I agree with you, but, wait. The things you're saying you're against are all the things that Ron Paul's Randist/libertarian/free-marketeer views are going to allow to take over. You're worried about oppressive, unimpeachable privatized rule, don't vote for libertarians! In an unregulated "free market" (in quotes because such a thing is literally impossible outside the conceptual realm) the privatization and globalism you're complaining about would have nothing to stop them from taking over.
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
I don't even know why left-wingers support big-government. All big-government does is grow huge corporations. Nothing TOO big is good. We need more small businesses in this country. Corporations aren't bad, but they get too big.
Dictatorship is one man deciding the fate of a company or country. If you have multiple companies deciding on actions in the world its not dictatorship. You dont think we are influenced a minimal amount by each board of directors that has an american company already? Thats why America is great.
Globalization is a nightmare, for anyone who believes in individual liberty, and the sovereignty society, but privatization is not the cause.
If you take a look at the forces pushing globalism, you will quickly see they are all corporate and governmental. Which is in fact, to say the same thing twice, as corps are the creations of the state.
Private in the free market sense means - free from govt. Corps are not free from govt, as for a corp to even exist, it must get govt sanction.
this is why ron paul should run with somebody like nader or sanders, that way you'd have 2 guys with opposing ideologies, yet agree on issues like the fed and foreign intervention, but will keep eachother in check when it comes to things like social programs
People need to understand that the government is a criminal enterprise that works just like a mob ran crime syndicate runs. It has a monopoly on violence.
The only reason corporations have tons of influence on the country is because of the government allows them to. How? By going after their competition. The government is and has been blocking competition and a true free market in the U.S. for years.
Face it. A big coercive government makes everything worse. Look at drugs. The prohibition of drugs has made it far worse than it would be if drugs were legal.
Ron Paul subscribes to a philosophy of Libertarianism
Where individual freedom based on private property rights, upheld by voluntary contracts enforced by a small local government under a constitutional republic.
Mafias are fine if they respect private property they have no power once the break the contract the government enforces the constitutional law.
The world isn't perfect but freedom comes close its the most efficient and fairest allocation of resources voted by sound money
privatization is fine as long as govt dose not get in bed with the free markets
Globalization is fascism, a modern day colonialism
No borders, no national identity no individualism its a military take over via finances with no shots fired besides perpetual debt that consumes real assets via central banking and the fiat currency manipulated by the central banks.
Globalization is central planning from unelected, unaccountable elites which sell out the masses for profit and power
@europa The problem with privatization is that business gets in bed with government and government in bed with business. When a private corporation get contracts for waste collection, a lot of things change. It becomes part and part of the government and starts to depend on government and the taxing and revenue ability of government to exist. That is why so much money is thrown at candidate and parties that support their gravy train. "The market" is modified and integrated w/ govt.
One of the ideas I find neat is to have the government get the majority of it's funding through dividends from state owned enterprises (To be clear I mean like oil and minerals, not pizza shops). It's one way to keep income taxes low (or possibly null), as well as avoid the social and administrative mess of sales tax / value added tax.
@Scientisticsoviet This is a neat idea, however this would be like having a regressive tax (ie one that affects the poor more than the rich). This would be because the poor would have to spend a much greater percentage of their income on base goods and services, if I'm understanding you correctly.
@MrFabianGhosty If run for the same profit margins as private enterprise it would not be any different... You could in fact look at private profit as the owner's tax on an employee's work. But indeed a lot of enterprises gain their income from the majority of the populace. Although for those producing luxury items, intermediate goods and capital goods it is not the case.
ProteanView. Did you read what Ron Paul actually had to say about the Dubai ports deal?
"This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security. "
Stupid YouTube won't let my post links, but Google Ron Paul Dubai ports.
Corporations don't seek profits by ruthless destruction of resources like you claim. Third world countries would not crumble, what do you think these countries have before the sweatshop comes in, nothing. Companies offer jobs by FREEDOM OF CHOICE and these people can work if they wish. Should be blessing companies not condemning them as colonials. Privatization would lead to immense competition due to less restriction and would result in amazing innovation and no time to monopolize resources.
You may call your self a "realist" to my comment but you hold a malevolent view of mankind, something Rand never did.
Think people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton look to 'control' small towns, no. You believe corporations are seeking control versus profits, try owning a business.
Good comments on Rand philosophy--and its present day "not-quite" application. Re-thinkking is a good idea. I appreciate your astute assessment of what legalism and the creation of an "alter-ego" as a "collectivist" board of directors has done to the stand alone already-difficult-to-grapple-with concept of the ego. (at last difficult to me..) Good thinking. Perhaps Shakespeare was right... shall we "kill all the lawyers"...?
hello gay homey ! greetings from the resident white supremacist ! ayn rand was 50 years ago and if you think anything changed sine then you are a fool. the forbidden truth is that nothing ever and i mean EVER fucking changes - remember this. nothing changed since the declaration of independence. nothing changed since the french revolution. certainly nothing changed since ayn rand.
@backlyt Good and Fair for who? The Banking élite and a few very rich families who would have us all in thrall. Yep, it's Feudal Pathocracy. Worship of Rand and Zionism is the worship of Baal-Peor!!! Eat from their cleft!!!!
I agree with you on the subect of privitazation+globalization i.e. corporatism, where foreigners buy our land to control it when it should be ours. However, as a capitalist proponent, I have no problem with an investor in Japan buying land from a local farmer at a fair and valued price to build lets say an industrial plant which will create obs and wealth. There is no problem with privitization, nationalizing is a problem though. The problem comes when the motive is corrupt and dangerous.
I remember back before WW2 America was really pro-Isolationists. Which was why we were so against going into the war against Hitler. Because it wasn't our problem and after we did enter it we became a world power because of certain circumstances of what entailed with the war. Back to my point about Isolationism. It went well with Privatization and I'm curious how we would do if we went back to that model. I know we can argue how we Globalization does good to this and that.
@proteanview What is your proposed mechanism for limiting the private cartels, collusion, monopoly, etc while still holding proper restraint on government arbitration? It is indeed a balancing act our constitution rightly attempts in the principle of reducing conflict of interest as much as possible.
Earth is turning into Ferenginar! Any Star Trek fan will know what I mean. Iguess the silver lining is that all of our women will be required to be nakid........oh well, a guy can dream.
Privatization can solve every problem under the sun. Our mission at the Conservative Health Network is to commodify every aspect of life, including you. We aim to protect the health of free-markets through privately managed behavioral economics.
What does it matter if it is foreign ownership. If they dont run their company right and make the most effective use of their assets then some other local firm will under cut them, and in turn they will make a loss and go out of business. their assets wont disappear they will be purchased by the other firm with the better management and lower costs. this means that over all resources will be allocated to where they are most effective, and society benefits from the lower cost of there services.
bah that kind of international corporation would just buy out the competition or make it nearly impossible to compete with them even if their service would lack quality
thats a contridiction if the company bought out the competition then it would be doing so to increase profitability and they would soon find out why that company was doing better and adopt there policys. Net result is a better service, other wise they would fail. Need i remind you you vote with your feet, you can choose to buy from someone or not, shareholders all so choose to invest .If a company was so bad for society how would it stay a float with no buyers of its products.
The most telling trait of the objectivist is the propensity for overstating Rands importance, and an almost religious devotion to a philosophy which is regarded as laughable in most academic circles. The "moral" argument given for objectivist economic principals is ludicrous, and rest entirely on the assumption that objectivist ethics offer a superior account of morality, which they plainly do not. Her metaphysics are so insipid that one may wonder if she is saying anything at all, and her...
.. "axioms" are either tautologous or highly dubious. "Existence exists", that is all very well, however it doesn't really tell us anything new now does it? It is a meaningless statement, she is basically saying "things are things". She completely misappropriates great thinkers such as Kant and Nietzsche in the most terrible way, and exposes an ignorance of simple philosophical concepts that is quite frankly astounding given that she was obviously quite a smart person. People take up her cause
because that is their nature, their will, and for no other reason. Objectivism offers "individuality" to it's followers, however only if they follow Rand's ideas pretty much to the letter. Rand herself was quite explicit about this, and obviously failed to see the irony of insisting that "individuality" can only be achieved by being exactly the same as herself. In short, objectivism is weak, and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny at all.
Rand's core virtue is rationality; this means that even if Almighty Rand says something is true, it's up to each individual to take the logical steps and arrive at their conclusion rationally. If my conclusion is different that yours, and we both share the same premises, we'd better both be able to defend our arguments rationally and concede to whoever possess the correct conclusion and we better be able to state explicitly why it is correct. I don't think Rand would have disagreed with this.
Rand's philosophy quite literally has embedded within it the antidote to dogmatism and irrationality (Rand's or anyone else's). If people choose to use it as a religion, that is to their own detriment and disadvantage. It is this characteristic of Objectivism that makes it the greatest philosophic system ever created. Only a thinking individual who is able and willing to perceive, analyze, revise, integrate, and continually grow and learn throughout life can truly identify as Objectivist.
Who cares how many academicians laugh, if they are wrong! WHY are the moral arguments "ludicrous"? WHAT is incorrect about Objectivist ethics? WHY are the metaphysics insipid? You offer zero arguments. Your "arguments" are logical errors. WHY are Objectivist axioms dubious (clearly, they are the opposite of "tautologous" as "existence exists" demonstrates)? Explicit identification of fundamental concepts is absolutely meaningful in all fields. What's happened to your MIND??????? Where is it?
In fact I offered an overview, not an argument. "Logical errors"? Where? And which one's exactly? Logic does not deal with 'truth' in any way, only with "validity", and in fact we can use logic to destroy at least one of Rands "axioms". Lets try a basic syllogism..
Man is a rational being
Hitler was a man
Therefore Hitler was a rational being.
There is nothing wrong with the logic here, yet the conclusion is obviously false. Why? Because the major premise is utter crap, it is also one....
.. of Rand's "axioms". "Rational ethics"? Nonsense! Ethical propositions are nothing more than emotive statements. The proposition "Selfishness is good", is essentially the same as saying "hooray for selfishness!". As for rationality being Rand's highest virtue, whose rationality is she aiming at here? Logic can be used to show anything you like if you are the one who decides the premises. Moral argument for an economic system? You mean like Socialism? Have you read Plato's Republic?...
Probably not. It is another common trait of the objectivist movement is the profound ignorance regarding any of the great philosophical works. It shall suffice to say that Rand's moral argument for the free market is weak because ANY moral argument for an economic system is weak. Friedman makes a far better argument based on utility, I still disagree, but at least he is not basing his position on an emotive standpoint. "Greatest philosophical system"! What a joke!! Even if it were case,...
.. her philosophy would still be weak. For an exposition on what "philosophical systems" actually are, read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche, who is a REAL genius, and one who Rand obviously completely misinterpreted, or more likely, didn't even read at all,much like she never actually read Kant's most important works. Finally, yes, "existence exists" is a tautology, it tells us nothing at all, it is nonsense.
Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shurgged" and this is the stuff she talks about in the book, that's in this video. She was a mistress of Phillipe De Rothschild, and the book is basically a way of getting the illuminati's view of how they want the world ran into the minds of people. it's just brainwashing simple as that.
Rand was part of a witches' conspiracy with the Illuminati to rule the world? Rand grew up in Russia and her middle class parents lost everything to the communists, and this somehow led Rand into a plot to enslave humanity; the very thing she despised? Do us all a favor and medicate yourself until you can't see straight.
Sir, is this why so many of the free market policies in Nicaragua for example, as the rest of Latin America have failed?When the conservative governments in Nicaragua took over from 90-2006 they privatized everything the Sandinistas had in the hands of the government and all that resulted was much more poverty and erosion of Sandinista strides and accomplishments in curbing poverty and disease,Combining privatization and globalization has led to so many left of center leaders elected.
Ever read Neal Stephensons' "Snow Crash"? It set in a not-too-distant future where the United States has privatized, outsourced and de-regulated itself out of existence; only to be controlled by every private enterprise from Mom-and-pops to global mega-corporations.
The point is, corruption is possible no matter how benign a social system starts off. I never said I was against free markets; I am only aware of the fact that no matter what system you put into place, the Oligarchy will find a way to penetrate it. The US enjoyed free markets for only a brief period in history. Why? Because all systems are corruptible - free markets are no exception. The solution to the problem of Oligarchy isn't as simple as "Free Markets!", Thill029.
"The US enjoyed free markets for only a brief period in history. Why? Because all systems are corruptible"
Yes. The free market was corrupted by socialism. As far as oligarchy goes, in a free market, no politician would have power that could be hijacked in the first place. It's only when government has the power to control the economy that a door is opened for corporations to buy off politicians. So therefore, Aristotle's oligarchy cannot exist in a free market.
This intelligent black man is not your enemy. The NWO is. Wake up and smell the institutionalized-racism that you've been force-fed since you were born. United we stand - divided we fall...
Privatization+Globalization=Dictatorship because the means of production for the entire WORLD would be in the hands of a few people, with the same net effect as a government-run dictatorship. This is NOT new. Its one big cluband were not invited: the FED prints fake money to give to their corporate friends to buy up all of our REAL capital (means of production); then the FED and the corporations give money to their politician friends to keep mum about the whole operation. Welcome to the NWO.
wow this proteanview is always there to make bullshit videos. I don't think I've seen a single one of your videos that makes sense. STOP MAKING VIDEOS AND PICK UP A BOOK.
"dictatorship by privitization" is such a worn out, made up concept with no logical proof behind it, and you don't even give a single argument in this video.
Globalization and free trade is the ONLY way that poor, ravaged countries can increase their wealth and standards of living, and grow their primitive economies.
Your exactly right Thill029. It not as if workers for Wal Mart in China or Nike in Vietnam are forced to work there. Its the best way for them to improve their lives.
And Thill029 always has bullshit responses. Protean brings up valid points - just because you're too twisted to understand them doesn't negate that fact. Maybe the "poor, ravaged countries" never asked for our "help". Maybe they can fight their own battles in their countries as we should be dealing with OUR problems, and not the WORLD'S. If we really wanted to help these countries, we'd stop selling them weapons and putting them in DEBT by lending them FAKE MONEY created by the FED and IMF.
And by globalization I am referring to free trade, I never mentioned anything about fighting their battles, you're putting words in my mouth. When it comes to free trade, which is what Proteanview is so against, he is an idiot because the only way for an economy to develope is industrialization. Globalization brings markets into countries and brings them jobs that they would not have under their dictatorial regimes.
Thill029 I'm glad I caught this thread. I'm not against free trade. You wrongly assume globalization is free trade. There is so much more to globalization than free trade, much more than I can have the interest to get into in this box. It's your mistake that I'm against free trade (which I didn't say) that nullifies your entire point. You should first learn what globalization is. We had free trade well before globalization as articulated by Bill Clinton. You don't understand the terms you use.
Again, Protean is correct. Globalization is the exact opposite of free trade; it is government-managed trade. And by the way, politicians don't have the power - the bankers who started the FED in 1913 do. When was the last time you experienced a "Free Market" Thill029? Globalization enslaves nations because it traps them into our current monetary system - a false system that mainly benefits our rulers. In most instances, industrialized nations have actually FINANCED dictatorial regimes!
actually it's you who is not correctly defining globalization. There are several meanings for the word, but in an economic sense, globalization refers to the freedom of companies to do business in all countries.
"Read a book called "Age of Betrayal" by Jack Beatty. It documents the beginning of US government takeover by big business (and thus banks) via the railroad industry."
Yes, there have been cases where corporations carry politicians in their pockets, and then use the government to their advantage. But in a free market this would be impossible since government would be in no possition to lend their use of force to private companies.
If the markets are "Free" then that could allow an individual or corporation to amass an empire - correct? And once that happens, they could buy up all forms of capital, correct? Have you ever played the game called "Monopoly"? Same concept. Everyone is "Free" to buy up property, railroads and utility companies in the game. But in the end, only ONE PERSON wins. There is no government intervening and ONE PERSON essentially owns the "world". That is what can happen in a free market......
"politicians don't have the power - the bankers who started the FED in 1913 do"
those bankers only have power because the FED is given power by the government. It's not an element of the free market. And you're incorrectly defining globalization. It's not government-managed trade. It's just the concept of an international market. Free trade will always lead to globalization.
We could argue till we're blue in the face about who has the "power". But the truth of the matter is that whoever creates the money has the power. Currently, that is the FED, not our government politicians. They are only allowing the FED to hide behind them, as if the FED were actually a government entity - when in fact it is a PRIVATE BANK. Follow the money. Corporations are owned by the banks, governments are owned by the banks - WE are owned by the banks.
I suggest you read up on the history of the FED because I think you are confused. The FED may be owned by private shareholders, but it is NOT a product of the free market. Suppose the government granted McDonalds monopoly status over all hamburgers. Mcdonalds would still be privately owned, but that doesn't mean it's a private company. It's the same with the FED.
About monopoly... at best, the board game is a representation of fascism, not free-market capitalism. Think about it... in the board game, there is only 1 square for the electric company. You can't chizzle in another square and label it "electric company #2" to compete with the other, What we can learn from the board game is that a true monopoly can only exist if competition is prohibited. In reality, or in a free market at least, real monopolies don't exist.
I never said that government was not involved in monopolies. But you are putting way too much emphasis on government's role of power - and not enough on the strongest force - that being MONEY. And again, our government doesn't print the money - A PRIVATE BANK does. As Aristotle wrote, "Oligarchy is when the men of property have the government in their hands." We are not ruled by politicians - they are only the puppets of the Oligarchy - the true power in this world.
Just because the FED is owned by private shareholders does NOT make it a private company. The fact that its power is instituted by the government means that the government has a lot of say in how the FED opperates. And it's not a product of the free market. Any company that has government force backing it up is not truley a private company. The government only grants monopoly status to companies so that it can control them, as well as their market.
According to Ron Paul, Congress has very little oversight of the FED. The Wall Street Journal today had a cover story entitled "Bernanke Heads to Congress..." which continued on A12 that states, "Most major democracies let their central banks act without political interference. The FED is afforded unusual autonomy."
The government allowed the FED to come into existence it's true - but it has very little control of it at this point (except to abolish it, which it is oddly reluctant to do).
Thill, I think you and I are arguing very similar points - only in different ways. I realize The FED is a cartel granted power by the government. The real problem is CENTRAL BANKING in general. Again, I also believe in free markets - but there is no denying that it IS POSSIBLE for a single company to gain a monopoly even in a free market. It would be as simple as having the best product. You keep arguing that it isn't possible - so where's your proof?
A monpoly by definition implies exclusive control of an industry. This is only possible with government help. A company that dominates an industry through good business rather than force is not a true monopoly, because there is always room for competition in a free market, no matter how dominant a company is. The monopoly you are thinking of, or oligarchy in general, can only be acquired through force, which is only possible with government help.
@Thill029 Monopolies are created when inelastic goods and services are involved. Inelastic goods and services are those where demand is relatively unaffected by price, because they are considered necessities by consumers. It is true that governments sometimes step in to either provide more competition or by nationalizing that industry to stop prices from becoming over-inflated.
Government has never created competition, only crushed it. And any artificial drop in prices mandated by the government necessarely leads to either a shortage and/or drop in quality of the product.
100% of monopolies in history have been the result of government intervention. I challenge you to name me one exception.
I have done plenty of reading about the FED. It is you who are confused. Most government officials were suckered into allowing the FED to print money in order to "stabilize" the money supply after the Panic of 1907. Are you attempting to suggest that the FED is a public company? You're way off base.
... and no matter how big a company gets in a free market, they can't force you to do anything.
and the FED is instituted by the government, and is a way for the government to control the money supply. In a free market there would be no FED, and no company would be given advantages by the government. So the exact things you are arguing against are actually elements of socialism, not privitization and globalization.
You are twisting everything again. Yes, in a free market there would be no FED, but you'd still run the risk of monopolies. Only diligent citizens can prohibit monopolies, or else we'll get what we have now all over again. The snakes in society will penetrate any balanced social structure we try to institute and bend it to their favor. People need to wake up and get involved - and not through the elite-planned globalization. Think outside the box Thill029.
Oh really? "No matter how big a company gets in a free market, they can't force you to do anything"? Read a book called "Age of Betrayal" by Jack Beatty. It documents the beginning of US government takeover by big business (and thus banks) via the railroad industry. Railroad industry owners became so powerful, they instituted Standard Time that the US uses now. There used to be something like 80 time zones in the US but these powerful men CHANGED TIME, Thill029! So they CAN force their will
We've never experienced a "Free Market" so how would you know if it's a myth, Thill029? Perhaps it is you who are the socialist, posting as something else. You sure like to confuse readers about the real issues. Protean is bringing up some valid points. The reason we got into this mess with the elite is because of the "so called" free market. Government has never done its duty to keep the markets free - and as a result individuals were able to amass empires that could buy out the government
"Government has never done its duty to keep the markets free - and as a result individuals were able to amass empires that could buy out the government "
The only reason they are able to buy politicians is because politicians have power that they should not have in the first place.
"Yes, in a free market there would be no FED, but you'd still run the risk of monopolies"
In a free market there can be no true monopoly. 100% of the monopolies that exist today are created by governments.
The only silly thing about objectivism (I feel) is that it assumes that countries and borders are legitimate. Most other political philosophies (serious ones) understand that they should operate in a global aspect. That doesn't mean the creepy global tyranny that is happening now, everyone in the world would have to be free.
Ok, so: 1) why does privatization + globalisation = dictatorship? You cite one anecdote that doesn't really prove your point. Sorry dude, but an Arab company owning a port probably doesn't equal dictatorship (nice catch-word though!). 2) "Dictatorship by people we don't even see for profit". Whats so bad about profit? Isn't that a good thing? Why is that against collective self-interest? Once again, too many adjectives, not enough reason.
Globalization did exist when Ayn Rand was around? What did you think she wrote her novels and wrote speeches back in 1846? hell man it was just in 1970's that she was writing some stuff and talking about her thoughts lol
So are we acting as dictators in China, Europe, Russia, and the rest of the world where our McDonald's, Wal-Marts, and other globalized corporations have gone?
You know, just because a "foreigner" owns land here doesn't mean they have political power.
A legit fear might be if foreign companies begin to lobby Washington more. However, that isn't an argument against private property. It's an argument against government control of industry, because its vulnerable to special interests.
I don't know that Rand would support the government abdicating it's responsibility to provide for the security of the nation by allowing a threat to the nation control the nation's ports. I wonder if you are making assumptions about what privatization means that may not fall in line with objectivism. This is my speculation, I don't mean to say this is in fact what you meant.
Thank you so much! You are a true Ron Paul supporter as you have a brain and know what you like about him and what you don't. You are not a mindless groupie and while I don't neccessarily agree with you fully, I respect your opinion because you've developed it and weren't told to think it like a heathan.
Actually, I disagree here. It is BECAUSE his knowledge of Objectivism was only obviously gained through heresay that you believe privatization and its bend toward profit are evil. How is this different to saying that a gun is implicitly evil?
Ayn Rand is vehemently against the initiation of force. Government regulation is one of these forces and is a breech of man's rights against his property. Without this breech, how then could privatization hurt anyone? How would lobbyists gain?
Freedom won't create the perfect world. Just the best possible world. Government is not reason or freedom. It is force and a consuking fire. All interference in the free interactions and cooperations of peole is an attempt to cheat reality. And it always ends to the detrriment of all.
Thanks for showing that Ron Paul supporters aren't blind followers!
"Privitazation" isn't the gov giving out contracts. It's the private sector stepping up to provide services. If the government is paying for/funding it, it's not privitazation -- although that's what the "contracts" of late have been called. If the gov sells off an asset/service and the company survives, great. The gov should not supplement it to ensure it's survival.
the private/public sector dichotomy is a false one. fascism is not less so whether the hegemony belongs to the state or the CEO. all institutions should be democratically controlled by all who are involved and are affected by the desition-making.
Its a myth to think that more globalization needs more regulation. Regulation is what would have prevented companies from being successful enough to compete globally in the first place. Its a step back to the 17th and 18th century not progressive forward thinking.
A large company big and successful enough be a global is likely to be owned by lots of shareholders democratically not a phantom board of directors, whatever that means.
They key is our children. HOME SCHOOL your children in YOUR ideals, and keep them out of the governmental indoctrination camps. Children are the sponge whom soak up the globalist agenda, unable to discern the truth and wind up becoming mindless automatons regurgitating facts on demand.
How many schools now have "no touch" policy's? Find me any psychologist that swears a child is better off in their development if they have no physical human contact.
Define dictatorship. If we have a government that protects us, dictatorship is not possible. Read Ayn Rand my friend, or any liberal or socialist will destroy your POLITICAL theories using their "PHILOSOPHY" of compassion. Every political theory needs a philosophical underpinning. Embrace the virtue of working for your survival, that is the essence of "selfishness." PS. Don't let your political opponents define the terms you believe in. Marx is taught as the definer of capitalism currently.
Not only is work a virtue, need is the mother of intention. The brilliance of American ingenuity resulted from free people thinking about what they or those around them need. The opportunity for an everyday man to be a 'land owner' had never existed prior to America. No nobility, crown or regency. Pure American!
All these arguements of the dangers of the private vs the dangers from the public sector all miss the point, which is the need for HONESTY in both. People must be free to buy & sell anything in any quanitity, and pursue their own defintion of happiness, but how can you have economic growth when people are afraid of being sold crap? The government should exist to keep people honest. "Thou shalt not steal"! The Bible gives some of the best economic advice ever given!
Don't laugh at this! Just do it Start thinking something you really really want cause this is astounding the person that sent this to me said their wish came true 10 mins after they read the mail so I thought what the heck You have just been visited by DrSuess's Cat in the Hat. He will grant you one wish Make your wish when the count down is over 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 MAKE A WISH Send this to 10 videos within the hour you read this. If you do, your wish will come true.
Please read Alan Greenspan's essay on the gold standard! It's the FED STUPID, not capitalism, that is the problem. We have had a "mixed" system for years, but when the laws favor corporations rather than the people, the people are doomed. Corporations have no soul.
I'm not fan of the Fed either, but the issues that arrive when globalization is married to capitalism would exist w/o the Fed. So many anti-Fed folks tune out when they hear economy speak that doesn't include Fed. Private ownership of necessities (water, power, etc) is dictatorship by unelectable boards of directors. Add globalization to the equation, we have phantom, foreign, unelectable boards of directors controlling our ports, banks, food, etc. The Fed is a separate issue.
Lew Rockwell is Ron Paul's friend and former congressional Chief of Staff who is also close friends with homophobe former Paul employee, Gary North. Lew Rockwell's website has links to the overtly racist Sam Francis.
"Hats off to Lew Rockwell and his friends, for doing their best to debase libertarian ideas by associating them so closely with some of the the worst and scariest people ever to scuttle under a rock."
Ron Paul is a KKK shill. Paul held a fundraiser for Bill Johnson, another one of Paul's White Supremacist friends; who he endorsed for the Los Angeles County Court. It turns out Johnson wanted to have all non whites deported from the US. "Coincidentally," Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship, therefore spitting on the Constitution he claims to admire. We all know the easiest way they scan immigrants! It's usually based on skin pigmentation.
You truely are stupid and know nothing. Enjoy your propaganda life. You don't even know what the birth right is do you? Fucking morons like you should die old cold and alone. He wishes to change the fact that if your ugly ass is born on american soil your american. He does not wish to change the law sawing if your born to 2 American citizens Nationalized or Natural(you should look this up moron). Basicaly foriegners sqwerting kids out on us soul so they can surcomvent the law. Your a LIAR!
Edgrot - You clearly have a lot of hate inside of you. I'm curious. What draws you to Ron Paul. Was it his bigoted newsletters in the mid 90's? Is it the fact he is pro segregation? I'm just curious as to why all the Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, KKK, and White Nationalist groups all support Ron Paul.
Let me adress this clearly because your lost. Yes I have hatred in my heart for morons like you. You argue as a U.S.slave under the constitution of the United States. We stand behind and are Soverign and our document is the constitution for the united States of America. When your stupid ass understand the dif then your allowed to speak to me. One document put you above the government as a Soveign. The other is a treasonist document which makes you a U.S. slave.
You're not for the Constitution. You said yourself you would remove the part of the Constitution which grants us civil rights. Are you one those people who says give me a "N" give me an "A" all the way to Nazi? The Constitution is a flawed document look where it got us. The Constitution was written by white power nuts who wanted to keep their slaves.
Actualy once again wrong. See you reffer to the constitution for the united States of America 1776 as the same document as the constitution of the United States 1871. This is your hole flaw. Everything you apply to the forfathers is a total lie. All those things apply to the Fascist take over in 1860s. Your the perfect mouth peace for the US government. Full of hot air and knows zip about the truth. I bet you still believe old Honist Abe faught a war to free slaves....lol so stupid.
Ron Paul may not be for big government but he's for tyrannical government. He thinks people should be allowed a majority vote on civil rights issues. State laws banning gay marriage/adoptions, abortion, sodomy are all legit according to wacko Ron Paul, as well as state drug laws, and forced secession. He also wants to end birthright citizenship, spitting on the Constitution, and enabling racial profiling on much larger scale. Ron Paul is a tyrannical nut. Don't waste your time supporting him.
You truely make me laugh. He supports the rights of small local government backed by the Bill of Rights. You twist things so out of wack. Yes he does want to remove the born on american soul makes you american. Thats actualy a good thing not a bad one if you understood naturalization at all and the two parent clause. Your just a complete moron is all. You simply do not understand the constitution and how it works.
Ron Paul's is against Amendment 14: Citizenship Rights
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
Paul favors sodomy laws and tax-exempt homophobic organizations. He also agrees with a state's right to only reward "straights" benefits, and voted to ban gay adoption in DC.
Yes amendment 14 must go. See the difference is I am a soverign with unalienable rights. Your a 14th amendment us citizen which is a slave. You really should research such things you fucking moron. Stop your lies and bull shit slave. get back in your place.Mad yet? Still all true. The 14th amendment is an abomination. Civil rights are granted and can be taken away. Unalienable right I am born with and you nor gov have power over.
What don't you like about amendment fourteen? Because it prevents the process which leads to mass genocide? Exclude, Enslave, Exterminate. You Paultards are fascists at best. States are government monopolies of land and and can be classified at statism and terrorism at best. Do you worship Hitler in your little Paul cult?
I also think you confuse things. Stateisim is NOT Fascism. Your clearly spewing prapaganda. Free speech is for everyone both lover and racist alike. If you allow gov to tell them to shut up you give them the authority to tell you to shut up. Man you sure are seriously lost. Like the idea where a man Dr paul, Whom backs a statement All men are created equal. Yup that sounds racist doesn't it.Problem with people like you is all men only applies to idiology you aprove of.Yeah your a freedom fighter
I never said give the government authority to shut up racists. Where do you get that from? Are you feeble-minded? I said don't give racists the right to take away civil rights of minorities. You seriously believe in such fascism? Your grammar is awful and nothing you write makes sense.
Well if they have the majority then they can take those civil rights away. Once again I point out. If your a U.S. and follow democracy then majority rules and thats that. If your a Soverign and not a US citezen then they can't take shit from you. I hate fascism and maybe you need to relearn what that word means. Fascism has zero to do with racisim. Fascism is corp control government. example Hitler/Obama. Nazi = National Socializim. Man you have so much to learn.
Majority doesn't rule when the LAW is that you cannot TAKE AWAY civil rights. Anyone who believes in liberty agrees with me. The libertarian view is you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you are not harming anyone else. I never said fascism has to do with racism. Where did I say that you delusional nut? Obama is not a National Socialist. The NSM is a far right movement which actually endorses Ron Paul overwhelmingly. Hitler was a Laissez-Faire plutocratic social darwinist.
Hitler was whatever he felt he needed to say to gain support for his ultimate goals. Hitler was not a socialist/atheist/communist/plutocrat/Darwinist etc. etc. He was a sociopath, and a psychopath. To say he was anything he claimed to be would be like taking Charles Manson at his word. The insane are never firmly grounded in anything, so they are hardly representative.
Also I can't stop there god your so stupid. Did you know in the first two drafts of the real constitution the slaves where freed. Yet in the final draft it was remove. Why? Well if you research The Moore Princes all BLACK from AFRICA refused and forced it to be removed or they wouldn't give their gold wealth to America to fight the british. Thats right AFRICAN kings and princess force slavery to continue. Go research it I dare you.Also the first 17 slave freeing documents all came from the south
So yeah I am done talking to someone like you till you actualy get off your ass go to the libary of congress as I have done and learned truth for yourself. You can find it in books if you keep digging. Until then you will never see the light. As stated before I am a Soverign citezen of a State your a U.S. citizen. I have constitutional power you have what ever the US says you can have. All your blustering proves you know nothing about the two documents or real history. SLAVE!
I agree with you, but, wait. The things you're saying you're against are all the things that Ron Paul's Randist/libertarian/free-marketeer views are going to allow to take over. You're worried about oppressive, unimpeachable privatized rule, don't vote for libertarians! In an unregulated "free market" (in quotes because such a thing is literally impossible outside the conceptual realm) the privatization and globalism you're complaining about would have nothing to stop them from taking over.
GuitaristInProgress 6 months ago
I would never consider myself a mindless groupie. Its hard to be a groupie, when most people hate ron paul or think he's crazy
pogoman555 8 months ago
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and the Free Market is the way to go.
stephenabm 8 months ago
Very important, thanks !
hcsuarnefeiT 9 months ago
thanks for sharing mate
hcsuarnefeiT 9 months ago
It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.
logtype47 9 months ago
I agree with proteanview. What we would have is state corporate dictorship. This is what happened in Eastern Europe after communism fell.
mizzoulibertarian 9 months ago
I don't even know why left-wingers support big-government. All big-government does is grow huge corporations. Nothing TOO big is good. We need more small businesses in this country. Corporations aren't bad, but they get too big.
jimhunt81 9 months ago
Dictatorship is one man deciding the fate of a company or country. If you have multiple companies deciding on actions in the world its not dictatorship. You dont think we are influenced a minimal amount by each board of directors that has an american company already? Thats why America is great.
MNgeneralfinance 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a feeble simpleton.
Prsnhoot 10 months ago
Privatization + globalization doesnt equal dictatorship.
Becuase there are more than one companies to buy from which completly destroys your idea of it being a dictatorship in another country, its not..
And idont see how there is a way of being against privatization and agaisnt a planned economy
unfad1ng 11 months ago
Globalization is a nightmare, for anyone who believes in individual liberty, and the sovereignty society, but privatization is not the cause.
If you take a look at the forces pushing globalism, you will quickly see they are all corporate and governmental. Which is in fact, to say the same thing twice, as corps are the creations of the state.
Private in the free market sense means - free from govt. Corps are not free from govt, as for a corp to even exist, it must get govt sanction.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago 3
I think you are right dude.
shanepaulcoward 11 months ago
this is why ron paul should run with somebody like nader or sanders, that way you'd have 2 guys with opposing ideologies, yet agree on issues like the fed and foreign intervention, but will keep eachother in check when it comes to things like social programs
einLesenderArbeiter 11 months ago
The most brilliant response I've heard to all this Ayn Rand discussion. You RULE dude !
robertsutter 1 year ago
People need to understand that the government is a criminal enterprise that works just like a mob ran crime syndicate runs. It has a monopoly on violence.
DavidValley 1 year ago
The only reason corporations have tons of influence on the country is because of the government allows them to. How? By going after their competition. The government is and has been blocking competition and a true free market in the U.S. for years.
Face it. A big coercive government makes everything worse. Look at drugs. The prohibition of drugs has made it far worse than it would be if drugs were legal.
The same goes for the economy.
Liberty isn't perfect but it also isn't control.
DavidValley 1 year ago
word up!
psmtheman 1 year ago
Ron Paul subscribes to a philosophy of Libertarianism
Where individual freedom based on private property rights, upheld by voluntary contracts enforced by a small local government under a constitutional republic.
Mafias are fine if they respect private property they have no power once the break the contract the government enforces the constitutional law.
The world isn't perfect but freedom comes close its the most efficient and fairest allocation of resources voted by sound money
europa 1 year ago
privatization is fine as long as govt dose not get in bed with the free markets
Globalization is fascism, a modern day colonialism
No borders, no national identity no individualism its a military take over via finances with no shots fired besides perpetual debt that consumes real assets via central banking and the fiat currency manipulated by the central banks.
Globalization is central planning from unelected, unaccountable elites which sell out the masses for profit and power
europa 1 year ago
@europa The problem with privatization is that business gets in bed with government and government in bed with business. When a private corporation get contracts for waste collection, a lot of things change. It becomes part and part of the government and starts to depend on government and the taxing and revenue ability of government to exist. That is why so much money is thrown at candidate and parties that support their gravy train. "The market" is modified and integrated w/ govt.
eotto2001 1 year ago
Good video. I think your right, being a mindless group is sort of a version of fundamentalism.
natedaug1 1 year ago
Also, good for you for not falling into a package deal fallacy.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
One of the ideas I find neat is to have the government get the majority of it's funding through dividends from state owned enterprises (To be clear I mean like oil and minerals, not pizza shops). It's one way to keep income taxes low (or possibly null), as well as avoid the social and administrative mess of sales tax / value added tax.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
@Scientisticsoviet This is a neat idea, however this would be like having a regressive tax (ie one that affects the poor more than the rich). This would be because the poor would have to spend a much greater percentage of their income on base goods and services, if I'm understanding you correctly.
MrFabianGhosty 1 year ago
@MrFabianGhosty If run for the same profit margins as private enterprise it would not be any different... You could in fact look at private profit as the owner's tax on an employee's work. But indeed a lot of enterprises gain their income from the majority of the populace. Although for those producing luxury items, intermediate goods and capital goods it is not the case.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
Ron Paul and Ayn Rand were RIGHT !
PikSokolit 1 year ago
Yeah... evil phantom dictators supplying goods to a willing public at a price they are willing to pay... the horror...
djussila 1 year ago
I ain't your groupie yet, but by this video I think you're one smart son of a bitch.
GamberroSalvador 1 year ago
ProteanView. Did you read what Ron Paul actually had to say about the Dubai ports deal?
"This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security. "
Stupid YouTube won't let my post links, but Google Ron Paul Dubai ports.
libertyvidz 1 year ago
Corporations don't seek profits by ruthless destruction of resources like you claim. Third world countries would not crumble, what do you think these countries have before the sweatshop comes in, nothing. Companies offer jobs by FREEDOM OF CHOICE and these people can work if they wish. Should be blessing companies not condemning them as colonials. Privatization would lead to immense competition due to less restriction and would result in amazing innovation and no time to monopolize resources.
windigo433 1 year ago
You may call your self a "realist" to my comment but you hold a malevolent view of mankind, something Rand never did.
Think people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton look to 'control' small towns, no. You believe corporations are seeking control versus profits, try owning a business.
windigo433 1 year ago
Good comments on Rand philosophy--and its present day "not-quite" application. Re-thinkking is a good idea. I appreciate your astute assessment of what legalism and the creation of an "alter-ego" as a "collectivist" board of directors has done to the stand alone already-difficult-to-grapple-with concept of the ego. (at last difficult to me..) Good thinking. Perhaps Shakespeare was right... shall we "kill all the lawyers"...?
drchrischapman1 1 year ago
hello gay homey ! greetings from the resident white supremacist ! ayn rand was 50 years ago and if you think anything changed sine then you are a fool. the forbidden truth is that nothing ever and i mean EVER fucking changes - remember this. nothing changed since the declaration of independence. nothing changed since the french revolution. certainly nothing changed since ayn rand.
g1981c 1 year ago
Comment removed
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
I agree, but ayn rand's view was also a hopeful one about how a capitalism could be good and fair.
backlyt 1 year ago
@backlyt Good and Fair for who? The Banking élite and a few very rich families who would have us all in thrall. Yep, it's Feudal Pathocracy. Worship of Rand and Zionism is the worship of Baal-Peor!!! Eat from their cleft!!!!
Isochest 1 year ago
I agree with you on the subect of privitazation+globalization i.e. corporatism, where foreigners buy our land to control it when it should be ours. However, as a capitalist proponent, I have no problem with an investor in Japan buying land from a local farmer at a fair and valued price to build lets say an industrial plant which will create obs and wealth. There is no problem with privitization, nationalizing is a problem though. The problem comes when the motive is corrupt and dangerous.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
I remember back before WW2 America was really pro-Isolationists. Which was why we were so against going into the war against Hitler. Because it wasn't our problem and after we did enter it we became a world power because of certain circumstances of what entailed with the war. Back to my point about Isolationism. It went well with Privatization and I'm curious how we would do if we went back to that model. I know we can argue how we Globalization does good to this and that.
Just food for thought
lacklusterkid 1 year ago
Comment removed
NotTooObvious 2 years ago 2
Oooh, that's cold blooded.
proteanview 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
@proteanview What is your proposed mechanism for limiting the private cartels, collusion, monopoly, etc while still holding proper restraint on government arbitration? It is indeed a balancing act our constitution rightly attempts in the principle of reducing conflict of interest as much as possible.
parquar 1 year ago
@NotTooObvious "im gonna live forever! people remember my name!"
p
AhYaOk 1 year ago
@NotTooObvious Rand is rollling in grave with these bailouts and stimulus programs!!
mediblue9 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
god - goddess
load maria johanna history txt down
and print
zzora1978 2 years ago
Earth is turning into Ferenginar! Any Star Trek fan will know what I mean. Iguess the silver lining is that all of our women will be required to be nakid........oh well, a guy can dream.
P.S. End the FED!!!
ghostgate82 2 years ago
we don't need a central government dictating our lives. and that is what we get with socialism, and progressive liberal democracies.
Verlch 2 years ago
Privatization can solve every problem under the sun. Our mission at the Conservative Health Network is to commodify every aspect of life, including you. We aim to protect the health of free-markets through privately managed behavioral economics.
ConservativeHealth 2 years ago
does it matter if you work for an american moneybag or a saudi one? we're all equal slaves of huge capital.
casperado666 2 years ago
Anyone who works by his own choice and earns something in return is not a slave.
kleinrider73 2 years ago
What does it matter if it is foreign ownership. If they dont run their company right and make the most effective use of their assets then some other local firm will under cut them, and in turn they will make a loss and go out of business. their assets wont disappear they will be purchased by the other firm with the better management and lower costs. this means that over all resources will be allocated to where they are most effective, and society benefits from the lower cost of there services.
honjo294 2 years ago 11
Unless government stepts into the process.
jeroentje188 2 years ago
bah that kind of international corporation would just buy out the competition or make it nearly impossible to compete with them even if their service would lack quality
Darusdei 2 years ago
thats a contridiction if the company bought out the competition then it would be doing so to increase profitability and they would soon find out why that company was doing better and adopt there policys. Net result is a better service, other wise they would fail. Need i remind you you vote with your feet, you can choose to buy from someone or not, shareholders all so choose to invest .If a company was so bad for society how would it stay a float with no buyers of its products.
honjo294 2 years ago
@honjo294 Dumping & natural barriers to entry being taken as null of course.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
@honjo294
the wonders of capitalism and the free amrket in action!
unfad1ng 10 months ago
The most telling trait of the objectivist is the propensity for overstating Rands importance, and an almost religious devotion to a philosophy which is regarded as laughable in most academic circles. The "moral" argument given for objectivist economic principals is ludicrous, and rest entirely on the assumption that objectivist ethics offer a superior account of morality, which they plainly do not. Her metaphysics are so insipid that one may wonder if she is saying anything at all, and her...
biggsy182 2 years ago
.. "axioms" are either tautologous or highly dubious. "Existence exists", that is all very well, however it doesn't really tell us anything new now does it? It is a meaningless statement, she is basically saying "things are things". She completely misappropriates great thinkers such as Kant and Nietzsche in the most terrible way, and exposes an ignorance of simple philosophical concepts that is quite frankly astounding given that she was obviously quite a smart person. People take up her cause
biggsy182 2 years ago
because that is their nature, their will, and for no other reason. Objectivism offers "individuality" to it's followers, however only if they follow Rand's ideas pretty much to the letter. Rand herself was quite explicit about this, and obviously failed to see the irony of insisting that "individuality" can only be achieved by being exactly the same as herself. In short, objectivism is weak, and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny at all.
biggsy182 2 years ago
Rand's core virtue is rationality; this means that even if Almighty Rand says something is true, it's up to each individual to take the logical steps and arrive at their conclusion rationally. If my conclusion is different that yours, and we both share the same premises, we'd better both be able to defend our arguments rationally and concede to whoever possess the correct conclusion and we better be able to state explicitly why it is correct. I don't think Rand would have disagreed with this.
shakanunu 2 years ago
Rand's philosophy quite literally has embedded within it the antidote to dogmatism and irrationality (Rand's or anyone else's). If people choose to use it as a religion, that is to their own detriment and disadvantage. It is this characteristic of Objectivism that makes it the greatest philosophic system ever created. Only a thinking individual who is able and willing to perceive, analyze, revise, integrate, and continually grow and learn throughout life can truly identify as Objectivist.
shakanunu 2 years ago
Who cares how many academicians laugh, if they are wrong! WHY are the moral arguments "ludicrous"? WHAT is incorrect about Objectivist ethics? WHY are the metaphysics insipid? You offer zero arguments. Your "arguments" are logical errors. WHY are Objectivist axioms dubious (clearly, they are the opposite of "tautologous" as "existence exists" demonstrates)? Explicit identification of fundamental concepts is absolutely meaningful in all fields. What's happened to your MIND??????? Where is it?
shakanunu 2 years ago
In fact I offered an overview, not an argument. "Logical errors"? Where? And which one's exactly? Logic does not deal with 'truth' in any way, only with "validity", and in fact we can use logic to destroy at least one of Rands "axioms". Lets try a basic syllogism..
Man is a rational being
Hitler was a man
Therefore Hitler was a rational being.
There is nothing wrong with the logic here, yet the conclusion is obviously false. Why? Because the major premise is utter crap, it is also one....
biggsy182 2 years ago
.. of Rand's "axioms". "Rational ethics"? Nonsense! Ethical propositions are nothing more than emotive statements. The proposition "Selfishness is good", is essentially the same as saying "hooray for selfishness!". As for rationality being Rand's highest virtue, whose rationality is she aiming at here? Logic can be used to show anything you like if you are the one who decides the premises. Moral argument for an economic system? You mean like Socialism? Have you read Plato's Republic?...
biggsy182 2 years ago
Probably not. It is another common trait of the objectivist movement is the profound ignorance regarding any of the great philosophical works. It shall suffice to say that Rand's moral argument for the free market is weak because ANY moral argument for an economic system is weak. Friedman makes a far better argument based on utility, I still disagree, but at least he is not basing his position on an emotive standpoint. "Greatest philosophical system"! What a joke!! Even if it were case,...
biggsy182 2 years ago
.. her philosophy would still be weak. For an exposition on what "philosophical systems" actually are, read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche, who is a REAL genius, and one who Rand obviously completely misinterpreted, or more likely, didn't even read at all,much like she never actually read Kant's most important works. Finally, yes, "existence exists" is a tautology, it tells us nothing at all, it is nonsense.
biggsy182 2 years ago
HA. Colbert vs. Rand--is like comparing ants to amazons
ImThinkin11 2 years ago
Comment removed
GodsStyleGirl 2 years ago
Hi protenveiw how are you keep up the good work my freind
Peace S/D....aka Scott.
sportydevil666 2 years ago
Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shurgged" and this is the stuff she talks about in the book, that's in this video. She was a mistress of Phillipe De Rothschild, and the book is basically a way of getting the illuminati's view of how they want the world ran into the minds of people. it's just brainwashing simple as that.
search for John Todd.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Who fed you these lies about Ms. Rand? She was never a mistress of whats-his-name. Ha.
She married Frank O'Connor, a poor man, and stayed married to him all of her life.
Check your sources next time, ok.
ImThinkin11 2 years ago
lol, sorry, your wrong. :-)
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Rand was part of a witches' conspiracy with the Illuminati to rule the world? Rand grew up in Russia and her middle class parents lost everything to the communists, and this somehow led Rand into a plot to enslave humanity; the very thing she despised? Do us all a favor and medicate yourself until you can't see straight.
hsfbunny 2 years ago
your a silly goose! :-)
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
And You Sir, are dishonest.
ImThinkin11 2 years ago
nope, your just one of those people that believe the "Official Story"
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
The official story is reality. Don't you believe in reality.....sigh.
I can prove you are making your story up. THEN what will you say,?
ImThinkin11 2 years ago
lol, and you think reality is not filled with liars, and people that have their own agendas?
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
What did you think of Atlas Shrugged? I am curious to know whether you've read it.? Ciao.
ImThinkin11 2 years ago
no, but I have read from many sources about it.
did you yourself read Bernie Maddoffs financial records?
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
great video, Protean, thanks for sharing !
darrrkstarrr1969 2 years ago
Sir, is this why so many of the free market policies in Nicaragua for example, as the rest of Latin America have failed?When the conservative governments in Nicaragua took over from 90-2006 they privatized everything the Sandinistas had in the hands of the government and all that resulted was much more poverty and erosion of Sandinista strides and accomplishments in curbing poverty and disease,Combining privatization and globalization has led to so many left of center leaders elected.
roberts11000 2 years ago
Ever read Neal Stephensons' "Snow Crash"? It set in a not-too-distant future where the United States has privatized, outsourced and de-regulated itself out of existence; only to be controlled by every private enterprise from Mom-and-pops to global mega-corporations.
Nyx9 2 years ago
The point is, corruption is possible no matter how benign a social system starts off. I never said I was against free markets; I am only aware of the fact that no matter what system you put into place, the Oligarchy will find a way to penetrate it. The US enjoyed free markets for only a brief period in history. Why? Because all systems are corruptible - free markets are no exception. The solution to the problem of Oligarchy isn't as simple as "Free Markets!", Thill029.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
"The US enjoyed free markets for only a brief period in history. Why? Because all systems are corruptible"
Yes. The free market was corrupted by socialism. As far as oligarchy goes, in a free market, no politician would have power that could be hijacked in the first place. It's only when government has the power to control the economy that a door is opened for corporations to buy off politicians. So therefore, Aristotle's oligarchy cannot exist in a free market.
Thill029 2 years ago
Very discerning.
amwright81 2 years ago
This intelligent black man is not your enemy. The NWO is. Wake up and smell the institutionalized-racism that you've been force-fed since you were born. United we stand - divided we fall...
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
Privatization+Globalization=Dictatorship because the means of production for the entire WORLD would be in the hands of a few people, with the same net effect as a government-run dictatorship. This is NOT new. Its one big cluband were not invited: the FED prints fake money to give to their corporate friends to buy up all of our REAL capital (means of production); then the FED and the corporations give money to their politician friends to keep mum about the whole operation. Welcome to the NWO.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
wow this proteanview is always there to make bullshit videos. I don't think I've seen a single one of your videos that makes sense. STOP MAKING VIDEOS AND PICK UP A BOOK.
"dictatorship by privitization" is such a worn out, made up concept with no logical proof behind it, and you don't even give a single argument in this video.
Globalization and free trade is the ONLY way that poor, ravaged countries can increase their wealth and standards of living, and grow their primitive economies.
Thill029 2 years ago
Your exactly right Thill029. It not as if workers for Wal Mart in China or Nike in Vietnam are forced to work there. Its the best way for them to improve their lives.
SuperWilly33 2 years ago
And Thill029 always has bullshit responses. Protean brings up valid points - just because you're too twisted to understand them doesn't negate that fact. Maybe the "poor, ravaged countries" never asked for our "help". Maybe they can fight their own battles in their countries as we should be dealing with OUR problems, and not the WORLD'S. If we really wanted to help these countries, we'd stop selling them weapons and putting them in DEBT by lending them FAKE MONEY created by the FED and IMF.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
And by globalization I am referring to free trade, I never mentioned anything about fighting their battles, you're putting words in my mouth. When it comes to free trade, which is what Proteanview is so against, he is an idiot because the only way for an economy to develope is industrialization. Globalization brings markets into countries and brings them jobs that they would not have under their dictatorial regimes.
Thill029 2 years ago
Thill029 I'm glad I caught this thread. I'm not against free trade. You wrongly assume globalization is free trade. There is so much more to globalization than free trade, much more than I can have the interest to get into in this box. It's your mistake that I'm against free trade (which I didn't say) that nullifies your entire point. You should first learn what globalization is. We had free trade well before globalization as articulated by Bill Clinton. You don't understand the terms you use.
proteanview 2 years ago
Again, Protean is correct. Globalization is the exact opposite of free trade; it is government-managed trade. And by the way, politicians don't have the power - the bankers who started the FED in 1913 do. When was the last time you experienced a "Free Market" Thill029? Globalization enslaves nations because it traps them into our current monetary system - a false system that mainly benefits our rulers. In most instances, industrialized nations have actually FINANCED dictatorial regimes!
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
actually it's you who is not correctly defining globalization. There are several meanings for the word, but in an economic sense, globalization refers to the freedom of companies to do business in all countries.
Thill029 2 years ago
"Read a book called "Age of Betrayal" by Jack Beatty. It documents the beginning of US government takeover by big business (and thus banks) via the railroad industry."
Yes, there have been cases where corporations carry politicians in their pockets, and then use the government to their advantage. But in a free market this would be impossible since government would be in no possition to lend their use of force to private companies.
Thill029 2 years ago
If the markets are "Free" then that could allow an individual or corporation to amass an empire - correct? And once that happens, they could buy up all forms of capital, correct? Have you ever played the game called "Monopoly"? Same concept. Everyone is "Free" to buy up property, railroads and utility companies in the game. But in the end, only ONE PERSON wins. There is no government intervening and ONE PERSON essentially owns the "world". That is what can happen in a free market......
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
"politicians don't have the power - the bankers who started the FED in 1913 do"
those bankers only have power because the FED is given power by the government. It's not an element of the free market. And you're incorrectly defining globalization. It's not government-managed trade. It's just the concept of an international market. Free trade will always lead to globalization.
Thill029 2 years ago
We could argue till we're blue in the face about who has the "power". But the truth of the matter is that whoever creates the money has the power. Currently, that is the FED, not our government politicians. They are only allowing the FED to hide behind them, as if the FED were actually a government entity - when in fact it is a PRIVATE BANK. Follow the money. Corporations are owned by the banks, governments are owned by the banks - WE are owned by the banks.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
I suggest you read up on the history of the FED because I think you are confused. The FED may be owned by private shareholders, but it is NOT a product of the free market. Suppose the government granted McDonalds monopoly status over all hamburgers. Mcdonalds would still be privately owned, but that doesn't mean it's a private company. It's the same with the FED.
Thill029 2 years ago
About monopoly... at best, the board game is a representation of fascism, not free-market capitalism. Think about it... in the board game, there is only 1 square for the electric company. You can't chizzle in another square and label it "electric company #2" to compete with the other, What we can learn from the board game is that a true monopoly can only exist if competition is prohibited. In reality, or in a free market at least, real monopolies don't exist.
Thill029 2 years ago
I never said that government was not involved in monopolies. But you are putting way too much emphasis on government's role of power - and not enough on the strongest force - that being MONEY. And again, our government doesn't print the money - A PRIVATE BANK does. As Aristotle wrote, "Oligarchy is when the men of property have the government in their hands." We are not ruled by politicians - they are only the puppets of the Oligarchy - the true power in this world.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
Just because the FED is owned by private shareholders does NOT make it a private company. The fact that its power is instituted by the government means that the government has a lot of say in how the FED opperates. And it's not a product of the free market. Any company that has government force backing it up is not truley a private company. The government only grants monopoly status to companies so that it can control them, as well as their market.
Thill029 2 years ago
According to Ron Paul, Congress has very little oversight of the FED. The Wall Street Journal today had a cover story entitled "Bernanke Heads to Congress..." which continued on A12 that states, "Most major democracies let their central banks act without political interference. The FED is afforded unusual autonomy."
The government allowed the FED to come into existence it's true - but it has very little control of it at this point (except to abolish it, which it is oddly reluctant to do).
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
" you are putting way too much emphasis on government's role of power"
No, I'm not. This is evident from the fact that in both theory and practice, every single true monopoly in existance is a product of government.
Thill029 2 years ago 8
Thill, I think you and I are arguing very similar points - only in different ways. I realize The FED is a cartel granted power by the government. The real problem is CENTRAL BANKING in general. Again, I also believe in free markets - but there is no denying that it IS POSSIBLE for a single company to gain a monopoly even in a free market. It would be as simple as having the best product. You keep arguing that it isn't possible - so where's your proof?
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
A monpoly by definition implies exclusive control of an industry. This is only possible with government help. A company that dominates an industry through good business rather than force is not a true monopoly, because there is always room for competition in a free market, no matter how dominant a company is. The monopoly you are thinking of, or oligarchy in general, can only be acquired through force, which is only possible with government help.
Thill029 2 years ago
Yes, corruption is possible, but that's why there is police. However police cannot be used against government when they cause the corruption.
Thill029 2 years ago
@Thill029 Monopolies are created when inelastic goods and services are involved. Inelastic goods and services are those where demand is relatively unaffected by price, because they are considered necessities by consumers. It is true that governments sometimes step in to either provide more competition or by nationalizing that industry to stop prices from becoming over-inflated.
MrFabianGhosty 1 year ago
@MrFabianGhosty
Government has never created competition, only crushed it. And any artificial drop in prices mandated by the government necessarely leads to either a shortage and/or drop in quality of the product.
100% of monopolies in history have been the result of government intervention. I challenge you to name me one exception.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 de beer , but this happened only because russia nationaizedthe diamond industry. you're 100% right.
tonygmilan7 1 year ago
@Thill029 Yep.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
I have done plenty of reading about the FED. It is you who are confused. Most government officials were suckered into allowing the FED to print money in order to "stabilize" the money supply after the Panic of 1907. Are you attempting to suggest that the FED is a public company? You're way off base.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
"Privatization+Globalization=Di ctatorship because the means of production for the entire WORLD would be in the hands of a few people"
That's a myth, A very common scare tactic used by socialists. In a free market that would be impossible. And no matter how big
Thill029 2 years ago
... and no matter how big a company gets in a free market, they can't force you to do anything.
and the FED is instituted by the government, and is a way for the government to control the money supply. In a free market there would be no FED, and no company would be given advantages by the government. So the exact things you are arguing against are actually elements of socialism, not privitization and globalization.
Thill029 2 years ago
You are twisting everything again. Yes, in a free market there would be no FED, but you'd still run the risk of monopolies. Only diligent citizens can prohibit monopolies, or else we'll get what we have now all over again. The snakes in society will penetrate any balanced social structure we try to institute and bend it to their favor. People need to wake up and get involved - and not through the elite-planned globalization. Think outside the box Thill029.
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
Oh really? "No matter how big a company gets in a free market, they can't force you to do anything"? Read a book called "Age of Betrayal" by Jack Beatty. It documents the beginning of US government takeover by big business (and thus banks) via the railroad industry. Railroad industry owners became so powerful, they instituted Standard Time that the US uses now. There used to be something like 80 time zones in the US but these powerful men CHANGED TIME, Thill029! So they CAN force their will
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
We've never experienced a "Free Market" so how would you know if it's a myth, Thill029? Perhaps it is you who are the socialist, posting as something else. You sure like to confuse readers about the real issues. Protean is bringing up some valid points. The reason we got into this mess with the elite is because of the "so called" free market. Government has never done its duty to keep the markets free - and as a result individuals were able to amass empires that could buy out the government
tryusingyourbrian 2 years ago
"Government has never done its duty to keep the markets free - and as a result individuals were able to amass empires that could buy out the government "
The only reason they are able to buy politicians is because politicians have power that they should not have in the first place.
"Yes, in a free market there would be no FED, but you'd still run the risk of monopolies"
In a free market there can be no true monopoly. 100% of the monopolies that exist today are created by governments.
Thill029 2 years ago
The only silly thing about objectivism (I feel) is that it assumes that countries and borders are legitimate. Most other political philosophies (serious ones) understand that they should operate in a global aspect. That doesn't mean the creepy global tyranny that is happening now, everyone in the world would have to be free.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
I don't see how you disagree with Ron Paul.
Ontologistics 2 years ago
Ok, so: 1) why does privatization + globalisation = dictatorship? You cite one anecdote that doesn't really prove your point. Sorry dude, but an Arab company owning a port probably doesn't equal dictatorship (nice catch-word though!). 2) "Dictatorship by people we don't even see for profit". Whats so bad about profit? Isn't that a good thing? Why is that against collective self-interest? Once again, too many adjectives, not enough reason.
schlappieschwimmer 2 years ago
Globalization did exist when Ayn Rand was around? What did you think she wrote her novels and wrote speeches back in 1846? hell man it was just in 1970's that she was writing some stuff and talking about her thoughts lol
444DeanMachine 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was an Atheist, not an evangelical.
TBurnum 2 years ago
you didn't get it... he meant that people who are staunch Objectivists are "Evangelical Ayn Rand" it was a derogatory quote by him lol
444DeanMachine 2 years ago
So are we acting as dictators in China, Europe, Russia, and the rest of the world where our McDonald's, Wal-Marts, and other globalized corporations have gone?
You know, just because a "foreigner" owns land here doesn't mean they have political power.
A legit fear might be if foreign companies begin to lobby Washington more. However, that isn't an argument against private property. It's an argument against government control of industry, because its vulnerable to special interests.
ijust1 2 years ago
um, YES, but mostly in the 3rd world where we steal their crops and kill their leaders.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Whomever owns the ports, it is in their interest to keep them secure.
It's the government's job to protect us from foreign threats, not to protect us from free enterprise.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
I don't know that Rand would support the government abdicating it's responsibility to provide for the security of the nation by allowing a threat to the nation control the nation's ports. I wonder if you are making assumptions about what privatization means that may not fall in line with objectivism. This is my speculation, I don't mean to say this is in fact what you meant.
obmax1212 2 years ago
Thank you so much! You are a true Ron Paul supporter as you have a brain and know what you like about him and what you don't. You are not a mindless groupie and while I don't neccessarily agree with you fully, I respect your opinion because you've developed it and weren't told to think it like a heathan.
Velociraptor027 2 years ago
Actually, I disagree here. It is BECAUSE his knowledge of Objectivism was only obviously gained through heresay that you believe privatization and its bend toward profit are evil. How is this different to saying that a gun is implicitly evil?
Ayn Rand is vehemently against the initiation of force. Government regulation is one of these forces and is a breech of man's rights against his property. Without this breech, how then could privatization hurt anyone? How would lobbyists gain?
dreadrocksean 2 years ago
i like this guy! Bright and insightful.
he even likes Ron Paul without being a groupie! kick ass.
america needs a shit-ton more citizens like him to edge out all the "progressive" communists, looters, and globalist dooshbags.
ugotpimp 2 years ago
Freedom won't create the perfect world. Just the best possible world. Government is not reason or freedom. It is force and a consuking fire. All interference in the free interactions and cooperations of peole is an attempt to cheat reality. And it always ends to the detrriment of all.
ihearttubing 2 years ago
Thanks for showing that Ron Paul supporters aren't blind followers!
"Privitazation" isn't the gov giving out contracts. It's the private sector stepping up to provide services. If the government is paying for/funding it, it's not privitazation -- although that's what the "contracts" of late have been called. If the gov sells off an asset/service and the company survives, great. The gov should not supplement it to ensure it's survival.
MiranUT 2 years ago
Comment removed
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
the private/public sector dichotomy is a false one. fascism is not less so whether the hegemony belongs to the state or the CEO. all institutions should be democratically controlled by all who are involved and are affected by the desition-making.
fede2 2 years ago
Its a myth to think that more globalization needs more regulation. Regulation is what would have prevented companies from being successful enough to compete globally in the first place. Its a step back to the 17th and 18th century not progressive forward thinking.
A large company big and successful enough be a global is likely to be owned by lots of shareholders democratically not a phantom board of directors, whatever that means.
kaziqbal 2 years ago
They key is our children. HOME SCHOOL your children in YOUR ideals, and keep them out of the governmental indoctrination camps. Children are the sponge whom soak up the globalist agenda, unable to discern the truth and wind up becoming mindless automatons regurgitating facts on demand.
How many schools now have "no touch" policy's? Find me any psychologist that swears a child is better off in their development if they have no physical human contact.
mathiastheok 2 years ago 4
There is no name for this new world govt.
It is NEW, as the Nazis were new, when they hatched out of the soup.
Later, we will either be calling them, the "saviours" (cus we have no choice), or we may call them "nazi commies, new world bullshit" or whatever.
At the moment, they are just the NEW WORLD ORDER Of DEATH, and thats it.
They willproduce NOTHING except death, and slavery across the world, of rht eforseeable future, then troops will become civilian "security".
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago 4
Define dictatorship. If we have a government that protects us, dictatorship is not possible. Read Ayn Rand my friend, or any liberal or socialist will destroy your POLITICAL theories using their "PHILOSOPHY" of compassion. Every political theory needs a philosophical underpinning. Embrace the virtue of working for your survival, that is the essence of "selfishness." PS. Don't let your political opponents define the terms you believe in. Marx is taught as the definer of capitalism currently.
Ekon32 2 years ago 2
Not only is work a virtue, need is the mother of intention. The brilliance of American ingenuity resulted from free people thinking about what they or those around them need. The opportunity for an everyday man to be a 'land owner' had never existed prior to America. No nobility, crown or regency. Pure American!
anyusmoon1 2 years ago 2
All these arguements of the dangers of the private vs the dangers from the public sector all miss the point, which is the need for HONESTY in both. People must be free to buy & sell anything in any quanitity, and pursue their own defintion of happiness, but how can you have economic growth when people are afraid of being sold crap? The government should exist to keep people honest. "Thou shalt not steal"! The Bible gives some of the best economic advice ever given!
chodeshadar18 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEUTSCHE101 2 years ago
I think your argument against rampant privatization especially in relation to the global market is succinct and agreeable.
Fahumsixtysix 2 years ago
Ron Paul is the greatest.
AminCad 2 years ago 2
Please read Alan Greenspan's essay on the gold standard! It's the FED STUPID, not capitalism, that is the problem. We have had a "mixed" system for years, but when the laws favor corporations rather than the people, the people are doomed. Corporations have no soul.
PoliticalPorno 2 years ago
PoliticalPorno
I'm not fan of the Fed either, but the issues that arrive when globalization is married to capitalism would exist w/o the Fed. So many anti-Fed folks tune out when they hear economy speak that doesn't include Fed. Private ownership of necessities (water, power, etc) is dictatorship by unelectable boards of directors. Add globalization to the equation, we have phantom, foreign, unelectable boards of directors controlling our ports, banks, food, etc. The Fed is a separate issue.
proteanview 2 years ago
Paul employed Christian Reconstructionist and Rockwell crony Gary North. Here are some classic Gary North quotes...
"when people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime."
"The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."
"And he the blasphemeth the name of the Lord,he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
-Gary North
Paul also employed Lew Rockwell whos website has links to overt racist Sam Francis.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Lew Rockwell is Ron Paul's friend and former congressional Chief of Staff who is also close friends with homophobe former Paul employee, Gary North. Lew Rockwell's website has links to the overtly racist Sam Francis.
"Hats off to Lew Rockwell and his friends, for doing their best to debase libertarian ideas by associating them so closely with some of the the worst and scariest people ever to scuttle under a rock."
-Libertarian Tom G. Palmer
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a KKK shill. Paul held a fundraiser for Bill Johnson, another one of Paul's White Supremacist friends; who he endorsed for the Los Angeles County Court. It turns out Johnson wanted to have all non whites deported from the US. "Coincidentally," Ron Paul wants to end birthright citizenship, therefore spitting on the Constitution he claims to admire. We all know the easiest way they scan immigrants! It's usually based on skin pigmentation.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
You truely are stupid and know nothing. Enjoy your propaganda life. You don't even know what the birth right is do you? Fucking morons like you should die old cold and alone. He wishes to change the fact that if your ugly ass is born on american soil your american. He does not wish to change the law sawing if your born to 2 American citizens Nationalized or Natural(you should look this up moron). Basicaly foriegners sqwerting kids out on us soul so they can surcomvent the law. Your a LIAR!
Edgrot 2 years ago
Edgrot - You clearly have a lot of hate inside of you. I'm curious. What draws you to Ron Paul. Was it his bigoted newsletters in the mid 90's? Is it the fact he is pro segregation? I'm just curious as to why all the Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, KKK, and White Nationalist groups all support Ron Paul.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Let me adress this clearly because your lost. Yes I have hatred in my heart for morons like you. You argue as a U.S.slave under the constitution of the United States. We stand behind and are Soverign and our document is the constitution for the united States of America. When your stupid ass understand the dif then your allowed to speak to me. One document put you above the government as a Soveign. The other is a treasonist document which makes you a U.S. slave.
Edgrot 2 years ago
You're not for the Constitution. You said yourself you would remove the part of the Constitution which grants us civil rights. Are you one those people who says give me a "N" give me an "A" all the way to Nazi? The Constitution is a flawed document look where it got us. The Constitution was written by white power nuts who wanted to keep their slaves.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Actualy once again wrong. See you reffer to the constitution for the united States of America 1776 as the same document as the constitution of the United States 1871. This is your hole flaw. Everything you apply to the forfathers is a total lie. All those things apply to the Fascist take over in 1860s. Your the perfect mouth peace for the US government. Full of hot air and knows zip about the truth. I bet you still believe old Honist Abe faught a war to free slaves....lol so stupid.
Edgrot 2 years ago
Edgrot - I hate Abe Lincoln. Don't put words in my mouth. He was a statist and industrialist. Paul is closer to Abe than I am.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I whole heartedly agree with the last two sentences of this comment.
TaskforceDingbat 2 years ago
Ron Paul may not be for big government but he's for tyrannical government. He thinks people should be allowed a majority vote on civil rights issues. State laws banning gay marriage/adoptions, abortion, sodomy are all legit according to wacko Ron Paul, as well as state drug laws, and forced secession. He also wants to end birthright citizenship, spitting on the Constitution, and enabling racial profiling on much larger scale. Ron Paul is a tyrannical nut. Don't waste your time supporting him.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
You truely make me laugh. He supports the rights of small local government backed by the Bill of Rights. You twist things so out of wack. Yes he does want to remove the born on american soul makes you american. Thats actualy a good thing not a bad one if you understood naturalization at all and the two parent clause. Your just a complete moron is all. You simply do not understand the constitution and how it works.
Edgrot 2 years ago
Ron Paul's is against Amendment 14: Citizenship Rights
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
Paul favors sodomy laws and tax-exempt homophobic organizations. He also agrees with a state's right to only reward "straights" benefits, and voted to ban gay adoption in DC.
tRonny Paul hates gays.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Yes amendment 14 must go. See the difference is I am a soverign with unalienable rights. Your a 14th amendment us citizen which is a slave. You really should research such things you fucking moron. Stop your lies and bull shit slave. get back in your place.Mad yet? Still all true. The 14th amendment is an abomination. Civil rights are granted and can be taken away. Unalienable right I am born with and you nor gov have power over.
Edgrot 2 years ago
What don't you like about amendment fourteen? Because it prevents the process which leads to mass genocide? Exclude, Enslave, Exterminate. You Paultards are fascists at best. States are government monopolies of land and and can be classified at statism and terrorism at best. Do you worship Hitler in your little Paul cult?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I also think you confuse things. Stateisim is NOT Fascism. Your clearly spewing prapaganda. Free speech is for everyone both lover and racist alike. If you allow gov to tell them to shut up you give them the authority to tell you to shut up. Man you sure are seriously lost. Like the idea where a man Dr paul, Whom backs a statement All men are created equal. Yup that sounds racist doesn't it.Problem with people like you is all men only applies to idiology you aprove of.Yeah your a freedom fighter
Edgrot 2 years ago
I never said give the government authority to shut up racists. Where do you get that from? Are you feeble-minded? I said don't give racists the right to take away civil rights of minorities. You seriously believe in such fascism? Your grammar is awful and nothing you write makes sense.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Well if they have the majority then they can take those civil rights away. Once again I point out. If your a U.S. and follow democracy then majority rules and thats that. If your a Soverign and not a US citezen then they can't take shit from you. I hate fascism and maybe you need to relearn what that word means. Fascism has zero to do with racisim. Fascism is corp control government. example Hitler/Obama. Nazi = National Socializim. Man you have so much to learn.
Edgrot 2 years ago
Majority doesn't rule when the LAW is that you cannot TAKE AWAY civil rights. Anyone who believes in liberty agrees with me. The libertarian view is you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you are not harming anyone else. I never said fascism has to do with racism. Where did I say that you delusional nut? Obama is not a National Socialist. The NSM is a far right movement which actually endorses Ron Paul overwhelmingly. Hitler was a Laissez-Faire plutocratic social darwinist.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Hitler was whatever he felt he needed to say to gain support for his ultimate goals. Hitler was not a socialist/atheist/communist/plutocrat/Darwinist etc. etc. He was a sociopath, and a psychopath. To say he was anything he claimed to be would be like taking Charles Manson at his word. The insane are never firmly grounded in anything, so they are hardly representative.
TaskforceDingbat 2 years ago 3
Also I can't stop there god your so stupid. Did you know in the first two drafts of the real constitution the slaves where freed. Yet in the final draft it was remove. Why? Well if you research The Moore Princes all BLACK from AFRICA refused and forced it to be removed or they wouldn't give their gold wealth to America to fight the british. Thats right AFRICAN kings and princess force slavery to continue. Go research it I dare you.Also the first 17 slave freeing documents all came from the south
Edgrot 2 years ago
So yeah I am done talking to someone like you till you actualy get off your ass go to the libary of congress as I have done and learned truth for yourself. You can find it in books if you keep digging. Until then you will never see the light. As stated before I am a Soverign citezen of a State your a U.S. citizen. I have constitutional power you have what ever the US says you can have. All your blustering proves you know nothing about the two documents or real history. SLAVE!
Edgrot 2 years ago