I find it funny how you just said that liberals laughing at brietbart's death were evil folks who didn't even know what they were talking about...OH THE IRONY.
Okay, folks, no living human can be right 100%, that's impossible. So yeah, he's a bit bias, but then .... so is everyone. So meh. He has some great points, and his critiques are spot on, his personal views may be a bit skewed, but his logical views are pretty well studied. Discounting someone just for believing a bit different than you ... what was that word again?
@tigerspuds While I'm not sure which country your from, I can say with abolust certainty that no matter which one it is, there is more than enough brainwashing to fit in with the best brainwashed in the States. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and realize that we're all fighting the same enemy in each of countries, they just wear different stripes. We only help them when bicker and call every American fat/stupid, every Brit arrogant, every Frenchman a coward etc.
How delusional to think that his son who took over will be less "crazy". Or that its a good thing that KJI died. It wont solve a single problem for North Korea, or anyone
@CommunistCritic: First of all, governments don't have responsibility, PEOPLE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY! A building doesn't have responsibility, YOU AND I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY. Anyone who agrees to do their responsibility of taking care of each other through government are allowed to do so, but anyone who doesn't should not be forced to do so.
@CommunistCritic: And what is wrong, I ask you, of maximizing profit? If the demand of stuff increases, corporations have to hire more workers, increasing employment. If there aren't any workers left, corporations will compete for workers by raising wages.To say that greed can only benefit one person or a select group in capitalism is ignorant. In order to get rich, people will need to sell goods and services to society. In capitalism, you can only get rich if society allows you to.
@CommunistCritic: Just so you know, more people starved (as a percentage of the population) under communism and feudalism than under capitalism. Capitalism is not social Darwinism, a common misconception. Capitalism and free trade has been responsible of bringing billions out of poverty in India and around the world, it has been responsible for letting billions survive who would otherwise perish. The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: Capitalism works where others have failed.
you keep editing your videos to cut out all the gaps... LOVE IT.. no boring parts.... well except for the splash screen musical intro you do in every video that most people fast forward through! Infact sometimes it acts as a deterrent to watching your video :) Happy New Year.
Now, since you think you are wise with the comment on the phonetic spelling of "bulsheivic", tell me this, why are concentrating on the spelling of a word and not the substance of the comment made? Most liberals do this as a means to belittle or talk down to their enemies.Ok, back to your comment. Which is it, bulsheivic or bolshevik? Both words are phonetic.The proper way to spell it is "большевйк". Perhaps you can learn the Russian alphabet before you claim to be a lingual expert?
First of all, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Representative Republic. This is exacetly what the white Russians wanted when the Romanovs lost power during the 1st Russian revolution. They did not have the blessing of our forefathers when the white russians were slaughtered and lost power to the bulsheivics (Red October). I believe it is the duty of all liberals to reside in N. Korea for a month. They will then learn to appreciate the form of gov't that they hail as utopia.
@CommunistCritic what about the freedom index, it ranks countries who have the most freedoms etc, it shows countries who are more socialist/communist have fewer freedoms, and lower standard of living. The highest standard of living is of course in the freest parts of the world. Russia is 143. North Korea is 179(last), Venezuela 175
@CommunistCritic how about you rank the best countries for standard of living and life expectancies. Im sure Communist countries will be near the bottom.. what the goal of communism is to take the wealth out of the country and give it to the international banks. oh its a workers paradise we are building a utopia they always say the same shit. but look how the leaders and high party members live, a lot higher then the normal citizen--- oh but i thought everyone equal!!
@jwka2001 In actuality I would categorize more Socialist-like countries as the Scandanavian countries. The ones with the highest standards of living and running budget surpluses. The ones with massive union involvement and social nets. The ones that consistently beat the United States in both overall welfare and happiness.
Cuba, by the way, has world class medical care and a higher life expectancy than the United States. I do not defend the revisionist empire of China, or the USSR after the 40s
Sweden and Denmark both have freer markets in many areas than the United States, the difference is that they replace massive regulation with social safety nets, which have been executed oddly well given their scope. Norway is oil-rich as it has been for decades, and there's not really anything remarkable about Finland. Their budget surpluses, I'd attribute to their complete lack of any real militarism, and generally low corruption.
@casualdissent That is to be debated. Sweden and Denmark have many regulations, of the right kind. Not corporate handouts which is what I am assuming you are referring to.
@CommunistCritic They have more public property, but the private atmosphere has less oversight, especially in terms of international trade, solidarity of intermediaries, and investment freedom. Their scores on 'economic freedom' are low mainly because of their safety nets, which the agencies that publish these indexes are against.
@CommunistCritic That said, if the choice is between living under over-regulated corporate militarism and living under a peaceful country with a safety net that actually defends civil rights, then I think the choice is obvious, and that the people in Scandinavia have a lot to be happy about.
@CommunistCritic yes and also the Human Development Index on wiki gives great info. The first communist nation to appear is Cuba(51) which is behind such shitty countries as Latvia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates...Even mexico(57) has a higher standard of living than fucking your communist wet dream China(101). Sadly North Korea isnt on the list, hasnt been since 1998, i guess the dear leader hadnt invented the numbers before he had died.
@jwka2001 The highest developed keep in mind are the Socialist scandanavian countries. I enjoy how you leave out that little fact. Cuba is facing massive sanctions, severely inhibiting their growth, yet they boast a higher life expectancy than the United States. China is revisionist and capitalist, no Communist allies with them. North Korea, once again, is not Communist, they removed Marxist-Leninism in 1977.
"The Communists of North Korea have brainwashed their entire civilization..."
Marxist-Leninism was replaced by "Juche" or "self-reliance" in 1977 and the newest version of the North Korea constitution, from 2009, has no connections to Communism.
Lee, what you have done is very disrespectful and I would like to ask for an apology.
@CommunistCritic Go complain to the other communists on YouTube who make tribute videos to Kim Jon il and North Korea. Ask them to stop making you look bad. Don't blame me.
Then go read Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition.
@HowTheWorldWorks Perhaps I will. If you are referring to MaoistRebelNews2 he does not claim that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Communist, but that they fight Imperialism, a valid statement.
Regardless, you are still misleading your viewers if you do not correct your previous statement.
@CommunistCritic What's incorrect? The North Korean government subjects their people to sub-third world living conditions to finance their military while indoctrinating their people into a religious cult with Dear Leader as the godhead. North Korea has actual Concentration Camps and a massive chunk of the population lives in Soviet style Gulags.
You can't justify these crimes against humanity by saying they fight Imperialism. They haven't done ANYTHING to fight Imperialism. Ever
@EmpperorIng Some of this may be true, however the sources we have on North Korea are defectors and Imperialist news sources, either way not much of an unbiased report.
North Korea is a developing nation and it forbids the entrance of Consumerism, and the exploitation by the bourgeois, for that they deserve some sort of recognition.
Most of the Western World lives in a concentration camp of sorts namely Consumerism and the blind accumulation of capital.
@CommunistCritic If you understand basic economics, you'd understand how the things you decry as "exploitation by the burgeois," "consumerism" and that stuff has given western society the greatest standard of living in the entire world.
How has forbidding consumerism treated North Korea? Their people live in abject poverty where people starve to death all the time. The standard of living is horrendous, and they run gulags. GULAGS. That is not something anyone should look up to.
@EmpperorIng I am majoring in Economics so I do not appreciate your belittling of my economic literacy. The standard of living the West has is built off the less developed nations that were raped of capital and labor resources for the past few centuries. This is not some kind of american exceptionalist ingenuity but pure rape.
Once again I will not commit myself to blind hatred of another nation. The North Korean people could revoke the Workers' Party at anytime but choose not to. Why judge?
@CommunistCritic For someone who claims to be majoring in economics you sure do seem unsuprisingly economically illiterate. You cite baseless myths along with meaningless phrases and pass them off as evidence of your economic genius.
Hey, check this out.
The "raped" cultures enjoy a much higher standard of living thanks to foreign investment. Don't you dare claim that North Korea is in any way democratic, the sole purpose of the ballot is to identify who should be sent to the gulags.
@casualdissent I dunno, I think Democracy is a popularity contest where a plurality is able to put someone up who they hope will further their interests.
@EmpperorIng I did not cite any myths dear sir. Consumerism is a fact, almost every economist admits its existence however they argue it is a good thing. I do not agree with the Austrian School on that as they have proven completely non-credible when it comes to the use of actual data in analyzing economic figures.
"The raped cultures enjoy a much higher standard of living..." according to who? Abject Western surveys conducted by the rapists themselves. What arrogance you command dear sir.
From what I understand, the Austrian methodology is that the theory has to predate the data, and the data serves as verification that a theory is true or false; what they reject is pure empiricism, i.e. the idea that theories can be derived from data alone, rather than through reason. Murray Rothbard in particular spent a great deal of time writing about political economies throughout history and how they empirically served the Austrian theories.
@casualdissent I wonder if Rothbard also wrote about his extended belief in Social Darwinism;)
Listen, I understand Austrian methodology. I used to be a hardline capitalist when I first began my studies of Economics. When you read Marx, there is something much more telling and human than the calculation of life in a Capitalist assessment of reality based on commodities and their exchange value.
I am a Marxist because I desire to see the people free. True freedom is realized outside capitalism
@CommunistCritic Well it doesn't sound like you understand their methodology when you say that they "reject empirical evidence." But I'm not defending global fiat capitalism as the Austrians do; I'm fond of their approach, but I take it to different conclusions.
@casualdissent They reject it as a way to formulate a thesis. They are like creationists in the sense they search for evidence, yes, but their evidence, not objectively what happened.
@CommunistCritic I don't believe in treating economics as if it were a form of hard science, and thus attempting to derive a thesis from raw data makes no sense to me. Theories regarding which policies effect which consequences cannot be properly observed, cannot be repeated, and are not really falsifiable, as I think the Austrian school itself demonstrates just by existing.
@casualdissent I agree. I am a Marxist we derive everything from dialectics. I just feel it to be a bit dishonest for a lofty Economic School to reject the use of empirical data as many other economic schools embrace it and are much more moderate.
I also don't think of economic philosophies in terms of freedom, if only because it's completely pointless. There's the one group that wants freedom to property, and the other group that wants freedom from property. You can't get an ought from an is, so there's literally nothing to make either case in itself. Instead, I approach it from a pure utilitarian standpoint, and find myself believing in social agorism, which I don't think of as capitalist or communist.
@casualdissent True, negative and positive freedoms. I look at it from the traditional marxist standpoint of viewing Capitalism as inherently enslaving, and private property as an enemy of peace and freedom. Therefore I come to the Socialism conclusion, however I certainly see what you are saying and I prefer an idea of Agorism, though it may seem reactionary, over full blown Capitalism present in neo-liberal doctrine that dominates pages today such as our friend Lee Doren.
@CommunistCritic I'm against labor contracts, fiat property ("that forest belongs to me, because I have a piece of paper that says it does"), intellectual property, and a host of other nonsense that seems to come along with state capitalism. I believe in people getting together to exchange resources, but I think that free trade without state rule would lead to a complete transformation of the market system, namely the abandonment of capitalism as we know it.
@casualdissent Ahhhh so you are an Anarcho-Capitalist/Voluntaryist in that sense. I see. So you define property ownership by homesteading and usofruct basically? Know that, I, as a Communist, have no problem with small personal ownership and neither do any other Communists I know of. We are more worried with abolishing the big businesses, Socialism is a constructive effort and alienating the small owners does nothing good.
@CommunistCritic If you cut down a tree and built a house out of it and lived in that house, then I'd call it your house. If you cut down every tree in the forest and built a thousand houses, then you're certainly a good lumberjack, but you're not the owner of a thousand new houses. Other people could move into the houses you aren't using, and essentially homestead those houses from you to them. I see this in many countries today in the form of adverse possession laws.
@CommunistCritic So whether I support homesteading has never been clear to me. The idea from the right-libertarians sounds as if just using a plot of land once makes it yours for life, and that's certainly not a notion that I endorse.
Usufruct is a far less talked about idea. It depends on the situation.
@casualdissent I see so you believe in Usofruct then? Use and occupation as legitimate property rights? Certainly the more humane of all the property rights theories.
@CommunistCritic I'm not clear on the legal terminology. Usufruct is the right to profit from the commons, or are you referring to a more specific idea?
@CommunistCritic I am skeptical of your claims of what you used to be. that kind of argument is really meant to discredit ideas by being condescending. whatever someone used to be is not verifiable - anyone can claim it.
Also, Rothbard never wrote in favor of social darwinism. If anything, he was against it. what you are doing is conflating freedom+small government with darwinism. But the market is not darwinian, it is based upon cooperation, exchange and trust between parties
@nurbSoldier Okay, claim you were a Communist, people change it is not condescending but rather comradery in shared experience.
The market is a good word. Capitalist markets are not good, but there are some rather interesting social markets like those proposed by Mutualists and others.
@nurbSoldier Regardless Rothbard said this, "ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks."
@CommunistCritic Are you using this quote by Rothbard to prove that he was a social darwinian? All he demonstrated was that socialists will tell certain poorer people something and that their arguments need to be refuted. Keep in mind that he also wrote that anti-market views are not unusual due to economics being a difficult field arriving at conclusions which are counter-intuitive.
That makes sense, considering you could say the same about physics or engineering
@nurbSoldier Economics is like voodoo. It is a very secretive band of nonsense, which is interesting as I am majoring in Economics. Yet, it is a tool for the elites, to hold over the head of the worker, central planning of sorts if you will. CEO's, economists, corporate shareholders, all central planners of the economy, completely unaccountable to the masses. Rothbard is a racist, he makes it clear everywhere he believes in "racial science" look it up, it is the study of "which race is best"
@CommunistCritic I did look it up and it doesn't exist. Completely bogus, like your claim that you were an austrian economist. I figured out you weren't an austrian economist by your confusion about Alan Greenspan and how you seemed to confuse him for one.
Yes, economics as taught in mainstream universities is nonsense, as it is based on the teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Austrians have been on his case since his friends in the banking industry bribed the universities to teach his stuff
@nurbSoldier Actually, Academia has been bought and paid for by the left for a long time. Keynesianism is just a convenient excuse used by leftists to have the government forcibly confiscate more of the people's liberty as manifested in private property. And yes, Keynesianism is nonsense.
Fortunately my economics professor taught both sides, which is good. :)
@EmpperorIng because I want to throw a bone to my left libertarian and true liberal friends, I want to say it is not quite as simple as you are making it out to be, ideology wise.
Academia was quite honorable for centuries when it was not corrupted by religious/political fanaticism. When it stood for true Lockean liberalism, it was a strong driving force. What happened was that the bankers wanted control over everything so they bribed all the right people in government and academia.
@nurbSoldier First off, left libertarian is an oxymoron. I have NEVER met a so-called left libertarian or others with similar titles who weren't instinctual statists.
As for banks, they've been largely irrelevant. What happened is that people who wanted to seem heroic entered the realms of public life to spread what they thought was more compassionate and caring than the status-quo of individual liberty and private property. They're called Progressives, and they're still alive and strong today.
@EmpperorIng left libertarianism is not an oxymoron. libertarianism (originally called liberalism) was long a part of the left since at least prior to the french revolution in France. In fact, that is where the political terms of left vs right came from. On the right sat the pro-royalists, warmongers, state capitalists/protectionists/crony capitalists, theocrats. On the left sat the anarchists, free marketeers, secularists, those who stood for what we now call civil libertarians.
@nurbSoldier I am aware of the origins of Left and Right, but in modern times, the Left consists of people who want to grow the federal government, where the Right wants to reduce the size of government.
In modern days, despite their claims, nobody who associates with the Left can possibly be a libertarian. Those that do are either conservatives who are social liberals, or statists who want to feel good about themselves. In a nutshell Statism (leftism) and Libertarianism diametrically opposed .
@EmpperorIng You are portraying a very simplistic view of politics, your idea of studying consists of listening to Rush Limbaugh. What you say is illogical, inconsistent with history as well as itself. It also has nothing to do with actual political science.
@nurbSoldier I have studied political science, but that's irrelevant. Leftism is Statism, Rightism* is Conservatism. Their difference is the size and growth of government. What you assume to be "tradition" versus "new ideas" is up and down.
@EmpperorIng Conservatives are NOTHING like libertarians, except when they want to seize power in elections, then they go to some free market literature, copy it, and hope it wins votes.
@nurbSoldier Libertarians are to the right of Conservatives, this I know. Conservatives are right-of-center. Please, for the love of God, don't confuse Conservatives with the likes of John McCain or Scott Brown. They are statists with (R)s next to their names.
Also, don't you dare call us statists. We want to SHRINK the size of government and we all but completely agree with libertarians in economics. If you need a reference: Conservatives are Lockeans.
@EmpperorIng No. Wrong. More Rush Limbaugh bullshit.
Right wingers are UNIQUELY statist in that they support drug wars and perpetual wars overseas. They have gone out of their way to reduce Jeffersonian restrictions on government. They used the FCC to go after "indecent" radio. They try to outlaw abortion. They tried to censor various forms of music.
Conservatives stand for government giving money to churches. conservatives stood for protectionist policies. You must live in a cave
@nurbSoldier Goddamnit, you're being an idiot again.
Those are ALL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE POLICIES. Your only gripe with conservatives is that we actually believe in strong foreign policy to protect the natural rights of our citizens from foreign invaders who would not respect ours (for example Al Qaeda) and you're projecting what is invariably and undeniably leftist policies onto us conservatives.
You see THIS is why Ron Paul can't even win against Obama.
@EmpperorIng Son, you need to go out and study even just a little political science. You could get a good start with Wikipedia. The people who stood for these policies all called themselves conservatives.
All the major conservatives stand for the drug war. Almost all conservatives supported the patriot act. Same for demands for higher sentencing. Conservatives OKayed torture. Pat Buchanan supports strong tarriffs. most conservatives support making the mexican border into a fortress.
@EmpperorIng Actually Ron Paul polls most favorably against Obama, better than anyone else.
What is funny that conservatives support Woodrow Wilsons (the king of progressives) ideas of perpetual wars everywhere and destroying the treasury in the process, then they call their opponents progressives when the opponents point out this obviously irrational scheme.
Conservatives view on foreign policy is about as intellectual as Ghengis Khan's view on foreign policy.
@EmpperorIng Is this why every conservative candidate is behind increasing the military? How is the government bad again? I would rather be ruled by the state where I have a vote and a say, than corporations, which are completely unaccountable to the masses.
@CommunistCritic You have every say in a corporation. A corporation earns revenue by people voluntarily purchasing their product, good, or service, a state forcibly confiscates money in exchange for services the people may not even want. If a corporation is making something you don't want you don't have to get it. Their producing it doesn't make you poorer, where the State producing something you don't want: You're forced to pay or it anyway.
@EmpperorIng A corporation earns money by maximizing profit. If you study marginal cost in economics you know this means they are willing to pay their workers incredibly low wages while making a specific number of products just below that demanded to streamline price. It has nothing to do with meeting the needs of the people.
You have to buy from corporations. If you want a computer, you need software, you have to eat, you have to work, these are things you have to do in a capitalist system.
@CommunistCritic Companies have always been the best at distributing food, providing work, and if it weren't for people looking for a profit, software and personal computers wouldn't exist. That said, companies maximize their profits when they maximize revenues by selling more of their product. You're right, it has nothing to do with meeting the people's needs, because that's our responsibility as individuals to meet our own needs. Nobody is obligated to meet our needs.
@EmpperorIng Is that why hundreds of thousands starve every year? Why 1/6 American children go to bed hungry? I think you have a very delusional pespective on reality. The only reason half the food we have is safe is because of social policies like the FDA that make sure butchers dont swipe meat of the floor into your burgers like they did in the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution, prime of Capitalism, was a humanitarian disaster on so many levels, wake up dear sir.
@EmpperorIng Our responsibility? What about the people that cannot? And how can you possibly rely only on yourself? Life is a social experience, living it under a privatized and greedy economic system seems beyond ignorant. In your case we should get rid of Medicare, Social Security, Welfare etc. because people should only rely on themselves right?
@CommunistCritic No, you're dealing in absolutes. Yes, you can rely on only yourself, but since some aren't able to do that, they will need to rely on the good will and charity of other human beings to lend a helping hand in their time of need. It's undeniably more noble to be generous with your money than to be generous with other people's money. Besides, corporations have helped FAR more people than public or private charities ever have.
Then you go onto say, "corporations have helped FAR more people than public or private charities ever have."
Quite the hypocritical and bold statement to say that the corporations who pay people below a living wage and outsource their labor and resources causing crisis have helped "far more people" in that case worship your govt. they have helped FAR more people than the Fiji govt. Ludicrous.
So you think Socialism is idealistic yet rely on charity
@EmpperorIng We are not generous with other peoples money, stop throwing around this right wing attack. The money CEO's pocket is not theirs. They never earned it. They managed to be capitalist central planners and hoard as much wealth as they could, and pay their workers the least, and charge the most. This is not an accomplishment. The wealth, created by the 99% belongs too the 99%. CEO's just move money around and are literally empowered by a govt. piece of paper.
@EmpperorIng Just because you never met someone does not mean they exist. I suggest you look up Roderick Long, who is a well respected free market scholar at the Mises Insitute and Molinari Institute who, among others proudly discusses the concept of left libertarianism.
More people you might want to look up include Murray Rothbard, who is recognized as one of the greatest free market economists of the 20th century. He also wrote articles on left libertarianism. Another is Mikhail Bakunin.
Banks are NOT largely irrelevant. They created the federal reserve. They create inflation at will, rather than be limited by something rational like gold. Big government can not exist without something like the federal reserve. If you don't know what I am talking about, then your free market knowledge is not strong.
THEY financed the original and modern progressives, as well as provided funding for government when it wanted to carry out their schemes.
@nurbSoldier -cont'd- if you think banks created the Fed, you're an idiot. The federal government created the Fed as a quasi-private entity to indirectly regulate banks as well as directly control the money supply. I AM NOT saying the Fed is good or bad, i'm simply citing historical facts. Besides, banks don't like deflation, which is how the Fed caused the stock crash of 1929.
@EmpperorIng Don't call me an idiot you ignoramus. I can dance intellectual circles around you. I study this stuff. It is well documented that the creation of the federal reserve is a cooperation between major banking partners as well as those in government.
@nurbSoldier Nobody cares that you can dance intellectual circles around X, Y, and Z. Besides, thanks for having the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong when you said banks created the federal reserve.
@EmpperorIng What the fuck? Either you misunderstood completely, or your'e just lying.
I said that the banks created the federal reserve, with help from government. but if the banks did not want it in the first place, the government would have never had it.
@nurbSoldier The Fed was created around the Progressive area. You can't honestly say that the banks wanted unelected unconstitutional bureaucrats in Washington to limit the extent at which they can make voluntary economic transactions without decrying corporatism, in that banks use federal regulators to drive out smaller competition
@EmpperorIng I know that the federal rerserve was created in the progressive era. In fact, the progressive era would have had no traction without the fed. But those unelected bureaucrats are owned by the bankers, so they are helpful to them.
@EmpperorIng Right, I'm sorry. They only constantly advocate for war when there is a sitting republican president or there MIGHT be a republican president. But when there is a democrat as president, it's "We are not policemen of the world"
@nurbSoldier Last I checked, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were all democrats. George W Bush was a republican, but a Conservative? I think not, He called himself a conservative numerous times, but he hasn't done anything save on foreign policy a real conservative would have done.
@nurbSoldier Protect the natural rights of the citizens from foreign threats that do not respect their rights. For example: The Taliban. It's not complicated.
@nurbSoldier It's called the police. The government does have a role to protect its citizens from others within as well as without who do not respect the natural rights of its citizens.
I'm sure the private sector can do it too. Hell, i'm certain they can do it with greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness than government. I'm just saying that both are totally legitimate functions whether you like it or not.
@nurbSoldier Are you paying attention? I do want police and military (technically the police are run at the state and local level, but I consider the FBI and CIA legitimate functions of the federal government) however Ron Paul, in addition to blasting the Fed (It's good he's doing that) has stated he will gut the military. With China on the rise and the IAEA saying Iran is months from a nuke, now is not a time to gut our military. There's PLENTY of other places to cut the budget.
@nurbSoldier -cont'd- and besides, minimal government is something I am sure we'll get (or at least try to get) from any one of our current stock of candidates except Romney and Huntsman.
@EmpperorIng not gingrich who stood with the democrats on so many occasions and has stood for right wing statism on many occasions, like when he said drug dealers should be put to death
not santorum who is Mike Huckabee 2. Invasive big government social conservative - clearly stands for government invading bedroom and other private, personal affairs. Supported another politician who favored abortion and the bailouts. Even his own nephew points this stuff out
@nurbSoldier Ring Wing Statism is an oxymoron. Furthermore, you're taking a fact and coming to irrelevant conclusions.
Santorum said he's pro-life, not that he's pro-federal-anti-abortion laws. Gingrich standing with democrats? Nobody cares if the guy he's standing next to has a (D) next to their name. And Perry? That's not really a relevant point that you're hopng i'll take to an irrelevant conclusions for you.
You're making the same arguments liberals make. Come on.
@EmpperorIng right wing statism is not an oxymoron, as anarchism, the exact opposite of statism is associated with the left. Besides, fascism is considered in political science to be a right wing form of statism.
Most importantly, Gingrich AGREED with the democrats on things like global warming and bailouts. clearly statist.
Rick Perry gave texas its first income tax and created a bunch of government jobs. Please do some research
@nurbSoldier Right Wing Statism as well as Left Anarchism are oxymorons. And if you buy into the myth that fascism is right-winged, then you're an oxymoron minus the oxygen atoms.
Seriously, I cannot think of ONE THING ANY fascist did in the history of EVER to reduce the size and power of the federal government and advance liberty.
But I digress: You're talking like a leftist. What's wrong with agreeing with democrats on global warming and bailouts, as well as the income tax?
@EmpperorIng You seem to think little to know government is exclusively right wing the bigger it is, the more left it is. Sorry, but there is no official or historical basis for this.
Right wing has been considered by many scholars to be favoring tradition and hierarchy as its guiding principles, rather than libertarianism - which is well known for having various right wing and left wing strands.
A clear historical example of how right wingers favor certain kinds of statism is with Lincoln.
@nurbSoldier Ok now you're gonna go into neoconfederate mode. Besides, I doubt you can name any one of these "many scholars." At one point, left and right wing was about tradition, but in this day and age, it's bigger governmen versus smaller government.
(besides, there was never anything "traditional" about fascism :P)
I think we're done here, you personify why Ron Paul cannot win. Your arguments are similar in form to liberal arguments and you're fine with Obama getting reelected.
@EmpperorIng your'e remaining in willfully ignorant closed minded asshole mode. Even in school they taught you that fascism was on the right, or borrowed many right wing ideas. I don't have to explain that. But since you want specifics on scholars, there is Murray Rothbard, Randolf Bourne, Roderick Long, Tom Woods, Tom Dilorenzo and others
@EmpperorIng and another thing about santorum: watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU
One of the people denouncing Santorum, calling him a big government conservative is from the CATO Institute, one of the most prominent think tanks in the world.
@nurbSoldier I've, in your words, danced more than a few intellectual circles around you, you haven't made a single intellectual, insightful, or substantive point, you manipulate language like a lib, and you're a broken record about your myths that i've already refuted without addressing my rebuttal. Here's the thing: I have less patience for anarchists than liberals. At least libs aren't whiny children who cry totalitarianism when someone doesn't want them to smoke pot. Good day.
@EmpperorIng "you haven't made a single intellectual, insightful, or substantive point..," you mean showing examples of scholars, which you specifically asked for, does not count? neither does providing backing articles?
"At least libs aren't whiny children who cry totalitarianism when someone doesn't want them to smoke pot. Good day." I never claimed that you were totalitarian. First you claim that drug wars were on the left because they were statist, now you actually admit supporting them
@CommunistCritic but Austrians are not about all these math and numbers for predicting this and that. They treat economics more of as a social science rather than an exact science because economics is really all about human action. meaning that the future is simply too hard to predict using equations. Even Alan Greenspan and others at central banks have admitted that in spite of very sophisticated computer models, large scale economic behavior is too hard to predict
@nurbSoldier I would say so. So why try to spend so much time defending worthless economic theories and then trying to impose them on the rest of us in the terms of 'free markets' another completely abject and useless concept.
@HowTheWorldWorks Lee, you should read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist commonwealth" by Ludwig von Mises. It delivers a much more devastating blow to communism than Sowell. Read it for free at mises.org
@CommunistCritic sounds like you know what your talking about. You should go to the Chinese embassy to n. korea, and have them fly you into n. korea. That way you can live in your fantasy land. Go for it,, i wish you luck, we need less parasites in america and other countries, let em all live in N. Korea. Have fun
@CommunistCritic okay and i aplogize for the "gargling with battery acid" comment. You should choke on your own vomit. Always little pussies like you never show their face on youtube, bye troll :)
@CommunistCritic They have done some things to distance themselves and black markets. However these are minuscule the fact is that they might not say they are communist in there constitution but it points towards it. In the American constitution it does not say that we have to be capitalist but it points towards it.
@dukee155 Actually, I have a Communist Manifesto right in front of me and as I glance through the ten planks of a transitional state North Korea just does not add up.
The American Constitution is not exactly the best document to reference. A hemp paper written for a country that banned the consumption of cannabis, founded upon slavery and slave wages building the most wealthy dynasties in recorded history being the Carnegies and Rockefellers then perpetuation terrorism worldwide via imperialism
I find it funny how you just said that liberals laughing at brietbart's death were evil folks who didn't even know what they were talking about...OH THE IRONY.
FinaIFrontier 23 hours ago
Are you religious?
SuperSkarmDG 2 days ago
Okay, folks, no living human can be right 100%, that's impossible. So yeah, he's a bit bias, but then .... so is everyone. So meh. He has some great points, and his critiques are spot on, his personal views may be a bit skewed, but his logical views are pretty well studied. Discounting someone just for believing a bit different than you ... what was that word again?
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago 3
there is a difference between hardcore leftist and communist. Also, communist or not, I don't even think they'd think north korea is okay.
TheMrdannyharrington 1 month ago
What are you talking about? I can safely say I have never heard any leftist say anything was remotely OK in North Korea, you dishonest SOB.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago 5
Watch the National Geographic documentary about North Korea. These people honestly believe KIm Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung are gods.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
Don't diss him, he was the best at looking at things.
thewakkydude 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
wow i did not know kim jong-il was like that. fuck that dude i'm glad he's dead
sweetness583 1 month ago
I just subscribed so I haven't seen most of your videos but are you atheist/agnostic?
vgdominator 1 month ago
@tigerspuds Just because he is talking about brainwashing in another place dosn't mean he dosnt recognize it in his own country.
KaminariKitsune0 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill Maher = In tears
paunocu666 1 month ago
WOAH SLOW DOWN THERE BIG GUY
Krow006 1 month ago
Man are you on some speed or something, that's faaaast talking
Astianax27 1 month ago
An american talking about brainwashing..... How ironic..... lol
tigerspuds 1 month ago
@tigerspuds While I'm not sure which country your from, I can say with abolust certainty that no matter which one it is, there is more than enough brainwashing to fit in with the best brainwashed in the States. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and realize that we're all fighting the same enemy in each of countries, they just wear different stripes. We only help them when bicker and call every American fat/stupid, every Brit arrogant, every Frenchman a coward etc.
SamusVSMC 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Wrong, he's still alive in the hearts of all patriotic Koreans, long live Kim Jong il.
Fray2221 1 month ago
@Fray2221 No, no, he's dead.
RoflyouareMAD 1 month ago
When I was visiting relatives in commie china there was pretty much 24/7 news coverage of that fat bastard and his son.
sneakybeard 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
Well, Portugal won 8-1 agains North Korea, every argument is invalid.
RMLLcrazy 1 month ago
♫ Ding dong! ♫
TheJackOfFate 1 month ago
How delusional to think that his son who took over will be less "crazy". Or that its a good thing that KJI died. It wont solve a single problem for North Korea, or anyone
Nebulak187 1 month ago
South Korea did use statism to achieve high growth rates; was that a command economy? No but it really wasn't free market capitalism either.
If you want to see brainwashed rubes just visit world workers party website. Creepy.
moderatesunited 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic: First of all, governments don't have responsibility, PEOPLE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY! A building doesn't have responsibility, YOU AND I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY. Anyone who agrees to do their responsibility of taking care of each other through government are allowed to do so, but anyone who doesn't should not be forced to do so.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic: And what is wrong, I ask you, of maximizing profit? If the demand of stuff increases, corporations have to hire more workers, increasing employment. If there aren't any workers left, corporations will compete for workers by raising wages.To say that greed can only benefit one person or a select group in capitalism is ignorant. In order to get rich, people will need to sell goods and services to society. In capitalism, you can only get rich if society allows you to.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic: Just so you know, more people starved (as a percentage of the population) under communism and feudalism than under capitalism. Capitalism is not social Darwinism, a common misconception. Capitalism and free trade has been responsible of bringing billions out of poverty in India and around the world, it has been responsible for letting billions survive who would otherwise perish. The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: Capitalism works where others have failed.
Greedyspectator 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lee D. ....RNC cannidates have been voted off "te island"
please do a vid of (or simply reply) as to WHO IS THE BEST NOMINEE FOR THE ELECTION RACE....
...
.Thumbs up to second this notion...
ForLawAndProphets 2 months ago
You are an idiot.
arashdeepsingh1 2 months ago
@arashdeepsingh1 Great analysis and critique. You've sure convinced me.
krogan92 2 months ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
you keep editing your videos to cut out all the gaps... LOVE IT.. no boring parts.... well except for the splash screen musical intro you do in every video that most people fast forward through! Infact sometimes it acts as a deterrent to watching your video :) Happy New Year.
sinewave779 2 months ago
North Korea is best Korea?
DrMichaelHfuhruhurr 2 months ago
Now, since you think you are wise with the comment on the phonetic spelling of "bulsheivic", tell me this, why are concentrating on the spelling of a word and not the substance of the comment made? Most liberals do this as a means to belittle or talk down to their enemies.Ok, back to your comment. Which is it, bulsheivic or bolshevik? Both words are phonetic.The proper way to spell it is "большевйк". Perhaps you can learn the Russian alphabet before you claim to be a lingual expert?
wolfattack402000 2 months ago
@wolfattack402000 The spelling I'm familiar with is Bolshevik, and the original spelling was Bolshevists. Doesn't really matter, though.
casualdissent 2 months ago
First of all, the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Representative Republic. This is exacetly what the white Russians wanted when the Romanovs lost power during the 1st Russian revolution. They did not have the blessing of our forefathers when the white russians were slaughtered and lost power to the bulsheivics (Red October). I believe it is the duty of all liberals to reside in N. Korea for a month. They will then learn to appreciate the form of gov't that they hail as utopia.
wolfattack402000 2 months ago
@wolfattack402000 "bulsheivics"....
hmmm I do not recall this group existing in Russia.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@Elvishairdude89 Most Neo-Nazis I know, not a lot thankfully, do not deny the existence of the holocaust but justify it by further anti-semitic slurs.
Communism does work, I would need proof it does not.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic what about the freedom index, it ranks countries who have the most freedoms etc, it shows countries who are more socialist/communist have fewer freedoms, and lower standard of living. The highest standard of living is of course in the freest parts of the world. Russia is 143. North Korea is 179(last), Venezuela 175
, and china 135.
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 Which index. The Heritage Foundation index?
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Likely.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic how about you rank the best countries for standard of living and life expectancies. Im sure Communist countries will be near the bottom.. what the goal of communism is to take the wealth out of the country and give it to the international banks. oh its a workers paradise we are building a utopia they always say the same shit. but look how the leaders and high party members live, a lot higher then the normal citizen--- oh but i thought everyone equal!!
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 kim jong ill was at one time the largest single purchaser of Hennessy also had a very large porno collection.
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 In actuality I would categorize more Socialist-like countries as the Scandanavian countries. The ones with the highest standards of living and running budget surpluses. The ones with massive union involvement and social nets. The ones that consistently beat the United States in both overall welfare and happiness.
Cuba, by the way, has world class medical care and a higher life expectancy than the United States. I do not defend the revisionist empire of China, or the USSR after the 40s
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic
Sweden and Denmark both have freer markets in many areas than the United States, the difference is that they replace massive regulation with social safety nets, which have been executed oddly well given their scope. Norway is oil-rich as it has been for decades, and there's not really anything remarkable about Finland. Their budget surpluses, I'd attribute to their complete lack of any real militarism, and generally low corruption.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent That is to be debated. Sweden and Denmark have many regulations, of the right kind. Not corporate handouts which is what I am assuming you are referring to.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic They have more public property, but the private atmosphere has less oversight, especially in terms of international trade, solidarity of intermediaries, and investment freedom. Their scores on 'economic freedom' are low mainly because of their safety nets, which the agencies that publish these indexes are against.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent Yes I agree
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic That said, if the choice is between living under over-regulated corporate militarism and living under a peaceful country with a safety net that actually defends civil rights, then I think the choice is obvious, and that the people in Scandinavia have a lot to be happy about.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent They do indeed. I am trying to get a passport to the Netherlands but it is actually quite difficult.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@jwka2001 "what the goal of communism is to take the wealth out of the country and give it to the international banks."
What communist sources have you been reading from?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic yes and also the Human Development Index on wiki gives great info. The first communist nation to appear is Cuba(51) which is behind such shitty countries as Latvia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates...Even mexico(57) has a higher standard of living than fucking your communist wet dream China(101). Sadly North Korea isnt on the list, hasnt been since 1998, i guess the dear leader hadnt invented the numbers before he had died.
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 The highest developed keep in mind are the Socialist scandanavian countries. I enjoy how you leave out that little fact. Cuba is facing massive sanctions, severely inhibiting their growth, yet they boast a higher life expectancy than the United States. China is revisionist and capitalist, no Communist allies with them. North Korea, once again, is not Communist, they removed Marxist-Leninism in 1977.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
"The Communists of North Korea have brainwashed their entire civilization..."
Marxist-Leninism was replaced by "Juche" or "self-reliance" in 1977 and the newest version of the North Korea constitution, from 2009, has no connections to Communism.
Lee, what you have done is very disrespectful and I would like to ask for an apology.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Go complain to the other communists on YouTube who make tribute videos to Kim Jon il and North Korea. Ask them to stop making you look bad. Don't blame me.
Then go read Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition.
Thanks.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 months ago 12
@HowTheWorldWorks Perhaps I will. If you are referring to MaoistRebelNews2 he does not claim that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Communist, but that they fight Imperialism, a valid statement.
Regardless, you are still misleading your viewers if you do not correct your previous statement.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic What's incorrect? The North Korean government subjects their people to sub-third world living conditions to finance their military while indoctrinating their people into a religious cult with Dear Leader as the godhead. North Korea has actual Concentration Camps and a massive chunk of the population lives in Soviet style Gulags.
You can't justify these crimes against humanity by saying they fight Imperialism. They haven't done ANYTHING to fight Imperialism. Ever
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Some of this may be true, however the sources we have on North Korea are defectors and Imperialist news sources, either way not much of an unbiased report.
North Korea is a developing nation and it forbids the entrance of Consumerism, and the exploitation by the bourgeois, for that they deserve some sort of recognition.
Most of the Western World lives in a concentration camp of sorts namely Consumerism and the blind accumulation of capital.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic If you understand basic economics, you'd understand how the things you decry as "exploitation by the burgeois," "consumerism" and that stuff has given western society the greatest standard of living in the entire world.
How has forbidding consumerism treated North Korea? Their people live in abject poverty where people starve to death all the time. The standard of living is horrendous, and they run gulags. GULAGS. That is not something anyone should look up to.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng I am majoring in Economics so I do not appreciate your belittling of my economic literacy. The standard of living the West has is built off the less developed nations that were raped of capital and labor resources for the past few centuries. This is not some kind of american exceptionalist ingenuity but pure rape.
Once again I will not commit myself to blind hatred of another nation. The North Korean people could revoke the Workers' Party at anytime but choose not to. Why judge?
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Because the regime would come at them with ak-47s in less than a minute.
year111 2 months ago
@year111 Right, I will remember that.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic For someone who claims to be majoring in economics you sure do seem unsuprisingly economically illiterate. You cite baseless myths along with meaningless phrases and pass them off as evidence of your economic genius.
Hey, check this out.
The "raped" cultures enjoy a much higher standard of living thanks to foreign investment. Don't you dare claim that North Korea is in any way democratic, the sole purpose of the ballot is to identify who should be sent to the gulags.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng What's so great about democracy, then?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent I dunno, I think Democracy is a popularity contest where a plurality is able to put someone up who they hope will further their interests.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng I did not cite any myths dear sir. Consumerism is a fact, almost every economist admits its existence however they argue it is a good thing. I do not agree with the Austrian School on that as they have proven completely non-credible when it comes to the use of actual data in analyzing economic figures.
"The raped cultures enjoy a much higher standard of living..." according to who? Abject Western surveys conducted by the rapists themselves. What arrogance you command dear sir.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic >"Austrian School. . .have proven completely non-credible when it comes to the use of actual data in analyzing economic figures."
How's this?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent They reject empirical evidence.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic
From what I understand, the Austrian methodology is that the theory has to predate the data, and the data serves as verification that a theory is true or false; what they reject is pure empiricism, i.e. the idea that theories can be derived from data alone, rather than through reason. Murray Rothbard in particular spent a great deal of time writing about political economies throughout history and how they empirically served the Austrian theories.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent I wonder if Rothbard also wrote about his extended belief in Social Darwinism;)
Listen, I understand Austrian methodology. I used to be a hardline capitalist when I first began my studies of Economics. When you read Marx, there is something much more telling and human than the calculation of life in a Capitalist assessment of reality based on commodities and their exchange value.
I am a Marxist because I desire to see the people free. True freedom is realized outside capitalism
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Well it doesn't sound like you understand their methodology when you say that they "reject empirical evidence." But I'm not defending global fiat capitalism as the Austrians do; I'm fond of their approach, but I take it to different conclusions.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent They reject it as a way to formulate a thesis. They are like creationists in the sense they search for evidence, yes, but their evidence, not objectively what happened.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I don't believe in treating economics as if it were a form of hard science, and thus attempting to derive a thesis from raw data makes no sense to me. Theories regarding which policies effect which consequences cannot be properly observed, cannot be repeated, and are not really falsifiable, as I think the Austrian school itself demonstrates just by existing.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent I agree. I am a Marxist we derive everything from dialectics. I just feel it to be a bit dishonest for a lofty Economic School to reject the use of empirical data as many other economic schools embrace it and are much more moderate.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic
I also don't think of economic philosophies in terms of freedom, if only because it's completely pointless. There's the one group that wants freedom to property, and the other group that wants freedom from property. You can't get an ought from an is, so there's literally nothing to make either case in itself. Instead, I approach it from a pure utilitarian standpoint, and find myself believing in social agorism, which I don't think of as capitalist or communist.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent True, negative and positive freedoms. I look at it from the traditional marxist standpoint of viewing Capitalism as inherently enslaving, and private property as an enemy of peace and freedom. Therefore I come to the Socialism conclusion, however I certainly see what you are saying and I prefer an idea of Agorism, though it may seem reactionary, over full blown Capitalism present in neo-liberal doctrine that dominates pages today such as our friend Lee Doren.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I'm against labor contracts, fiat property ("that forest belongs to me, because I have a piece of paper that says it does"), intellectual property, and a host of other nonsense that seems to come along with state capitalism. I believe in people getting together to exchange resources, but I think that free trade without state rule would lead to a complete transformation of the market system, namely the abandonment of capitalism as we know it.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent Ahhhh so you are an Anarcho-Capitalist/Voluntaryist in that sense. I see. So you define property ownership by homesteading and usofruct basically? Know that, I, as a Communist, have no problem with small personal ownership and neither do any other Communists I know of. We are more worried with abolishing the big businesses, Socialism is a constructive effort and alienating the small owners does nothing good.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic If you cut down a tree and built a house out of it and lived in that house, then I'd call it your house. If you cut down every tree in the forest and built a thousand houses, then you're certainly a good lumberjack, but you're not the owner of a thousand new houses. Other people could move into the houses you aren't using, and essentially homestead those houses from you to them. I see this in many countries today in the form of adverse possession laws.
casualdissent 2 months ago
Comment removed
casualdissent 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommunistCritic So whether I support homesteading has never been clear to me. The idea from the right-libertarians sounds as if just using a plot of land once makes it yours for life, and that's certainly not a notion that I endorse.
Usufruct is a far less talked about idea. It depends on the situation.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent So even though you built those houses, they aren't your property... why?
Halo4Lyf 2 months ago
@Halo4Lyf Why would they be?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent I see so you believe in Usofruct then? Use and occupation as legitimate property rights? Certainly the more humane of all the property rights theories.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I'm not clear on the legal terminology. Usufruct is the right to profit from the commons, or are you referring to a more specific idea?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I am skeptical of your claims of what you used to be. that kind of argument is really meant to discredit ideas by being condescending. whatever someone used to be is not verifiable - anyone can claim it.
Also, Rothbard never wrote in favor of social darwinism. If anything, he was against it. what you are doing is conflating freedom+small government with darwinism. But the market is not darwinian, it is based upon cooperation, exchange and trust between parties
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Okay, claim you were a Communist, people change it is not condescending but rather comradery in shared experience.
The market is a good word. Capitalist markets are not good, but there are some rather interesting social markets like those proposed by Mutualists and others.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Regardless Rothbard said this, "ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks."
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Are you using this quote by Rothbard to prove that he was a social darwinian? All he demonstrated was that socialists will tell certain poorer people something and that their arguments need to be refuted. Keep in mind that he also wrote that anti-market views are not unusual due to economics being a difficult field arriving at conclusions which are counter-intuitive.
That makes sense, considering you could say the same about physics or engineering
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Economics is like voodoo. It is a very secretive band of nonsense, which is interesting as I am majoring in Economics. Yet, it is a tool for the elites, to hold over the head of the worker, central planning of sorts if you will. CEO's, economists, corporate shareholders, all central planners of the economy, completely unaccountable to the masses. Rothbard is a racist, he makes it clear everywhere he believes in "racial science" look it up, it is the study of "which race is best"
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I did look it up and it doesn't exist. Completely bogus, like your claim that you were an austrian economist. I figured out you weren't an austrian economist by your confusion about Alan Greenspan and how you seemed to confuse him for one.
Yes, economics as taught in mainstream universities is nonsense, as it is based on the teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Austrians have been on his case since his friends in the banking industry bribed the universities to teach his stuff
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Actually, Academia has been bought and paid for by the left for a long time. Keynesianism is just a convenient excuse used by leftists to have the government forcibly confiscate more of the people's liberty as manifested in private property. And yes, Keynesianism is nonsense.
Fortunately my economics professor taught both sides, which is good. :)
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng because I want to throw a bone to my left libertarian and true liberal friends, I want to say it is not quite as simple as you are making it out to be, ideology wise.
Academia was quite honorable for centuries when it was not corrupted by religious/political fanaticism. When it stood for true Lockean liberalism, it was a strong driving force. What happened was that the bankers wanted control over everything so they bribed all the right people in government and academia.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier First off, left libertarian is an oxymoron. I have NEVER met a so-called left libertarian or others with similar titles who weren't instinctual statists.
As for banks, they've been largely irrelevant. What happened is that people who wanted to seem heroic entered the realms of public life to spread what they thought was more compassionate and caring than the status-quo of individual liberty and private property. They're called Progressives, and they're still alive and strong today.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng left libertarianism is not an oxymoron. libertarianism (originally called liberalism) was long a part of the left since at least prior to the french revolution in France. In fact, that is where the political terms of left vs right came from. On the right sat the pro-royalists, warmongers, state capitalists/protectionists/crony capitalists, theocrats. On the left sat the anarchists, free marketeers, secularists, those who stood for what we now call civil libertarians.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier I am aware of the origins of Left and Right, but in modern times, the Left consists of people who want to grow the federal government, where the Right wants to reduce the size of government.
In modern days, despite their claims, nobody who associates with the Left can possibly be a libertarian. Those that do are either conservatives who are social liberals, or statists who want to feel good about themselves. In a nutshell Statism (leftism) and Libertarianism diametrically opposed .
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng You are portraying a very simplistic view of politics, your idea of studying consists of listening to Rush Limbaugh. What you say is illogical, inconsistent with history as well as itself. It also has nothing to do with actual political science.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier I have studied political science, but that's irrelevant. Leftism is Statism, Rightism* is Conservatism. Their difference is the size and growth of government. What you assume to be "tradition" versus "new ideas" is up and down.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Conservatives are NOTHING like libertarians, except when they want to seize power in elections, then they go to some free market literature, copy it, and hope it wins votes.
They have their own non-left forms of statism.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Libertarians are to the right of Conservatives, this I know. Conservatives are right-of-center. Please, for the love of God, don't confuse Conservatives with the likes of John McCain or Scott Brown. They are statists with (R)s next to their names.
Also, don't you dare call us statists. We want to SHRINK the size of government and we all but completely agree with libertarians in economics. If you need a reference: Conservatives are Lockeans.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng No. Wrong. More Rush Limbaugh bullshit.
Right wingers are UNIQUELY statist in that they support drug wars and perpetual wars overseas. They have gone out of their way to reduce Jeffersonian restrictions on government. They used the FCC to go after "indecent" radio. They try to outlaw abortion. They tried to censor various forms of music.
Conservatives stand for government giving money to churches. conservatives stood for protectionist policies. You must live in a cave
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Goddamnit, you're being an idiot again.
Those are ALL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE POLICIES. Your only gripe with conservatives is that we actually believe in strong foreign policy to protect the natural rights of our citizens from foreign invaders who would not respect ours (for example Al Qaeda) and you're projecting what is invariably and undeniably leftist policies onto us conservatives.
You see THIS is why Ron Paul can't even win against Obama.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Son, you need to go out and study even just a little political science. You could get a good start with Wikipedia. The people who stood for these policies all called themselves conservatives.
All the major conservatives stand for the drug war. Almost all conservatives supported the patriot act. Same for demands for higher sentencing. Conservatives OKayed torture. Pat Buchanan supports strong tarriffs. most conservatives support making the mexican border into a fortress.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Actually Ron Paul polls most favorably against Obama, better than anyone else.
What is funny that conservatives support Woodrow Wilsons (the king of progressives) ideas of perpetual wars everywhere and destroying the treasury in the process, then they call their opponents progressives when the opponents point out this obviously irrational scheme.
Conservatives view on foreign policy is about as intellectual as Ghengis Khan's view on foreign policy.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Stop watching Glenn Beck he is melting your brain.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Is this why every conservative candidate is behind increasing the military? How is the government bad again? I would rather be ruled by the state where I have a vote and a say, than corporations, which are completely unaccountable to the masses.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic You have every say in a corporation. A corporation earns revenue by people voluntarily purchasing their product, good, or service, a state forcibly confiscates money in exchange for services the people may not even want. If a corporation is making something you don't want you don't have to get it. Their producing it doesn't make you poorer, where the State producing something you don't want: You're forced to pay or it anyway.
I think Corporations are nobler.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng A corporation earns money by maximizing profit. If you study marginal cost in economics you know this means they are willing to pay their workers incredibly low wages while making a specific number of products just below that demanded to streamline price. It has nothing to do with meeting the needs of the people.
You have to buy from corporations. If you want a computer, you need software, you have to eat, you have to work, these are things you have to do in a capitalist system.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic Companies have always been the best at distributing food, providing work, and if it weren't for people looking for a profit, software and personal computers wouldn't exist. That said, companies maximize their profits when they maximize revenues by selling more of their product. You're right, it has nothing to do with meeting the people's needs, because that's our responsibility as individuals to meet our own needs. Nobody is obligated to meet our needs.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Is that why hundreds of thousands starve every year? Why 1/6 American children go to bed hungry? I think you have a very delusional pespective on reality. The only reason half the food we have is safe is because of social policies like the FDA that make sure butchers dont swipe meat of the floor into your burgers like they did in the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution, prime of Capitalism, was a humanitarian disaster on so many levels, wake up dear sir.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Our responsibility? What about the people that cannot? And how can you possibly rely only on yourself? Life is a social experience, living it under a privatized and greedy economic system seems beyond ignorant. In your case we should get rid of Medicare, Social Security, Welfare etc. because people should only rely on themselves right?
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic No, you're dealing in absolutes. Yes, you can rely on only yourself, but since some aren't able to do that, they will need to rely on the good will and charity of other human beings to lend a helping hand in their time of need. It's undeniably more noble to be generous with your money than to be generous with other people's money. Besides, corporations have helped FAR more people than public or private charities ever have.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng "No, your dealing in absolutes"
Then you go onto say, "corporations have helped FAR more people than public or private charities ever have."
Quite the hypocritical and bold statement to say that the corporations who pay people below a living wage and outsource their labor and resources causing crisis have helped "far more people" in that case worship your govt. they have helped FAR more people than the Fiji govt. Ludicrous.
So you think Socialism is idealistic yet rely on charity
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng We are not generous with other peoples money, stop throwing around this right wing attack. The money CEO's pocket is not theirs. They never earned it. They managed to be capitalist central planners and hoard as much wealth as they could, and pay their workers the least, and charge the most. This is not an accomplishment. The wealth, created by the 99% belongs too the 99%. CEO's just move money around and are literally empowered by a govt. piece of paper.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Just because you never met someone does not mean they exist. I suggest you look up Roderick Long, who is a well respected free market scholar at the Mises Insitute and Molinari Institute who, among others proudly discusses the concept of left libertarianism.
More people you might want to look up include Murray Rothbard, who is recognized as one of the greatest free market economists of the 20th century. He also wrote articles on left libertarianism. Another is Mikhail Bakunin.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Also,
Banks are NOT largely irrelevant. They created the federal reserve. They create inflation at will, rather than be limited by something rational like gold. Big government can not exist without something like the federal reserve. If you don't know what I am talking about, then your free market knowledge is not strong.
THEY financed the original and modern progressives, as well as provided funding for government when it wanted to carry out their schemes.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier -cont'd- if you think banks created the Fed, you're an idiot. The federal government created the Fed as a quasi-private entity to indirectly regulate banks as well as directly control the money supply. I AM NOT saying the Fed is good or bad, i'm simply citing historical facts. Besides, banks don't like deflation, which is how the Fed caused the stock crash of 1929.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Don't call me an idiot you ignoramus. I can dance intellectual circles around you. I study this stuff. It is well documented that the creation of the federal reserve is a cooperation between major banking partners as well as those in government.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Nobody cares that you can dance intellectual circles around X, Y, and Z. Besides, thanks for having the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong when you said banks created the federal reserve.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng What the fuck? Either you misunderstood completely, or your'e just lying.
I said that the banks created the federal reserve, with help from government. but if the banks did not want it in the first place, the government would have never had it.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier The Fed was created around the Progressive area. You can't honestly say that the banks wanted unelected unconstitutional bureaucrats in Washington to limit the extent at which they can make voluntary economic transactions without decrying corporatism, in that banks use federal regulators to drive out smaller competition
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng I know that the federal rerserve was created in the progressive era. In fact, the progressive era would have had no traction without the fed. But those unelected bureaucrats are owned by the bankers, so they are helpful to them.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier NO conservative is advocating for perpetual war. That's so false and totally baseless it's not even a mythology.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Right, I'm sorry. They only constantly advocate for war when there is a sitting republican president or there MIGHT be a republican president. But when there is a democrat as president, it's "We are not policemen of the world"
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Last I checked, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were all democrats. George W Bush was a republican, but a Conservative? I think not, He called himself a conservative numerous times, but he hasn't done anything save on foreign policy a real conservative would have done.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng What does this mean? What does a "real conservative" do on foreign policy?
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Protect the natural rights of the citizens from foreign threats that do not respect their rights. For example: The Taliban. It's not complicated.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng that would mean that the USA should invade itself
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier It's called the police. The government does have a role to protect its citizens from others within as well as without who do not respect the natural rights of its citizens.
I'm sure the private sector can do it too. Hell, i'm certain they can do it with greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness than government. I'm just saying that both are totally legitimate functions whether you like it or not.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng Well, then you want Ron Paul if all you want is a minimal government that does police and military.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Are you paying attention? I do want police and military (technically the police are run at the state and local level, but I consider the FBI and CIA legitimate functions of the federal government) however Ron Paul, in addition to blasting the Fed (It's good he's doing that) has stated he will gut the military. With China on the rise and the IAEA saying Iran is months from a nuke, now is not a time to gut our military. There's PLENTY of other places to cut the budget.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier -cont'd- and besides, minimal government is something I am sure we'll get (or at least try to get) from any one of our current stock of candidates except Romney and Huntsman.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng not gingrich who stood with the democrats on so many occasions and has stood for right wing statism on many occasions, like when he said drug dealers should be put to death
not santorum who is Mike Huckabee 2. Invasive big government social conservative - clearly stands for government invading bedroom and other private, personal affairs. Supported another politician who favored abortion and the bailouts. Even his own nephew points this stuff out
not perry who worked for al gore
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Ring Wing Statism is an oxymoron. Furthermore, you're taking a fact and coming to irrelevant conclusions.
Santorum said he's pro-life, not that he's pro-federal-anti-abortion laws. Gingrich standing with democrats? Nobody cares if the guy he's standing next to has a (D) next to their name. And Perry? That's not really a relevant point that you're hopng i'll take to an irrelevant conclusions for you.
You're making the same arguments liberals make. Come on.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng right wing statism is not an oxymoron, as anarchism, the exact opposite of statism is associated with the left. Besides, fascism is considered in political science to be a right wing form of statism.
Most importantly, Gingrich AGREED with the democrats on things like global warming and bailouts. clearly statist.
Rick Perry gave texas its first income tax and created a bunch of government jobs. Please do some research
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Right Wing Statism as well as Left Anarchism are oxymorons. And if you buy into the myth that fascism is right-winged, then you're an oxymoron minus the oxygen atoms.
Seriously, I cannot think of ONE THING ANY fascist did in the history of EVER to reduce the size and power of the federal government and advance liberty.
But I digress: You're talking like a leftist. What's wrong with agreeing with democrats on global warming and bailouts, as well as the income tax?
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng You seem to think little to know government is exclusively right wing the bigger it is, the more left it is. Sorry, but there is no official or historical basis for this.
Right wing has been considered by many scholars to be favoring tradition and hierarchy as its guiding principles, rather than libertarianism - which is well known for having various right wing and left wing strands.
A clear historical example of how right wingers favor certain kinds of statism is with Lincoln.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier Ok now you're gonna go into neoconfederate mode. Besides, I doubt you can name any one of these "many scholars." At one point, left and right wing was about tradition, but in this day and age, it's bigger governmen versus smaller government.
(besides, there was never anything "traditional" about fascism :P)
I think we're done here, you personify why Ron Paul cannot win. Your arguments are similar in form to liberal arguments and you're fine with Obama getting reelected.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng your'e remaining in willfully ignorant closed minded asshole mode. Even in school they taught you that fascism was on the right, or borrowed many right wing ideas. I don't have to explain that. But since you want specifics on scholars, there is Murray Rothbard, Randolf Bourne, Roderick Long, Tom Woods, Tom Dilorenzo and others
articles:
rightwingnews(.)com/column-2/santorum-big-government-conservative/
lewrockwell(.)com/rothbard/rothbard237.html
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Fascism
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng and another thing about santorum: watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU
One of the people denouncing Santorum, calling him a big government conservative is from the CATO Institute, one of the most prominent think tanks in the world.
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier I've, in your words, danced more than a few intellectual circles around you, you haven't made a single intellectual, insightful, or substantive point, you manipulate language like a lib, and you're a broken record about your myths that i've already refuted without addressing my rebuttal. Here's the thing: I have less patience for anarchists than liberals. At least libs aren't whiny children who cry totalitarianism when someone doesn't want them to smoke pot. Good day.
EmpperorIng 2 months ago
@EmpperorIng "you haven't made a single intellectual, insightful, or substantive point..," you mean showing examples of scholars, which you specifically asked for, does not count? neither does providing backing articles?
"At least libs aren't whiny children who cry totalitarianism when someone doesn't want them to smoke pot. Good day." I never claimed that you were totalitarian. First you claim that drug wars were on the left because they were statist, now you actually admit supporting them
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic What examples of yours comes to mind?
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier The Paris Commune, Soviet Russia(before the death of stalin), Maoist China, Cuba, Venezuela, Somalia under the SRC.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic but Austrians are not about all these math and numbers for predicting this and that. They treat economics more of as a social science rather than an exact science because economics is really all about human action. meaning that the future is simply too hard to predict using equations. Even Alan Greenspan and others at central banks have admitted that in spite of very sophisticated computer models, large scale economic behavior is too hard to predict
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@nurbSoldier I would say so. So why try to spend so much time defending worthless economic theories and then trying to impose them on the rest of us in the terms of 'free markets' another completely abject and useless concept.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic "a concentration camp of . . . Consumerism and the blind accumulation of capital."
But I like both of those things. :-(
casualdissent 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic fighting imperialism alone is not good enough when you make your country hell on earth
nurbSoldier 2 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Lee, you should read "Economic Calculation in the Socialist commonwealth" by Ludwig von Mises. It delivers a much more devastating blow to communism than Sowell. Read it for free at mises.org
Miseslibertarian 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic sounds like you know what your talking about. You should go to the Chinese embassy to n. korea, and have them fly you into n. korea. That way you can live in your fantasy land. Go for it,, i wish you luck, we need less parasites in america and other countries, let em all live in N. Korea. Have fun
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 I am more concerned with building a Workers' State in the Americas but thankyou for the offer.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic why dont you actually work for a living instead of being a fucking parasite.
jwka2001 2 months ago
@jwka2001 How do you know I do not work for a living? I do so please be respectful.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic then get out of America and go live in North Korea
MWJEFF1 2 months ago
@MWJEFF1 Please come back with an argument.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic I did, leave America before your gargle with battery acid ya' rat bastard.
MWJEFF1 2 months ago
@MWJEFF1 I dont really consider violent threats from seemingly ultra-nationalists to be very substantial.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic then go live in North Korea , put your money where your mouth is pussy.
MWJEFF1 2 months ago
@MWJEFF1 I never said I wanted to live there.
CommunistCritic 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic okay and i aplogize for the "gargling with battery acid" comment. You should choke on your own vomit. Always little pussies like you never show their face on youtube, bye troll :)
MWJEFF1 2 months ago
@MWJEFF1 That makes no sense; he was saying that NK isn't really communist, so why would he want to go there?
casualdissent 2 months ago
@casualdissent casualdissent has no videos available. Another typical pussy.
MWJEFF1 2 months ago
@MWJEFF1 That has nothing to do with anything. You just have nothing more substantial to say.
casualdissent 2 months ago
@CommunistCritic They have done some things to distance themselves and black markets. However these are minuscule the fact is that they might not say they are communist in there constitution but it points towards it. In the American constitution it does not say that we have to be capitalist but it points towards it.
dukee155 2 months ago
@dukee155 Actually, I have a Communist Manifesto right in front of me and as I glance through the ten planks of a transitional state North Korea just does not add up.
The American Constitution is not exactly the best document to reference. A hemp paper written for a country that banned the consumption of cannabis, founded upon slavery and slave wages building the most wealthy dynasties in recorded history being the Carnegies and Rockefellers then perpetuation terrorism worldwide via imperialism
CommunistCritic 2 months ago