance of her work to argue this. Utterly astounding, since she advocated an Aristotelian form of egoism, i.e. virtuous egoism. Greenspan's actions were far more in line with those of opportunistic villains in her fiction. If you're going to call something juvenile, ensure you understand it. You don't.
@Moragauth Uhh..Actually, while it may not be 100%, yes, she does. Actually though I believe her to be worse. It takes an even greater ignorance of her work not to recognize it. By they way, have any thoughts on building the psychology of her favorite character on that of a serial killer/rapist? I mean, I can see a VERY clear connection between the two soico/psychoaths. Perhaps you can't? Anyone who claims "Altruism is evil" should be institutionalized immediately. Or her getting Medicare?
@Moragauth It's juvenile, and I understand it. Non-issue. I mean, unless you have some sort of evidence to provide to support it. She was perhaps the most vile creature to have walked the planet, and her juvenile theories, I won't refer to them as philosophies as this is an insult to the term, are just that. And, yes, they really DO appeal to simpletons. Sorry. This is old, and has been repeatedly demonstrated. Oh, and stay away from Aristotle, too, if you know nothing about his work.
@Moragauth ...really following the Lib. program, there would be little wrong with what he was doing. After all, it's just a private business. And if he's not compelling people, forcing them, or anything else to take his product, and they are doing it freely, well, it would actually be worse than it is now. Also it would have to be protected by mercenary armies, etc..."Freely" of course. Regarding contradictory practices, yes, that's the case with most every libertarian I know of. Defining trait.
@pipobun Unfortunately, I am not given enough space to do do justice to my take. Simply put, it was a horrendous system. It made great strides in many areas. It was never anything even resembling a democracy OR socialism, by definition. The U.S. recognized it's threat, the threat being that of it's example of not having to stay in one's designated 3rd world status, as determined by the first world, and developing independently.(This was expressed directly by the State Department).
I'm 18 and none of the things at the end stop me from holding my money. Fuck the system, get your own safe and forget these fuckers. Seriously, my parents talk about banking like it's a rite of passage. I am not putting my money there, and even still, I hate the fact that it is a fiat currency. It's not safe, it is privatized and controlled by a bunch of greedy bastards. The world is crazy, I just want to get it done my way.
TheJazzSwings 1 week ago
Governments DON'T create money. Governments allow banks to create the money-- governments borrow. Key words Fractional Reserve Banking=
4sovereignT 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google: Steve Keen. It was the failure of neo-classical economics (theoretical perspective) adopted by most economics that contributed the financial crisis. It is the private banking system that creates the money supply, not the government. All the 'how rosy it was 200 hundred years ago - free market wank - pro gold standard' simply misses the crucial issues that need to be understood for effective reform to take place.
BTinHD 2 months ago
Why is everyone arguing about guns? Completely off topic with respect to the content explained in the video....
SevenFootPelican 2 months ago
RawMouseMeat said: @kropotkinbeard1 "Ban guns ASAP and reduce deaths by 98%."
"We're done here." meatless
Good argument, meat! I should have said 99.83%. That would have been more appropriate. Gotta' gun, eh? Makes you feel "secure", eh? Sort of wish you play Steven Segal, eh? Polishing that barrel sort of feels good, eh? Rubbing it and contemplating your "freedom", eh? Just waiting for that socialist to come try and tax some of "your" money as taxes, eh? Protect yourself from "the gov.", eh?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@aurora7207
why do your purchase things with your hard earned dollars? Why do you voluntarily trade your money for an apple or a pencil? Because you value the product more than that sum of cash, and the produce values your money more. Both are winners. Competition does not imply a zero sum game.
DollFacePeter 4 months ago
Magic ;^)
silverfoils 4 months ago
lol @ 5:33
vlhorton 4 months ago
did you really need a whole page to say that property rights dont exist and democracy is good?
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 If you're speaking to me, no, I didn't at all. However, for the intellectually handicapped it's sometimes necessary to have to spell out things in lots of mice simple words. And even then it's becoming increasingly apparent that even these aren't to be understood. Poor things.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
who are you kidding. I read every word and its 80% ad hominim. Your whole argument rests on your assumption thaty property rights do not exist, but you do not try to prove this, you simply asserted it.
Thankfully I have had that argument explained to me properly in other places so I understand what your trying to say.
But its ok, thank you for being understanding of us intellectual midgets. Being in such lofty places you could have been a total douche about it.
Equity213 4 months ago
@Equity213 I don't make ad homenim attacks, so this can be dropped from the outset. ah attacks are usually used in order not to deal with the subject, by attacking the messenger. I don't do this. I deal with the subject quite thoroughly and then I call the messenger a "drooler" in response to something they've already said. Quite different. So, your whining is simply not going to go anywhere. Just try and deal with the subjects. This should be your concern. Regarding supposed "property rights",
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Equity213 ...I've already dealt with this as well. Firstly, there are no such things as "rights" of any kind in the real world i.e.where I'm from. Rights are created by men (See 'men' in dictionary). That being said, property rights are whatever people determine them to be. If the population decides that there are none, then there are none. If they decide there are X amount, then there are X amount. It'S hardly rocket science. Also, I haven't written a sentence saying that people shouldn't..
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Equity213 ..shouldn't own property, nor would any socialist/democratically-minded person. Regarding what you think it is I'm trying to say, then you should say exactly what "it" is that you've had "pointed out". Don't know what you're specifically referring to. And why wouldn't I be understanding of you intellectual midgets? I've kept coming here and repeating myself so that at some point one might understand something, even the basics. But this is just an expression of my evil altruism at work
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Equity213 Yes, I could have been a total douche about it quite easily, but that's not my style. I refrain from saying anything provocative or ad hominem unless it's in response. Non-issue. I've noticed a significant drop off here in whiners ever since I offered one of the hundreds of thought experiments which show the absurdity of the Lib. position on "mob rule". Where have they all gone? Perhaps they're finally putting their Rand books next to public toilets in case the toilet paper runs out.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Here, ash, how does this fit with your position?
youtube.com/watch?v=IHKgOvTGmUM&feature=uploademail
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
A few years ago, fresh out of school, I had the misfortune of being unemployed for an extended period (though happily no longer). My benefits were posted to me in gyro form, and I'd collect the cash from my local post office.
At some point, the job centre made it policy to ONLY work through a bank account. No more gyros, and no more cash. The UK government made it POLICY for the unemployed to have bank accounts. You can't escape the system even if you try.
OrgasmandTea 4 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm really glad that I took the time to listen to that presentation, I liked the way you simplified the history of the limited liability as it relates to banks.
InvestOffshore 4 months ago
So, which is it you promote? A free market, or rules on top of rules to reguate it? Because whichever one you choose, I feel that you are bound to lose.
aurora7207 4 months ago
@aurora7207 everyone gains in a freemarket. People engage in voluntary trade because they feel that they would be better off as a result of the transaction
DollFacePeter 4 months ago
@DollFacePeter Respectfully, I must disagree. The only way that everyone could feel like they were better off, is if at least one of the parties lacks true situational awareness. There is no such thing as a true equal exchange. Both may feel that they benefitted, but this is due to lack of information. You say everyone gains in a freemarket? Does every team in football win the superbowl? Competition means winners, and losers. And better (less empathic) competitors, just create more losers.
aurora7207 4 months ago
@aurora7207 "Both may feel that they benefitted, but this is due to lack of information. "
This is patently false.
"everyone gains" expresses opportunity and equality. It does not express outcome.
Football is a zero-sum game. 1 wins - 1 loses. BOTH take home a paycheck. The fans enjoy the game, the vendors make money, the advertisers, the .....
Re: economic competition creating losers. This is a GOOD thing. They were wasting resources. They are now free to learn and try something else.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@aurora7207 respectfully, you are wrong. value is entirely subjective, and both sides of a free market transaction profit by definition. lets say i am a talented artist and you are a talented farmer. i have lots of great paintings that i cannot eat, and you have way more food than you need, but bare walls. i am happy to trade a painting to you for some of your food. who loses in this deal? neither side loses, we both win.
mouser98k 4 months ago
It upsets me that you keep focusing on the minute details of the monetary system, neglecting to realize that the reason for such complex rules is the inherent unfairness of the system.
aurora7207 4 months ago
I seriously doubt that the shareholders would be liable for losses. The contract would allow for limited liability. It is perfectly conceivable that I might enter a contract with someone else who wants a clause that in case of a default etc. he will be liable for such and such amount.
rumco 4 months ago
Noam Chomsky on alternatives to state capitalism
youtube.com/watch?v=3gUgfyVt3mE&feature=related
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Thanks, you have summed it up well and I agree with you.
MrSpiker357 4 months ago
Thank you Stefan. Any history is necessarily selective, so I hope that you will supplement this insightful overview with an analysis of the rise of central banking. You mention inflation and fiat money toward the end, but that only underscores the need for the primary source of those--namely, central banks.
noteagod 4 months ago
A great start to shielding ourselves from so much unproductive legislation would be to repeal the 17th amendment in order to take power from the Federal types to get some sort of reasonable competition going again. When the Federals lay blanket laws over us all it stifles what small ability the people have to vote with their feet.
lexidart 4 months ago
THIS is what SHOULD be taught in schools but isn't
MoneyIsSilver 4 months ago
@stebot I think you went overboard on this one. I have no dispute with what you said, rather with how you portray it.
For example. Shareholder liability was also government enforced, yet by ommission you make it appear to be a free market choice.
Clearly this is false. One could easily re-define the term "share" as "loan". A loan to the bank, or other firm, that is not callable, is transferable, and pays interest (dividends) at will. I have never seen a claim that a loan carries liability.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@stefbot People, shareholders, managers, owners, and depositors wish to avoid risk. In a free market they will come to some form of mutually acceptable arrangement.
I doubt very much it will involve full shareholder liability. Note that such liability isn't even meaningful. There is no guarantee the shareholder has any additional resources.
jeffiek 4 months ago
Unfortunately currency is an utility, like drinking water, natural gas or electricity. If you want to improve the quality of the utility you must either intervene or open the utility business to competition. Now, as we cannot think to have ten different water pipes entering our home we may not be able to create ten different banking systems competing each other either; hence, the solution is intervention; which is totally against the free market. Oligopoly or diversity? and how?
edcugata 4 months ago
@edcugata You pretty much asserted your case. Did you even watch the video? No, you didn't. And you can certainly subject utilities to competition via the market for corporate control (currently neutered by poison pill legislation.) Of course, mainstreamers define competition as many firms competing in the same market but this is garbage. A market's nature and structure will determine the optimal number of firms in it, be it one or a hundred or a thousand. Currency is certainly not -
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth - even remotely similar to a utility. Intervention by a monopoly into the economy is a curious notion, anyway. I mean Molyneux went to great pains to explain why banks have been conslidated. I am under the impression you don't understand currency.
Moragauth 4 months ago
Stef! First, thank you!
Get back to school, you say. But don't you know how hard it is to get real, good information about economics in school or anywhere else? What institution is going to tell you the things that you talk bout in this video, about the banks, state, the police, fiat currency, savings, the relationships between them? I looked for years and couldn't find a source that could explain things as clearly as this video does.
Zerafinel 4 months ago
Thank you so much for mentioning the tax benefit of debt financing vs equity financing. I always get dumb looks from people when I tell them the tax code is set up to funnel money into the banking system. (Which banks then use to buy short term treasuries funding government debt.)
Steve83B 4 months ago
Thank you for the great video. This is an excellent video on the facts driving the financial crises. I see the source of the Bank of England but are there not more sources (resources or references) for the facts in the video? Are the resources or references at the Freedomain Radio website?
BlueGeneXP 4 months ago
Thank you, professor Stefan~! This information sheds light on why my 3G grandfather is NOT known as the wealthiest man of the early 19th century in america; that title went to John Jacob Astor who lobbied the government to change laws and regulations depriving great grandfather the competitive advantage as a visionary as well as a respected merchant/trader(furs) in the North-West Indian Territory.
carefulcarpenter 4 months ago
So much more of your ideological utopianism, lies amd praise of the market as the absolute demonization of black sheeps like the bankers and the state etc etc etc... typical radical idealouge.
Eopyk 4 months ago
@Eopyk Typical radical statist ideOLOGUE. :P
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Who is a "typical statist ideologue"? Not I, nor anyone I ever use as a reference, unless it's to show what's wrong with government, and that is the interference from private tyrannies. It's quite simple. Democracy, socialism, anarchism, of the left variety anyway, are opposed to this in pretty much all it's forms, as all the writings make clear. You know, pretty much the opposite of "anarcho-capitalism" which I believe would probably be vastly worse than anything Stalin accomplished
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 What are "private tyrannies"? What is the government but the enabler of tyranny and the oldest monopoly in history? Democracy is mob tyranny and is worthless as a concept to me. I don't give two fucks about socialism, if you want to try it go ahead, just don't pretend you've the right to force it upon others. You're quite right that democracy and anarcho-capitalism are opposites, because democracy is just another glorified form of mob rule anyway.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth What do you mean "What are private tyrannies"? Google it. One simple and obvious example is a corporation. Power goes from top down. No one working there has any input into what is done, how it's done, what's done with it, or much of anything else. There are many other examples. And, yes, governments which are not made up of, by, and for the people are bad. Hence, they're not socialist or democratic, as both of these theories and systems require. USSR was the opposite of socialist
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm aware of how the term is used. Unless one takes large corporate entities as private arms of the state in some cases where they are very active beneficiaries of its laws, regulations and wealth transfers, it is moonshine. If one does do so then they are merely referring to another arm of the state, "private" or otherwise. As for hierarchy and whether contracted service providers should have any say over how the assets of those with whom they contract are used, it is -
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth - certainly not a matter of right to have a "say" in it. As a matter of efficiency it might be favoured by some larger firms. Yet precious few libertarians defend corporations in their present state, as opposed to socialists who waffle on about how they've hijacked an entity that has existed and oppressed for thousands of years and merely opportunistically co-opted as much of wealth production as it can. If you want a say, form a mutual/coop firm...
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Oh God, here we go with the "tyranny of the mob" nonsense. That being said, it's still better than tyranny of the minority. Fortunately, in the real world where I live, the mob i.e.citizens of free people living within a free society, who are free to do whatever they deem necessary to make things better only have this option because of democracy. Again, you are just another in a LONG line of folks who haven't the foggiest idea of how democracy works in the real world.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Free to do whatever they want... unless 50% +1 disapprove of it and vote to ensure they cannot. I have a pretty good idea of how democracy works in the "real" world, and I'd rather have none of it. It is fine in voluntary contexts where everyone is agreed to submit to it but that has absolutely fuck-all to do with it as a system of state governance.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Okay, let's dumb this down. Let's say that 50% voted for X, and 50% voted for Y. You are the last one to cast your vote. Well, I'll assume you are going to forfeit your vote, yes? I mean, after all, if you vote for either X or Y, then you have become part of the "mob rule", yes. So, it's safe to assume from step one that voting for you isn't even an option, yes. Secondly, given that you don't plan to vote in the system in which you currently live, how do you plan to change things?Cry?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You're not even making sense. We're discussing mob rule, you're saying democracy is forced upon me and the only way to change things. It isn't the only way but it is forced upon me, yes. What is your fucking point?
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth "Mob rule" is a nonsense term and concept which simply has little to do with the real world. It makes for a good diversion from reality though by folks who wish for less freedom i.e.Libertarians, etc...though they do this quite unwittingly. And the mistakes are just SO basic and obvious. Anyway, you OWE the "mob" for having decided long ago to allow you the opportunity to make silly statements, try and change things, ideas, etc...No democracy, you would have none of these rights.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 But democracy literally means that 50%+1 can tell me how to dispose of my body or my resources simply because they're the majority. The term certainly has manifested as mob rule in the real world so I am not sure why you even deny this and it is most definitely not nonsense. And no, I don't "owe" the mob anything, particularly not for unsolicited "goods" (or bads in some cases) or "rights" that are often not even rights but expressions of wishes.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Also, why on earth would anyone think of, or even refer to, 51% as a "mob"? The notion of "mob" is itself concocted by elitists who simply believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else (See Plato and Socrates). They desired a society where philosopher kings would rule. These are basically the ideas you're unwittingly supporting. Aristotle sort of realized later than even with all the shortcomings of demo. that the probability of improvement increases, as has happened.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth Okay, since you've mentioned "rights" now, I will say my piece on this notion. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "natural right" in the real world. Rights are created BY people. They come from nowhere else. And this is a good thing, too. This means that they notion is flexible and not stagnant. Took MANY years to convince slave owners that other people had rights because they considered slavery natural. But, thanks, again, to democratic thinking, these were created, and still are.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 What mistakes is Moragauth making when we is comparing Decmoratic Republicanism with "mob rule", because you dont mention those basic and obvious mistakes, and what exactly has the mob do in order that we have the right to say things?, you are not making any sense
megatherium100 4 months ago
@megatherium100 Firstly, it's the mistake which is usually made. And it's a trivial mistake. The people make up the system. The people decide the hows, whys, and whats of the system. That it has been decided that allowing people to freely participate, after all, if you can't participate you are not free. Ask anyone who has left a country in which they've not been allowed to vote. And if the population decide that it should be one man, one vote, which, unfortunately it isn't, then that's it.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "The people decide the hows, whys, and whats of the system. " No, they do not. The framework for translating the "will of the people" into systemic changes is --imposed--.
iamacyborg 4 months ago
@iamacyborg If it's a democracy then they do by definition. If they don't, then it's simply not a democracy. And, if they don't, the solution is by no means to throw out democracy, but rather make sure it's actually working. This is the primary problem with the U.S. today i.e.a moving away from any meaningful democracy and toward unaccountable private tyrannies where no one has a voice. Perhaps you prefer centralized unaccountable tyrannies. I don't, nor does any democratically-minded person.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@iamacyborg I've already offered this to another less than shining example of intellect here, but I'll give it to you, too. I will assume that you don't vote, yes? I sure hope not. I mean, you wouldn't want your one vote to tip the balance thereby siding you with the "mob rule". See any problem here? If not, let me know. There are only several hundred thousand such example to demonstrate the triviality of your position, but I'm game. Glad to offer you as many as necessary to cure you if possible
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@megatherium100 The notion that everyone is simply going to be able to do what they want is not even a serious option, so that can be shelved from step one. Besides, it's absurd and would diminish freedom quite rapidly for obvious reasons. There are only a thousand scenarios you can find all over the place giving examples of the absurdity of the notion. So, what you paranoid folks refer to as "mob rule", those of us who are democratically minded refer to as being compromising & consenting adults
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@megatherium100 Also, "mob rule" means that the people which make up the society decide. As I've repeatedly said, sometimes what you would like will be in the ascendancy and sometimes not. That's called living in the real world. And, this goes for most anything I can imagine, even slavery. If the majority freely decided to reinstate slavery, although I would be against it, and would fight against it, that's what it would be. Of course this is an extreme and absurd example because it was....
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@megatherium100 ...precisely the democratically minded folks who put an end to slavery, who fought for civil rights, who fight for the environment, and who fight for most of the moral things which have led to progressive change. Having a free society in which one is allowed to participate, or not, fight for what the believe in without the threat by a minority of criminal types, such as those the U.S. often supports IS freedom. Very basic and very simple. I'm not making sense to you because
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 So having a say in things and then having it overridden when the other 51% (or even less in some 'democracies') win a majority and their own preferred solution foisted upon you is "freedom"?
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth kropotkinbeard1 is off the deep end. When it suits him, government is the source of all good. When shown the evil it commits, he denies any part of it.
I'm not a mental health expert, but schizophrenia comes to mind.
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Yeah, you keep making this claim, and yet provide no evidence. "And I saw a Big Foot and Elvis fly by my apartment this morning!" Well, does this make it true? Is not evidence something someone might think of asking for in your world? Creationist, huh? Home-schooled drop out? What? I've asked for evidence in virtually every response thus far, and you just persist on making claims pulled from your butt. Please just present something and quit the whining. Schzio. would come to your mind.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@jeffiek Also, I've said nothing about the government being the source of all good or all evil. Attempting to make this an either "all good" or "all evil" shows a totalitarian mind at work. A black and white "thinker". It must either be 100% this, or 100% that. I am a mental health expert, well, at least somewhat, as I have a MA in clinical psy. and a different term comes to mind for those who see the world in all black or white. You figure out which one.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "I've said nothing about the government being the source of all good"
Really? YOUR WORDS:
"e.g. the computer you're using now, the Internet you're using now, telecommunications, avionics, and on and on...ALL of it came from the state system and the taxes which you were "compelled" to pay, "
jeffiek 4 months ago
@jeffiek Uhhh....Yes. Not a word. Simply because the socialist aspects of the U.S. system developed all of the things I've mentioned, which they did, and which is uncontroversial, this doesn't mean that I think they're the source of ALL good, as I stated. These aspects could be considered good and I'm sure you think so given you're using them now. Arguments could be made though that the people weren't in on the decision making (anti-democratic), and would have perhaps wanted something else.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@jeffiek Sorry, Dude, but your tendency to make things all or none would be better appreciated on a right wing blog somewhere, or right wing drool talk radio. Perhaps some fundamentalist cult where you can dance around with a snake around your neck, freely of course, speaking in tongues, drooling, babbling about "theft", being "compelled", and all the rest of the crap. The world is gray. Get used to it. Democracy recognizes this and it's built into the theory.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth Yes. How about a petty example. Firstly, I'll assume that you don't vote, and therefore have sacrificed your option of participation, as democracy allows you. So, probably you shouldn't really have much to say, and should therefore just sit back and allow others to decide for you. Secondly, if you are going to try and have some say so in the system, then you will vote. So, if there is a vote at hand, and at present all votes are in, and it's a 50/50 tie, and your vote will....
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth (con't)...and your vote will tip the balance, I will assume that you will opt out and not vote at all. Is that correct. And if the vote was between X and Y, you preferring Y, you would simply not vote in order to get it, yes? Or perhaps you could give your vote to someone who had just arrived in the country, and who may wish to vote for X. No problem for you? My hunch is that you'd have little or no problem being that one vote which made a difference for your particular interest, yes?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@megatherium100 This was dealt with in one of the many videos I've offered, and done so simply, not that this should have even been necessary. I've already said why they referred to themselves as socialist about a dozen times now as well, ad how absurd the entire notion is. I even wrote it in big, easy to read, letters. And yet you are still fighting it. Well, indoctrination is precisely why. This is why I don't blame you. If you want references on propaganda, especially US, just ask.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth And when you even have Libertarian cheerleaders admitting that heir worldviews had been wrong all along, say Alan Greenspan (of course this will just go to show he wasn't 'really' a Libertarian), gang member of the Ayn Rand droolfest, then I think it's probably about time to look for another theory. But then again, I really don't expect that this conversation is going to go anywhere. I used to deprogram cult members, and Libs are often a close approximation to Scientologists.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest statists in the world, and his admissions are as worth as much as low quality toilet paper to me. His ideology wasn't even operative so one wonders what he was on about. Your sort are pathetic when confronted with libertarians and you are reduced to frothing at the mouth labelling of them as "cultists" and the like. It is typical. Coupled with the definition of anarchism as "whatever makes me feel good". Kindly, grow up.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth As I figured...Ayn Rand's cohort, and one of her staunchest admirers, and great proponent of pushing her so-called "philosophy", wasn't really a Randian. And where do you think Lib would eventually lead, were it even a remotely serious theory? It would lead to the same place, but worse. Even Greenspan, during his schooling was still trying to learn these basics. And that such an anti-democratic person could manage to get so high into the semi-democratic system shows a failure of educ.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 He wasn't, no, since he didn't really adopt anything remotely close to her ideology in practice. I would think a libertarian would abolish the Fed, not chair it. Greenspan concocted an excuse for the Fed's inability to prevent bubbles in that they could not even be identified in practice, which is rubbish. His writings and his actions were contradictory.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Every man for himself is as Randian as one can get. It's nothing but Survival of the shittest. He was intelligent enough to know that given that there was system already in place when he cam into the game, that working from within the system was probably the best way to make real change. This goes for everyone who follows Rand's depraved and juvenile philosophy. Regarding what you think a lib would do with the fed, yes, it seems that way, huh. However, were a society really
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
From your posts its clear you ascribe to the axiom "might makes right"..."My group is bigger than yours so I get to dominate you."
Its no wonder purveyors of this kind of ancient barbarism hide behind terms like "democracy" and "socialism"...they wouldn't be taken seriously if they didn't.
And you'd have us believe you're for PROGRESS? Please...
"Me bigger, stronger than you...you do what me say or me club you!"
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 No, the axiom "might makes right" has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. Nothing. And your "mob rule" nonsense is just that, nonsense. But of you have a single example of where I think might makes right, please show it. I've been arguing for democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with "might" anything. This is a red herring and nonsense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of democracy. And of course I'm for progress. Things have ONLY progressed due to democracy.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 It did? Where? 100's of millions (nonsense, but fine)? Where? Don't know (haha) what you're referring to. But I WILL assume that it's NOT the USSR. They were the opposite of democracy. It takes a truck stop wall and getting kicked out of home-schooling NOT to know that. Nothing else you've babbled has anything to do with anything I've said. And what "religion"? The religion of freedom? Fine. I'll accept that. No, when the veins on your head go back down, go to the library.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 If I wsihed to hear Rush or Glenn Beck I'd listen to right-wing anti-democratic radio. Or if I wished to read or hear really right wing depravity on a more intellectual level, but not much, I'd read Hoppes.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 It's pretty obvious that democracy is your god. Why should we be convinced that taking away so many rights and decision making from people is a good idea, but then give them power to vote for the one with the biggest mouth and most well financed campaign to make all our decisions for us?
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@nurbSoldier Oh, really? My God? Haha...No, it's nothing of the sort. It's simply the most logical, moral, and natural system yet devised. And there's still a LONG way to go in order to make it flourish even more. Most of the problems around the world right now, and throughout history for that matter, have been from a lack of democracy. A ten second look at history shows this clearly. Taking away what rights? Democracy has been what has led to virtually ever right which exists. Where on earth...
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "it's nothing of the sort. It's simply the most logical, moral, and natural system yet devised." Why?
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Most of the problems around the world right now, and throughout history for that matter, have been from a lack of democracy." funny how world wars 1 and 2 did not occur until there were plenty of democracies. Also take a look at how so many governments around the world are spending themselves into absurd debts. That did not happen with kings.
Also, kings taxed us less and interfered with our lives less than governments under democracies.
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@nurbSoldier Yeah, and we can tell how many kingdoms still exist and how much better things were then. Haha..Go live under a king then. And those countries which are somewhat socialist don't complain about putting funds into the system i.e. from where they got it in the first place, in order to make society better. It's worked all over the place. And it hasn't worked in the anti-Democratic countries.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Here it is in a nutshell 4:04 Can you listen to that much? youtube.com/watch?v=dPLNobNk7ew
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@nurbSoldier ...did you folks get the notion that democracy takes away rights? It doesn't in the real world. It may in the fantasy world of "mob rule", but it doesn't in the real world i.e.the one I'm interested in. If someone is making decisions for you then it's not democracy. The people voted for X to represent their interests. If you didn't vote, you have nothing to complain about. Now, Obama has NOT carried though on many things he would have liked to do, and as his supporters expected,
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "did you folks get the notion that democracy takes away rights? It doesn't in the real world. It may in the fantasy world of "mob rule"
I guess we are just crazy for pointing out that democracy was the means Socrates was voted to be executed, various dictators around the world go into office, gay marriage was voted to be banned in California, world wars supported, behind alcohol and marijuana prohibition, Hamas getting into office, voted for creationism, etc.
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@nurbSoldier ..but this, again, if from a LACK of democracy being implemented and instead interfered with by private tyrannies, money, and power i.e.the opposite of democracy. So, I' ll ask you. No one here has answered yet. It's VERY simple. If there is a vote to ban all guns, and the vote is 50-50, and your one vote can tip the balance, thereby making you the "mob ruler", would you do it? As for me, if I voted against the guns, which I would have, and you made the deciding vote, and won, then
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "but this, again, if from a LACK of democracy being implemented and instead interfered with by private tyrannies, money, and power i.e.the opposite of democracy."
lack of democracy? What evidence do you claim to prove this? What evidence shows that MORE democracy makes things better?
private tyrannies can only be that way with the power of government. Because Walmart can't possibly legally invade your house. But the swat team can.
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@nurbSoldier ...I wouldn't whine about it on a blog. I'd get off my butt, go out and try to persuade people that folks simply have no business with guns, talk about how they actually take away peoples freedom, etc...so that the next time there's a vote my side may win. I can handle the loss. I will lose some and I will wing some. This is the real world, and the world which adults usually live in. You should try. You guys sound like a of spoiled rich kids who spent too much time at Toys R' Us.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kropotkinbeard1 "If I wsihed to hear Rush or Glenn Beck I'd listen to right-wing anti-democratic radio. Or if I wished to read or hear really right wing depravity on a more intellectual level, but not much, I'd read Hoppes."
when all someone has to offer is argument ad-hominem and outright insults, it usually means that person does not have much in the way of evidence or logic.
nurbSoldier 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Rush, Beck, blah, blah, blah...you can't even break out of the phony "Right" VS "Left" model, can you? BTW, these "right-wingers" believe in democracy just as much as you do...they've never disputed govt. has the power to kill and steal. You're on the SAME side as them.
100's of MILLIONS dead...that, my misguided barbarian friend, is what YOUR might-makes-right RELIGION produced...
Talk about depravity...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Uhh...Sure I can. It's quite easy as I'm not either. That being said, it's hardly a secret that many supposedly "libertarian" ideas are precisely right wing. In fact, those approaching anarcho-capitalism would be considered extremely far right, and far worse than even the Republitards which drool all over everything now. MUCH worse. I'm not on the same side as them in any way, shape, or form. 100 of millions killed by who? "Might makes right" has nothing to do with anything I've said.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Libertarians are 'rightwingers', blah, blah,blah...you're not saying anything worth a shit here...you've simply placed people you label "libertarians" into a neat little political box that you think 'proves' they're 'bad'. Its pathetic that you believe people can only fit into 2 little boxes ("Left" VS "Right")...that you can't conceive of reality outside of politics.
Your religion (statism/democracy) has killed 100's of MILLIONS--fact.
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Yes, in many ways they are. I'm saying LOTS worth more than shit. You simply don't understand the words and concepts due to your indoctrination. You're an amusing plaything. That's about it. And I didn't say that ALL anyone was bad. Nor do I think everything is in some exclusively left/right dichotomy, though there are tendencies. Already dealt with this about 3-4 times now via videos which you have either not watched, perhaps due to your indoctrination, or not understood.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
You're just another Left-winger...and we all know Left-wingers are full of shit.
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Perhaps. But this is something which needs to be demonstrated, not divined from your horoscope and throwing chicken bones or wherever you get your information from. Also, I've seen little evidence anywhere here than many of you have the foggiest what a "left-winger" is. Probably a good idea to know what it is before trying to talk about it. Otherwise you'll end up says dumbass things like 'The USSR was an example of democracy', or something worse. Read a book.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 My non-existent religion, democracy, has never killed a single person. In fact, it's save millions. Please promise me you'll read at least one book before your 90th birthday. Democracy has never killed a soul. A few may have died fighting against democracy, and god knows that MANY have died fighting for democracy, but those who died as they preferred the anti-democratic forces, who cares? The worlds better of without such deviants.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
My friend...you're denying reality again!
You're right, "democracy" didn't kill anyone...it was a BELIEF in God-Democracy (a sect of the larger Statist Religion) that did!
Might-makes-right, doesn't it?
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 When you assert the term "again", this is factually inaccurate. Or at least you have demonstrated nothing of the sort yet. Always a first time though. Keep trying. Of course I was right that democracy didn't kill anyone. And, no, that which killed people, if you are referring to the USSR or whoever, did so precisely by moving away from democracy. Has nothing to do with "might makes right". This is both a red herring and a straw man. Keep trying though.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Yeah, democracy worked pretty well in Nazi Germany, didn't it?
ashane77 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 YOU SAID: "Things have ONLY progressed due to democracy."
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make such broad and embarrassingly inaccurate claims?
The system of majority-vote didn't create a SINGLE innovation that helped humanity progress.
Entrepreneurial, creative, and risk-taking INDIVIDUALS have.
You use the word "democracy" like a Christian uses the word "god" and your arguments have just as much credibility.
Please, stop making an ass of yourself...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Uhh...Yes, I did. Democracy AND developments created by the pooling of money which went into R&D, etc...This isn't an issue. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you make a charge with providing evidence. I've already provided a small sample (Internet, computers, avionic, telecommunications, etc...). Your ignorance is spectacular. Where do you think these things came from? "Self made men" and "rugged individualists". Haha..Not a single one. This even goes for Edison. Hahaha
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Again, you're no different than a religious Christian nut who claims god is the only reason we have what we do. Instead of the Christian god, you use "democracy" as a catch-all...
No, electricity doesn't exist because of the work of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE like Edison, no sir! It exist through the grace of democracy! Let's get down on our knees and thank democracy for blessing us!
You're mentally ill my friend...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Your opening statement has no supporting evidence, so there's nothing to comment on. Provide evidence to support your claims, or just keep them to yourself and quit wasting space on the state developed Internet and computer you're using. Regarding Edison, you are wrong. Edison did precisely nothing by himself. He had 20+ people working with him on this at the time. Again, VERY rarely does ANYONE create these things on their own. ALso, his was built off the work of earlier people. Sorry
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 Horatio Alger doesn't exist, ash. And NONE of the items I mentioned were created by the non-existent "rugged individualist" which you seem to believe exist everywhere. And, yes, you should most definitely get down on your knees and than democracy. That, or get the hell out of any and all democratic countries and see how you like them. Usually totalitarian-minded people as yourself are attracted to such systems anyway, though often unwittingly. You have provided no evidence for the ill
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Just the other day, my car broke down and I had to get it towed...
Silly me, I thought it was towed by a man using a tow-truck, working for a tow-truck company (all of which I paid w/money I made from MY job) when, in fact, it was towed by democracy!
There are tomatoes that grow in my yard that somehow end up on my plate...boy am I glad democracy planted, cared-for, and harvested them for me!
Bless Holy Democracy...thank Democracy for creating the world and everything in it!
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Well, yes, if you put your money into a pot whereby you were able to use it when it became necessary, it was towed precisely because of democracy. You don't out into the pot, you don't get towed, unless the people decide to tow even those who don't contribute. But the poorer folks usually do. The rich would be more likely to try and get out of it somehow. Your growing tomatoes has nothing to do with democracy. As far as that goes, there is MUCH property ownership in socialism.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 Where on earth would have come up with the absurd notion that democracy, or even socialism, would have anything to say about your garden? You really don't have a clue as to anything about democracy, do you? Why are you here, by the way? And your babble at the end is obnoxious drool. That being said, yes, to a great extent, you DO owe democracy MUCH more than it owes you. That you are oblivious to this simply demonstrates your inability to appreciate your elders. Frat boy!
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
You say you're "anti-gun"...ahhh...how do you think the 'laws' passed through the 'democratic' process are ENFORCED? With GUNS you IDIOT! So, you're NOT anti-gun...you're anti-people-who-disagree-with-you ("Might Makes Right").
And you said "people determine reality"...which means you think reality is subjective...which means you really ARE insane...wait, maybe not...
"...it was towed precisely because of democracy." LMFAO!!!!
YEP! Batshit insane!
Bye-bye...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Yes, I am anti-gun, and force has nothing to do with anything. I'm not anti-people who disagree with me either. People who are pro-gun have their opinion, and I have mine. We disagree on this point. This is one point. So what? And right now guns are legal, and I'd prefer if they weren't. Again, so what? This is what I have to deal with as a democratically-minded free adult. I will continue to try and persuade folks that guns actually deprived freedom, and can do so freely.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 I'm anti-gun and always have been. I say you focus on what you believe yourself to be as you've gotten what you believe me to be incorrect in just about every assertion you've made. Regarding people determining reality, this was in reference to the "reality" of the laws which are passed as you mentioned. Has nothing to do with objective or subjective anything. You did have one correct comment though "wait, maybe not..." One point for you. Regarding the towing, yes, that's correct.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 If you are anti gun then you live in a dream world. A black market exists for anything that is banned, and often for things that are taxed highly as well. Perhaps you like it when criminals rob you all the time, most people don't. When you ban guns, fighting, knives, the criminals don't care. Many criminals will continue doing what they do until they get caught regardless of the punishments.
RaWBLooD 4 months ago
@RaWBLooD Guns exist in the real world. I am anti- those guns. Has nothing to do with a "dream world". I'm aware that a black market exists for anything that's band. That's whatever "It" is is much harder to get, and therefore less of a chance for "it" to do damage. I'd MUCH rather take a chance with a criminal trying to rob me with a knife than a gun, so, yeah, I'm anti-gun. But I live in Japan now so I needn't worry about being robbed or shot. WOmen can walk around anywhere at 2 a.m. without
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I don't think you understand what a black market entails. When you ban guns you just take guns out of the hands of people that accept the laws. You don't have any lower chance of the criminal having a gun. If you think all black markets are more expensive then you don't understand the facts and a discussion between us would require we both have the facts at least.
RaWBLooD 4 months ago
@RaWBLooD Yes, I do. And while I'm sure your theory follows some sort of logic, it simply has little to do with the real world. I live in Japan. Almost no one has gun, nor do they want them, nor would they even if given the choice. Why? That would would even need to ask "Why?" already demonstrates a mental disorder in my opinion. I can probably prove this, too. That aside, there may very well be a black market for guns here, and probably is within the Yakuza world....(1)
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@RaWBLooD However, the number of folks killed with them is almost nil, and the ones who are are usually other criminals, too. So, yes, were the people mental ill enough to desire to have guns floating around, then, yes, there might be a black market. However, most people on the planet, I'd estimate around 98%, would prefer for ALL guns of every type to be gotten rid of. Well, what's in the way? Demonstrates a lack of democracy. The facts are quite simple. Ban guns ASAP and reduce deaths by 98%.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Comment removed
RaWBLooD 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kropotkinbeard1 ""Ban guns ASAP and reduce deaths by 98%.""
We're done here.
RaWBLooD 4 months ago
@RaWBLooD ..without worrying about being shot by some gun wielding dumbass who is drunk and angry because his team lost the World Series, or he is even more delusional and believes the "commie socialist democrats" are out to take his "freedoms", or whatever. Also, it's probably a good idea to get at what is behind why there is so much crime rather than just ignoring it and passing out guns as a solution. This is an admission failed society. So, life in prison or McDonald's if caught with a gun.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 your caricatures of things that would rarely occur in reality are childish and retarded. it's ironic that you mention an imaginary "gun-wielding dumbass" who is okay with shooting someone because his sports team lost, then mention delusion after that, when clearly from your unrealistic bullshit scenarios you crop up you're the one who's delusional. sadly it takes fools of your caliber experiencing personal tragedy to understand the simple & obvious error of your ways.
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur Boring. Says nothing. Not an argument. Calling a scenario "bullshit" means nothing. You must demonstrate how it's bullshit. I mean, just so you know the difference between making a claim and proving something. And given that there are usually between 15-20,000 gun deaths a year, well, the probability that some, if not most, are precisely for such dumbass reasons is high. I've been anti-gun for years precisely because of knowing people killed by such dumbasses. Argument or just gas?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Also, it's probably a good idea to get at what is behind why there is so much crime"
1. child abuse, and in the case of the actual welfare state(s), systemic boredom combined with zero aspirations, as well, which per se are the end result of the subsidization of these persons lives (stagnation)
2. multi-racial society, which japan, "funny enough," is not
regresseur 4 months ago
@regresseur 1)Child abuse is quite likely. Unfortunately, were there a MUCH bigger and more advanced welfare state such things would most likely disappear. Most abuse comes from a lack of a civil welfare system, as ALL evidence demonstrates. And your "systemic boredom" and "zero aspirations" are projections on your part. There is exactly NO correlation between a progressive welfare system and either of these things, first grade propaganda aside. 2)So, you're a racist? Most shootings are racial?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 The fact that you support prison the way it is right now is insane.
If you have facts of most people that have guns waving them around when drunk or after a sports games then please post the facts. Fact is that you aren't backing up your claims but you require others to do it. There really is nothing to discuss with you when you are a hypocrite. have a good day.
RaWBLooD 4 months ago
@RaWBLooD I haven't said a word, nor even inferred that I thought the prison system was good the way it is now. I don't at all. Where did you get this idea? The reason it's the way it is now is again, from a lack of democracy. The facts are that tens of thousands of folks die by guns every year in the U.S., and it's FAR more than most all the wars taking place combined in any given year. And I don't expect anyone to back up my claims. I can do fine on my own. See something incorrect?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 Or were you "forced" or "compelled" against your wishes to pay into a pit so that your car might be able to be towed if necessary? This is a perfect example of collectivism in action. Nothing but. You're funny.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 "Entrepreneurial, creative, and risk-taking INDIVIDUALS have." Hahahaha...Not a SINGLE one. Sorry, Dude, but you have been duped by the Horatio Alger fairy tale. True I have been speaking primarily of the more dynamic sectors like ALL electronics, Internet, avionics, telecommunications, etc...There have been a few things invented outside tax money, but NONE of the things I've mentioned were created anywhere but via "theft" (tax dollars) Please read at least ONE book before you turn 60.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Democracy = politics run by majority vote.
You're truly insane if you believe majority vote creates or achieves anything.
You ACTUALLY believe that a bunch of people putting checkmarks on paper can alter reality...
I'm sure you believe that if 50.1% of the populace votes to live until age 100...then we'll all live to be 100.
You're sick, my friend, get help.
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Yeah, majority vote is a good thing, too. No evidence to the contrary in the real world. There are fairy tale examples, like, if 51% decided to re-institute slavery, etc...but these are simply nonsense. Most all improvements and advances in humanitarianism e.g.women's rights, minority rights, etc...ALL of them, have come precisely from democratically-minded people. If you are unaware of such basics you really have no business being here. Perhaps a knitting blog somewhere?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
I'm sorry, but majority vote never created anything...
People putting checkmarks on paper never built a building, never created a new invention, never saved anyone...
If you think majority vote can alter reality, then why not get everyone to vote on immortality?
We should get 50.1% of the populace to vote that we get to live FOREVER!
Because, as you know, democracy determines reality!
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 You're sorry okay, but for all the wrong reasons. Majority vote is the only reason you or anyone else has been given the option of building a building, etc...No democracy, no choice. It's a simple as that. Perhaps were you living 200+ years ago and there was still land around which hadn't been spoken for, by others claiming the same property rights as you seem to believe people have, a myth, something like that might be vaguely possible. Whether or not a single vote can alter reality..
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...vote can alter reality isn't even remotely a serious question. Of course it can. And you should be thankful that you have the opportunity to alter reality. But, as you've already repeatedly demonstrated, reality doesn't seem to really be something you're interested in, so why bother. Yes, I agree with you. Don't vote. I'll be happy to take your vote for you. Regarding the 50.1% voting, of course, I agree 100%. And this is what democracy works towards. Perhaps you should look to see
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...see who is continually opposing such aims. Bottom line is that those who oppose democracy usually oppse freedom, and the entire history of progressive change bears this out. Sorry. And when are you going to respond to your being the deciding vote? Sort of stuck there, huh? Yeah, well, there are hundred of other such palces which will demonstrate your non-position to hit a wall. So, where did you say a good example was of a Libertarian society? I don't recall. Regarding "Democracy..
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...Democracy determining reality". Not at all. People determine reality. People determine democracy, and have done so for very specific reasons, primarily that of freedom, rights, etc...You really don't have a clue about democracy, do you? This is pathetic and sad. But, being the humanitarian I am, we can just right it off to your having been kicked out of home-school for not showing up to class.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 Regarding "altering reality" uhhh....This isn't even a serious question. Of course it can. As a matter of fact, the example you just gave to criticize democracy would be an example. So, again, there is a vote coming up regarding guns. 50 people have voted to ban them (the rational people), and 50 voted to allow them. Your one vote will decide the difference. Well, if you vote for guns, then you ARE the "mob rule" supporter. If you don't vote, you have simply sacrificed your freedom to
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...to determine your future life with guns. Not wishing to be a part of the "mob", as you despise it so much, I'll assume that you won't vote at all, right? Then perhaps I'll vote in your place, and cast my vote toward the anti-gun rational camp, and you will just have to adjust, as I would had I lost. I wouldn't sit around whining about my self-perceived "rights" having been stolen like a spoiled child. If I lost I'd concede defeat, adjust to the loss, and try and change voters minds
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 YOU SAID: "...perhaps I'll vote in your place, and cast my vote toward the anti-gun rational camp..."
You're not anti-gun you turd...you LOVE guns!
When they're being used to impose your religion on others that is...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Huh? I've been anti-gun since junior high school, and belonged to several anti-gun organizations, and still do. Are you on drugs, again? You think democratically-minded people like guns or something? I mean, there are no doubt some who do. But there is absolutely nothing in democracy which states that one should be pro-gun. Quite the opposite. Most everyone I know who is anti-gun are from the left. That being said, I might make exceptions in order to protect democracy from criminals.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 I believe in democracy, which imposes nothing on anyone who is free. Free people in a free society decide what they want. This is democracy. If they decide not to have guns, no guns. It's that simple. If you don't like it, quite whining and try to change the law. Break the law and have a gun. You're free to shoot yourself with it too thanks to democracy. Also, your anti-democratic drool is the only thing resembling a religion here, and you keep projecting it onto me. Won't work. Sorry.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...And the freedom which democracy entails in it allows this very thing. If you despise democracy so much I suggest going to live in a country which is even less democratic that the U.S. already is. North Korea has precisely no democracy. Go there. Somalia has none. Go there. Many places for you to go so as to exercise your perceived, yet delusional, freedom. If you have any freedoms at all, it's due to democratically-minded people fighting to get them for your unappreciative ass.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 As for your last line, this has precisely nothing to do with democracy, contrary to popular, well, in some naive circles, fantasy. Ranks right up there with the nonsense about "compelling" "theft", and all the rest of it. Perhaps you should study a little about what democracy is before jumping onto and clinging to elementary school arguments as to it's evils. After all, democracy is the ONLY reason you are here right now able to speak at all. Nothing to do with "natural rights" either.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Democracy = majority rule.
Maybe you define it differently, but if you do,well...then you're merely making up your own definition for the word.
And, no, sorry, but "democracy" has nothing to do w/me being here speaking my mind. Computers, the internet, the economy, and myself weren't created by majority vote.
Stick to peddling your particular version of "might-makes-right" to ignorant children...anarchists WILL call BULLSHIT on you EVERY time...
ashane77 4 months ago
@ashane77 Yeah, and majority rule is a good thing. Much better than minority rule.
No, I'm defining it as democratic thinkers always have.
And, yes, democracy has everything to do with your being here, speaking your mind.
Regarding the Internet, etc...True, these weren't voted on by the public, and therefore democracy was again ignored in their development, but using the tax dollars which were garnered through the democracy, illegally, not in the sense that that they were taxes, but...
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 ...but in the sense that the taxes were used without any democratic input as to their use. All this demonstrates is that even when democracy isn't working properly that things can be developed. This is precisely what happen in the USSR. Not remotely democratic, but great advances in many areas. No connection at all that I'm aware of. Regarding "Might makes right", it has nothing to do with anything I've offered, other than to show that this prevails when democracy is ignored.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@ashane77 As for your last line, I simply must laugh. I AM an anarchist as all of my ideas here have demonstrated. What on earth are you talking about? Perhaps you know as little about what anarchism is as you do what democracy is. Here is a very short video which might assist you on your path to basic understanding. If you still don't get it after this, I'm not sure I can help you. Perhaps some books? youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
Respond to this video... From your posts its clear you ascribe to the axiom "might makes right"..."My group is bigger than yours so I get to dominate you."
Its no wonder purveyors of this kind of ancient barbarism hide behind terms like "democracy" and "socialism"...they wouldn't be taken seriously if they didn't.
And you'd have us believe you're for PROGRESS? Please...
"Me bigger, stronger than you...you do what me say or me club you!"
ashane77 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Nope, Rand doesn't advocate every man for himself or survival of the "shittest". Takes an astounding amount of ignorance of her work to argue this. Utterly astounding, since she advocated an Aristotelian form of egoism, i.e. virtuous egoism. Greenspan's actions were far more in line with those of opportunistic villains in her fiction. If you're going to call something juvenile, ensure you understand it. You don't.
Moragauth 4 months ago
@Moragauth Uhh..Actually, while it may not be 100%, yes, she does. Actually though I believe her to be worse. It takes an even greater ignorance of her work not to recognize it. By they way, have any thoughts on building the psychology of her favorite character on that of a serial killer/rapist? I mean, I can see a VERY clear connection between the two soico/psychoaths. Perhaps you can't? Anyone who claims "Altruism is evil" should be institutionalized immediately. Or her getting Medicare?
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth It's juvenile, and I understand it. Non-issue. I mean, unless you have some sort of evidence to provide to support it. She was perhaps the most vile creature to have walked the planet, and her juvenile theories, I won't refer to them as philosophies as this is an insult to the term, are just that. And, yes, they really DO appeal to simpletons. Sorry. This is old, and has been repeatedly demonstrated. Oh, and stay away from Aristotle, too, if you know nothing about his work.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@Moragauth ...really following the Lib. program, there would be little wrong with what he was doing. After all, it's just a private business. And if he's not compelling people, forcing them, or anything else to take his product, and they are doing it freely, well, it would actually be worse than it is now. Also it would have to be protected by mercenary armies, etc..."Freely" of course. Regarding contradictory practices, yes, that's the case with most every libertarian I know of. Defining trait.
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 i'd really like to hear ur take on the USSR.
pipobun 4 months ago
@pipobun Unfortunately, I am not given enough space to do do justice to my take. Simply put, it was a horrendous system. It made great strides in many areas. It was never anything even resembling a democracy OR socialism, by definition. The U.S. recognized it's threat, the threat being that of it's example of not having to stay in one's designated 3rd world status, as determined by the first world, and developing independently.(This was expressed directly by the State Department).
kropotkinbeard1 4 months ago