You've ruled out the possibility of people simply donating to the government for its services (courts, police/military, and maybe a few other things) because they want to.
@kaleidyscope86 I haven't ruled that out. But what happens when different people donate to different governments? Then it ceases to be government and just becomes businesses offering services on the market.
@XOmniverse It's my understanding that a government has a monopoly on its functions within X territory. You can think of a government as just another type of business I guess. But defined the traditional way, I don't see how voluntarily financed government is a contradiction in terms.
@XOmniverse It would be monopolistic if a non-state defense agency (that wants to enforce different rules than the state) were eliminated, which can coexist with no taxes. This doesn't mean there's "no competition" because cops and judges would compete with each other in a free society for donations. But if we allow people to compete over which rules are enforced through force instead of voting, we're effectively saying it doesn't matter which rules are enforced because we're not enforcing them.
@CentristRevolution No. If they are going to force me to pay for "government insurance" via taxes, I'm going to collect. I'd prefer to opt out, though.
I don't think you've explained much. I imagine watching this as an old woman who's life-saving prescription drugs are provided by some government program, and feeling that all of the evidence I have stacks up against you pretty firmly.
of course, if the government whithered away, that doesn't make whatever were to occur in it's absence necesarily better. the whole slave morality it's based on can very well survive it. that's what disgusts me more than anything. the idea that "we're all in this together", everyone having an inherent obligation to serve everybody else. isn't that pretty? a community of interdependent slaves. no beauty, no creativity, no drive, no dynamism.
The Government is often a problem of its own rather than a solution to other problems. But it applies to entities like XOmniverse or danielsondanielson too. The ultimate purpose of my existence is not to help you - and there is probably no ultimate purpose anyway. But the activities of the Government have their winners and losers alike; and as to the coercion, it existed also before the State - you can't get rid of coercion, you can only make it more or less bearable by its governmental form.
@shlockofgod I see the coercion imposed by the State as only one form of coercion that you can find among people. Other examples include the solely interpersonal coercion , or the family, clan or tribal coercions. Any form of coercion can be more or less brutal, direct, sofisticated or ideologically justified, and many coercive methods can be applied. About the state coercion I believe that it comes in more varieties than any other one - from the most brutal to the most cultivated.
@danielsondanielson "About the state coercion I believe that it comes in more varieties than any other one - from the most brutal to the most cultivated."
Sorry, you've lost me again; what is "cultivated" coercion?
@shlockofgod The State not only kills, tortures, incarcerates etc. For the money of taxpayers, it also e.g. runs anti-smoking campaigns, or offers incentives to municipalities that want to upgrade systems of domestic waste recycling. Of course, also such activities in the areas of health, environment (and education, social care and many others) are coercive - not only for the way they get funded - they also entail nudging people to do what the government consideres right for them.
Its' mutual to how the "leadership" is in the dorm I have to be in. Its' just a potemkin village that masquerades as superficially charming to breeze by polar viewing.
It's worth mentioning that government "help" is always a zero-sum game - the state can only help you to the extent that it has equally harmed someone else. This compares to voluntary help, which is usually win-win - a businessman giving a long-term unemployed person a job, for example, benefits both parties.
@ingyinginging Hell, it's worse than that. Government help is a negative-sum game.
If the government takes $100 from one person to give it to another, it's not gonna be $100 by the time it gets to where it's going. It'll probably be more like... $50... or less.
The government has to get its 'fair cut', after all.
@HorrorHiro Personally I think it should be obvious from his point he did on this video. Even some minarchists could agree. Personally I learned a lot from XO.
Sorry; while I agree with your point about personal responsibility, other aspects of this video just annoy the crap out of me.
Government is supposed to be the primary force actor. This provides stability. And anyway, isn't "property" just that which, in a volunteerist society, you are authorized to use force to protect? Kettle, pot.
But suppose you need $100k of emergency medical care. Why should anyone provide that care before you pay for it, especially if you just might die anyway?
@jagmarz The key difference between someone using force to defend their property and the state using force to extract funds is that the state initiate force against peaceful people, the person defending his/her property is merely responding to force used against him.
@crazypants88 "the person defending his/her property is merely responding to force used against him."
That's way too simple. You're using words like "his", which assume that there is some legitimate reality behind the ideas of ownership swirling around in the consciousness of that person. If other people disagree with this, then you might just as well say that it is the assertion of ownership that is the initiating factor.
@Gnomefro There is legitimate reality behind the ideas, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Other people are free to disagree with it. They are also free to try justify this disagreement and fail.
@crazypants88 The reality is that ownership is also a reality that is enforced by a government. In that case, it's threats of violence against those who have little in that system, but who in a free world would be able to assert themselves, fence an area near them, and protect it with their guns - In a state of free competition with others. Because of this, it's clear that both taxes and things like private property are simply subjective values.
@crazypants88 Most people prefer to have private property enforced to some degree by the collective, and they also happen to prefer to have what everyone cares most about, their own health, covered by collective insurance. If you think about it, this is not strange. Imagine for a second that I could pay for being cured of cancer, but right now, my only mechanism for accomplishing this before I die, is to shoot you in the head and take your stuff.
@crazypants88 There simply is no reason why I shouldn't do this. Respecting other people's right to property, or even life, has no value to me in that situation. However, we can avoid me having to make that choice entirely through public insurance. You'll note that this also requires that we not make it an option to opt out. If that was allowed, people could still end up in the situation where they are driven to antisocial behavior by desperation.
@Gnomefro *shrugs* then be beaten down like an animal. You cannot evoke rights of self-defence if you initiate force against others, on pain of self-contradiction if you do so. As for "public insurance" that is foisted upon the populace, this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of and does not deserve the name "Insurance".
@Gnomefro "There simply is no reason why I shouldn't do this. Respecting other people's right to property, or even life, has no value to me in that situation."
@Gnomefro Where was the justificatory element in this "argument" other than "some people think public healthcare benefits them and they will plunder others to finance it"? Opinion polls are not justifications.
@jagmarz You're permitted to use force to protect yourself too. Key word: protect. Not initiate.
"But suppose you need $100k of emergency medical care. Why should anyone provide that care before you pay for it, especially if you just might die anyway?"
Up to them to determine. Just because you wouldn't does not mean others would not.
@jagmarz Using force to protect your property is defending against an aggressor. The government using force with taxation is using force against those med no one.
As for the medical care, you're assuming that without government all people will suddenly become sociopathic. There would be charity hospitals. Many would donate toward that without government force.
Gov't = Stability? If that were true, then civil war would not exist.
Gov't = initiation of force. Property does not. If others initiate force, then force has been initiated and defense is then ok. It's the initiation of force that is immoral and wrong.
For med costs: I could get a loan or buy insurance. There are lots of reasons someone would pay for it. A homeless dude with bad credit? How do his bad choices justify theft? Why do you think charities would fail?
I believe that, as a human, you should be more than willing to help anyone that can't provide help to themselves. We are just one large community. Our community's health is an over all refection of us in many ways.
He lives! Great to see you back on. Good video
KeepGoing11235 1 month ago
He looks a little like Leon Trosky :) haha
Hopefully he doesn't have troskys political goals and convictions.
turbofritz2 2 months ago
You've ruled out the possibility of people simply donating to the government for its services (courts, police/military, and maybe a few other things) because they want to.
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
@kaleidyscope86 I haven't ruled that out. But what happens when different people donate to different governments? Then it ceases to be government and just becomes businesses offering services on the market.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse It's my understanding that a government has a monopoly on its functions within X territory. You can think of a government as just another type of business I guess. But defined the traditional way, I don't see how voluntarily financed government is a contradiction in terms.
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
@kaleidyscope86 I'm not saying its a contradiction. I'm saying there's nothing to keep it monopolistic.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse How so? If those in X society want to maintain the state as is, what prevents it from being maintained as such?
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
@kaleidyscope86 You mean if everyone unanimously wanted the same service provider for defense, arbitration, etc? Seems unlikely.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse It would be monopolistic if a non-state defense agency (that wants to enforce different rules than the state) were eliminated, which can coexist with no taxes. This doesn't mean there's "no competition" because cops and judges would compete with each other in a free society for donations. But if we allow people to compete over which rules are enforced through force instead of voting, we're effectively saying it doesn't matter which rules are enforced because we're not enforcing them.
kaleidyscope86 2 months ago
The best video I've seen you put out in quite a while. Kudos :)
narkfly 2 months ago
so if you did require a fortune in medical care, would you decline gov help out of principle?
CentristRevolution 2 months ago
@CentristRevolution No. If they are going to force me to pay for "government insurance" via taxes, I'm going to collect. I'd prefer to opt out, though.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
I don't think you've explained much. I imagine watching this as an old woman who's life-saving prescription drugs are provided by some government program, and feeling that all of the evidence I have stacks up against you pretty firmly.
tehknologik 2 months ago
@tehknologik I don't know that anything would convince such a person that, in a free market, she'd likely be able to afford healthcare.
Morbid as it sounds, though, the future doesn't lie with the elderly anyway.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
Comment removed
kalacomb 2 months ago
of course, if the government whithered away, that doesn't make whatever were to occur in it's absence necesarily better. the whole slave morality it's based on can very well survive it. that's what disgusts me more than anything. the idea that "we're all in this together", everyone having an inherent obligation to serve everybody else. isn't that pretty? a community of interdependent slaves. no beauty, no creativity, no drive, no dynamism.
fede2 2 months ago
The Government is often a problem of its own rather than a solution to other problems. But it applies to entities like XOmniverse or danielsondanielson too. The ultimate purpose of my existence is not to help you - and there is probably no ultimate purpose anyway. But the activities of the Government have their winners and losers alike; and as to the coercion, it existed also before the State - you can't get rid of coercion, you can only make it more or less bearable by its governmental form.
danielsondanielson 2 months ago
@danielsondanielson "...you can't get rid of coercion, you can only make it more or less bearable by its governmental form."
Could you explain what you mean by that? What does making coercion "...more or less bearable by its governmental form" entail?
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod I see the coercion imposed by the State as only one form of coercion that you can find among people. Other examples include the solely interpersonal coercion , or the family, clan or tribal coercions. Any form of coercion can be more or less brutal, direct, sofisticated or ideologically justified, and many coercive methods can be applied. About the state coercion I believe that it comes in more varieties than any other one - from the most brutal to the most cultivated.
danielsondanielson 2 months ago
@danielsondanielson "About the state coercion I believe that it comes in more varieties than any other one - from the most brutal to the most cultivated."
Sorry, you've lost me again; what is "cultivated" coercion?
Can you give an unambiguous example?
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod The State not only kills, tortures, incarcerates etc. For the money of taxpayers, it also e.g. runs anti-smoking campaigns, or offers incentives to municipalities that want to upgrade systems of domestic waste recycling. Of course, also such activities in the areas of health, environment (and education, social care and many others) are coercive - not only for the way they get funded - they also entail nudging people to do what the government consideres right for them.
danielsondanielson 2 months ago
I'm trying to concentrate on your message, but all these snowflakes keep getting in the way
empemitheos 2 months ago
Huckabay, run for president, Huckabay 08', oh wait...
empemitheos 2 months ago
agreed with your views on the altruistic factor of "help".
Swampymcswamp 2 months ago
Its' mutual to how the "leadership" is in the dorm I have to be in. Its' just a potemkin village that masquerades as superficially charming to breeze by polar viewing.
Swampymcswamp 2 months ago
Good video!
crazypants88 2 months ago
It's worth mentioning that government "help" is always a zero-sum game - the state can only help you to the extent that it has equally harmed someone else. This compares to voluntary help, which is usually win-win - a businessman giving a long-term unemployed person a job, for example, benefits both parties.
ingyinginging 2 months ago
@ingyinginging Hell, it's worse than that. Government help is a negative-sum game.
If the government takes $100 from one person to give it to another, it's not gonna be $100 by the time it gets to where it's going. It'll probably be more like... $50... or less.
The government has to get its 'fair cut', after all.
moshe88 2 months ago 5
Are you by any chance an Anarchist?
HorrorHiro 2 months ago
@HorrorHiro yes, he is. Aren't most of his viewers are?
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
@MaikUniversum Well I'm an Anarchist, I just didn't know if he was.
HorrorHiro 2 months ago
@HorrorHiro Personally I think it should be obvious from his point he did on this video. Even some minarchists could agree. Personally I learned a lot from XO.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
Sorry; while I agree with your point about personal responsibility, other aspects of this video just annoy the crap out of me.
Government is supposed to be the primary force actor. This provides stability. And anyway, isn't "property" just that which, in a volunteerist society, you are authorized to use force to protect? Kettle, pot.
But suppose you need $100k of emergency medical care. Why should anyone provide that care before you pay for it, especially if you just might die anyway?
jagmarz 2 months ago
@jagmarz "other aspects of this video just annoy the crap out of me."
Your feelings of annoyance are not my concern.
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse You avoided his point, is that because he's right or because you aren't capable of providing an adequate rebuttal?
phatfieldguitar 2 months ago
@phatfieldguitar False dichotomy.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth Meant to be a question mark after 'right', supposed to be a list rather then separate ideas.
phatfieldguitar 2 months ago
@phatfieldguitar My point still stands though
phatfieldguitar 2 months ago
@phatfieldguitar His argument was addressed by others, anyway. It is so mundane and common I do not see why XO would be unable to answer it.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@Moragauth I could easily answer it. I just reserve such discussions for people who aren't asshats :)
XOmniverse 2 months ago
@XOmniverse He even repeats the same tired, refuted to death canards socialists so enjoy.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@jagmarz The key difference between someone using force to defend their property and the state using force to extract funds is that the state initiate force against peaceful people, the person defending his/her property is merely responding to force used against him.
crazypants88 2 months ago 9
@crazypants88 "the person defending his/her property is merely responding to force used against him."
That's way too simple. You're using words like "his", which assume that there is some legitimate reality behind the ideas of ownership swirling around in the consciousness of that person. If other people disagree with this, then you might just as well say that it is the assertion of ownership that is the initiating factor.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro There is legitimate reality behind the ideas, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Other people are free to disagree with it. They are also free to try justify this disagreement and fail.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@crazypants88 The reality is that ownership is also a reality that is enforced by a government. In that case, it's threats of violence against those who have little in that system, but who in a free world would be able to assert themselves, fence an area near them, and protect it with their guns - In a state of free competition with others. Because of this, it's clear that both taxes and things like private property are simply subjective values.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro All rights are currently enforced by the government. The other statement does not even follow.
"Because of this, it's clear that both taxes and things like private property are simply subjective values. "
Nope. They are particular methods of acquiring resources and particular resource designations.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@crazypants88 Most people prefer to have private property enforced to some degree by the collective, and they also happen to prefer to have what everyone cares most about, their own health, covered by collective insurance. If you think about it, this is not strange. Imagine for a second that I could pay for being cured of cancer, but right now, my only mechanism for accomplishing this before I die, is to shoot you in the head and take your stuff.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro Read: most people prefer to engage in theft but don't like being stolen from. /care
Theft writ large is still not justified.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@crazypants88 There simply is no reason why I shouldn't do this. Respecting other people's right to property, or even life, has no value to me in that situation. However, we can avoid me having to make that choice entirely through public insurance. You'll note that this also requires that we not make it an option to opt out. If that was allowed, people could still end up in the situation where they are driven to antisocial behavior by desperation.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro *shrugs* then be beaten down like an animal. You cannot evoke rights of self-defence if you initiate force against others, on pain of self-contradiction if you do so. As for "public insurance" that is foisted upon the populace, this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of and does not deserve the name "Insurance".
Moragauth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gnomefro "There simply is no reason why I shouldn't do this. Respecting other people's right to property, or even life, has no value to me in that situation."
It would be murder. Wtf is wrong with you?
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@crazypants88 Not that this is the only argument for public healthcare or anything.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro Where was the justificatory element in this "argument" other than "some people think public healthcare benefits them and they will plunder others to finance it"? Opinion polls are not justifications.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@jagmarz You're permitted to use force to protect yourself too. Key word: protect. Not initiate.
"But suppose you need $100k of emergency medical care. Why should anyone provide that care before you pay for it, especially if you just might die anyway?"
Up to them to determine. Just because you wouldn't does not mean others would not.
Moragauth 2 months ago
@jagmarz Using force to protect your property is defending against an aggressor. The government using force with taxation is using force against those med no one.
As for the medical care, you're assuming that without government all people will suddenly become sociopathic. There would be charity hospitals. Many would donate toward that without government force.
UnschoolingEagle 2 months ago
@UnschoolingEagle ***taxation is using force against those who harmed no one***
UnschoolingEagle 2 months ago
@jagmarz I'll try to answer:
Gov't = Stability? If that were true, then civil war would not exist.
Gov't = initiation of force. Property does not. If others initiate force, then force has been initiated and defense is then ok. It's the initiation of force that is immoral and wrong.
For med costs: I could get a loan or buy insurance. There are lots of reasons someone would pay for it. A homeless dude with bad credit? How do his bad choices justify theft? Why do you think charities would fail?
CaptainLazerus 2 months ago
@jagmarz
I believe that, as a human, you should be more than willing to help anyone that can't provide help to themselves. We are just one large community. Our community's health is an over all refection of us in many ways.
linny177 2 months ago