You don't believe that a world without governments would be a world without wars do you? And how do you propose we let you opt out? If we make taxes optional we'd have to make sure only the people who pay taxes use the public infrastructure, and only people who pay taxes are going to get police protection and military protection etc. Don't you think that would be far more inhuman than forcing you to pay taxes and giving you a vote on how your money is used?
I don't think this is about people being afraid to stand on principle. The problem is that most people are stupid and don't have the imagination to understand how this mindset would work if everyone would adopt it.
Another problem is determining interactions when boundaries between individuals become unclear. How about pollution? Different beliefs regarding property or the lack thereof? Limited resources like water and radio spectrum? How does anarchism work in this context?
In my case, I have found that people too often give up to compromise exactly because they are afraid to stand on principle, thinking that if they did so they could not make any difference. If more people stood on principle, instead of giving in to fear, maybe you WOULD see real change.
I'd just settle for the Federal government getting out of my hair.
Then I have 50 state governments to chose from.
If you think that's better, register Republican and vote Ron Paul, or just accept what you have - because your ONLY HOPE in the next election cycle is him.
It may be a compromise, but guarantee that NOTHING will change if you elect anybody else to the presidency, and probably things will just get worse.
@fuzzywzhe You can stop at half ethics... but I cannot. I will not support any statism slavery on peaceful people. You can stand by and allow governments to destroy individual choice, but I will never stand by and allow slavery on my neighbors. I want TRUE Freedom, and individual choice. A stupid election will not make a difference in the long run,... that is why I focus on helping the future end statism slavery, just like those who didn't settle for just "reforming" chain slavery.
@fuzzywzhe How about I stop a 100% ethics?!? How about I continue to convert thousands and thousands of people away from statism slavery instead of encouraging more of it?!? You know what is so ironic here... YOU are the idealist... you believe in the ideal that voting in a corrupt system will change the corrupt system... that is complete lunacy. Statism is created to work against Freedom, never to defend it. Your whole "good government" ideal... will never happen. There is no such thing.
@mikeshanklin "How about I stop a 100% ethics?!? How about I continue to convert thousands and thousands of people away from statism slavery instead of encouraging more of it?!?"
Go ahead and put all your effort into an entire fruitless task.
Here's what would happen without any organization at all - you'll simply be conquered. People can act savagely, this is why they group together, for common defense.
@fuzzywzhe LOL, wait... you think that when statism ends... everybody is on their own?!?!? LMFAO
What makes you think that people automatically fly off into mini islands once statism ends?!? I still want to band together with people... I just don't want institutionalized coercion on peaceful people. You CAN stop institutionalized coercion AND have neighbors, friends, colleagues, collective.... where did you get the flase impression that ending statism means ending society?!?!?!?!?
@mikeshanklin "What makes you think that people automatically fly off into mini islands once statism ends?!? "
When did I express this opinion? You can dispense with the strawmen arguments.
And you apparently think that anarchism will be adopted by 350 million Americans, and so, you won't do ANYTHING AT ALL to reduce the federal government in the meantime. Good strategy there, genius.
Politicians treat voters like morons, but they don't give a shit at all about people that don't vote.
@fuzzywzhe "Here's what would happen without any organization at all"
~THAT is where I get the ideal that you think we won't have any organization.... the fact that you SAID it... lol
Shrinking the Federal government through voting?!? Man... you are in deep. The system will not change through voting... it will collapse before then. Oh, and you don't need to get 350 million Americans to accept voluntaryism/Freedom... once we hit about 15%, things will REALLY start to change.
@fuzzywzhe Oh, so you admit you have never researched anarcho-capitalism before... interesting. Which means you haven't studied Dispute Resolution Organizations, nor multi-tiered arbitration, nor competing law.... which means this conversation will go nowhere until you RESEARCH. PLEASE, allow me to opt out of these violent, unethical monopolies... and into real protection. Protection that is based on individual freedom and personal choice, versus pointing government guns at peaceful people...
@fuzzywzhe LOL, you say things like police, military, and court system as if they are a marginal benefit to society when statism has proven just the opposite time and time again... but you keep on believing in "good slavery"... the FACTS and REALITY are on my side... on voluntaryism's side.
@mikeshanklin "you say things like police, military, and court system as if they are a marginal benefit to society when statism has proven just the opposite time and time again..."
Why do you suppose EVERY SOCIETY has those things, if they are just of limited marginal benefit? Because people are stupid and easily convinced they need something that doesn't provide any value?
"the FACTS and REALITY are on my side..."
Take a good look at history, and tell me whose been conquered and killed...
@fuzzywzhe "Why do you suppose EVERY SOCIETY has those things"
~Because people like me are trapped to them... without knowing how choice and freedom could make these operations much more efficient and accountable. Most people are brainwashed to government schools and they believe the bullshit.
"Because people are stupid and easily convinced they need something that doesn't provide any value?"
~Oh, it provides value to the enslavers!
History proves that statism is violence on peaceful people.
@mikeshanklin "Because people like me are trapped to them..."
How did THAT happen??
Gee, I bet everybody would respect your rights, if only you could only opt out. Look at how well they respect your rights now that you can't opt out?? RIGHT?
I'm sure the people that live in this society would respect your freedom and choice, if only you could get the law out of your way even those these same people are "trampling" your rights, right now, and are happy to do it.
@fuzzywzhe The beauty is, once I am allowed to opt out... most others will as well, and the system will vanish.
The system is what allows them to trample my rights. The system is against private property, against individual freedoms, against individual rights, against personal choice, and it encourages more and more people to think that way. You think a free society will just let people trample on others rights?!? Sorry, that is reserved for statism... free societies seek restitution.
@mikeshanklin "The beauty is, once I am allowed to opt out..."
HAHA.They won't be allowed to "opt out."
"You think a free society"
Do you think a free society is gained by asking permission for freedom? You talk about being "ALLOWED to opt out".
"You think a free society will"
How do you think a free society is GAINED? The US fought a war with England to get one, established a Constitution you don't give FUCK about, and guaranteed you vote, which you don't do.
@fuzzywzhe Ironic enough, my "oxymoron of the day" on my facebook status today was "free market nation".. because there is no such thing. A free market requires NO government, or else it is not a free market.... In other words, what you think is a free market, or was... is a lie, complete bullshit.
Voting encourages this slavery system... I will not support it because it will only strengthen the statists, not Freedom. The Constitution calls for violence on peaceful people... count me out.
@fuzzywzhe A free society is gained when people do not use institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals... voting only encourages the alternative. You think Freedom comes from voting in statism slavery?!?!?!? As I said before... you are addicted to pieces of parchment paper, nothing more. That Constitution is ignored, and always will be by tyrants.... but you keep on "believing".... have fun wasting your life in statism slavery, enslaving more people to slavery.
@mikeshanklin "A free society is gained when people do not use institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals."
OK - let's say that is right.
Do you expect a nation of 350 million people that don't really care there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are going to understand institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals and decide it's wrong?
The people who run this society, don't care about ANY of your beliefs if you don't vote. Your only other option, is violence.
@fuzzywzhe There is no other choice... voting is for suckers and statists. Voting only boosts the numbers the statist system can brag about for people who "support the system". Not only that, think about all the people who have been fooled into believing that voting is actually the best way to bring down the mafia!!! It doesn't work that way... keep dreaming, keep fighting statism... but don't give the statists moral sanctuary! Don't participate in their violent system... set the example.
@mikeshanklin "There is no other choice... voting is for suckers and statists."
You've been trained exceptionally well
The people in power have the power, and you let them run completely amok just like everybody else does. Your ONE AVENUE of resistance, you completely discard as "worthless".
If voting is totally a waste of time, then vote if makes no difference. Vote for the least "statist" person, OR just accept what you got. Pacifists don't change anything, ever.
@fuzzywzhe lol, you act like you can stop the WWF statists... good luck bringing down the corrupt with a corrupt vote... lol
Your attempts at correcting slavery through slavery are futile... but you just keep on believing that voting makes a difference lol... The rest of us who have been in your shoes years ago are just sitting back laughing/shaking our heads....
Pacifist?!? LMFAO Obviously you don't know the first thing about our message... keep on voting in slavery dude... lol
@mikeshanklin "Yep, just like the millions of people who said that before you for centuries.... SUUUUUUUUURE you will bring down slavery with a vote."
BWAUAHAHA!
Hey, name every country that ended slavery with a war. Every one you can think of. There's only one.
@fuzzywzhe ZERO countries have ended slavery... maybe chain slavery, but statism slavery is alive and well today. YOU are a slave in statism slavery. Not sure what ending chain slavery has to do with ending statism slavery... why the heck did you go on that tangent?!?
Why are you calling me mean names?!? I haven't done that to you.. sure, I laughed at your... "voting will save humanity" approach... but I never called you names. You think that helps end statism slavery?!?
@mikeshanklin "ZERO countries have ended slavery... maybe chain slavery, but statism slavery is alive and well today. "
GEE WHIZ - why in 6000 years has this system which is so great, never showed up on the planet?
Golly, it almost seems like a pipe dream of some pseudo intellectual jerk, that wants to pretend people are different than what they actually are - like Karl Marx did.
@fuzzywzhe I am mentioning that things are the way they are BECAUSE of human nature, and that human nature CAN make small changes that can have huge impacts. I am saying that the world is bad today because people are bad, but that most of the time it is because they just don't understand how they are the ones who are making the world worse. I truly believe most people would behave ethically if they only understand what ethics were... the nonaggression principle.
@mikeshanklin I hate idealists and dreamers. THEY that don't understand human nature.
The rule of law shows up because of how people are. Governments get created because of how people are. But then government over-reaches, and becomes a beast on it's own. And the beast gets worse and worse, until it becomes a parasite that kills the host.
Not only will you NEVER have the society you want, you will never take steps to get CLOSER to the society you want because you're an absolutist.
@fuzzywzhe "It's just going to dictatorship next. You won't need to vote then"
~Good, so you at least realize that voting won't do shit but give more support to the system... so are you finally ready to stop pointing government guns at peaceful people/voting for people to run statism?!?
@mikeshanklin "Good, so you at least realize that voting won't do shit but give more support to the system.."
You think this is "statism" now :-D ! wait 2 years. I have family that lived on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I have a friend that grew up in Argentina during the Dirty War.
You spoiled little fucker, you have NO IDEA what is coming. That's just fine with me. You think you're in "statism" now. In 5 years, your childish rigid unrealistic ideals will be a fading memory.
@fuzzywzhe Once again, my whole point is that statism continually gets worse. You have done nothing but prove my point... that statism IS slavery, and that it only seeks to gain more control and power over the individuals. Once again, get made at me all you want because voting doesn't work... you just look like an asshole who is freaking out on an educated and informed 29 year old. Stop attacking me, and starting ending slavery...
@mikeshanklin "get made at me all you want because voting doesn't work..."
I'm actually angry with you, because you think doing nothing works.
You won't even register a PROTEST vote.
You have a man running for the Republican nomination nomination now who has a 30 year history of resisting statism, but you don't want to compromise "your morals".
You're just making it THAT MUCH EASIER to ensure an ABSOLUTE STATIST stays in power for 4 more years.
@fuzzywzhe Doing nothing?!? Yeah, my hundreds of thousands of hours working on Freedom and educating people away from brainwashed statism is "doing nothing"?!?!? If there is one thing I am guilty of, doing nothing is far from that list. A libertarian winning the election will speed up statism... 1 libertarian out of 435+... you think that is going to magically change the system?!?!? Give me a break... statism has proven that theory incorrent more times than I can count.
@fuzzywzhe I am against voting because it gives credence to an aggressively violent system of statism slavery. It makes people falsely believe that they can change statism through a vote... which is impossible. I am against voting because it is unethical. I am against voting because it is a form of keeping people believing in "good government" which is complete bullshit. I am against voting because I know that as long as a majority of people vote... we will have statism slavery.
@mikeshanklin "Stop giving them the legal right to fuck me over!!!"
It's you giving them the legal right, idiot.
Silence = consent. Vote for "Nobody" if you want, if feel compelled to, but not voting at all, is consent.
If you don't vote, if you don't insist on an accurate vote tally (exit polling ended 8 years ago...), if you just sit there, you think the mafia isn't going to take advantage of the situation?
You think they'll just rot away, and you'll be free?
@fuzzywzhe No, VOTING is when you give someone else the right to control you. NOT voting is a vote against the entire system... As if choosing between a fascist and a communist is freedom... give me a break. These handpicked candidates will never give you Freedom, they are there to grow the system after lying to you. I am certainly NOT SILENT!!! lol How about you change your rhetoric away from the lamestream media's "vote or die" bullshit and actually start encouraging peaceful interaction?!?
'Hypocrisy much?': AHAHAHAHA: You seem to neglect the failure that comes with the 'freedom' you claim I support. I would not support a business or care to go to a business that is ignorant or racist, I'd speak against it and hope it failed. The government is the exact opposite of a business, it's not voluntary: it's mandatory, you don't have a choice between the central government and say California's government: you have ONE govt, so allowing it to be racist and ignorant is fucking retarded.
@RANDYSEXER HAHA, YOU'RE the mentally ill one! STOP POINTING GUNS AT PEACEFUL PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DISAGREE!!! Whacko... Take your taxation theft and political human ownership elsewhere...
If I was really able to opt out, I wouldn't even have to move anywhere. I could just have my Freedom... but NO... there are too many people brainwashed into having political slavery and rulers. Fucking morons...
@billburns2 There is no such thing as a free market country. If it is a country, it is defined by government boundaries, a true free market has no government.... your statement is an oxymoron. Besides, threatening to make someone leave just because they disagree with your slavery, is one of the lowest forms of conversation. I have to leave because of your entrapment?!? How about we just take away your slavery, and all nations' slavery while we are at it.... instead, have a choice based society.
Nobody is obliged to supply you with something just because you want it. I'd like a car that runs on air but it doesn't exist. Nobody makes it. Is my freedom to have the car I want taken away? Am I a slave to the automotive industry? Or do I just have to make an alternative choice?
You don't HAVE to leave if you don't like where you live. It's your own choice. That's freedom.
@billburns2 This argument makes me question a lot of things: Most particularly, how did that make sense? I must ask: If no one is forced to supply you with something than how, I must ask, are people forced to supply you with a government and accept the system, just because you want it. It's not a matter of supplying something because he wants it, it's a matter of not having to participate in supplying government because somebody else wants it, that's what he's getting at here.
no-one is obliged to supply a government. They exist because people want them. They are the product of supply and demand. I understand that this is a terrible frustration to Libertarians who want people to NOT want them, but unfortunately that's how it is.
@billburns2 By that justification: Absolutely everything and I mean EVERYTHING the Nazis did was just and right, because the Nazis wanted it. Am I wrong in this assumption? Because that's supply and demand, they supply the concentration camps and DEMAND the Jews go there. The people wanted it to happen, they've even proven the people in Germany were brainwashed in to WANTING that shit, but according to you: that doesn't matter. Who cares if we're brainwashed? The people are happy...
@billburns2 And Libertarians do not want EVERYBODY to think like them, they're wise enough to realize that not everybody has the same view(you on the other hand I'm doubting), they're also smart enough to point out the flaws and problems with the systems that centralize and control their people too much, whether personally or economically. Hell even Shanklin argues: If you want government or Communism: go ahead, just leave me out of it, let me opt out. Shanklin's view makes more sense than you.
@billburns2 First off I recommend Googling the MS St. Louis, since it really makes your argument look terrible. German Jews had the option to leave too, they were denied entry by the tyrannical FDR who didn't want Germans in the country and ended up having to go back to Germany, cause it was the only place they could make it. Regardless the end result: they had the option to leave, so no I'm not crazy for saying that's Nazi Germany mindset there.
The Third Reich required something called an exit visa - you were only free to leave with the permission of the state, fom 1941 that meant nobody. Do your history.
Clearly you haven't Googled MS St. Louis - not a single Jew was returned to Germany, all were repatriated in different countries. The shame is USA and Cuba's refusal to allow them entry - which according to Libertarian doctrine is perfectly acceptable under their "freedom of association" AKA "racism is OK" mantra.
@billburns2 Yep, you know it... all libertarians are racists. GREAT WORK!!!!....at making yourself look like a dumbass!!! LMFAO I educate people everyday that racism is horrible, but I will not point a gun at the racists simply because they don't want to associate with them. Talking about causing millions of other problems (AND NOT EVEN FIXING THE RACISM). What a loser... your response to everything is point a gun at people.... No wonder the world is so fucked up... people like you.
@billburns2 AHAHAHA: A handful of the people went to Belgium, a larger handful at France, some at the Netherlands, and the rest were collected by the United Kingdom. After the invasions of Germany in to France and Belgium and, a little later, the Netherlands: they were right back where they started. Germany had control of the Jews ALL OVER AGAIN.
@billburns2 The only Jews that weren't returned to German control were those in the U.K. We can do this back and forth all day, omitting half the argument doesn't make you right, sorry to inform you of that. I put Germany, I'll admit that mistake, but saying they weren't under Germany is a bit of a stretch on your behalf. Also as for the 'freedom of association' mantra: How is refusing people from associating in America 'FREEDOM of Association'?
Wrong again. In June 1939 France, Belgium, Holland and the UK were all sovereign nations. No "German control at all". This is all in the public domain you know - not very hard to find out the facts is it?
@billburns2 1: Did I say in 1939 that they were 'German controlled'? No, no I did not. I said the Germans invaded and took over France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. That's documented under public domain also. When Germany took over those countries: All the Jews that had fled and left Germany in attempt to move to another country were now BACK under German control. I believe it was HALF of the people on that ship ended up back under German control and dead.
@billburns2 2: They had the option to leave though was my argument, so this whole damn thing is taking a left turn that it shouldn't be. If the MS St. Louis proved anything it proved: Jews did have the option to leave, but similar circumstances as going on today happened. Shanklin can't opt out, because people agree with America. Yeah he can leave, but he can't opt out anywhere: the governments of other countries agree with our country. The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany.
@billburns2 3: They could leave on the MS St. Louis, but they can't go anywhere, because people feared or agreed with Germany and even though they went other places: they still found themselves under German control within a few years(no option to opt out). Now this argument is one that makes me laugh, because the extent to which you're going here is hilarious, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what you've heard or who said it, but business etiquette ISN'T freedom of association.
@billburns2 4: I may have let a cat out the bag, but it's not. Freedom of association is one's freedom and ability to do something. The terms 'open borders' or 'partial isolationism' best describe freedom of association, because one can freely come to and associate with America, as long as they aren't attacking or causing harm to America(A lot of people call me radical, but I'm just following Alexander the Great philosophy:
@billburns2 5: Those who collaborate and mingle together amongst cultures are most willing and most able to eliminate racism or disgust and work together to make a country. AtG was a 'multiculturalist' by all rights, true not what we'd consider one, but still). The elimination of freedom of association or adoption of 'business etiquette' comes with a government that wants to become greedy, arrogant, or unopen to change.
@billburns2 6: Believe it or not, when I say 'business etiquette' I'm not supporting the philosophy or talking of praise for it, because it's literally: 'accepting what's put in front of you without legitimate choice'. Business etiquette is when: those who run, run everything: with no change, difference in opinion, or argument from those that aren't in the business. When a government adopts this philosophy and doesn't listen to it's people:
@billburns2 7: it does what it wants, then things awry, racism reigns in, and ignorance takes over. A good business is an 'open business', not one that follows 'etiquette'. The reason it's called 'etiquette' is because it's the philosophy of what the business owner wants. A smart business owner would not reject one group of people or target another and be open to suggestions and ideas, that's the beauty of 'free markets' it puts these suggestions and the control in to the hands of the people(
@billburns2 8: the business doesn't rule anything or anybody, the people rule the business, since they can go elsewhere for their services). However when 'business etiquette' happens: the only thing stopping this from being allowed is the customers not going there, which is why I say to allow it to happen: so people know which businesses are practicing 'etiquette'. When the government ties in to this equation:
@billburns2 9: They eliminate all knowledge and recognition of 'etiquette' without getting rid of the 'etiquette'. A practicing Klan member that runs a business is using funds from black customers to support the KKK when the government gets involved, because you don't see the 'etiquette' that owner was going to use, clearly there is a problem here. The solution to the problem is take the government out of the equation. Is it perfect? No it's not, I don't know anything that is perfect.
@billburns2 10: However: It allows natural order to make those businesses suffer. I'm not supporting these businesses by forcing the government to allow 'business etiquette', I'm actually hurting them because they'd lose their support. The government is supporting them. Like I said: same thing applies to foreign policy: Freedom of association would be to allow non-threatening refugees and tourists in to the country for their own purpose and freedom.
@billburns2 11: Instead: our government took the 'business etiquette' approach. The interesting thing here is the argument you're making to Shanklin compared to what you just said to me. You just said: If you don't like a restaurant you go elsewhere to eat. The funny thing here is the context of the argument: You're telling Shanklin to leave the country and go somewhere cause of what I'll call the 'business etiquette' approach to government(which says:
@billburns2 12: keep it exactly where it is and you go somewhere else: sadly it doesn't work too well in government to apply the 'B.E.' approach, because there is no other option BUT that government), when he'll leave the country and go somewhere else to have people with the same 'B.E.' approach to government as you THERE.
@billburns2 1: I've answered all these fucking questions. So I don't understand the hypocrisy here. You also seem to be reverted and changing direction and presenting new turns that have nothing to do with the actual argument or progression of that argument any time I seem to make even a small point. Which says to me: All the Libertarians are wrong, Democracy is right, Anarchists are tools, and only allowing comments you approve on your videos that bash Libertarianism as wrong is a lie.
@billburns2 2: I sent a message to one of the more arrogant folks on that wall and started legitimately trying to talk to him and debate with him, but the guy said in his own conceded arrogance to me: Sorry I don't debate with Libertarians because they're all conceded and ignorant and it always ends in a fight. That kind of arrogance takes your feet and yanks them from beneath you on any argument you make.
@billburns2 3: You'll go and cuss Libertarians up and down but don't legitimate have a discussion/debate with me cause I'm the ignorant and conceded one just by associating myself with them? Well than to hell with any of your opinions: I'll listen to none of them. If you're in the same category at the conceded man I just mentioned: To hell with your opinions too(though you've actually opened a debate so you're better than he), if not:
@billburns2 4: quit 'dicking around' the issue with these claims of hypocrisy and how we're all racist. I will answer these questions again, even though I already have: I do not believe that individuals, businesses, or companies should be forced to accept people they aren't going to like or respect anyways and like I said: a prominent KKK member allowing blacks in his business to use the money for anti-black and very racist agendas makes no fucking sense WHAT SO EVER.
@billburns2 5: So forcing this to happen is not the answer and I'll stand behind that. I do not believe they should be forced to accept people they don't like or respect anyways, because there will be plenty of businesses that arise to allow everybody in(that's market philosophy),
@billburns2 18: And as for Rosa Parks? When did I ever mention Rosa Parks or claim that? When, please point this post out to me, I want to see where I mentioned Rosa Parks AT ALL. You can't do that and I know you can't: fucking liar. Fascism? AHAHAHAHA. Are you a fucking troll or something? Dogmatist that supports this kind of shit? Hey BUDDY: Rosa Parks practiced civil disobedience, started by Henry David Thoreau. All libertarians promote AND endorse 'C.D.' as a philosophy: FAIL, try again.
You've just told me that business should be allowed to discriminate because that's freedom. If a privately owned Montgomery Bus Co. wants to kick Rosa Parks off the bus, that would be totally OK - right? In which case Rosa's civil disobedience would be "initiating force" according to Libertarian mantra - right?
@billburns2 1: First: this is complete and utter bullshit, you and I both know that. The Montgomery Bus Company had NOTHING, I REPEAT NOTHING to do with the bus company's choice. Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus(this shows your intellect on the subject VERY VERY WELL, know what it shows me: I am IN FACT arguing with a moron who has never picked up a history book in his life. The MBC had to, BY LAW(no choice, no recommendation, no say in the matter WHAT SO EVER: BY LAW), do what they did.
@billburns2 2: Do you not remember Jim Crowe Laws? Everybody in my history of debate that tries to bash Libertarians, somehow, someway: brings that shit up, when that was a GOVERNMENT PROBLEM, not a market one. The MBC might have actually been breaking the law allowing black people on the same bus as whites, but that's aside the point. Rosa Parks was on the bus and she had to move, not because of the company and not because of personal bias against somebody, but because of MANDATORY SEGREGATION.
@billburns2 3: If the company didn't comply with that mandate: THEY WOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS(that's not free markets: that's government monopolies). So Rosa Parks civil disobedience was FULLY and COMPLETELY supported by Libertarians, because she was protesting the government. Say she was protesting that company: who cares? Nothing wrong with that: In the words of Juliette Penn: if you don't like something THEN SPEAK UP.
@billburns2 4: There is nothing wrong with protesting a business to change it's practices(I'm not opposed to that, I'll stand behind that) just don't get the government involved in mandating businesses, cause the government is not a caddy for people's special interests(that's what got us where we currently are), there are organizations and unions for that. Now: as for this Jewish thing: Why? I wanna know. Please explain to me. WHY?!?
@billburns2 6: by forcing them to accept everybody, you actually limit the choice because there are no competitive businesses on that aspect alone and give profits to people that don't deserve them in a free market, because they're racist and arrogant. Idk why you're lumpsuming society in to this, it makes no sense to me when you consider the difference. The difference is the inevitable one:
@billburns2 7: If you allow governments to start taking the 'business etiquette' approach that would allow governments to be as racist and arrogant as they choose to be: not allowing blacks or other minorities in to society, there will be no competition there buddy. No second government will form out of thin air to compete with the first and accept everybody, here anyways, that's why if you're going to have a government: you need to make it tolerant and acceptable.
@billburns2 8: Shanklin's anarchy approach to government is the business approach ironically, because people can form their own little societies in anarchy and there will be competing societies amongst each others, so that's actually a wise approach if there was anarchy, because the prosperous societies would be those that are tolerant and acceptable. When you form government though: you put a monopoly society on the picture though and there won't be a second society(
@billburns2 9: like I said: at least here)to compete with it, so no I don't support a 'business etiquette' approach to society unless it's in anarchy. This same argument is made with Jews, if a business or individual wants to deny somebody: let them, that business will suffer and competitive businesses will succeed for allowing it. Like I said: I do not condone or support what these businesses do and will speak against them to the fullest of extent:
@billburns2 10: 'Fuck that racist business, go to this one.' 'Those bastards are Anti-Semitic: go here.', but I will not try to stop them and give profits to those that don't deserve them. The government is different, because it has a monopoly, there are no competitive governments here(you could maybe make a state argument and I could give you that one: that is true and I wouldn't be opposed to competitive states in that sense.
@billburns2 11: Any monopoly government doesn't really have that option, because it's the ONLY option). I also agree that you are free to live wherever the hell you want, however, that does not mean you can go anywhere with anarchy. You must accept the monopoly government of that country, Shanklin is arguing for the opt out option and you're cussing him up one way and down the other while saying: Leave the country and go elsewhere to establish your anarchy there.
@billburns2 12: WHERE? I must ask: Where would he go? Somalia? They're establishing a Republican form of government as we speak so that's not even really an option anymore. So where would he go with this anarchy? Antarctica? He would be forced to accept the monopoly government of every place he went, he has no real option to opt out. But you're arguing that he does have the option to opt out and leave, yes this is true. However:
@billburns2 13: He'd get somewhere and be forced to accept their government there or leave. That's not a real option to opt out(like I keep saying). Yet you're making the argument that his ability to leave is an option to opt out and when he gets there and can't opt out that government, it somehow counts as him opting out? It seems hypocritical, because you're arguing he can opt out of one government to join another:
@billburns2 14: when he wants to opt out of all government, yet assuring both of us he has that option to opt out. However: If I point out this inevitable flaw and show it to people: you quickly change the subject or reask the same questions and act like I'm a lying hypocrit that is trapped in my own argument. I've made but one flaw: saying the ship landed in Germany(my mistake):
Once again - and for the last time - nobody is obliged to supply something just because you or Mike Shanklin want it. I understand that this is a frustration for you but there it is. You DO have choices - 195 of them, all provided by the Free Market of Countries. If none of the choices appeal then you're SOL - you cannot worship the unfettered workings of the market and then bitch because you don't like the outcome.
"nobody is obliged to supply something just because you or Mike Shanklin want it."
~The poor guy is obviously confused, as he is actually debunking government itself since it is funded by aggressive theft and coercion. Since no one is obliged to supply something, that means we are not obliged to supply this guy with the country he wants... in that case, we must end all of the 195 ANTI-free market countries that are out there. Countries are the opposite of a free market.
Sorry Mike, lame attempts at obfuscation don't work. You need to stick to the point and skip the rhetoric.
Can you can show me an example of where private enterprise is obliged to supply me with something just because I want it?
Unfortunately for you nation strates are the RESULT of a free market - kinda sucks, right?
What you are actually doing is similar to early Communism, rejecting the workings of the market in order to fashion something that you believe will benefit mankind.
@billburns2 "Can you can show me an example of where private enterprise is obliged to supply me with something just because I want it?"
~No, AND THAT IS MY POINT! lol
"Unfortunately for you nation strates are the RESULT of a free market - kinda sucks, right?"
~Oh, so you don't understand what a free market is... watch my video on anarcho-capitalism. The world has never had a free market (governmentless society). The world governments are the opposite of free markets.
I understand exactly what a free market is. If any other industry that operated without any external control provided 195 alternatives you'd herald it as a triumph of the market. Unfortunately - as you have conceded - the market does what it wants (demand for goods is essentially a democracy), which is not necessarily what YOU want. You need to explain why there is something unacceptable with the market OF nations than you find totally acceptable to markets WITHIN nations.
@billburns2 I don't want any nations. Nations are groups of humans that can "legally" use AGGRESSIVE violence on PEACEFUL people who simply disagree. Taxation IS theft, and that is how nations are funded, through the threat of imprisonment and/or death in some regions. ALL nations are a version of slavery, they are human ranches. Instead of allowing individual freedom, the collective uses threats of aggression on it's monopolized inhabitants. ALL nations are slavery, and are anti-free market.
@billburns2 I am not for just any market, but a free market, where people can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Taxation is not voluntary, it is compulsion based. If you don't pay into the ponzi scheme, even if you don't infringe on anyone else. Wrong vegetation in your pocket?!? Go to prison. Don't want to pay rent to the state for property taxes?!? Prison. ... it's all a version of human ownership. Research the nonaggression principle.
...and yet the only truly free market - the market of nations - is unacceptable to you for what reason?
Do you object to hotel bills? Is a restaurant doing you violence because it insists you pay for your food?
Payment is not voluntary - it is part of contract. If you want to stay in a hotel or a restaurant then you must abide by their rules - if you don't then you either suck it up or leave. Same goes for where you live, be it apartment, town or nation.
@billburns2 Chosen between your slavery?!? That is what you are saying... you see, I DON'T WANT ANY SLAVERY AT ALL! Why move to a different form of slavery? How about I, along with millions of others, simply stay where we are at, and YOU stop using this bullshit reason of an excuse called nations (which is really just threats of violence on peaceful people who NEVER signed no bullshit social contract) on us and leave your violence in your house when you come into the real world?!?
@billburns2 I can voluntarily choose which restaurants and which hotels to visit, you do NOT have a right to make me fund your monopoly police force. You do not own my house, nor my car, ...nor me, so unless I want your services, leave me alone...
@billburns2 No only is payment voluntary, it is voluntary BECAUSE I ENTERED INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. Not to mention I had property possible for the offer and acceptance tenant of contract law. You obviously don't realize that people can CHOOSE which restaurant and hotel they want.... Government is NOT choice....
Do you not see the glaring contradiction in your position?
On the one hand you demand the freedom for people to self determine, and yet when they have done exactly that and have chosen to divide themselves into 195 societies, each with its individual ideas on how to live, you condemn their choices as being invalid, simply because it is not what you personally desire, and declare them all to be "brainwashed morons".
@billburns2 Yeah right, so you're saying that everybody that lives in certain regions is glad we have 195 chopped up areas?!? Give me a break... I am living proof that that statement is utter bullshit.
@billburns2 5: Why do you keep reverting back to this fucking argument. I do believe my argument was right and you SWITCHED YOUR ARGUMENT to try and insult and attack me. My original argument was that they had the right to leave: The MS St. Louis is PROOF they were able to leave. Their going to countries OTHER THAN GERMANY is also PROOF of that. Somehow you switched this around and I don't know how. But now:
14 back to back posts and you fail to address the issues.
In your private enterprise model Rosa would be "initiating force" - so your big talk of civil disobedience is a crock of shit.
Business would be stupid to do this stuff? Well then business is stupid because it has a track record of doing exactly that - READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
Yes, you can move to Somalia if you like.
Your whole argument boils down to "I reject all this evidence because it doesn't fit with my dogma"
@billburns2 1: All that discussion on Rosa Parks: unread, shrugged off, and blatantly ignored. Why? Because I proved you wrong, MORE THAN ONCE. Crock of shit? AHAHAHA, this is a fucking joke. You're a fucking joke. Fail to address what issues? The ones in your head? Have you noticed I've answered all of your questions TWICE. I'm not kidding: go look, I've answered every single question twice: the most recent one is this Rosa Parks presentation, since low and behold I'm at it again...
@billburns2 2: My whole argument boils down to a rejection of evidence? What evidence? Whatever the fuck you make up to make yourself look better? I'm not rewriting History there 'buddy' you are. Let's go through this: You blame businesses for government mandated JIM CROWE Laws and reject my argument that JC Laws had anything to do with it. You're now actually telling me what I believe, like legitimately FORCING ME to believe what your imagination says that I believe.
@billburns2 3: You will not accept any other argument(that right there is the straw that quits: When somebody tells me what the fuck I BELIEVE, convinced that I do actually believe it: I have no reason to argue: they won't accept or read any of my arguments anyways, just like the jackass that won't argue with 'ignorant Libertarians', and low and behold: you're not reading any of my arguments so congradulations: you're with the jackass). But as for reading a history book:
@billburns2 4: let's run down this list shall we? I'm not the one claiming JC Laws weren't the law of the land at the time and businesses had a choice, YOU ARE(since you seem to neglect the whole history of government mandated segregation: that really kills any argument you make right off the bat, so I'd fix that if I were you). I'm not the one claiming Germany didn't invade somebody in 1939(cough cough: Poland), YOU ARE. For this one:
@billburns2 5: I really recommend reading the history book, it might save your argument with somebody who has the time to give a fuck what you have to say. I'm not the one claiming Germany invaded France, Belgium, and the Netherlands in 1939, YOU ARE. The phrase: few YEARS would indicate that, because it means it was YEARS later, but somehow you neglect to see years and want to paint me as the idiot that isn't saying years, again with this:
@billburns2 6: making yourself look better shit, it really doesn't help your credibility at all. I'm not the one that claimed the Jews didn't have the chance to leave on the MS St. Louis, YOU DID. But wait: somehow I'm the one that's wrong on not only this, but where they eventually ended up. You even admit they landed in other countries until the 40s when Hitler took control of half the countries they were in, proving what I said originally.
@billburns2 7: However you neglect to believe that I ever got anything right or ever made a true statement. I'm also not the one telling somebody to leave the country because they're complaining about the policies of the country and want something changed, YOU ARE. Apparently you would prefer us to default, our economy to collapse, and nothing to change in the country: because we should just leave if we're going to complain.
@billburns2 8: Forget about the fucked up things our government has given us on a silver platter: Debt, debt, and more debt. So: I'm done arguing with you, when you want to grow up and legitimately have a discussion: call me, I'm always open for a REAL DEBATE, until then: I don't really care what the fuck you and 'your preconceived, history rewriting lies' have to bring to the table, so I'm done with this argument. Goodbye.
@billburns2 You are looking at the surface instead of digging deeper. The reason we are against governments is because...at their very base, they are funded through taxation which is not voluntary. If you do not pay people for things you disagree with, they believe they have the right to tackle you and throw you in jail. That is not Freedom, nor is it choice. If all governments were eradicated, Jews wouldn't have to run anywhere, and racism would seriously die out. It's govt that encourages both
Let's ignore the social contract issue for the moment - which we will never agree on.
There is no evidence that any of this will actually happen the way you say it will, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. The Libertarian of 2011 is like the Communist of 1911, neither can point to a real world example of their ideology but both are convinced that their ideas are flawless and represent the next logical step for mankind.
@billburns2 Communism inherently places the system above the individual. Nonaggressionism places the individual above any system. One is an outright promise of aggression, the other is the lack thereof.
That's not what I meant. I'm not saying the two systems are similar, I'm saying that advocates of untested social models are all convinced that their pet ideologies can do no wrong.
We also have different definitions on what is or isn't aggression.
@billburns2 1: Know I said I was gone, but can't miss this: 'neither can point to a real world example of their ideology'. So...Somalia not good enough for you? Just ignore that whole test? Toss it out the window? Forget the fact they were living in peace and working JUST FINE before the UN and the U.S. got involved and provoked all the riots and rebellions? Yep, that's what you do: ignore any legitimate argument to contrary. You seem to ignore any argument opposed:
@billburns2 2: that's not healthy for debate. We can sit here and debate warlocks and pirates all day over the Somalia issue: The fact of the matter? None of this violence, rebellion, and control arose on it's own: it was provoked by U.N. intervention and their assertion that Somalia have a republican government(now they're about to force a government on the country when about 75% of the country doesn't want it. You'd support that though, wouldn't you? It's gov't so it must be good:
@billburns2 3: force it upon them. The funny thing is that that would go against your democracy views, but it's govt so it's beneficial to the country neglecting your democratic views, the govt loving statists must be right and do not have the supply the people with anarchy, according to you. You know what: I don't really care what your argument for this is, so I'm leaving now: Bye.
@billburns2 You don't have a choice, with this government: you like it or else. Yes, you can go somewhere with another government, but none of these places have competing governments, you accept that government and that one alone. No option of no government or opting out, thanks to the UN and our own country, not even in Somalia anymore. But I'm a radical hypocrit cause I want the freedom to choice in BOTH, I'm a roaring liar that neglects 'facts' that you pulled out your ass.
@billburns2 If there was a competition between 2 or 3 governments here(say state governments only), then I'd easily accept a racist or an ignorant government, and speak against it. When only ONE thing has control of EVERYTHING, there is no choice so it's an easy conclusion: force tolerance. I hate forcing anything, but when you deal with monopolies, you have to work with monopolies. You want to continue babbling on about false hypocrisy though, so I'll leave you to that: Peace.
@billburns2 15: the Jews on board did go under German control and they did have the option to leave, because they took the ship out. However they had nowhere to go for freedom(much like Shanklin with his anarchism) and inevitably ended up back in German control(after a few invasions), so yes: I stand behind my first declaration that you are IN FACT making an argument VERY SIMILAR to Nazi Germany.
The Jews from MS St. Louis ended up in France, Belgium, Holland and the UK - so they DID have somewhere to go to as they did NOT return to Germany, geddit?
NOT GERMANY - OR ANY COUNTRY UNDER GERMAN OCCUPATION - GEDDIT?
JUNE 1939 WAS BEFORE GERMANY INVADED ANYWHERE - GEDDIT? READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
unless you also criticise government for not having a crystal ball to see into the future..
@billburns2 Hitler, such a symptom, more so than THE root problem. The root problem that created Hitler and the Nazi's was government statism.... and you don't need a crystal ball to know that governments will fail in the future. Genocide, just a natural symptom of statism...
@billburns2 6: my very true statement that they eventually went under German control is just causing a hissy fit where you bitch at me left and right, degrade my intellect, and argue 'read a history book'? I have to read a history book because you don't know they eventually went back under German control. Like I said: I think by the end of the Holocaust it was what? HALF of them that ended up under German control again AND DEAD.
@billburns2 7: I never once said that they invaded the countries in 1939 there DUMBASS and I would love for you to point that statement out to me. I said within a few years: Almost all of the Jews that went to other countries were BACK under German control. BACK, within a FEW YEARS, how does that imply that German controlled them in 1939 OR they invaded somebody in 1939. And That's funny, you actually haven't read a history book there dumbass: Look up: INVASION OF POLAND.
@billburns2 8: You'll find the year to be against your dumbass comments. But lemme say this again, so your small and feeble little IQ can understand it: I'M NOT CLAIMING THEY WENT BACK TO GERMANY, I SAID THEY WENT TO OTHER COUNTRIES, I CLAIMED GERMANY TOOK OVER THOSE COUNTRIES WITH A FEW YEARS AND THEY WERE BACK UNDER GERMAN CONTROL BY THE 1940S. GEDDIT DUMBASS?!? I even RETRACTED the statement I made that the ship landed in Germany as:
@billburns2 9: my mistake and somehow that got LOST IN TRANSLATION. Do you want to start speaking Spanish(I don't speak it but I can try) so you can comprehend? You've shown you're not reading my comments OR LISTENING TO ME, MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES, so idk why I'm trying. You're a good for nothing troll at this point, cause you aren't listening, you keep going backwards, and you won't let some things go(have a grudge or something? That little lady friend in the office not fuck you right?
@billburns2 10: Guess what: I'm not her, I'll call you a dumbass and a fucking moron when you're acting like one and start ignoring everything you say if you don't read what I say). As for the 'not supplying something for you': Shanklin already covered: We don't have to supply anything for you either. Funny thing is: we don't want anything, we just want out. We want nothing but to be left alone and not bothered. No privileges, no benefits, no real government at all, nothing.
@billburns2 11: Fuck even Shanklin makes the argument that you can have your government and have people supply you whatever you whim with useless money, but somehow it doesn't sink in to you: we're the ones not asking for something and we're the ones that don't want to be a part of your tyranny. If you want to fuck yourself to kingdom come with a government: go for it, but leave US out of it. We prefer to not be pillaged, forced, and made to supply things at the whims of some jackasses like you.
@billburns2 12: Free market solutions, unfetttered workings of the market? AHAHAHAHA You are a fucking tool and about as political informed as my left nut. Corporatism is NOT capitalism. Lemme repeat that: CORPORATISM IS NOT CAPITALISM. Capitalism is the freedom of choice, association, and LEGITIMATE competition, not a oneway street to the same guy on Wall Street. Even if corporatism allows capitalism at the lower levels:
@billburns2 it's still a monopoly because technically you're going to the same CEO for something, even if the company has a different name. So NICE TRY: but better luck next time. Then again: you haven't had any real luck in trying to degrade me or claim I am what I'm not, so: no luck for you. I do find it funny that you keep trying and keep reverting though: That's signs of acting like you're better than somebody when you're arguing but remember: only Libertarians do that...>.>... GTFO.
@billburns2 16: Yet you're trying, and failing miserably I might add, to make it seem as if I'm the moron that supports the ways and nature of the Nazis and how FDR acted in refusing the Jews. No: Libertarians think FDR a tyrant, most Libertarians support an 'open border' policy(I don't care for that terminology cause it sends the wrong message) that says people can come here and leave: denying people is AGAINST those principles.
@billburns2 17: Nice try though: Better luck next time. As for now: you're not really trying to go anywhere: as shown right here: 'NO, you haven't. Third time's a charm:'. And here: 'So the "tyrannical" FDR was right to turn away Jewish refugees, was he?', when I never said that, in fact I said the exact opposite: 'Libertarians think FDR a tyrant, most Libertarians support an 'open border' policy...that says people can come here and leave: denying people is AGAINST those principles.'. So peace.
er - how can you possibly have an open border policy when you've just conceded that you think it's acceptable to bar people entry on whatever bigoted or whimsical reasons pop into a landowners head??
You don't believe that a world without governments would be a world without wars do you? And how do you propose we let you opt out? If we make taxes optional we'd have to make sure only the people who pay taxes use the public infrastructure, and only people who pay taxes are going to get police protection and military protection etc. Don't you think that would be far more inhuman than forcing you to pay taxes and giving you a vote on how your money is used?
tookaysevon 3 weeks ago
how could you opt out of something like car insurance?
Uglylikeafox 3 weeks ago
I don't think this is about people being afraid to stand on principle. The problem is that most people are stupid and don't have the imagination to understand how this mindset would work if everyone would adopt it.
Another problem is determining interactions when boundaries between individuals become unclear. How about pollution? Different beliefs regarding property or the lack thereof? Limited resources like water and radio spectrum? How does anarchism work in this context?
enunna 3 weeks ago
I like this video up to 1:40.
fVc4FACE 5 months ago
In my case, I have found that people too often give up to compromise exactly because they are afraid to stand on principle, thinking that if they did so they could not make any difference. If more people stood on principle, instead of giving in to fear, maybe you WOULD see real change.
NotARebel1 6 months ago 6
@NotARebel1 That is a GREAT comment! I am reposting it on my facebook wall for thousands of people to read and see.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin ok ok ok.. Mike..I will leave you alone.
LandlessPeasantFuck 4 months ago
I'd just settle for the Federal government getting out of my hair.
Then I have 50 state governments to chose from.
If you think that's better, register Republican and vote Ron Paul, or just accept what you have - because your ONLY HOPE in the next election cycle is him.
It may be a compromise, but guarantee that NOTHING will change if you elect anybody else to the presidency, and probably things will just get worse.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe You can stop at half ethics... but I cannot. I will not support any statism slavery on peaceful people. You can stand by and allow governments to destroy individual choice, but I will never stand by and allow slavery on my neighbors. I want TRUE Freedom, and individual choice. A stupid election will not make a difference in the long run,... that is why I focus on helping the future end statism slavery, just like those who didn't settle for just "reforming" chain slavery.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "You can stop at half ethics... but I cannot. "
Fine - then stop at none.
I hate idealists, they never change anything, ever. They just whine and wonder why nothing changes despite their whining.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe How about I stop a 100% ethics?!? How about I continue to convert thousands and thousands of people away from statism slavery instead of encouraging more of it?!? You know what is so ironic here... YOU are the idealist... you believe in the ideal that voting in a corrupt system will change the corrupt system... that is complete lunacy. Statism is created to work against Freedom, never to defend it. Your whole "good government" ideal... will never happen. There is no such thing.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "How about I stop a 100% ethics?!? How about I continue to convert thousands and thousands of people away from statism slavery instead of encouraging more of it?!?"
Go ahead and put all your effort into an entire fruitless task.
Here's what would happen without any organization at all - you'll simply be conquered. People can act savagely, this is why they group together, for common defense.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe LOL, wait... you think that when statism ends... everybody is on their own?!?!? LMFAO
What makes you think that people automatically fly off into mini islands once statism ends?!? I still want to band together with people... I just don't want institutionalized coercion on peaceful people. You CAN stop institutionalized coercion AND have neighbors, friends, colleagues, collective.... where did you get the flase impression that ending statism means ending society?!?!?!?!?
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "What makes you think that people automatically fly off into mini islands once statism ends?!? "
When did I express this opinion? You can dispense with the strawmen arguments.
And you apparently think that anarchism will be adopted by 350 million Americans, and so, you won't do ANYTHING AT ALL to reduce the federal government in the meantime. Good strategy there, genius.
Politicians treat voters like morons, but they don't give a shit at all about people that don't vote.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe "Here's what would happen without any organization at all"
~THAT is where I get the ideal that you think we won't have any organization.... the fact that you SAID it... lol
Shrinking the Federal government through voting?!? Man... you are in deep. The system will not change through voting... it will collapse before then. Oh, and you don't need to get 350 million Americans to accept voluntaryism/Freedom... once we hit about 15%, things will REALLY start to change.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "THAT is where I get the ideal that you think we won't have any organization"
Yes, organization like a POLICE FORCE, a MILITARY, a COURT SYSTEM - etc.
Fine, opt out of those. Maybe some career criminal can bribe a police officer to find out you've opted out and kill you.
You say that would be illegal? Who is going to enforce it? Your neighbors and friends down the street? Not the police, YOU OPTED OUT.
Grow up. Government grows organically always. Then it grows out of control.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe Oh, so you admit you have never researched anarcho-capitalism before... interesting. Which means you haven't studied Dispute Resolution Organizations, nor multi-tiered arbitration, nor competing law.... which means this conversation will go nowhere until you RESEARCH. PLEASE, allow me to opt out of these violent, unethical monopolies... and into real protection. Protection that is based on individual freedom and personal choice, versus pointing government guns at peaceful people...
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe LOL, you say things like police, military, and court system as if they are a marginal benefit to society when statism has proven just the opposite time and time again... but you keep on believing in "good slavery"... the FACTS and REALITY are on my side... on voluntaryism's side.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "you say things like police, military, and court system as if they are a marginal benefit to society when statism has proven just the opposite time and time again..."
Why do you suppose EVERY SOCIETY has those things, if they are just of limited marginal benefit? Because people are stupid and easily convinced they need something that doesn't provide any value?
"the FACTS and REALITY are on my side..."
Take a good look at history, and tell me whose been conquered and killed...
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe "Why do you suppose EVERY SOCIETY has those things"
~Because people like me are trapped to them... without knowing how choice and freedom could make these operations much more efficient and accountable. Most people are brainwashed to government schools and they believe the bullshit.
"Because people are stupid and easily convinced they need something that doesn't provide any value?"
~Oh, it provides value to the enslavers!
History proves that statism is violence on peaceful people.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "Because people like me are trapped to them..."
How did THAT happen??
Gee, I bet everybody would respect your rights, if only you could only opt out. Look at how well they respect your rights now that you can't opt out?? RIGHT?
I'm sure the people that live in this society would respect your freedom and choice, if only you could get the law out of your way even those these same people are "trampling" your rights, right now, and are happy to do it.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe The beauty is, once I am allowed to opt out... most others will as well, and the system will vanish.
The system is what allows them to trample my rights. The system is against private property, against individual freedoms, against individual rights, against personal choice, and it encourages more and more people to think that way. You think a free society will just let people trample on others rights?!? Sorry, that is reserved for statism... free societies seek restitution.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "The beauty is, once I am allowed to opt out..."
HAHA.They won't be allowed to "opt out."
"You think a free society"
Do you think a free society is gained by asking permission for freedom? You talk about being "ALLOWED to opt out".
"You think a free society will"
How do you think a free society is GAINED? The US fought a war with England to get one, established a Constitution you don't give FUCK about, and guaranteed you vote, which you don't do.
People like you, gave it up.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe Ironic enough, my "oxymoron of the day" on my facebook status today was "free market nation".. because there is no such thing. A free market requires NO government, or else it is not a free market.... In other words, what you think is a free market, or was... is a lie, complete bullshit.
Voting encourages this slavery system... I will not support it because it will only strengthen the statists, not Freedom. The Constitution calls for violence on peaceful people... count me out.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe A free society is gained when people do not use institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals... voting only encourages the alternative. You think Freedom comes from voting in statism slavery?!?!?!? As I said before... you are addicted to pieces of parchment paper, nothing more. That Constitution is ignored, and always will be by tyrants.... but you keep on "believing".... have fun wasting your life in statism slavery, enslaving more people to slavery.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "A free society is gained when people do not use institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals."
OK - let's say that is right.
Do you expect a nation of 350 million people that don't really care there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are going to understand institutionalized violence on peaceful individuals and decide it's wrong?
The people who run this society, don't care about ANY of your beliefs if you don't vote. Your only other option, is violence.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe There is no other choice... voting is for suckers and statists. Voting only boosts the numbers the statist system can brag about for people who "support the system". Not only that, think about all the people who have been fooled into believing that voting is actually the best way to bring down the mafia!!! It doesn't work that way... keep dreaming, keep fighting statism... but don't give the statists moral sanctuary! Don't participate in their violent system... set the example.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "There is no other choice... voting is for suckers and statists."
You've been trained exceptionally well
The people in power have the power, and you let them run completely amok just like everybody else does. Your ONE AVENUE of resistance, you completely discard as "worthless".
If voting is totally a waste of time, then vote if makes no difference. Vote for the least "statist" person, OR just accept what you got. Pacifists don't change anything, ever.
Your choice.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe lol, you act like you can stop the WWF statists... good luck bringing down the corrupt with a corrupt vote... lol
Your attempts at correcting slavery through slavery are futile... but you just keep on believing that voting makes a difference lol... The rest of us who have been in your shoes years ago are just sitting back laughing/shaking our heads....
Pacifist?!? LMFAO Obviously you don't know the first thing about our message... keep on voting in slavery dude... lol
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "... good luck bringing down the corrupt with a corrupt vote... lol"
No, it's not going to go down because of a vote.
Here's why it's going to go down, the debt will never be paid off, and money is worthless.
How did this happen? Well, for about 50 years, people have assumed the government would work just fine on autopilot so, why bother to vote?
"but you just keep on believing that voting makes a difference lol."
If doesn't make a difference, why are you so against voting?
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe "No, it's not going to go down because of a vote."
~Yep, just like the millions of people who said that before you for centuries.... SUUUUUUUUURE you will bring down slavery with a vote...
"Here's why it's going to go down, the debt will never be paid off, and money is worthless"
~Which is why I say the system will break before a vote will ever change anything.
And actually, a majority of people in this country have voted for decades past.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "Yep, just like the millions of people who said that before you for centuries.... SUUUUUUUUURE you will bring down slavery with a vote."
BWAUAHAHA!
Hey, name every country that ended slavery with a war. Every one you can think of. There's only one.
"Which is why I say the system will break before"
National Security Presidential Directive 51 / Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20.
It's just going to dictatorship next.
You won't need to vote then, either, asshole.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe ZERO countries have ended slavery... maybe chain slavery, but statism slavery is alive and well today. YOU are a slave in statism slavery. Not sure what ending chain slavery has to do with ending statism slavery... why the heck did you go on that tangent?!?
Why are you calling me mean names?!? I haven't done that to you.. sure, I laughed at your... "voting will save humanity" approach... but I never called you names. You think that helps end statism slavery?!?
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "ZERO countries have ended slavery... maybe chain slavery, but statism slavery is alive and well today. "
GEE WHIZ - why in 6000 years has this system which is so great, never showed up on the planet?
Golly, it almost seems like a pipe dream of some pseudo intellectual jerk, that wants to pretend people are different than what they actually are - like Karl Marx did.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe I am mentioning that things are the way they are BECAUSE of human nature, and that human nature CAN make small changes that can have huge impacts. I am saying that the world is bad today because people are bad, but that most of the time it is because they just don't understand how they are the ones who are making the world worse. I truly believe most people would behave ethically if they only understand what ethics were... the nonaggression principle.
mikeshanklin 5 months ago
@mikeshanklin I hate idealists and dreamers. THEY that don't understand human nature.
The rule of law shows up because of how people are. Governments get created because of how people are. But then government over-reaches, and becomes a beast on it's own. And the beast gets worse and worse, until it becomes a parasite that kills the host.
Not only will you NEVER have the society you want, you will never take steps to get CLOSER to the society you want because you're an absolutist.
fuzzywzhe 5 months ago
@fuzzywzhe "It's just going to dictatorship next. You won't need to vote then"
~Good, so you at least realize that voting won't do shit but give more support to the system... so are you finally ready to stop pointing government guns at peaceful people/voting for people to run statism?!?
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "Good, so you at least realize that voting won't do shit but give more support to the system.."
You think this is "statism" now :-D ! wait 2 years. I have family that lived on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I have a friend that grew up in Argentina during the Dirty War.
You spoiled little fucker, you have NO IDEA what is coming. That's just fine with me. You think you're in "statism" now. In 5 years, your childish rigid unrealistic ideals will be a fading memory.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe Once again, my whole point is that statism continually gets worse. You have done nothing but prove my point... that statism IS slavery, and that it only seeks to gain more control and power over the individuals. Once again, get made at me all you want because voting doesn't work... you just look like an asshole who is freaking out on an educated and informed 29 year old. Stop attacking me, and starting ending slavery...
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "get made at me all you want because voting doesn't work..."
I'm actually angry with you, because you think doing nothing works.
You won't even register a PROTEST vote.
You have a man running for the Republican nomination nomination now who has a 30 year history of resisting statism, but you don't want to compromise "your morals".
You're just making it THAT MUCH EASIER to ensure an ABSOLUTE STATIST stays in power for 4 more years.
How can I not think you're stupid? Honestly?
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe Doing nothing?!? Yeah, my hundreds of thousands of hours working on Freedom and educating people away from brainwashed statism is "doing nothing"?!?!? If there is one thing I am guilty of, doing nothing is far from that list. A libertarian winning the election will speed up statism... 1 libertarian out of 435+... you think that is going to magically change the system?!?!? Give me a break... statism has proven that theory incorrent more times than I can count.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin Don't you know what the tyranny of the majority is? You think "educating" is going to end that? Ayn Rand spent her life "educating".
"1 libertarian out of 435+... you think that is going to magically change the system?"
The most you could possibly hope to get today, is enforcement of the constitution.
500 words just isn't enough to explain the obvious futility of what you are doing. So, I wrote you..
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe See that is where you/statists and I differ.... I am not a short term thinker.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikeshanklin "See that is where you/statists and I differ.... I am not a short term thinker."
I wrote a lengthy response, friend lock, fuck it.
Fine, have your anarchist collective 1000 years from now, when you're long dead and no longer exist. That matters.
You're insisting on all or nothing. Society isn't going to go all in. Even after a collapse it won't.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe I am against voting because it gives credence to an aggressively violent system of statism slavery. It makes people falsely believe that they can change statism through a vote... which is impossible. I am against voting because it is unethical. I am against voting because it is a form of keeping people believing in "good government" which is complete bullshit. I am against voting because I know that as long as a majority of people vote... we will have statism slavery.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "I am against voting because it gives credence to an aggressively violent system of statism slavery. "
Well be against it for any reason you like.
The only effect it has on you, is making you a complete non entity to this government, other than a source of income for it.
"it makes people falsely believe that they can change statism through a vote."
What if nobody voted? Would it end statism?
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe Allowed doesn't always mean they let me... it means, once another option arises... agorism.
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe AND YOU GIVE THEM THE STATE?!?!?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?! Stop giving them the legal right to fuck me over!!!
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
@mikeshanklin "Stop giving them the legal right to fuck me over!!!"
It's you giving them the legal right, idiot.
Silence = consent. Vote for "Nobody" if you want, if feel compelled to, but not voting at all, is consent.
If you don't vote, if you don't insist on an accurate vote tally (exit polling ended 8 years ago...), if you just sit there, you think the mafia isn't going to take advantage of the situation?
You think they'll just rot away, and you'll be free?
Good luck with that.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
@fuzzywzhe No, VOTING is when you give someone else the right to control you. NOT voting is a vote against the entire system... As if choosing between a fascist and a communist is freedom... give me a break. These handpicked candidates will never give you Freedom, they are there to grow the system after lying to you. I am certainly NOT SILENT!!! lol How about you change your rhetoric away from the lamestream media's "vote or die" bullshit and actually start encouraging peaceful interaction?!?
mikeshanklin 6 months ago
'Hypocrisy much?': AHAHAHAHA: You seem to neglect the failure that comes with the 'freedom' you claim I support. I would not support a business or care to go to a business that is ignorant or racist, I'd speak against it and hope it failed. The government is the exact opposite of a business, it's not voluntary: it's mandatory, you don't have a choice between the central government and say California's government: you have ONE govt, so allowing it to be racist and ignorant is fucking retarded.
emightis 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thumbs up if you think Shanklin's mentally ill
RANDYSEXER 7 months ago
@RANDYSEXER HAHA, YOU'RE the mentally ill one! STOP POINTING GUNS AT PEACEFUL PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DISAGREE!!! Whacko... Take your taxation theft and political human ownership elsewhere...
mikeshanklin 7 months ago 4
If I was really able to opt out, I wouldn't even have to move anywhere. I could just have my Freedom... but NO... there are too many people brainwashed into having political slavery and rulers. Fucking morons...
mikeshanklin 7 months ago 8
You already have the choice to opt out. The free market of countries has provided 195 alternatives for you.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 There is no such thing as a free market country. If it is a country, it is defined by government boundaries, a true free market has no government.... your statement is an oxymoron. Besides, threatening to make someone leave just because they disagree with your slavery, is one of the lowest forms of conversation. I have to leave because of your entrapment?!? How about we just take away your slavery, and all nations' slavery while we are at it.... instead, have a choice based society.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
Nobody is obliged to supply you with something just because you want it. I'd like a car that runs on air but it doesn't exist. Nobody makes it. Is my freedom to have the car I want taken away? Am I a slave to the automotive industry? Or do I just have to make an alternative choice?
You don't HAVE to leave if you don't like where you live. It's your own choice. That's freedom.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 This argument makes me question a lot of things: Most particularly, how did that make sense? I must ask: If no one is forced to supply you with something than how, I must ask, are people forced to supply you with a government and accept the system, just because you want it. It's not a matter of supplying something because he wants it, it's a matter of not having to participate in supplying government because somebody else wants it, that's what he's getting at here.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
no-one is obliged to supply a government. They exist because people want them. They are the product of supply and demand. I understand that this is a terrible frustration to Libertarians who want people to NOT want them, but unfortunately that's how it is.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 They are a product of stupidity and unethical behaviors. Nazis wanted to kill a lot of people, that didn't make it right...
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
"They are a product of stupidity and unethical behaviors"
...according to you.
Aren't people free to be "stupid" and behave in a way that you consider unethical?
or are there rules that you want to put in place to limit this?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 By that justification: Absolutely everything and I mean EVERYTHING the Nazis did was just and right, because the Nazis wanted it. Am I wrong in this assumption? Because that's supply and demand, they supply the concentration camps and DEMAND the Jews go there. The people wanted it to happen, they've even proven the people in Germany were brainwashed in to WANTING that shit, but according to you: that doesn't matter. Who cares if we're brainwashed? The people are happy...
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
Yes, you are wrong - and twisting the definition of demand because it suits your example doesn't do your argument any favours.
Nazi Germany prevented people from leaving. In a western democracy you are not prevented. You have the choice to leave at any time.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 And Libertarians do not want EVERYBODY to think like them, they're wise enough to realize that not everybody has the same view(you on the other hand I'm doubting), they're also smart enough to point out the flaws and problems with the systems that centralize and control their people too much, whether personally or economically. Hell even Shanklin argues: If you want government or Communism: go ahead, just leave me out of it, let me opt out. Shanklin's view makes more sense than you.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
Shanklin is already able to opt out - nobody is stopping him. He can leave at any time. Why is this so hard to understand?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 First off I recommend Googling the MS St. Louis, since it really makes your argument look terrible. German Jews had the option to leave too, they were denied entry by the tyrannical FDR who didn't want Germans in the country and ended up having to go back to Germany, cause it was the only place they could make it. Regardless the end result: they had the option to leave, so no I'm not crazy for saying that's Nazi Germany mindset there.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
The Third Reich required something called an exit visa - you were only free to leave with the permission of the state, fom 1941 that meant nobody. Do your history.
Clearly you haven't Googled MS St. Louis - not a single Jew was returned to Germany, all were repatriated in different countries. The shame is USA and Cuba's refusal to allow them entry - which according to Libertarian doctrine is perfectly acceptable under their "freedom of association" AKA "racism is OK" mantra.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Yep, you know it... all libertarians are racists. GREAT WORK!!!!....at making yourself look like a dumbass!!! LMFAO I educate people everyday that racism is horrible, but I will not point a gun at the racists simply because they don't want to associate with them. Talking about causing millions of other problems (AND NOT EVEN FIXING THE RACISM). What a loser... your response to everything is point a gun at people.... No wonder the world is so fucked up... people like you.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago 4
@mikeshanklin
Libertarians may not all be racist but they condone the choices of those that are - and then have the gall to label it "freedom"
"Juden Verboten" = freedom
"Whites Only" = freedom
"No dogs, No Catholics" = freedom and you wonder why so few people buy into this crap?? - oh yes, they are all morons.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 AHAHAHA: A handful of the people went to Belgium, a larger handful at France, some at the Netherlands, and the rest were collected by the United Kingdom. After the invasions of Germany in to France and Belgium and, a little later, the Netherlands: they were right back where they started. Germany had control of the Jews ALL OVER AGAIN.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 The only Jews that weren't returned to German control were those in the U.K. We can do this back and forth all day, omitting half the argument doesn't make you right, sorry to inform you of that. I put Germany, I'll admit that mistake, but saying they weren't under Germany is a bit of a stretch on your behalf. Also as for the 'freedom of association' mantra: How is refusing people from associating in America 'FREEDOM of Association'?
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
Wrong again. In June 1939 France, Belgium, Holland and the UK were all sovereign nations. No "German control at all". This is all in the public domain you know - not very hard to find out the facts is it?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 1: Did I say in 1939 that they were 'German controlled'? No, no I did not. I said the Germans invaded and took over France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. That's documented under public domain also. When Germany took over those countries: All the Jews that had fled and left Germany in attempt to move to another country were now BACK under German control. I believe it was HALF of the people on that ship ended up back under German control and dead.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 2: They had the option to leave though was my argument, so this whole damn thing is taking a left turn that it shouldn't be. If the MS St. Louis proved anything it proved: Jews did have the option to leave, but similar circumstances as going on today happened. Shanklin can't opt out, because people agree with America. Yeah he can leave, but he can't opt out anywhere: the governments of other countries agree with our country. The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 3: They could leave on the MS St. Louis, but they can't go anywhere, because people feared or agreed with Germany and even though they went other places: they still found themselves under German control within a few years(no option to opt out). Now this argument is one that makes me laugh, because the extent to which you're going here is hilarious, because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what you've heard or who said it, but business etiquette ISN'T freedom of association.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 4: I may have let a cat out the bag, but it's not. Freedom of association is one's freedom and ability to do something. The terms 'open borders' or 'partial isolationism' best describe freedom of association, because one can freely come to and associate with America, as long as they aren't attacking or causing harm to America(A lot of people call me radical, but I'm just following Alexander the Great philosophy:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 5: Those who collaborate and mingle together amongst cultures are most willing and most able to eliminate racism or disgust and work together to make a country. AtG was a 'multiculturalist' by all rights, true not what we'd consider one, but still). The elimination of freedom of association or adoption of 'business etiquette' comes with a government that wants to become greedy, arrogant, or unopen to change.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 6: Believe it or not, when I say 'business etiquette' I'm not supporting the philosophy or talking of praise for it, because it's literally: 'accepting what's put in front of you without legitimate choice'. Business etiquette is when: those who run, run everything: with no change, difference in opinion, or argument from those that aren't in the business. When a government adopts this philosophy and doesn't listen to it's people:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 7: it does what it wants, then things awry, racism reigns in, and ignorance takes over. A good business is an 'open business', not one that follows 'etiquette'. The reason it's called 'etiquette' is because it's the philosophy of what the business owner wants. A smart business owner would not reject one group of people or target another and be open to suggestions and ideas, that's the beauty of 'free markets' it puts these suggestions and the control in to the hands of the people(
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 8: the business doesn't rule anything or anybody, the people rule the business, since they can go elsewhere for their services). However when 'business etiquette' happens: the only thing stopping this from being allowed is the customers not going there, which is why I say to allow it to happen: so people know which businesses are practicing 'etiquette'. When the government ties in to this equation:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 9: They eliminate all knowledge and recognition of 'etiquette' without getting rid of the 'etiquette'. A practicing Klan member that runs a business is using funds from black customers to support the KKK when the government gets involved, because you don't see the 'etiquette' that owner was going to use, clearly there is a problem here. The solution to the problem is take the government out of the equation. Is it perfect? No it's not, I don't know anything that is perfect.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 10: However: It allows natural order to make those businesses suffer. I'm not supporting these businesses by forcing the government to allow 'business etiquette', I'm actually hurting them because they'd lose their support. The government is supporting them. Like I said: same thing applies to foreign policy: Freedom of association would be to allow non-threatening refugees and tourists in to the country for their own purpose and freedom.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 11: Instead: our government took the 'business etiquette' approach. The interesting thing here is the argument you're making to Shanklin compared to what you just said to me. You just said: If you don't like a restaurant you go elsewhere to eat. The funny thing here is the context of the argument: You're telling Shanklin to leave the country and go somewhere cause of what I'll call the 'business etiquette' approach to government(which says:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 12: keep it exactly where it is and you go somewhere else: sadly it doesn't work too well in government to apply the 'B.E.' approach, because there is no other option BUT that government), when he'll leave the country and go somewhere else to have people with the same 'B.E.' approach to government as you THERE.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
Good grief - 12 back to back comments and you still can't answer a few simple questions. I'll try again
Q. Should an individual or company or society be obliged to associate with blacks or is should it be their choice?
Q. Should an individual or company or society be obliged to shelter Jewish refugees or should it be their choice?
Q. Are you free to choose which street / town / state / country you live in or is someone physically stopping you?
Are you starting to see your hypocrisy?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 1: I've answered all these fucking questions. So I don't understand the hypocrisy here. You also seem to be reverted and changing direction and presenting new turns that have nothing to do with the actual argument or progression of that argument any time I seem to make even a small point. Which says to me: All the Libertarians are wrong, Democracy is right, Anarchists are tools, and only allowing comments you approve on your videos that bash Libertarianism as wrong is a lie.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
NO, you haven't. Third time's a charm:
Q. Should an individual or company or society be obliged to associate with blacks or is should it be their choice?
Q. Should an individual or company or society be obliged to shelter Jewish refugees or should it be their choice?
Q. Are you free to choose which street / town / state / country you live in or is someone physically stopping you?
Q. Are you starting to see your hypocrisy?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 2: I sent a message to one of the more arrogant folks on that wall and started legitimately trying to talk to him and debate with him, but the guy said in his own conceded arrogance to me: Sorry I don't debate with Libertarians because they're all conceded and ignorant and it always ends in a fight. That kind of arrogance takes your feet and yanks them from beneath you on any argument you make.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 3: You'll go and cuss Libertarians up and down but don't legitimate have a discussion/debate with me cause I'm the ignorant and conceded one just by associating myself with them? Well than to hell with any of your opinions: I'll listen to none of them. If you're in the same category at the conceded man I just mentioned: To hell with your opinions too(though you've actually opened a debate so you're better than he), if not:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 4: quit 'dicking around' the issue with these claims of hypocrisy and how we're all racist. I will answer these questions again, even though I already have: I do not believe that individuals, businesses, or companies should be forced to accept people they aren't going to like or respect anyways and like I said: a prominent KKK member allowing blacks in his business to use the money for anti-black and very racist agendas makes no fucking sense WHAT SO EVER.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 5: So forcing this to happen is not the answer and I'll stand behind that. I do not believe they should be forced to accept people they don't like or respect anyways, because there will be plenty of businesses that arise to allow everybody in(that's market philosophy),
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
So the "tyrannical" FDR was right to turn away Jewish refugees, was he?
Rosa Parks should have given up her seat, should she?
It's funny when you scratch away at the Libertarian ideas of "freedom" and find bare-faced fascism underneath.
are you really surprised that nobody wants to debate a dogmatist that supports this kind of shit?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 18: And as for Rosa Parks? When did I ever mention Rosa Parks or claim that? When, please point this post out to me, I want to see where I mentioned Rosa Parks AT ALL. You can't do that and I know you can't: fucking liar. Fascism? AHAHAHAHA. Are you a fucking troll or something? Dogmatist that supports this kind of shit? Hey BUDDY: Rosa Parks practiced civil disobedience, started by Henry David Thoreau. All libertarians promote AND endorse 'C.D.' as a philosophy: FAIL, try again.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
You've just told me that business should be allowed to discriminate because that's freedom. If a privately owned Montgomery Bus Co. wants to kick Rosa Parks off the bus, that would be totally OK - right? In which case Rosa's civil disobedience would be "initiating force" according to Libertarian mantra - right?
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 1: First: this is complete and utter bullshit, you and I both know that. The Montgomery Bus Company had NOTHING, I REPEAT NOTHING to do with the bus company's choice. Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus(this shows your intellect on the subject VERY VERY WELL, know what it shows me: I am IN FACT arguing with a moron who has never picked up a history book in his life. The MBC had to, BY LAW(no choice, no recommendation, no say in the matter WHAT SO EVER: BY LAW), do what they did.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 2: Do you not remember Jim Crowe Laws? Everybody in my history of debate that tries to bash Libertarians, somehow, someway: brings that shit up, when that was a GOVERNMENT PROBLEM, not a market one. The MBC might have actually been breaking the law allowing black people on the same bus as whites, but that's aside the point. Rosa Parks was on the bus and she had to move, not because of the company and not because of personal bias against somebody, but because of MANDATORY SEGREGATION.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 3: If the company didn't comply with that mandate: THEY WOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS(that's not free markets: that's government monopolies). So Rosa Parks civil disobedience was FULLY and COMPLETELY supported by Libertarians, because she was protesting the government. Say she was protesting that company: who cares? Nothing wrong with that: In the words of Juliette Penn: if you don't like something THEN SPEAK UP.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 4: There is nothing wrong with protesting a business to change it's practices(I'm not opposed to that, I'll stand behind that) just don't get the government involved in mandating businesses, cause the government is not a caddy for people's special interests(that's what got us where we currently are), there are organizations and unions for that. Now: as for this Jewish thing: Why? I wanna know. Please explain to me. WHY?!?
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 6: by forcing them to accept everybody, you actually limit the choice because there are no competitive businesses on that aspect alone and give profits to people that don't deserve them in a free market, because they're racist and arrogant. Idk why you're lumpsuming society in to this, it makes no sense to me when you consider the difference. The difference is the inevitable one:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 7: If you allow governments to start taking the 'business etiquette' approach that would allow governments to be as racist and arrogant as they choose to be: not allowing blacks or other minorities in to society, there will be no competition there buddy. No second government will form out of thin air to compete with the first and accept everybody, here anyways, that's why if you're going to have a government: you need to make it tolerant and acceptable.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 8: Shanklin's anarchy approach to government is the business approach ironically, because people can form their own little societies in anarchy and there will be competing societies amongst each others, so that's actually a wise approach if there was anarchy, because the prosperous societies would be those that are tolerant and acceptable. When you form government though: you put a monopoly society on the picture though and there won't be a second society(
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 9: like I said: at least here)to compete with it, so no I don't support a 'business etiquette' approach to society unless it's in anarchy. This same argument is made with Jews, if a business or individual wants to deny somebody: let them, that business will suffer and competitive businesses will succeed for allowing it. Like I said: I do not condone or support what these businesses do and will speak against them to the fullest of extent:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 10: 'Fuck that racist business, go to this one.' 'Those bastards are Anti-Semitic: go here.', but I will not try to stop them and give profits to those that don't deserve them. The government is different, because it has a monopoly, there are no competitive governments here(you could maybe make a state argument and I could give you that one: that is true and I wouldn't be opposed to competitive states in that sense.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 11: Any monopoly government doesn't really have that option, because it's the ONLY option). I also agree that you are free to live wherever the hell you want, however, that does not mean you can go anywhere with anarchy. You must accept the monopoly government of that country, Shanklin is arguing for the opt out option and you're cussing him up one way and down the other while saying: Leave the country and go elsewhere to establish your anarchy there.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 12: WHERE? I must ask: Where would he go? Somalia? They're establishing a Republican form of government as we speak so that's not even really an option anymore. So where would he go with this anarchy? Antarctica? He would be forced to accept the monopoly government of every place he went, he has no real option to opt out. But you're arguing that he does have the option to opt out and leave, yes this is true. However:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 13: He'd get somewhere and be forced to accept their government there or leave. That's not a real option to opt out(like I keep saying). Yet you're making the argument that his ability to leave is an option to opt out and when he gets there and can't opt out that government, it somehow counts as him opting out? It seems hypocritical, because you're arguing he can opt out of one government to join another:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 14: when he wants to opt out of all government, yet assuring both of us he has that option to opt out. However: If I point out this inevitable flaw and show it to people: you quickly change the subject or reask the same questions and act like I'm a lying hypocrit that is trapped in my own argument. I've made but one flaw: saying the ship landed in Germany(my mistake):
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
Once again - and for the last time - nobody is obliged to supply something just because you or Mike Shanklin want it. I understand that this is a frustration for you but there it is. You DO have choices - 195 of them, all provided by the Free Market of Countries. If none of the choices appeal then you're SOL - you cannot worship the unfettered workings of the market and then bitch because you don't like the outcome.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2
"nobody is obliged to supply something just because you or Mike Shanklin want it."
~The poor guy is obviously confused, as he is actually debunking government itself since it is funded by aggressive theft and coercion. Since no one is obliged to supply something, that means we are not obliged to supply this guy with the country he wants... in that case, we must end all of the 195 ANTI-free market countries that are out there. Countries are the opposite of a free market.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
Sorry Mike, lame attempts at obfuscation don't work. You need to stick to the point and skip the rhetoric.
Can you can show me an example of where private enterprise is obliged to supply me with something just because I want it?
Unfortunately for you nation strates are the RESULT of a free market - kinda sucks, right?
What you are actually doing is similar to early Communism, rejecting the workings of the market in order to fashion something that you believe will benefit mankind.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 "Can you can show me an example of where private enterprise is obliged to supply me with something just because I want it?"
~No, AND THAT IS MY POINT! lol
"Unfortunately for you nation strates are the RESULT of a free market - kinda sucks, right?"
~Oh, so you don't understand what a free market is... watch my video on anarcho-capitalism. The world has never had a free market (governmentless society). The world governments are the opposite of free markets.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
I understand exactly what a free market is. If any other industry that operated without any external control provided 195 alternatives you'd herald it as a triumph of the market. Unfortunately - as you have conceded - the market does what it wants (demand for goods is essentially a democracy), which is not necessarily what YOU want. You need to explain why there is something unacceptable with the market OF nations than you find totally acceptable to markets WITHIN nations.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 I don't want any nations. Nations are groups of humans that can "legally" use AGGRESSIVE violence on PEACEFUL people who simply disagree. Taxation IS theft, and that is how nations are funded, through the threat of imprisonment and/or death in some regions. ALL nations are a version of slavery, they are human ranches. Instead of allowing individual freedom, the collective uses threats of aggression on it's monopolized inhabitants. ALL nations are slavery, and are anti-free market.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
You may not want them but others do - that's why they exist. Market forces.
Why is the working of this particular market so unacceptable to you?
No violence is used on people who simply disagree - at least not where you and I live. That's utter bullshit.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 I am not for just any market, but a free market, where people can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Taxation is not voluntary, it is compulsion based. If you don't pay into the ponzi scheme, even if you don't infringe on anyone else. Wrong vegetation in your pocket?!? Go to prison. Don't want to pay rent to the state for property taxes?!? Prison. ... it's all a version of human ownership. Research the nonaggression principle.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
...and yet the only truly free market - the market of nations - is unacceptable to you for what reason?
Do you object to hotel bills? Is a restaurant doing you violence because it insists you pay for your food?
Payment is not voluntary - it is part of contract. If you want to stay in a hotel or a restaurant then you must abide by their rules - if you don't then you either suck it up or leave. Same goes for where you live, be it apartment, town or nation.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Chosen between your slavery?!? That is what you are saying... you see, I DON'T WANT ANY SLAVERY AT ALL! Why move to a different form of slavery? How about I, along with millions of others, simply stay where we are at, and YOU stop using this bullshit reason of an excuse called nations (which is really just threats of violence on peaceful people who NEVER signed no bullshit social contract) on us and leave your violence in your house when you come into the real world?!?
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@billburns2 I can voluntarily choose which restaurants and which hotels to visit, you do NOT have a right to make me fund your monopoly police force. You do not own my house, nor my car, ...nor me, so unless I want your services, leave me alone...
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@billburns2 No only is payment voluntary, it is voluntary BECAUSE I ENTERED INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. Not to mention I had property possible for the offer and acceptance tenant of contract law. You obviously don't realize that people can CHOOSE which restaurant and hotel they want.... Government is NOT choice....
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
Do you not see the glaring contradiction in your position?
On the one hand you demand the freedom for people to self determine, and yet when they have done exactly that and have chosen to divide themselves into 195 societies, each with its individual ideas on how to live, you condemn their choices as being invalid, simply because it is not what you personally desire, and declare them all to be "brainwashed morons".
So much for self determination.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Yeah right, so you're saying that everybody that lives in certain regions is glad we have 195 chopped up areas?!? Give me a break... I am living proof that that statement is utter bullshit.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@billburns2 5: Why do you keep reverting back to this fucking argument. I do believe my argument was right and you SWITCHED YOUR ARGUMENT to try and insult and attack me. My original argument was that they had the right to leave: The MS St. Louis is PROOF they were able to leave. Their going to countries OTHER THAN GERMANY is also PROOF of that. Somehow you switched this around and I don't know how. But now:
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
14 back to back posts and you fail to address the issues.
In your private enterprise model Rosa would be "initiating force" - so your big talk of civil disobedience is a crock of shit.
Business would be stupid to do this stuff? Well then business is stupid because it has a track record of doing exactly that - READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
Yes, you can move to Somalia if you like.
Your whole argument boils down to "I reject all this evidence because it doesn't fit with my dogma"
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 1: All that discussion on Rosa Parks: unread, shrugged off, and blatantly ignored. Why? Because I proved you wrong, MORE THAN ONCE. Crock of shit? AHAHAHA, this is a fucking joke. You're a fucking joke. Fail to address what issues? The ones in your head? Have you noticed I've answered all of your questions TWICE. I'm not kidding: go look, I've answered every single question twice: the most recent one is this Rosa Parks presentation, since low and behold I'm at it again...
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 2: My whole argument boils down to a rejection of evidence? What evidence? Whatever the fuck you make up to make yourself look better? I'm not rewriting History there 'buddy' you are. Let's go through this: You blame businesses for government mandated JIM CROWE Laws and reject my argument that JC Laws had anything to do with it. You're now actually telling me what I believe, like legitimately FORCING ME to believe what your imagination says that I believe.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 3: You will not accept any other argument(that right there is the straw that quits: When somebody tells me what the fuck I BELIEVE, convinced that I do actually believe it: I have no reason to argue: they won't accept or read any of my arguments anyways, just like the jackass that won't argue with 'ignorant Libertarians', and low and behold: you're not reading any of my arguments so congradulations: you're with the jackass). But as for reading a history book:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 4: let's run down this list shall we? I'm not the one claiming JC Laws weren't the law of the land at the time and businesses had a choice, YOU ARE(since you seem to neglect the whole history of government mandated segregation: that really kills any argument you make right off the bat, so I'd fix that if I were you). I'm not the one claiming Germany didn't invade somebody in 1939(cough cough: Poland), YOU ARE. For this one:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 5: I really recommend reading the history book, it might save your argument with somebody who has the time to give a fuck what you have to say. I'm not the one claiming Germany invaded France, Belgium, and the Netherlands in 1939, YOU ARE. The phrase: few YEARS would indicate that, because it means it was YEARS later, but somehow you neglect to see years and want to paint me as the idiot that isn't saying years, again with this:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 6: making yourself look better shit, it really doesn't help your credibility at all. I'm not the one that claimed the Jews didn't have the chance to leave on the MS St. Louis, YOU DID. But wait: somehow I'm the one that's wrong on not only this, but where they eventually ended up. You even admit they landed in other countries until the 40s when Hitler took control of half the countries they were in, proving what I said originally.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 7: However you neglect to believe that I ever got anything right or ever made a true statement. I'm also not the one telling somebody to leave the country because they're complaining about the policies of the country and want something changed, YOU ARE. Apparently you would prefer us to default, our economy to collapse, and nothing to change in the country: because we should just leave if we're going to complain.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 8: Forget about the fucked up things our government has given us on a silver platter: Debt, debt, and more debt. So: I'm done arguing with you, when you want to grow up and legitimately have a discussion: call me, I'm always open for a REAL DEBATE, until then: I don't really care what the fuck you and 'your preconceived, history rewriting lies' have to bring to the table, so I'm done with this argument. Goodbye.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
LMFAO
Hypocrisy much?
According to you when government does something - be it turning away Jews or endorsing racism , that's EVIL
but when a private enterprise does the same thing that's FREEDOM
You call self determination FREEDOM
but when self determination does what you don't want it then it's SLAVERY
All these inconvenient things called FACTS that you sweep away because you don't like the look of them.
Enjoy living in your fantasy world - I will invoke my right to opt out.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 You are looking at the surface instead of digging deeper. The reason we are against governments is because...at their very base, they are funded through taxation which is not voluntary. If you do not pay people for things you disagree with, they believe they have the right to tackle you and throw you in jail. That is not Freedom, nor is it choice. If all governments were eradicated, Jews wouldn't have to run anywhere, and racism would seriously die out. It's govt that encourages both
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
Let's ignore the social contract issue for the moment - which we will never agree on.
There is no evidence that any of this will actually happen the way you say it will, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. The Libertarian of 2011 is like the Communist of 1911, neither can point to a real world example of their ideology but both are convinced that their ideas are flawless and represent the next logical step for mankind.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Communism inherently places the system above the individual. Nonaggressionism places the individual above any system. One is an outright promise of aggression, the other is the lack thereof.
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@mikeshanklin
That's not what I meant. I'm not saying the two systems are similar, I'm saying that advocates of untested social models are all convinced that their pet ideologies can do no wrong.
We also have different definitions on what is or isn't aggression.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 1: Know I said I was gone, but can't miss this: 'neither can point to a real world example of their ideology'. So...Somalia not good enough for you? Just ignore that whole test? Toss it out the window? Forget the fact they were living in peace and working JUST FINE before the UN and the U.S. got involved and provoked all the riots and rebellions? Yep, that's what you do: ignore any legitimate argument to contrary. You seem to ignore any argument opposed:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 2: that's not healthy for debate. We can sit here and debate warlocks and pirates all day over the Somalia issue: The fact of the matter? None of this violence, rebellion, and control arose on it's own: it was provoked by U.N. intervention and their assertion that Somalia have a republican government(now they're about to force a government on the country when about 75% of the country doesn't want it. You'd support that though, wouldn't you? It's gov't so it must be good:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 3: force it upon them. The funny thing is that that would go against your democracy views, but it's govt so it's beneficial to the country neglecting your democratic views, the govt loving statists must be right and do not have the supply the people with anarchy, according to you. You know what: I don't really care what your argument for this is, so I'm leaving now: Bye.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 You don't have a choice, with this government: you like it or else. Yes, you can go somewhere with another government, but none of these places have competing governments, you accept that government and that one alone. No option of no government or opting out, thanks to the UN and our own country, not even in Somalia anymore. But I'm a radical hypocrit cause I want the freedom to choice in BOTH, I'm a roaring liar that neglects 'facts' that you pulled out your ass.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 If there was a competition between 2 or 3 governments here(say state governments only), then I'd easily accept a racist or an ignorant government, and speak against it. When only ONE thing has control of EVERYTHING, there is no choice so it's an easy conclusion: force tolerance. I hate forcing anything, but when you deal with monopolies, you have to work with monopolies. You want to continue babbling on about false hypocrisy though, so I'll leave you to that: Peace.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 15: the Jews on board did go under German control and they did have the option to leave, because they took the ship out. However they had nowhere to go for freedom(much like Shanklin with his anarchism) and inevitably ended up back in German control(after a few invasions), so yes: I stand behind my first declaration that you are IN FACT making an argument VERY SIMILAR to Nazi Germany.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
NO - stop trying to rewrite history
The Jews from MS St. Louis ended up in France, Belgium, Holland and the UK - so they DID have somewhere to go to as they did NOT return to Germany, geddit?
NOT GERMANY - OR ANY COUNTRY UNDER GERMAN OCCUPATION - GEDDIT?
JUNE 1939 WAS BEFORE GERMANY INVADED ANYWHERE - GEDDIT? READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
unless you also criticise government for not having a crystal ball to see into the future..
.
billburns2 7 months ago
@billburns2 Hitler, such a symptom, more so than THE root problem. The root problem that created Hitler and the Nazi's was government statism.... and you don't need a crystal ball to know that governments will fail in the future. Genocide, just a natural symptom of statism...
mikeshanklin 7 months ago
@billburns2 6: my very true statement that they eventually went under German control is just causing a hissy fit where you bitch at me left and right, degrade my intellect, and argue 'read a history book'? I have to read a history book because you don't know they eventually went back under German control. Like I said: I think by the end of the Holocaust it was what? HALF of them that ended up under German control again AND DEAD.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 7: I never once said that they invaded the countries in 1939 there DUMBASS and I would love for you to point that statement out to me. I said within a few years: Almost all of the Jews that went to other countries were BACK under German control. BACK, within a FEW YEARS, how does that imply that German controlled them in 1939 OR they invaded somebody in 1939. And That's funny, you actually haven't read a history book there dumbass: Look up: INVASION OF POLAND.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 8: You'll find the year to be against your dumbass comments. But lemme say this again, so your small and feeble little IQ can understand it: I'M NOT CLAIMING THEY WENT BACK TO GERMANY, I SAID THEY WENT TO OTHER COUNTRIES, I CLAIMED GERMANY TOOK OVER THOSE COUNTRIES WITH A FEW YEARS AND THEY WERE BACK UNDER GERMAN CONTROL BY THE 1940S. GEDDIT DUMBASS?!? I even RETRACTED the statement I made that the ship landed in Germany as:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 9: my mistake and somehow that got LOST IN TRANSLATION. Do you want to start speaking Spanish(I don't speak it but I can try) so you can comprehend? You've shown you're not reading my comments OR LISTENING TO ME, MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES, so idk why I'm trying. You're a good for nothing troll at this point, cause you aren't listening, you keep going backwards, and you won't let some things go(have a grudge or something? That little lady friend in the office not fuck you right?
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 10: Guess what: I'm not her, I'll call you a dumbass and a fucking moron when you're acting like one and start ignoring everything you say if you don't read what I say). As for the 'not supplying something for you': Shanklin already covered: We don't have to supply anything for you either. Funny thing is: we don't want anything, we just want out. We want nothing but to be left alone and not bothered. No privileges, no benefits, no real government at all, nothing.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 11: Fuck even Shanklin makes the argument that you can have your government and have people supply you whatever you whim with useless money, but somehow it doesn't sink in to you: we're the ones not asking for something and we're the ones that don't want to be a part of your tyranny. If you want to fuck yourself to kingdom come with a government: go for it, but leave US out of it. We prefer to not be pillaged, forced, and made to supply things at the whims of some jackasses like you.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 12: Free market solutions, unfetttered workings of the market? AHAHAHAHA You are a fucking tool and about as political informed as my left nut. Corporatism is NOT capitalism. Lemme repeat that: CORPORATISM IS NOT CAPITALISM. Capitalism is the freedom of choice, association, and LEGITIMATE competition, not a oneway street to the same guy on Wall Street. Even if corporatism allows capitalism at the lower levels:
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 it's still a monopoly because technically you're going to the same CEO for something, even if the company has a different name. So NICE TRY: but better luck next time. Then again: you haven't had any real luck in trying to degrade me or claim I am what I'm not, so: no luck for you. I do find it funny that you keep trying and keep reverting though: That's signs of acting like you're better than somebody when you're arguing but remember: only Libertarians do that...>.>... GTFO.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 16: Yet you're trying, and failing miserably I might add, to make it seem as if I'm the moron that supports the ways and nature of the Nazis and how FDR acted in refusing the Jews. No: Libertarians think FDR a tyrant, most Libertarians support an 'open border' policy(I don't care for that terminology cause it sends the wrong message) that says people can come here and leave: denying people is AGAINST those principles.
emightis 7 months ago
@billburns2 17: Nice try though: Better luck next time. As for now: you're not really trying to go anywhere: as shown right here: 'NO, you haven't. Third time's a charm:'. And here: 'So the "tyrannical" FDR was right to turn away Jewish refugees, was he?', when I never said that, in fact I said the exact opposite: 'Libertarians think FDR a tyrant, most Libertarians support an 'open border' policy...that says people can come here and leave: denying people is AGAINST those principles.'. So peace.
emightis 7 months ago
@emightis
er - how can you possibly have an open border policy when you've just conceded that you think it's acceptable to bar people entry on whatever bigoted or whimsical reasons pop into a landowners head??
billburns2 7 months ago