Brilliant! I'll ad that here in rural america my phone and electric power infrastructure was built in the 1940s by the federal government, because the private utilities refused, saying that it wouldn't be a profitable investment. The government had the crazy idea that farms, ranches, and small towns with electric and phone service would be more productive and benefit the overall economy and society. Who was right?
@FSAthe1st Here in the US if you state that you believe in universal health care a good number of people will immediately point at you and start screaming "Communist!" "Socialist!" "Marxist!" "Hitler!" - any of those or any combination of those.
@FSAthe1st You do realize everything deemed socialism by you, could be quite easily, given competition under a free market? The water for example, I won't even drink it it's too dirty, go to a "capitalist" and if you agree to be charged for water, he'd pump sea water clean it and sell it to you, if you don't like it you simply go to another water distributor, in a free market the capitalist is subject to your whims. Not the other way around.
@SarionFetecuse "You do realize everything deemed socialism by you, could be quite easily, given competition under a free market?"
Consequently, it would be fucked up.
"The water for example, I won't even drink it it's too dirty, go to a "capitalist" and if you agree to be charged for water, he'd pump sea water clean it and sell it to you, if you don't like it you simply go to another water distributor, in a free market the capitalist is subject to your whims."
@FSAthe1st Just think about it, you scream monopoly when I say free market but you're the first to pout universal healthcare, isn't that the easier claim of a extremely harmful monopoly? The only reason why you even like it is, because before their was a mixed system, where the little people got shafted, be cause of price controls, licensing, ect, where people would gain from going nothing to atleast something! But they did not have the foresight of the debt enslave it would create!
@SarionFetecuse "Just think about it, you scream monopoly when I say free market but you're the first to pout universal healthcare, isn't that the easier claim of a extremely harmful monopoly?"
So what? Healthcare is another issue entirely. I support universal healthcare BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN FUCKING BEING ON THIS PLANET DESERVES TO HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FINANCES ARE. End of discussion, end of story, end of debate.
@SarionFetecuse "The only reason why you even like it is, because before their was a mixed system-"
Strike 2 for telling me how I think, and for an outright falsehood. I live in the UK, where we did NOT have a "mixed" system before the foundation of the NHS in the 40's. We had an ENTIRELY private medical system.
@SarionFetecuse "the little people got shafted, be cause of price controls, licensing, ect-"
No... People were PROTECTED because of regulation that works to stop insane quacks and crooks from getting into the industry. You insane fuckers would take that away from us and let ANYONE who wants to get involved in the industry and do whatever the fuck they want. That's unacceptable to me. I want to be able to TRUST my doctors, NOT have to get a M.D in Medicine just to be able to decide who to trust.
Refutation: Monopoly, which under a Free Market system, despite loud and vehement protestations and screaming rants to the contrary from Libertarians and Anarchists, IS more than just possible.... It's likely.
@FSAthe1st Refutation: Government is the biggest monopoly of force, the free market, despite what you twist them to be destroys monopolies, because you can simply go to any other guy that gives you a better deal. I don't understand in your right mind, could have a state allowance by all knowing bureaucrats only knowing the true way of destroying monopolies! People who are libertarians and anarchist absents of governments is a belief in a free market!
@SarionFetecuse "I don't understand in your right mind, could have a state allowance by all knowing bureaucrats only knowing the true way of destroying monopolies!"
Can you please re-phrase this question in English? I don't know what you are getting at here.
"People who are libertarians and anarchist absents of governments is a belief in a free market!"
@FSAthe1st Anarcho socialists who are really Marxist in disguise, their would would look like a lord of the flies, because everything is owned by everyone, and we elect our leaders that must do the best for everyone! This might work for a little while, but when you grow, (if you grow) you'll just become another state trying to dominate, and steal property. The good thing for everyone else, since your lack of respect of property rights it will end you quickly.
@SarionFetecuse "Anarcho socialists who are really Marxist in disguise, their would would look like a lord of the flies, because everything is owned by everyone, and we elect our leaders that must do the best for everyone!"
Can you re-phrase this sentence so as to make an actual point?
"This might work for a little while, but when you grow, (if you grow) you'll just become another state trying to dominate, and steal property."
This applies to businesses too. You have yet to refute this.
@FSAthe1st I've never seen liberty, where there is an monopoly of doing anything thus you are not libertarians, all you are is a fascist in sheep's clothing!
@SarionFetecuse "I've never seen liberty, where there is an monopoly of doing anything thus you are not libertarians"
I could have told you that, you moron. Of COURSE I'm not a Libertarian. You see... I'm not insane... Thinking that the Free Market will fix everything. You whackos think that businesses can be trusted to manage themselves, when HISTORY bears out that many of them CANNOT be trusted.
@SarionFetecuse Now you've spammed my comments enough, so you can enjoy a posting holiday for a few weeks. Think about what you're saying. It's not as reasonable as you claim it is.
@FSAthe1st the number one libertarian catch cry, the system is not working believe in me! The standard reply WTF do you think I am bat shit crazy. Talking to libertarians is like talking to Zombie Fish, except Zombie Fish cannot help but be drones of their Zombie masters.
It could simply be the case that fireproof houses are not as profitable because of the extra cost of R&D or whatever. Just because a fireproof house might be a good idea doesn't mean there's necessarily a demand for it or that meeting the demand is always profitable.
Replace "fireproof house" with "widget" if you prefer.
Telecommunications and GPS are great inventions, but there was no incentive for private corporations to launch a space program because of the humongous entry cost.
Also, I don't think it needs explaining that codes prevent obnoxious things like creating a building that is a massive fire hazard that will firestorm over an entire neighborhood of fire hazards. Or doing obnoxious things like impinging on public property like roads and water utilities. So I'm not clear on what your point is.
And is a slightly cheaper house really going to affect an average homeless guy's living conditions? He's got bigger problems than housing prices.
Great argument. Hey, in the USSR the state produced all the food... and the people there ATE IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM.
Clearly, they endorsed the system, just as much as we do when we drive on gov't roads.
If the gov't monopolizes something, forces you to pay for it so it's "free to use" and thus making private competition almost impossible, and you use that thing, then clearly you endorse the whole bag.
Amazingly stupid video, liked by amazingly stupid people.
I like the video... but to be honest it left me a bit confused. As a libertarian my first thought was at how pervasive governemnt management is in our society and that it's no wonder that the government has grown to such power given the number of responsibilities it has taken on.
@Felhaven "Then i realized it was an anti-libertarian video."
No, it's an anti-fundamentalist video. This nonsense about taxation being theft and how everything can be provided by the private industry is ridiculous. SOME things can be provide for, but others such as critical essential and emergency services are best provided for by an organisation that has the ability to provide them to everyone without a profit-motive.
@avishayalon111 I'm kinda getting tired with this "you are forced to do pay taxes etc". It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early.
It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i point a gun at him telling him if he doesn't ill restrain him and if he resists ill blow his brains out.
@ProDCloud It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i explain the rules to him, and when he starts kicking the walls I restrain him until he calms down, then I put him in time out until he can obey the rules.
Its like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i have a monopoly on force and can make up any rules i want free from consent and i actually think like an idiot that the child consents to a system because they are born into it, and when he starts kicking the walls i restrain him then put him in time out until he obeys MY RULES and if he resists ill blow his brains out.
Because if i have a kid and raise them im free to rape them right?
@IAMDRR0B0TNIK Oh look... It's the same tired, unjustifiable, old and worn out use of the words "monopoly, force" nonsense we've seen from you fundamentalists time and time again. Go put your tinfoil hat back on, because if you don't, they might just control your mind! Oh noes!
Also if you think people dont know where to find a random yt account generator then you havent been here much.
Cant come up with a counter argument?
DURR ILL BLOCK THEM THAT MEANS I WON THE DEBATE
congratulations you have become lower than scum which is at the level politicians are at.
Now i block you and if you remove these comments ill put them right back up with another account, you cant keep the truth from people, oh wait maybe i can flag your vid and bring it down for hate..hmm
@IAMDRR0B0TNIK "Also if you think people dont know where to find a random yt account generator then you havent been here much.
Cant come up with a counter argument?
DURR ILL BLOCK THEM THAT MEANS I WON THE DEBATE"
Congratulations on showing your idiocy. There is a pattern involved in the Random Username Generator that is NOT present in some of the sock accounts used on this channel.
If you don't know what you're talking about and you have no evidence, fuck off.
@TheElMoIsEviL (cont) so it's like when someone points out the horrible way christians are acting, another christian comes along and says "Well I am not THAT kind of christian!". The main point of this video is that socialism works for most other essentials, so it can work for healthcare too. Where do we disagree on this point?
@TheElMoIsEviL Maybe I totally missed the point, but what are you going on about? This video was expanding on the original video to show that while many private systems are in operation during our daily lives, there is a working socialist background running through that works more than free market libertarians are willing to exist. Plus I think if we start dividing ourselves into to many sub-catagories it starts getting messy. (tbc)
It's been interesting to watch your vids on this topic. It reminds me of the principle I try to espouse, which is: I care more about WHY you believe something than WHAT you believe.
I suspect that there are some very thoughtful, rational people with strong libertarian positions, but the Internet is largely filled with the OTHER kind. There's nothing inherently irrational in defending either position, it's the tactics employed in furtherance of that end that I have concerns about.
@C0nc0rdance I get the feeling that many free market libertarians don't fallow the same standards of morality that we do. What's odd is that when talking about religion and objective morality, they may agree that morality is subjective and can be determined through a cost/benefit analysis. But then when it comes to taxation, they have a 100% rigid "Stealing is wrong, no exceptions!" stance with little real concern for the benefits that this supposed "Theft" gives us.
I was briefly a Libertarian in college, and I met some very intelligent, sophisticated, thoughtful Libertarians. Some of the rhetoric, like taxation as theft, was a little flimsy, but there were also some very sophisticated arguments about the inherent conflict of politicizing our economic choices. Politicians make popular choices that tend to be very short sighted (one election cycle). Companies SHOULD be better at long-term goals, because they only answer to the bottom line.
@TheElMoIsEviL and if you want to claim that I'm threatening to ban you because I don't stand a chance against you intellectually... Go right ahead. All it will do is demonstrate the gigantic ego you have.
Let's see if you can conduct yourself like an ADULT this time.
@TheElMoIsEviL And before you start mouth farting about how I'm supposedly doing that myself, I'm not claiming for a FACT that Socialism is GOOD, nor am I claiming that the NHS is INFALLIBLE, or ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SAID IN MY VIDEO THAT IS NOT ALREADY CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE BY THE EVIDENCE.
So I'll say this to you once only.
Strawman my position again, tell me how I think again, claim, as fact, ANYTHING you cannot back up with SOLID evidence, and you're gone...
@TheElMoIsEviL ... no chance intellectually (according to you, at least) when a short trip to my channel would have exposed you to all the rules on my channel that people can get warned and banned for. Rather dishonest... OR ignorant. Take your pick. At least ONE applies here.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I have a VERY big problem with people telling me how my mind works (that's MY job) and I have a problem with people asserting their opinions as a FACT...
@TheElMoIsEviL "Then there are the voluntary collectives propping up in Argentina-"
Which are of a SMALL SCALE, and therefore are NOT nationwide...
"or the short lived Paris communes."
Yes... SHORT LIVED, meaning UNSUCCESSFUL because OTHERWISE they would NOT be SHORT LIVED.
This is the problem you fundamentalists have. You accuse us of all the things you yourself engage in... Strawman, Red herrings, Dishonesty, Selective quoting and so on.
@TheElMoIsEviL One more thing... You want to state that I'm a "Creationist" to the state... Why would I agree with THIS statement then?
"I think the point is clear - that 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are not binary systems where you either live completely by one system or the other."
No "creationist" to the State would agree that a balance between the two systems is a good idea... They'd be in favour of a TOTALITARIAN STATE THAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING.
@thkaal1 "If they were rights, they wouldn't be granted."
Now you're playing semantics games.
"As for the land use, that is only derived from a force of arms. If you can take it and keep others from it, then you own it."
And that applies equally to individuals as it does to Government, which is why when people bitch at me about taxes being a form of force, I have to remind them that they are committing force by claiming ownership of something and then preventing others freedom to use it.
@TheElMoIsEviL "Either you're aware of this and being purposefully misleading (lying) or you're simply ignorant."
Or the 3rd option: That I don't believe the Anachro-Collectivism idea will even WORK. You didn't present THIS option, did you? And you have the nerve to call ME dishonest or ignorant?
@TheElMoIsEviL "Especially considering human beings can "lie" "
No shit sherlock. The fact that human beings can lie is precisely my argument against free-for-all Capitalism. And do NOT attempt to strawman that statement to claim that I'm applying this across the board to everyone... For fuck sakes. I do NOT want the USA to become China, or North Korea, so STOP going on the assumption that this is what I'm arguing for.
@TheElMoIsEviL "You don't even stand a chance intellectually so you ban people."
Yeah, and you're another arrogant fuck who thinks he knows how I think. Why should I entertain ANY arrogant fucks who think they know how I think based off of a few videos? Arrogant fuck.
And as for standing a chance intellectually... If you say so, champ. Your opinion is about as worthless as you think your vote is.
Since you think I don't stand a chance intellectually, how about you have a go at answering the question that no-one to date has answered successfully...
Name ONE successful government that does NOT tax people.
1) It HAS to be successful, can't be something that collapsed after a few years or decades,
2) It has to be of a large enough scale to support today's population, because I don't want to go back to tribal scale living if it's all the same to you.
@TheElMoIsEviL "You're feeding on people's fears in your videos."
If there was any evidence that you're an even bigger idiot than I had you pegged for, this is it. Well done. Feeding off of people's fears is NOT something I'm doing. If you REALLY listened, you'd know what my ACTUAL position is.
@TheElMoIsEviL "My vote does not carry the weight of a Lobbyists Check."
You live in Canada. I'm talking about the United States. And yes, it may be true that lobbyists have a lot of influence with their money, but whose fault is it for allowing the system to get that bad in the first place? You can't bitch at me if your vote carries little weight when you allowed your country to get to that position by ignoring the signs that these people were getting richer and getting power that way.
@TheElMoIsEviL "So "anarchists" are Free Market Capitalists? "Libertarians" are Free Market Capitalists?"
What?! You accuse me of strawmanning you guys position and then IMMEDIATELY strawman MINE? Wow...
"This video was made by an idiot."
No actually, this video was commented on by an idiot who thinks that, just because I made a video for a bit of fun, he can come along, point out that I didn't make a huge disclaimer about these sub groups, and then claim I'm pretending they don't exist.
@TheElMoIsEviL Wow... I wouldn't have had you pegged for a moron. OK, let's start with this...
"Wow... Strawman after Red Herring after Causation/Correlation fallacy after misleading statement after total ignorance of the topic at hand."
Sorry, but 1) people who claim socialism in healthcare is bad are hypocrites, and 2) You proceed from an assumption that I came up with these ideas myself. If you had bothered to open those things you have called EARS, you might have known otherwise.
Good fun, and all perfectly true while being brilliantly tongue in cheek. Keep up yhe good work, and have no fear ignoring the offended individuals who don't see the humor in the video and the ignorance in their posts.
@thkaal1 "In practice, there is still mob rule. It's just that certain positions of power were in place before the mob made a decision to force a rule. "
@FSAthe1st Ilikenuman was a Sok account? I've seen some of his videos before, but now for some reason his channel is region locked (even though by his accent he was also British). Very odd.
Nicely done, in-their-face, hypocritical libertarian and tea party behaviour exposed. But then, just like the religious bullshit that most party faithful swallow as truth, their ability to 'see' this hypocrisy is blinded by brain centers not able to communicate with each other in a logical manner.
I always find it funny how the extreme anti-socialists argue so rabidly against a socialised healthcare system but never mention the police, fire service and other such things which are social systems. When you point this out they always say "well the police help everyone in society so it's different", which is of course one of the arguments socialists use.
Capitalism has some good parts, socialism has some good parts, it's how we combine them that matters.
@imr22 "I always find it funny how the extreme anti-socialists argue so rabidly against a socialised healthcare system but never mention the police, fire service and other such things which are social systems."
Actually there are some extreme nut jobs who DO argue that Policing and Fire prevention should be put into the oh so great and wonderfully trustworthy corporate or private industry's hands.
Ok true there are some nut jobs that think the fire service should be privitised but they're the exception rather than the rule. Of course they don't understand the history of the fire service when it used to be privately run and the disasters that caused. Peoples houses burning because they didn't have a badge on the wall.
@imr22 "Capitalism has some good parts, socialism has some good parts, it's how we combine them that matters."
I completely agree. I'm not in favour of complete and total socialism but there are some things that you should NEVER put into the hands of profiteers.
Check out DavidJohnWellman's series on Libertarians and Randroids for some of the nonsense these crazies come out with... Taxation as theft and we can TRUST private companies because of the hallowed invisible hand.
It must always be remembered that a private company has only a single motive, profit. They do not care about the quality of what they do (unless they are supplying luxury goods), they just want to give the minimum of service for the maximum money. In many areas this can be very effective, especially consumer goods. But when it comes to services this fails quickly.
Anyone who has recently been on a British train knows this.
@imr22 "Anyone who has recently been on a British train knows this. "
Ugh... Public Transport in my home city is Privately owned. They charge extortionate amounts of money for the privilege. Go to London and you'll find the costs for the same service are much lower because it's publicly owned.
having a monopoly on the service and still using that service out of neccesity isnt hypocritical whatsoever. if you see it differently then please explain. but do it without agreeing with my prison analogy.
@SecularNumanist "having a monopoly on the service and still using that service out of neccesity isnt hypocritical whatsoever."
Hypocritical? You've been smoking again, haven't you? I don't remember saying you were being hypocritical for going on about prison food and prisons... I simply pointed out that your analogy is a complete and utter joke. You're NOT in prison, and you can choose to leave the social contract any time you desire.
Oh for crying out loud. I was restating the point of the prison analogy. Which was that theres nothing hypcritical about using a service you pay for through taxes and that theres a monopoly on anyway,
if there were alternative institutions id use them.
Secondly, I can leave sure. All of a sudden the rules change without your consent and you can just love it or leave it.
Cry as loud as you want. It doesn't make your position any more valid.
"All of a sudden the rules change without your consent and you can just love it or leave it. "
All of a sudden? You don't really pay much attention to what your legislature is doing, do you? It takes MONTHS, and even YEARS in some cases, for bills to pass that change the conditions you are living under in the government. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
@SecularNumanist "if you see it differently then please explain. but do it without agreeing with my prison analogy."
Sure.
1) Food is a necessity, but in the outside world, you can choose where to get it. In prison, you cannot.
2) If you're in Prison, YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME TO GET YOU THERE (and I'm not getting into debates about wrongful convictions, it's irrelevant to the discussion)...
@SecularNumanist Whereas in the outside world, if you don't like the Social Contract between you and the Government, you can leave any time you wish to do so. In Prison you're there until you've served your punishment.
3) On the subject of the Social Contract, you entered into it when your parents agreed on your behalf at birth, just as their parents did, and their parents before them, all the way back to the time when the Constitution was ratified. You don't want to be in it anymore? Thats ok.
@SecularNumanist "i never signed the constitution, neither did my parents."
Good job missing the point there, Genius. At some point in your family lineage, they gave their implicit consent to the Constitution when the framers had it ratified by representatives across the union. If they had any objection to it at the time, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. It was voted in. You can't just cry about it now because you don't like where it's gotten you.
"Good job missing the point there, Genius. At some point in your family lineage, they gave their implicit consent to the Constitution when the framers had it ratified by representatives across the union. If they had any objection to it at the time, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. It was voted in. You can't just cry about it now because you don't like where it's gotten you."
LOL: my parents agreed to it = My consent, GREAT logic there
@ProDCloud "LOL: my parents agreed to it = My consent, GREAT logic there"
Your parents have the right to give consent in your stead until you reach the age of majority. At that time, your contract with the State is renewed. If you wish to opt out, there are ways of doing so.
@SecularNumanist "And the constitution affects a huge land claim beyond occupancy."
So? That doesn't mean you can't just stop being a whiny pussy and just get up and leave.
"so i could retreat to the middle of nowhere."
There are plenty of territories that have not been claimed by any government. That's not the issue. If you don't like where you are, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay... Which is why your prison analogy failed so dismally.
@SecularNumanist "but where. the sea? somewhere in fiji? where theres zero civilisation or technology?"
If you want to be an ANTI-SOCIAL JERK and not contribute to society like the rest of us do, no one is forcing you to remain. You can leave any time you want. If you choose to go somewhere there are no rules or regulations to protect everyone in society from anti-social jerks like you then it's your problem if you find your ideal of no taxes or government also results in no civilization.
Id like to stay here and be a social jerk. Id like to pay for say, healthcare, or local roads, or contribute to the welfare of others. But i cant do that because the state comes as a package deal.
Its not the paying the bothers me, its HAVING to pay via coersion and having to pay for things i dont like (like wars etc). and civilisation predates taxes, as does governance. theyre not synonymous.
But you're not being a social jerk. You're being an ANTI-Social jerk. You want to be able to say "Fuck everyone else. I'm not paying for them. Taxes are theft! The Govenmintz iz threatening us by force". That is the DEFINITION of being an Anti-Social jerk in the context of society.
Lets say i want to fund roads, universal healthcare, schooling, welfare and various other things. But now I HAVE to also pay for other things such as oil wars and aid to other countries aswell.
Theres nothing anti social about not wanting to fund killing or wanting to make others do the same
Yes, evangelistic nonsense. You have not, at any time, justified your position to me other than appeals to emotion by using words like theft, force, coercion.
"do i hear the "lol you libert-aryans are just like creationists" line approaching?"
No, but strike 3 for assuming you know how I think.
The role of the nascent State in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in relation to the urban centers was to destroy the independence of the cities; to pillage the rich guilds of merchants and artisans; to concentrate in its hands the external commerce of the cities and ruin it...
to lay hands on the internal administration of the guilds and subject internal commerce as well as all manufactures, in every detail to the control of a host of officials--and in this way to kill industry and the arts; by taking over the local militias and the whole municipal administration, crushing the weak in the interest of the strong by taxation, and ruining the countries by wars.
the same tactic was applied to the villages and the peasants. Once the State felt strong enough it eagerly set about destroying the village commune, ruining the peasants in its clutches and plundering the common lands.
The State: It’s Historic Role. Peter Kropotkin. 1896"
There were small pockets of this, but they were short lived given the existence of a ready existing overarching state. I can give other examples aswell in the past if youd like. but id need to do it via PM
@SecularNumanist When I asked you to cite SUCCESSFUL governments without taxation, I did NOT ask you to give me counter-examples of governments which had pillaged and robbed villages in order to strengthen themselves, especially as these examples are NOT evidence of SUCCESSFUL governments that didn't have taxes.
@SecularNumanist Why didn't you go ahead and cite just ONE successful tax-less government? I'll tell you why... BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. Because if you COULD, you would have just done so.
Frankly you're as bad as all the creationists and moon hoaxers that ShaneDK accuses SANE PEOPLE of being. Enjoy your time out.
@FSAthe1st No, they were taken over by overwhelming military force (by much larger populations and landmasses). By this logic, in 1200, democracy is a failure, as Athens and Rome both fell back into Monarchy.
@FSAthe1st What?!? They were crushed by much larger nations, it had nothing to do with their form of governance, just as the Nazis beating Poland does not mean that Fascism is good, but that larger nations beat smaller ones...
Look, democracy came up, and then was crushed, and then had a resurgence; why can't anarchy do the same? Do you not understand analogies?
@SaviorOfLogic "They were crushed by much larger nations, it had nothing to do with their form of governance-"
You've missed my point, and I can only assume deliberately at this stage. Now ask yourself this question: How did those nations get larger in the first place?
"Look, democracy came up, and then was crushed, and then had a resurgence; why can't anarchy do the same? Do you not understand analogies?"
So now you start questioning my intelligence. Fine....
@SaviorOfLogic But you also missed my point that Anarchy ONLY works on the SMALL SCALE. What, are you going to divide territories up into tribal sizes again, so that you can implement your chosen "Kill or Be Killed" form of society? Sorry, but CIVILIZED people are NOT going to go for it. Your analogy doesn't change that.
@FSAthe1st They normally lobby to change the law and 'deregulate' in their favour. If they did work within the law then the frauds perpetuated during the last crisis in '08 would have been brought to book. So far, I haven’t seen any filling jail cells except the Ponzi manager Madoff.
@GreatGungHolio "They normally lobby to change the law and 'deregulate' in their favour."
And it's despicable and somethiung needs to be done about it, but I don't agree with all these other people who think that just because Government is currently being corrupted by private corporations and lobbyists who are serving their own interests, that Government as a whole is a bad thing...
@GreatGungHolio ... and we should either go for Anarchy or declare Government intervention in the very entities who are corrupting them to begin with should stop.
"If they did work within the law then the frauds perpetuated during the last crisis in '08 would have been brought to book."
Absolutely. I could wish that the US Government actually eschewed payments from lobbyists and decided to bring them to book for their actions.
@SaviorOfLogic And when I say nowhere, I mean on a nationwide scale.
Tax-less government may have worked at a time when large military forces were not a factor, but since nations developed the ability to travel large distances, any government that cannot raise and sustain a revenue stream is DOOMED TO FAILURE.
And if you don't mind, I don't want to descend into anarchy... Where there is no rule of law, so it i perfectly acceptable for people to kill or be killed.
@FSAthe1st Ireland and Iceland weren't nations? Well, if you define 'nation' as being 'having a state', then fine, but that's not a very fair definition.
Ireland resisted Britain at a comparable rate to how the Nazis were treated by the Allies, both losing 13-14% of their population.
Whether people are killed arbitrarily does not depend on the de jure law, but the de facto law, if the people have a shitty culture, such as insane islamists, then they will have a shitty society.
Never said that. Strike 2 for Strawmanning my position.
As for the rest of your post, none of it addresses my point that for a society to be successful, it must not only be maintainable from a domestic point of view, but it must also be able to defend itself from attack. Anarchies CANNOT do that in today's world simply because there's NO means of guaranteeing the revenue stream required for it. No taxes and no laws, remember?
@FSAthe1st For the 'kill or be killed' - in any society, monarchy, democracy or anarchy, if everyone is fanatically religious, the gay in the village will be killed. And Ireland had over a million people, hardly 'tribal sizes'.
You said on a nationwide scale, what did you mean then?
And I don't advocate no law. I support common law, where, if necessary, a provision could be made for anything, from banning murder or gay marriage, or forcing defence dues.
@SaviorOfLogic "For the 'kill or be killed' - in any society, monarchy, democracy or anarchy, if everyone is fanatically religious, the gay in the village will be killed."
Well done on missing the point yet again. Yes, in any fanatical society, laws may be passed to kill a minority, but that's not the issue here, so STOP DIVERTING THE ISSUE.
An ANARCHY BY DEFINITION IS A LAWLESS SOCIETY. An ANARCHY allows for anyone to kill anyone else and there is NO recourse to punish that person...
"And Ireland had over a million people, hardly 'tribal sizes'."
Whether Ireland had over a miullion people or not... IF there was NO RULE OF LAW, which is ANARCHY BY DEFINITION, then it doesn't matter if the entire state of Ireland was comprised of over a million people or not. THEY WERE NOT BEING GOVERNED. They could do what they wanted.
@SaviorOfLogic "You said on a nationwide scale, what did you mean then?"
This is like banging my head against a wall. I told you that NOWHERE IN MODERN SOCIETY DO ANARCHIES EXIST ON A NATIONWIDE SCALE. You made an appeal to the past by citing Ireland and Iceland... Two nations that USED TO HAVE Anarchy. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANARCHY TODAY, NEITHER DOES ANY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. You then say "So Iceland and Ireland aren't nations then?"
Do you advocate there being no Rule Of Law or don't you?
"I support common law, where, if necessary, a provision could be made for anything, from banning murder or gay marriage, or forcing defence dues."
In other words, setting up a Rule Of Law and enforcing provision for revenue to support the infrastructure of the Government e.g. through TAXES, which you people go on about being Theft.
At least be consistent in your arguments for fuck sakes.
@FSAthe1st No, it is by definition not under the rule of an objective legal monopoly. Just as fanatics agree that being gay is wrong, normal people agree murder is wrong, and it will be punished as such.
I understand the misunderstanding, I was not being dishonest.
I support the rule of law, just as I support secularism and liberalism, that does not mean such a feature will be present, that depends on culture.
And common law by definition is not a monopoly, which the state is.
@SaviorOfLogic "And common law by definition is not a monopoly, which the state is."
More Capitalist wording. I don't CARE if you call it a monopoly. The Rule Of Law IS NOT A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.
Your definition of Monopoly is my definition of a clear and well documented set of laws that law abiding citizens should obey, rather than your definition of common law, which by my definition, lack cohesion and are unenforceable without an actual law enforcement organisation and a CLEAR CODE OF LAWS.
@FSAthe1st May I ask how you define 'rule of law'? I don't see how it could be a business (for or not for profit), as it's an idea. Anyway, common law was the law most people used for their lives during the middle ages (even in lands under a state, it was just that state law would override any common law decisions), it was the commonly held belief that everyone was bound by, whatever their beliefs were (so were typically sexist, but were cohesive and enforced).
@FSAthe1st Common law, in part, is about the rule of law, as it is 'common' to the entire nation, and 'exceptions' were only due to State law (eg. no one could tax land he did rightfully not own, except the King).
Merchant Law spanned all Europe and was only based on reputation, though in Ireland, where common law was dominant, judges would make decisions, and a separate group, named 'kings' would do the enforcement, but were not above the law.
@SaviorOfLogic "Merchant Law spanned all Europe and was only based on reputation, though in Ireland, where common law was dominant, judges would make decisions, and a separate group, named 'kings' would do the enforcement, but were not above the law."
Now... Tell me... Did they do this without charging a single penny in taxation?
@SaviorOfLogic "Yes. Merchants were not supported by the state, and there was no state which could tax in Ireland."
Pity that they had to get their revenue from somewhere else then. And while they were doing this, the infrastructure that needed financial support was being neglected. A simple search online provided me with that information.
@SaviorOfLogic Sanitation, Healthcare, Fire prevention, Policing and so on.
Anyway, enough. If you wish to comment further, that is your right, but I'm done with the "discussion" as it's like talking to a Theist... And those conversations get boring very quickly.
You enjoy your ideal of Libertarian or Anarchist society all you like... Just don't take away MY right to live within CIVILIZED society, thank you.
@SecularNumanist "Its not the paying the bothers me, its HAVING to pay via coersion and having to pay for things i dont like (like wars etc)."
Say you pay rent on an apartment, and your landlord spends your rent money on things that you don't like... YOU HAVE NO SAY IN IT. The Landlord and you have a contract for rental of the property. What he chooses to do with that money, as long as he meets his obligations as a Landlord, is none of your concern.
So if there was no democracy whatsoever and there was just some sort of dictatorship that taxed 70 percent and payed for things like wars, the war on drugs, bad prisons etc, youd say we should just suck it up and its none of our concern?
what separates a landlord from the state is that (atleast in most cases) the landlord has say over a small area and that its the fruit of his labour.
im not being dramatic but where do you draw the line?
@SecularNumanist "So if there was no democracy whatsoever and there was just some sort of dictatorship that taxed 70 percent and payed for things like wars, the war on drugs, bad prisons etc, youd say we should just suck it up and its none of our concern?"
The United States is not a dictatorship. End of discussion.
@SecularNumanist "what separates a landlord from the state is that (atleast in most cases) the landlord has say over a small area and that its the fruit of his labour."
And who grants him said property rights? Oh yeah... Forgot about that, didn't you? THE GOVERNMENT.
Dogmatists always see things as black or white, there is never any nuance and never any co-operation. We are still pursuing a truly effective economic system but so far none of the systems we recognize seem to work in their "pure" form. Best to take the best of both.
The right wing libertarians do not have the complex social policies and strategies that left wing libertarians and statists go out of their way to consider.
Anarcho-Capitalists and Objectivists often times ignore the economic variables in play.
Rather they appeal to the "invisible hand of the markets" to level off supply and demand, and do not satisfactoraly address issues to do with quality control or oligopoly.
They claim to have resolved issues with monopoly, but I disagree.
Brilliant! I'll ad that here in rural america my phone and electric power infrastructure was built in the 1940s by the federal government, because the private utilities refused, saying that it wouldn't be a profitable investment. The government had the crazy idea that farms, ranches, and small towns with electric and phone service would be more productive and benefit the overall economy and society. Who was right?
TheForwardGaze 4 months ago in playlist Liked
Social democracies are pretty nice places to live.
Despite what randbots would have you think, that's not the same as communism.
dhx84 5 months ago
@dhx84 Indeed...
But maybe it's an American thing to think that any amount of social safeguarding is inherently a communist thing and therefore automatically evil?
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Yes, that seems to be the general explanation.
dhx84 5 months ago
@FSAthe1st Here in the US if you state that you believe in universal health care a good number of people will immediately point at you and start screaming "Communist!" "Socialist!" "Marxist!" "Hitler!" - any of those or any combination of those.
xexixk 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@FSAthe1st You do realize everything deemed socialism by you, could be quite easily, given competition under a free market? The water for example, I won't even drink it it's too dirty, go to a "capitalist" and if you agree to be charged for water, he'd pump sea water clean it and sell it to you, if you don't like it you simply go to another water distributor, in a free market the capitalist is subject to your whims. Not the other way around.
SarionFetecuse 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "You do realize everything deemed socialism by you, could be quite easily, given competition under a free market?"
Consequently, it would be fucked up.
"The water for example, I won't even drink it it's too dirty, go to a "capitalist" and if you agree to be charged for water, he'd pump sea water clean it and sell it to you, if you don't like it you simply go to another water distributor, in a free market the capitalist is subject to your whims."
Refutation: Monopoly.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@FSAthe1st Just think about it, you scream monopoly when I say free market but you're the first to pout universal healthcare, isn't that the easier claim of a extremely harmful monopoly? The only reason why you even like it is, because before their was a mixed system, where the little people got shafted, be cause of price controls, licensing, ect, where people would gain from going nothing to atleast something! But they did not have the foresight of the debt enslave it would create!
SarionFetecuse 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "Just think about it, you scream monopoly when I say free market but you're the first to pout universal healthcare, isn't that the easier claim of a extremely harmful monopoly?"
So what? Healthcare is another issue entirely. I support universal healthcare BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN FUCKING BEING ON THIS PLANET DESERVES TO HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FINANCES ARE. End of discussion, end of story, end of debate.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "The only reason why you even like it is, because before their was a mixed system-"
Strike 2 for telling me how I think, and for an outright falsehood. I live in the UK, where we did NOT have a "mixed" system before the foundation of the NHS in the 40's. We had an ENTIRELY private medical system.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "the little people got shafted, be cause of price controls, licensing, ect-"
No... People were PROTECTED because of regulation that works to stop insane quacks and crooks from getting into the industry. You insane fuckers would take that away from us and let ANYONE who wants to get involved in the industry and do whatever the fuck they want. That's unacceptable to me. I want to be able to TRUST my doctors, NOT have to get a M.D in Medicine just to be able to decide who to trust.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "But they did not have the foresight of the debt enslave it would create!"
What?! This is more of your meaningless word salad.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "Not the other way around."
Refutation: Monopoly, which under a Free Market system, despite loud and vehement protestations and screaming rants to the contrary from Libertarians and Anarchists, IS more than just possible.... It's likely.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@FSAthe1st Refutation: Government is the biggest monopoly of force, the free market, despite what you twist them to be destroys monopolies, because you can simply go to any other guy that gives you a better deal. I don't understand in your right mind, could have a state allowance by all knowing bureaucrats only knowing the true way of destroying monopolies! People who are libertarians and anarchist absents of governments is a belief in a free market!
SarionFetecuse 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "Refutation: Government is the biggest monopoly of force"
That's not a refutation at all. The only way you can get away with saying this is by re-defining words to suit your own purpose.
"the free market, despite what you twist them to be destroys monopolies, because you can simply go to any other guy that gives you a better deal."
And what if the "guy that gives you a better deal" IS the monopoly holder? You haven't answered that. No-one in your religion has.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "I don't understand in your right mind, could have a state allowance by all knowing bureaucrats only knowing the true way of destroying monopolies!"
Can you please re-phrase this question in English? I don't know what you are getting at here.
"People who are libertarians and anarchist absents of governments is a belief in a free market!"
And that's a selling point, why?
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@FSAthe1st Anarcho socialists who are really Marxist in disguise, their would would look like a lord of the flies, because everything is owned by everyone, and we elect our leaders that must do the best for everyone! This might work for a little while, but when you grow, (if you grow) you'll just become another state trying to dominate, and steal property. The good thing for everyone else, since your lack of respect of property rights it will end you quickly.
SarionFetecuse 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "Anarcho socialists who are really Marxist in disguise, their would would look like a lord of the flies, because everything is owned by everyone, and we elect our leaders that must do the best for everyone!"
Can you re-phrase this sentence so as to make an actual point?
"This might work for a little while, but when you grow, (if you grow) you'll just become another state trying to dominate, and steal property."
This applies to businesses too. You have yet to refute this.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "The good thing for everyone else, since your lack of respect of property rights it will end you quickly."
Strike 1 for arrogance in telling me how I think. I don't DISrespect property rights. I just think that CIVIC rights take precedence.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@FSAthe1st I've never seen liberty, where there is an monopoly of doing anything thus you are not libertarians, all you are is a fascist in sheep's clothing!
SarionFetecuse 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse "I've never seen liberty, where there is an monopoly of doing anything thus you are not libertarians"
I could have told you that, you moron. Of COURSE I'm not a Libertarian. You see... I'm not insane... Thinking that the Free Market will fix everything. You whackos think that businesses can be trusted to manage themselves, when HISTORY bears out that many of them CANNOT be trusted.
"all you are is a fascist in sheep's clothing!"
If you say so, champ.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
@SarionFetecuse Now you've spammed my comments enough, so you can enjoy a posting holiday for a few weeks. Think about what you're saying. It's not as reasonable as you claim it is.
FSAthe1st 1 week ago
Statist pig.
dieyoung 6 months ago
@dieyoung Anarchist tool.
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
i think the fact that the insurer wants a more fireproof house would create an incentive to have a more fireproof house from the get-go.
a house which was less fireproof would obviously have a higher premium.
plus why does the government get to say that I can't have a house that isn't built out of what they say?
A previously homeless man can take the wheels off the car and live in it, if he wants without the building codes.
With the codes, it's illegal for him not to live in the expensive house
darris321 6 months ago
@darris321 So what? That doesn't make your system of statelessness right.
FSAthe1st 5 months ago
@FSAthe1st the number one libertarian catch cry, the system is not working believe in me! The standard reply WTF do you think I am bat shit crazy. Talking to libertarians is like talking to Zombie Fish, except Zombie Fish cannot help but be drones of their Zombie masters.
franks2732 4 months ago
@darris321
It could simply be the case that fireproof houses are not as profitable because of the extra cost of R&D or whatever. Just because a fireproof house might be a good idea doesn't mean there's necessarily a demand for it or that meeting the demand is always profitable.
Replace "fireproof house" with "widget" if you prefer.
Telecommunications and GPS are great inventions, but there was no incentive for private corporations to launch a space program because of the humongous entry cost.
dhx84 5 months ago
@darris321
Also, I don't think it needs explaining that codes prevent obnoxious things like creating a building that is a massive fire hazard that will firestorm over an entire neighborhood of fire hazards. Or doing obnoxious things like impinging on public property like roads and water utilities. So I'm not clear on what your point is.
And is a slightly cheaper house really going to affect an average homeless guy's living conditions? He's got bigger problems than housing prices.
dhx84 5 months ago
Great argument. Hey, in the USSR the state produced all the food... and the people there ATE IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM.
Clearly, they endorsed the system, just as much as we do when we drive on gov't roads.
If the gov't monopolizes something, forces you to pay for it so it's "free to use" and thus making private competition almost impossible, and you use that thing, then clearly you endorse the whole bag.
Amazingly stupid video, liked by amazingly stupid people.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty "Great argument. Hey, in the USSR the state produced all the food... and the people there ATE IT WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM."
Good job there. Do you always strawman your opponents position?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@StatelessLiberty "Amazingly stupid video, liked by amazingly stupid people."
Yes, Libertarian videos generally are. Cya.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
I like the video... but to be honest it left me a bit confused. As a libertarian my first thought was at how pervasive governemnt management is in our society and that it's no wonder that the government has grown to such power given the number of responsibilities it has taken on.
Then i realized it was an anti-libertarian video.
Felhaven 6 months ago
@Felhaven "Then i realized it was an anti-libertarian video."
No, it's an anti-fundamentalist video. This nonsense about taxation being theft and how everything can be provided by the private industry is ridiculous. SOME things can be provide for, but others such as critical essential and emergency services are best provided for by an organisation that has the ability to provide them to everyone without a profit-motive.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
But that's the whole point of their argument - you are FORCED to do those things. idiot!
avishayalon111 6 months ago
@avishayalon111 I'm kinda getting tired with this "you are forced to do pay taxes etc". It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early.
Achenar12 6 months ago
@Achenar12
It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i point a gun at him telling him if he doesn't ill restrain him and if he resists ill blow his brains out.
Fixed that for ya :)
ProDCloud 6 months ago
@ProDCloud It's like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i explain the rules to him, and when he starts kicking the walls I restrain him until he calms down, then I put him in time out until he can obey the rules.
Fixed that for you.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Its like a little kid complaining when he needs to go to bed early while i have a monopoly on force and can make up any rules i want free from consent and i actually think like an idiot that the child consents to a system because they are born into it, and when he starts kicking the walls i restrain him then put him in time out until he obeys MY RULES and if he resists ill blow his brains out.
Because if i have a kid and raise them im free to rape them right?
ftfy
IAMDRR0B0TNIK 6 months ago
@IAMDRR0B0TNIK Oh look... It's the same tired, unjustifiable, old and worn out use of the words "monopoly, force" nonsense we've seen from you fundamentalists time and time again. Go put your tinfoil hat back on, because if you don't, they might just control your mind! Oh noes!
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Also if you think people dont know where to find a random yt account generator then you havent been here much.
Cant come up with a counter argument?
DURR ILL BLOCK THEM THAT MEANS I WON THE DEBATE
congratulations you have become lower than scum which is at the level politicians are at.
Now i block you and if you remove these comments ill put them right back up with another account, you cant keep the truth from people, oh wait maybe i can flag your vid and bring it down for hate..hmm
IAMDRR0B0TNIK 6 months ago
@IAMDRR0B0TNIK "Also if you think people dont know where to find a random yt account generator then you havent been here much.
Cant come up with a counter argument?
DURR ILL BLOCK THEM THAT MEANS I WON THE DEBATE"
Congratulations on showing your idiocy. There is a pattern involved in the Random Username Generator that is NOT present in some of the sock accounts used on this channel.
If you don't know what you're talking about and you have no evidence, fuck off.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@IAMDRR0B0TNIK One more thing... Flag this video, it will be re-posted and you'll be outed for false flagging.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL (cont) so it's like when someone points out the horrible way christians are acting, another christian comes along and says "Well I am not THAT kind of christian!". The main point of this video is that socialism works for most other essentials, so it can work for healthcare too. Where do we disagree on this point?
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL Maybe I totally missed the point, but what are you going on about? This video was expanding on the original video to show that while many private systems are in operation during our daily lives, there is a working socialist background running through that works more than free market libertarians are willing to exist. Plus I think if we start dividing ourselves into to many sub-catagories it starts getting messy. (tbc)
Nightmare060 6 months ago
lol umbrella corporation
slipcurve 6 months ago
I found your video amusing.
Skyler827 6 months ago
It's been interesting to watch your vids on this topic. It reminds me of the principle I try to espouse, which is: I care more about WHY you believe something than WHAT you believe.
I suspect that there are some very thoughtful, rational people with strong libertarian positions, but the Internet is largely filled with the OTHER kind. There's nothing inherently irrational in defending either position, it's the tactics employed in furtherance of that end that I have concerns about.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I get the feeling that many free market libertarians don't fallow the same standards of morality that we do. What's odd is that when talking about religion and objective morality, they may agree that morality is subjective and can be determined through a cost/benefit analysis. But then when it comes to taxation, they have a 100% rigid "Stealing is wrong, no exceptions!" stance with little real concern for the benefits that this supposed "Theft" gives us.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060
I was briefly a Libertarian in college, and I met some very intelligent, sophisticated, thoughtful Libertarians. Some of the rhetoric, like taxation as theft, was a little flimsy, but there were also some very sophisticated arguments about the inherent conflict of politicizing our economic choices. Politicians make popular choices that tend to be very short sighted (one election cycle). Companies SHOULD be better at long-term goals, because they only answer to the bottom line.
C0nc0rdance 6 months ago
Great video!
Bear5177 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your argument's logic could be used to defend any status-quo no matter how batshit absurd, then you may be a statist.
obtree 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL and if you want to claim that I'm threatening to ban you because I don't stand a chance against you intellectually... Go right ahead. All it will do is demonstrate the gigantic ego you have.
Let's see if you can conduct yourself like an ADULT this time.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL And before you start mouth farting about how I'm supposedly doing that myself, I'm not claiming for a FACT that Socialism is GOOD, nor am I claiming that the NHS is INFALLIBLE, or ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SAID IN MY VIDEO THAT IS NOT ALREADY CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE BY THE EVIDENCE.
So I'll say this to you once only.
Strawman my position again, tell me how I think again, claim, as fact, ANYTHING you cannot back up with SOLID evidence, and you're gone...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL ... no chance intellectually (according to you, at least) when a short trip to my channel would have exposed you to all the rules on my channel that people can get warned and banned for. Rather dishonest... OR ignorant. Take your pick. At least ONE applies here.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I have a VERY big problem with people telling me how my mind works (that's MY job) and I have a problem with people asserting their opinions as a FACT...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "Then there are the voluntary collectives propping up in Argentina-"
Which are of a SMALL SCALE, and therefore are NOT nationwide...
"or the short lived Paris communes."
Yes... SHORT LIVED, meaning UNSUCCESSFUL because OTHERWISE they would NOT be SHORT LIVED.
This is the problem you fundamentalists have. You accuse us of all the things you yourself engage in... Strawman, Red herrings, Dishonesty, Selective quoting and so on.
You accuse me of banning people because I have...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "state loving creationists such as yourself helped quash by propping up a dictator."
I didn't help that to happen. And the Anarchist government didn't last too long did it?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL One more thing... You want to state that I'm a "Creationist" to the state... Why would I agree with THIS statement then?
"I think the point is clear - that 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are not binary systems where you either live completely by one system or the other."
No "creationist" to the State would agree that a balance between the two systems is a good idea... They'd be in favour of a TOTALITARIAN STATE THAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@thkaal1 "Of course, I'm expecting a warning for disagreeing with you, but land is only owned by the conqueror."
No... The conditions by which you get a warning are clearly listed on my channel.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@thkaal1 "If they were rights, they wouldn't be granted."
Now you're playing semantics games.
"As for the land use, that is only derived from a force of arms. If you can take it and keep others from it, then you own it."
And that applies equally to individuals as it does to Government, which is why when people bitch at me about taxes being a form of force, I have to remind them that they are committing force by claiming ownership of something and then preventing others freedom to use it.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "Either you're aware of this and being purposefully misleading (lying) or you're simply ignorant."
Or the 3rd option: That I don't believe the Anachro-Collectivism idea will even WORK. You didn't present THIS option, did you? And you have the nerve to call ME dishonest or ignorant?
Wow... It's like dealing with GEERUP.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "Especially considering human beings can "lie" "
No shit sherlock. The fact that human beings can lie is precisely my argument against free-for-all Capitalism. And do NOT attempt to strawman that statement to claim that I'm applying this across the board to everyone... For fuck sakes. I do NOT want the USA to become China, or North Korea, so STOP going on the assumption that this is what I'm arguing for.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "You don't even stand a chance intellectually so you ban people."
Yeah, and you're another arrogant fuck who thinks he knows how I think. Why should I entertain ANY arrogant fucks who think they know how I think based off of a few videos? Arrogant fuck.
And as for standing a chance intellectually... If you say so, champ. Your opinion is about as worthless as you think your vote is.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@EMO Oh... And one more thing...
Since you think I don't stand a chance intellectually, how about you have a go at answering the question that no-one to date has answered successfully...
Name ONE successful government that does NOT tax people.
1) It HAS to be successful, can't be something that collapsed after a few years or decades,
2) It has to be of a large enough scale to support today's population, because I don't want to go back to tribal scale living if it's all the same to you.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "You're feeding on people's fears in your videos."
If there was any evidence that you're an even bigger idiot than I had you pegged for, this is it. Well done. Feeding off of people's fears is NOT something I'm doing. If you REALLY listened, you'd know what my ACTUAL position is.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "My vote does not carry the weight of a Lobbyists Check."
You live in Canada. I'm talking about the United States. And yes, it may be true that lobbyists have a lot of influence with their money, but whose fault is it for allowing the system to get that bad in the first place? You can't bitch at me if your vote carries little weight when you allowed your country to get to that position by ignoring the signs that these people were getting richer and getting power that way.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL "So "anarchists" are Free Market Capitalists? "Libertarians" are Free Market Capitalists?"
What?! You accuse me of strawmanning you guys position and then IMMEDIATELY strawman MINE? Wow...
"This video was made by an idiot."
No actually, this video was commented on by an idiot who thinks that, just because I made a video for a bit of fun, he can come along, point out that I didn't make a huge disclaimer about these sub groups, and then claim I'm pretending they don't exist.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL Wow... I wouldn't have had you pegged for a moron. OK, let's start with this...
"Wow... Strawman after Red Herring after Causation/Correlation fallacy after misleading statement after total ignorance of the topic at hand."
Sorry, but 1) people who claim socialism in healthcare is bad are hypocrites, and 2) You proceed from an assumption that I came up with these ideas myself. If you had bothered to open those things you have called EARS, you might have known otherwise.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
Epic.
320iguy 6 months ago
Good fun, and all perfectly true while being brilliantly tongue in cheek. Keep up yhe good work, and have no fear ignoring the offended individuals who don't see the humor in the video and the ignorance in their posts.
Matrixfart 6 months ago
@thkaal1 "In practice, there is still mob rule. It's just that certain positions of power were in place before the mob made a decision to force a rule. "
So your vote is useless then?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@Ilikenuman Sok accounts go bye bye..
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
And your time out is now a permanent ban.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Ilikenuman was a Sok account? I've seen some of his videos before, but now for some reason his channel is region locked (even though by his accent he was also British). Very odd.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
@Nightmare060 "Ilikenuman was a Sok account?"
Sorry for the typo. He is a sock account of SecularNumanist and as good as admitted it when he warned me against blocking him a second time.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
Nicely done, in-their-face, hypocritical libertarian and tea party behaviour exposed. But then, just like the religious bullshit that most party faithful swallow as truth, their ability to 'see' this hypocrisy is blinded by brain centers not able to communicate with each other in a logical manner.
saxmanchiro 6 months ago
I always find it funny how the extreme anti-socialists argue so rabidly against a socialised healthcare system but never mention the police, fire service and other such things which are social systems. When you point this out they always say "well the police help everyone in society so it's different", which is of course one of the arguments socialists use.
Capitalism has some good parts, socialism has some good parts, it's how we combine them that matters.
imr22 6 months ago
@imr22 "I always find it funny how the extreme anti-socialists argue so rabidly against a socialised healthcare system but never mention the police, fire service and other such things which are social systems."
Actually there are some extreme nut jobs who DO argue that Policing and Fire prevention should be put into the oh so great and wonderfully trustworthy corporate or private industry's hands.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Ok true there are some nut jobs that think the fire service should be privitised but they're the exception rather than the rule. Of course they don't understand the history of the fire service when it used to be privately run and the disasters that caused. Peoples houses burning because they didn't have a badge on the wall.
Yay extreme capitalism!
imr22 6 months ago
@imr22 "Capitalism has some good parts, socialism has some good parts, it's how we combine them that matters."
I completely agree. I'm not in favour of complete and total socialism but there are some things that you should NEVER put into the hands of profiteers.
Check out DavidJohnWellman's series on Libertarians and Randroids for some of the nonsense these crazies come out with... Taxation as theft and we can TRUST private companies because of the hallowed invisible hand.
Tools.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
It must always be remembered that a private company has only a single motive, profit. They do not care about the quality of what they do (unless they are supplying luxury goods), they just want to give the minimum of service for the maximum money. In many areas this can be very effective, especially consumer goods. But when it comes to services this fails quickly.
Anyone who has recently been on a British train knows this.
imr22 6 months ago
@imr22 "Anyone who has recently been on a British train knows this. "
Ugh... Public Transport in my home city is Privately owned. They charge extortionate amounts of money for the privilege. Go to London and you'll find the costs for the same service are much lower because it's publicly owned.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
You could say that capitalism is the forum user while socialism is the forum moderator.
Nightmare060 6 months ago
eating prison porridge is advocacy of the prison. got it.
derp
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "eating prison porridge is advocacy of the prison."
Sorry, but if that's the best you can do, you should give up now.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
having a monopoly on the service and still using that service out of neccesity isnt hypocritical whatsoever. if you see it differently then please explain. but do it without agreeing with my prison analogy.
and telling me to give up is hardly a rebuttal.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "having a monopoly on the service and still using that service out of neccesity isnt hypocritical whatsoever."
Hypocritical? You've been smoking again, haven't you? I don't remember saying you were being hypocritical for going on about prison food and prisons... I simply pointed out that your analogy is a complete and utter joke. You're NOT in prison, and you can choose to leave the social contract any time you desire.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Oh for crying out loud. I was restating the point of the prison analogy. Which was that theres nothing hypcritical about using a service you pay for through taxes and that theres a monopoly on anyway,
if there were alternative institutions id use them.
Secondly, I can leave sure. All of a sudden the rules change without your consent and you can just love it or leave it.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "Oh for crying out loud."
Cry as loud as you want. It doesn't make your position any more valid.
"All of a sudden the rules change without your consent and you can just love it or leave it. "
All of a sudden? You don't really pay much attention to what your legislature is doing, do you? It takes MONTHS, and even YEARS in some cases, for bills to pass that change the conditions you are living under in the government. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "if you see it differently then please explain. but do it without agreeing with my prison analogy."
Sure.
1) Food is a necessity, but in the outside world, you can choose where to get it. In prison, you cannot.
2) If you're in Prison, YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME TO GET YOU THERE (and I'm not getting into debates about wrongful convictions, it's irrelevant to the discussion)...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist Whereas in the outside world, if you don't like the Social Contract between you and the Government, you can leave any time you wish to do so. In Prison you're there until you've served your punishment.
3) On the subject of the Social Contract, you entered into it when your parents agreed on your behalf at birth, just as their parents did, and their parents before them, all the way back to the time when the Constitution was ratified. You don't want to be in it anymore? Thats ok.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
i never signed the constitution, neither did my parents.
And the constitution affects a huge land claim beyond occupancy.
so i could retreat to the middle of nowhere. but where. the sea? somewhere in fiji? where theres zero civilisation or technology?
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "i never signed the constitution, neither did my parents."
Good job missing the point there, Genius. At some point in your family lineage, they gave their implicit consent to the Constitution when the framers had it ratified by representatives across the union. If they had any objection to it at the time, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. It was voted in. You can't just cry about it now because you don't like where it's gotten you.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
"Good job missing the point there, Genius. At some point in your family lineage, they gave their implicit consent to the Constitution when the framers had it ratified by representatives across the union. If they had any objection to it at the time, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. It was voted in. You can't just cry about it now because you don't like where it's gotten you."
LOL: my parents agreed to it = My consent, GREAT logic there
ProDCloud 6 months ago
@ProDCloud "LOL: my parents agreed to it = My consent, GREAT logic there"
Your parents have the right to give consent in your stead until you reach the age of majority. At that time, your contract with the State is renewed. If you wish to opt out, there are ways of doing so.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "And the constitution affects a huge land claim beyond occupancy."
So? That doesn't mean you can't just stop being a whiny pussy and just get up and leave.
"so i could retreat to the middle of nowhere."
There are plenty of territories that have not been claimed by any government. That's not the issue. If you don't like where you are, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay... Which is why your prison analogy failed so dismally.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "but where. the sea? somewhere in fiji? where theres zero civilisation or technology?"
If you want to be an ANTI-SOCIAL JERK and not contribute to society like the rest of us do, no one is forcing you to remain. You can leave any time you want. If you choose to go somewhere there are no rules or regulations to protect everyone in society from anti-social jerks like you then it's your problem if you find your ideal of no taxes or government also results in no civilization.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Id like to stay here and be a social jerk. Id like to pay for say, healthcare, or local roads, or contribute to the welfare of others. But i cant do that because the state comes as a package deal.
Its not the paying the bothers me, its HAVING to pay via coersion and having to pay for things i dont like (like wars etc). and civilisation predates taxes, as does governance. theyre not synonymous.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "Id like to stay here and be a social jerk."
But you're not being a social jerk. You're being an ANTI-Social jerk. You want to be able to say "Fuck everyone else. I'm not paying for them. Taxes are theft! The Govenmintz iz threatening us by force". That is the DEFINITION of being an Anti-Social jerk in the context of society.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
Yes, taxes are theft.
but thats not my biggest issue.
Lets say i want to fund roads, universal healthcare, schooling, welfare and various other things. But now I HAVE to also pay for other things such as oil wars and aid to other countries aswell.
Theres nothing anti social about not wanting to fund killing or wanting to make others do the same
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "Yes, taxes are theft."
Tell me why I should entertain any more of your evangelistic nonsense if you're going to stand by insane comments like this?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
evangelistic nonsense?
do i hear the "lol you libert-aryans are just like creationists" line approaching?
Yes, having a political position and backing it up with something you have an ethical objection to is common practice across the entire spectrum.
For instance calling me an anti social prick is moralistic aswell. but i brushed that off.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "evangelistic nonsense?"
Yes, evangelistic nonsense. You have not, at any time, justified your position to me other than appeals to emotion by using words like theft, force, coercion.
"do i hear the "lol you libert-aryans are just like creationists" line approaching?"
No, but strike 3 for assuming you know how I think.
"calling me an anti social prick"
Anti-Social JERK. You can't even quote correctly.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "civilisation predates taxes, as does governance."
Then you won't mind citing specific examples of SUCCESSFUL governments in the past AND the present where they have NO taxes whatsoever. I'm waiting...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
if they existed in the present id be there.....
As for the past?
The role of the nascent State in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in relation to the urban centers was to destroy the independence of the cities; to pillage the rich guilds of merchants and artisans; to concentrate in its hands the external commerce of the cities and ruin it...
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
cont 2.)
to lay hands on the internal administration of the guilds and subject internal commerce as well as all manufactures, in every detail to the control of a host of officials--and in this way to kill industry and the arts; by taking over the local militias and the whole municipal administration, crushing the weak in the interest of the strong by taxation, and ruining the countries by wars.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
cont 3)
the same tactic was applied to the villages and the peasants. Once the State felt strong enough it eagerly set about destroying the village commune, ruining the peasants in its clutches and plundering the common lands.
The State: It’s Historic Role. Peter Kropotkin. 1896"
There were small pockets of this, but they were short lived given the existence of a ready existing overarching state. I can give other examples aswell in the past if youd like. but id need to do it via PM
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist When I asked you to cite SUCCESSFUL governments without taxation, I did NOT ask you to give me counter-examples of governments which had pillaged and robbed villages in order to strengthen themselves, especially as these examples are NOT evidence of SUCCESSFUL governments that didn't have taxes.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
i even cited the source which allows you to look at it in more detail.
that source alone which is available for free gives several examples.
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist Why didn't you go ahead and cite just ONE successful tax-less government? I'll tell you why... BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. Because if you COULD, you would have just done so.
Frankly you're as bad as all the creationists and moon hoaxers that ShaneDK accuses SANE PEOPLE of being. Enjoy your time out.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Ireland and Iceland, both lasting a number of centuries. SN knows about these, I know for a fact.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic To clarify, I o not mean their present governments, but those they had a few centuries ago.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "To clarify, I o not mean their present governments, but those they had a few centuries ago."
They weren't all that successful then, were they?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st No, they were taken over by overwhelming military force (by much larger populations and landmasses). By this logic, in 1200, democracy is a failure, as Athens and Rome both fell back into Monarchy.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "No, they were taken over by overwhelming military force (by much larger populations and landmasses)."
EXACTLY.
"By this logic, in 1200, democracy is a failure, as Athens and Rome both fell back into Monarchy."
By being taken over by much larger nations. And Rome, if I remember correctly, was a Republic.
You also forget that Democracy has had a resurgence, as it is the dominant governing method used throughout the modern world.
WHERE IS ANARCHY PRACTICED TODAY? NOWHERE.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st What?!? They were crushed by much larger nations, it had nothing to do with their form of governance, just as the Nazis beating Poland does not mean that Fascism is good, but that larger nations beat smaller ones...
Look, democracy came up, and then was crushed, and then had a resurgence; why can't anarchy do the same? Do you not understand analogies?
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "They were crushed by much larger nations, it had nothing to do with their form of governance-"
You've missed my point, and I can only assume deliberately at this stage. Now ask yourself this question: How did those nations get larger in the first place?
"Look, democracy came up, and then was crushed, and then had a resurgence; why can't anarchy do the same? Do you not understand analogies?"
So now you start questioning my intelligence. Fine....
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Because Ireland and Iceland are small islands compared to England and Norway. Religion helped justified their rule as states.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic But you also missed my point that Anarchy ONLY works on the SMALL SCALE. What, are you going to divide territories up into tribal sizes again, so that you can implement your chosen "Kill or Be Killed" form of society? Sorry, but CIVILIZED people are NOT going to go for it. Your analogy doesn't change that.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st "WHERE IS ANARCHY PRACTICED TODAY? " - the banking 'industry'!
GreatGungHolio 6 months ago 2
@GreatGungHolio "the banking 'industry'!"
That's funny... Although I should probably add that even the Banking industry are required to adhere to the rule of law...
Although they don't actually do so much of the time.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st They normally lobby to change the law and 'deregulate' in their favour. If they did work within the law then the frauds perpetuated during the last crisis in '08 would have been brought to book. So far, I haven’t seen any filling jail cells except the Ponzi manager Madoff.
GreatGungHolio 6 months ago
@GreatGungHolio "They normally lobby to change the law and 'deregulate' in their favour."
And it's despicable and somethiung needs to be done about it, but I don't agree with all these other people who think that just because Government is currently being corrupted by private corporations and lobbyists who are serving their own interests, that Government as a whole is a bad thing...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@GreatGungHolio ... and we should either go for Anarchy or declare Government intervention in the very entities who are corrupting them to begin with should stop.
"If they did work within the law then the frauds perpetuated during the last crisis in '08 would have been brought to book."
Absolutely. I could wish that the US Government actually eschewed payments from lobbyists and decided to bring them to book for their actions.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic And when I say nowhere, I mean on a nationwide scale.
Tax-less government may have worked at a time when large military forces were not a factor, but since nations developed the ability to travel large distances, any government that cannot raise and sustain a revenue stream is DOOMED TO FAILURE.
And if you don't mind, I don't want to descend into anarchy... Where there is no rule of law, so it i perfectly acceptable for people to kill or be killed.
I LIKE CIVILIZATION.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Ireland and Iceland weren't nations? Well, if you define 'nation' as being 'having a state', then fine, but that's not a very fair definition.
Ireland resisted Britain at a comparable rate to how the Nazis were treated by the Allies, both losing 13-14% of their population.
Whether people are killed arbitrarily does not depend on the de jure law, but the de facto law, if the people have a shitty culture, such as insane islamists, then they will have a shitty society.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Ireland and Iceland weren't nations?"
Never said that. Strike 2 for Strawmanning my position.
As for the rest of your post, none of it addresses my point that for a society to be successful, it must not only be maintainable from a domestic point of view, but it must also be able to defend itself from attack. Anarchies CANNOT do that in today's world simply because there's NO means of guaranteeing the revenue stream required for it. No taxes and no laws, remember?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st For the 'kill or be killed' - in any society, monarchy, democracy or anarchy, if everyone is fanatically religious, the gay in the village will be killed. And Ireland had over a million people, hardly 'tribal sizes'.
You said on a nationwide scale, what did you mean then?
And I don't advocate no law. I support common law, where, if necessary, a provision could be made for anything, from banning murder or gay marriage, or forcing defence dues.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "For the 'kill or be killed' - in any society, monarchy, democracy or anarchy, if everyone is fanatically religious, the gay in the village will be killed."
Well done on missing the point yet again. Yes, in any fanatical society, laws may be passed to kill a minority, but that's not the issue here, so STOP DIVERTING THE ISSUE.
An ANARCHY BY DEFINITION IS A LAWLESS SOCIETY. An ANARCHY allows for anyone to kill anyone else and there is NO recourse to punish that person...
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic ... OTHER THAN BY VIGILANTISM.
So when I say "Kill or be killed" I mean it.
"And Ireland had over a million people, hardly 'tribal sizes'."
Whether Ireland had over a miullion people or not... IF there was NO RULE OF LAW, which is ANARCHY BY DEFINITION, then it doesn't matter if the entire state of Ireland was comprised of over a million people or not. THEY WERE NOT BEING GOVERNED. They could do what they wanted.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "You said on a nationwide scale, what did you mean then?"
This is like banging my head against a wall. I told you that NOWHERE IN MODERN SOCIETY DO ANARCHIES EXIST ON A NATIONWIDE SCALE. You made an appeal to the past by citing Ireland and Iceland... Two nations that USED TO HAVE Anarchy. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANARCHY TODAY, NEITHER DOES ANY NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. You then say "So Iceland and Ireland aren't nations then?"
This is dishonest and reprehensible. Cut it out.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "And I don't advocate no law."
Do you advocate there being no Rule Of Law or don't you?
"I support common law, where, if necessary, a provision could be made for anything, from banning murder or gay marriage, or forcing defence dues."
In other words, setting up a Rule Of Law and enforcing provision for revenue to support the infrastructure of the Government e.g. through TAXES, which you people go on about being Theft.
At least be consistent in your arguments for fuck sakes.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st No, it is by definition not under the rule of an objective legal monopoly. Just as fanatics agree that being gay is wrong, normal people agree murder is wrong, and it will be punished as such.
I understand the misunderstanding, I was not being dishonest.
I support the rule of law, just as I support secularism and liberalism, that does not mean such a feature will be present, that depends on culture.
And common law by definition is not a monopoly, which the state is.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "And common law by definition is not a monopoly, which the state is."
More Capitalist wording. I don't CARE if you call it a monopoly. The Rule Of Law IS NOT A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.
Your definition of Monopoly is my definition of a clear and well documented set of laws that law abiding citizens should obey, rather than your definition of common law, which by my definition, lack cohesion and are unenforceable without an actual law enforcement organisation and a CLEAR CODE OF LAWS.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Just as fanatics agree that being gay is wrong, normal people agree murder is wrong, and it will be punished as such."
And it is precisely the fact that there are these two diametrically opposed views that a RULE OF LAW IS REQUIRED.
"I understand the misunderstanding, I was not being dishonest."
I'll be the judge of that.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st May I ask how you define 'rule of law'? I don't see how it could be a business (for or not for profit), as it's an idea. Anyway, common law was the law most people used for their lives during the middle ages (even in lands under a state, it was just that state law would override any common law decisions), it was the commonly held belief that everyone was bound by, whatever their beliefs were (so were typically sexist, but were cohesive and enforced).
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "May I ask how you define 'rule of law'?"
My definition is that it encompasses laws that everyone in the nation without exception are required to abide by.
"Anyway, common law was the law most people used for their lives during the middle ages -"
Which is a good enough reason for me to reject it as a basis for governing an entire nation.
"it was the commonly held belief that everyone was bound by-"
Without any method of enforcing these laws.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Common law, in part, is about the rule of law, as it is 'common' to the entire nation, and 'exceptions' were only due to State law (eg. no one could tax land he did rightfully not own, except the King).
Merchant Law spanned all Europe and was only based on reputation, though in Ireland, where common law was dominant, judges would make decisions, and a separate group, named 'kings' would do the enforcement, but were not above the law.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Merchant Law spanned all Europe and was only based on reputation, though in Ireland, where common law was dominant, judges would make decisions, and a separate group, named 'kings' would do the enforcement, but were not above the law."
Now... Tell me... Did they do this without charging a single penny in taxation?
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Yes. Merchants were not supported by the state, and there was no state which could tax in Ireland.
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic "Yes. Merchants were not supported by the state, and there was no state which could tax in Ireland."
Pity that they had to get their revenue from somewhere else then. And while they were doing this, the infrastructure that needed financial support was being neglected. A simple search online provided me with that information.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Which infrastructure are you talking about?
SaviorOfLogic 6 months ago
@SaviorOfLogic Sanitation, Healthcare, Fire prevention, Policing and so on.
Anyway, enough. If you wish to comment further, that is your right, but I'm done with the "discussion" as it's like talking to a Theist... And those conversations get boring very quickly.
You enjoy your ideal of Libertarian or Anarchist society all you like... Just don't take away MY right to live within CIVILIZED society, thank you.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "Its not the paying the bothers me, its HAVING to pay via coersion and having to pay for things i dont like (like wars etc)."
Say you pay rent on an apartment, and your landlord spends your rent money on things that you don't like... YOU HAVE NO SAY IN IT. The Landlord and you have a contract for rental of the property. What he chooses to do with that money, as long as he meets his obligations as a Landlord, is none of your concern.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st
whoah whoah. hang on.
So if there was no democracy whatsoever and there was just some sort of dictatorship that taxed 70 percent and payed for things like wars, the war on drugs, bad prisons etc, youd say we should just suck it up and its none of our concern?
what separates a landlord from the state is that (atleast in most cases) the landlord has say over a small area and that its the fruit of his labour.
im not being dramatic but where do you draw the line?
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "So if there was no democracy whatsoever and there was just some sort of dictatorship that taxed 70 percent and payed for things like wars, the war on drugs, bad prisons etc, youd say we should just suck it up and its none of our concern?"
The United States is not a dictatorship. End of discussion.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist "what separates a landlord from the state is that (atleast in most cases) the landlord has say over a small area and that its the fruit of his labour."
And who grants him said property rights? Oh yeah... Forgot about that, didn't you? THE GOVERNMENT.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
Dogmatists always see things as black or white, there is never any nuance and never any co-operation. We are still pursuing a truly effective economic system but so far none of the systems we recognize seem to work in their "pure" form. Best to take the best of both.
colourmegone 6 months ago
Where would you find the libertarian version of this?
StanMarsh1 6 months ago
@StanMarsh1 There's a version on the Mises Instutite's website. It's good for a laugh. I'll link it in the blow job bar.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago
@FSAthe1st Thanks. :)
StanMarsh1 6 months ago
Hilarious.
The right wing libertarians do not have the complex social policies and strategies that left wing libertarians and statists go out of their way to consider.
Anarcho-Capitalists and Objectivists often times ignore the economic variables in play.
Rather they appeal to the "invisible hand of the markets" to level off supply and demand, and do not satisfactoraly address issues to do with quality control or oligopoly.
They claim to have resolved issues with monopoly, but I disagree.
republicofsandles 6 months ago
@republicofsandles Spoken like a true church goer.
CosmicThinking 6 months ago
@CosmicThinking Sorry but I'm an Atheist, and I used to be a Catholic, meaning I went to mass not church,
but I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
republicofsandles 6 months ago
@republicofsandles
the invisible hand of the freemarket is the same as the blind watchmaker. Or as a deist do you reject that aswell?
SecularNumanist 6 months ago
@SecularNumanist Actually I'm an atheist now.
republicofsandles 6 months ago
I think the point is clear - that 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are not binary systems where you either live completely by one system or the other.
GreatGungHolio 6 months ago 10
@GreatGungHolio "'capitalism' and 'socialism' are not binary systems where you either live completely by one system or the other."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
FSAthe1st 6 months ago 3
I'm politically illiterate, so I don't get how that is pwnage...
daemonowner 6 months ago
Wondefull. This sums exactly why I am neither right nor left, neither liberal nor conservative.
Libertarians say I am centrist, because it is cool.
I say I am radical realist.