If North Americans eliminated all forms of gov't and lived as ideal anarchists how would we deal with other people groups who formed powerful states that were hostile toward us? This is not a loaded question, just simple curiosity.
@superjam18 You would be correct, though you might as well take it to its extent which is anarchists believe in no government, opting for voluntary association. There are different kinds of anarchist, though I think the most popular is anarcho-capitalist. The other big kind is anarcho-communist, which assumes that in an anarchic society there will be no such thing as property ownership and it will be a voluntary communist utopia. IMO, it fails for the same economic reasons as communism.
I have to go, but in a nutshell I both disagree with you that Tax is theft and that Tax is not theft, the same way I cant agree with an argument that car is best vs boat is best (as if it either were right on their own regardless of the situation; ex: lake vs road)
Lets say you want to buy a home, theres no world gov or trans-continental gov, you have 3 cities right next to each other, Town A has 0% tax, Town B has 10% with bah services, Town C has 40% taxes and you get UHC Education 4 day work week low crime etc. If you have the option to choose among these or others with no taxes of various %, and you choose a town with 10% tax, is this "really" the same as gun point theft? If you are forced at gunpoint to buy a house in town B I would get your point...
Misleading generalization imo, it depends whats the situation and what you really get instead of PS, this argument has swindled many people that found out the hard way privatizing a public service CAN in fact be worst. We can tell them its not fair because its not really a "free" market and that ideally there's not supposed to be collusion, profiteering, non-disclosure or conflicts of interest, but they still need to pay the bill while the owners laugh with huge profits.
you da man.. people with brains on their head can totally agree with you.. and the extreme left will put their whole family, wealth and anything else into the hands of this demonic government,. you are a good breath of fresh air. don't forgot what you stand for. what we stand for,. fuck social standards and social popularity and status quo.. put the government lapdogs in their place.
you da man.. people with brains on their head can totally agree with you.. and the extreme left will put their whole family, wealth and anything else into the hands of this demonic government,. you are a good breath of fresh air. don't forgot what you stand for. what we stand for,. fuck social standards and social populairty and status quo.. put the government lapdogs in their place.
So you want a volunteer society for libraries, fire department, cops, road maintainence, etc.?
.
If all roads are privately owned, there's the possibility that the owner could keep you from traveling to your destination for whatever he reason he wanted to? How would go about resolving that? When if multiple people didn't like u cause your black and prevent you travelling just about anywhere because they own the roads?
1) Markets have empirically outperformed states at providing services repeatedly throughout history. You don't need a state to provide what have typically been "public services."
2) The fact that you resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of real arguments merely shows that you're losing the argument.
3) Somalia isn't anarchist and never claimed to be; at best its an example of decentralized statism with some free market activity.
@LaughingMan0X LMAO too bad the quality of life in Somalia can't even come close to socialist nations like Norway/ Sweden. But offcourse, continue living in your capitalist bubble.
No one was claiming that quality of life in Somalia was ever higher than in Scandinavian countries, I was claiming (and this is matter of factly true) that qualify of life in Somalia under a comparatively more free market was far better by both absolute and relative standards than it ever was under absolute statism.
(All of this development inspite of the fact that insane Muslim extremists are current trying to take over the country, as is the UN)
High taxes, welfare statism, and public works projects (i.e. traditional state socialism) are negatively added to the ranking (they decrease the overall level of economic freedom of a country according to the index). Scandinavian countries tend to make up for the difference by having high levels of other kinds of economic freedom (such as free of trade, financial freedom, property rights, etc)
So no, I'm not proving your point; they're free in-spite of those things not because of them
@LaughingMan0X also the organziation is really biased. " The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense" For example, they take points off for workers rights or minimum wages. Bunch of BS.
First you claim I'm proving your point by pointing to an index that shows how free several Scandinavian countries are, now you're claiming I'm wrong because my source is wrong (BS in your words). Necessarily you can't have it both ways; contradict yourself much?
Furthermore, claiming a something is wrong because of its origin is a classic example of the genetic fallacy; better luck next time with logic 101.
3.5)Also, since Somalia became comparatively more free market its GDP, General Health, & Standard of living has increased more than it ever did under the centralized authoritarian statism; measured by both absolute and relative standards. Prior to the civil war Somalia had one monopoly national airline that couldn't state competitive, ran at a loss, and eventually wen bankrupt when the collapse occurred; now it has over 14 private airline with the most competitive prices in Africa
When it was comparatively more statist, Somalia had 1 monopoly telecommunications provider with waiting lists up to 10 years long, poor and limited service generally only available to the upper echelons of society or state bureaucrats. Now now private competitive telecommunications firms in Somalia provides some of the highest quality telecommunications in Africa, with the lowest costs and wait times on the continent.
Capitalism and the state are one in the same. The state is the biggest capitalist landlord of them all and taxation is the biggest rent. Abolish both.
@juliaisafilmbuff123, an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined through the free market or matrix of voluntary exchanges amongst individuals regarding the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services.
The key aspect to all this is voluntarism. No regulations, controls, or coercion of any kind. I reject the notion that the State actually owns anything.
You make her point for her. There are roads, and if you use them, then you should pay for their usage. You are free not to.
There are job payment systems that are designed and protected by the government. If you use them, then you should pay for their usage. You are free not.
There is nothing keeping you from living in the woods without owning any property. You are free to do so. If you did so, you would not be taxed.
If you're using a service the government has provided, prepare to pay.
1) Neither I nor you have a choice in what roads are built/paid-for or aren't; the state has a artificial monopoly on roads (and uses the threat of violence, death, and kidnapping to maintain this monopoly). I have no problem voluntarily paying for roads; I have a problem with being extorted to pay roads
2) Not sure what you're referring to: public workers, price floors, price ceilings, social security? In any case, the burden of proof is on you why I "should" have to pay for them
3) There is alot keeping me from living in the woods (aside from the fact that I don't see why I should have to do that in the first place). Most "woods" as you call them are owned by the state (an absentee owner). Thus, the state under threat of violence and theft (fines), prevents me from developing land in the "woods" or forming my own voluntary society there. Plus the fruits of my labor would still be "taxed" as I'd still technically be within what the US calls it's "territory"
@essencestar exactly, if were using a service that the government pays for using money it stole from us... then we should be prepared to pay... for the service, that the government pays for with money it stole from us.. in order to... facepalm
@Ilikenuman If you're using a service that the government pays for using money you paid it, that's the same as using a service that Dunkin' Donuts pays for using the money you paid it. There is no "stole" involved.
If you don't use the donuts, you don't have to pay for them. If you don't use the government, you don't have to pay for it. If you use the donuts, you have to pay for them. If you use the government, you have to pay for it.
ummmm no because i never agreed to pay money to the government, the government just takes it and spends it. but i DID agree to pay the dunkin donut guys.
If your argument now is "if you dont wanna pay the government, fuck off then" then where am i supposed to go? everywhere other than the north pole and the ocean is claimed by a government.
@Ilikenuman You're working inside the government's system, and they're collecting money from you.
There's plenty of people living in communes that don't pay any taxes at all, nor do they work within the government's system. Again, let me make that REAL clear: They DO NOT pay taxes. They don't have to. They don't want to. They don't use the government's monetary system, and they aren't involved in it.
There's also reservations all over with the same deal. Taxes are optional.
@Ilikenuman FYI your Fat Daddy agreed for you when he REPORTED your birth in not so merry old England. He sold your dumb nasty arse as a wage slave to the UK on the day you were born his natural born son. You really should ask that old pervert why once he quits checking out the teenage porn in ED EH Qwen Baby?
@Ilikenuman However Qwen Baby you should not deny my family and I the right to HATE you and your Fat Daddy becuase of what he allowed you to published about our family and friends on your channel. He does pay for your Internet access and keeps you warm fed and dry while you torture the world as a very nasty ANONYMOUS troll CORRECT Sgt Moe?
@Ilikenuman YOU are the TROLL not I. You opted to attack m family and I am fighting back.. However being part of ANONYMOUS is like being an anarchist it ain't an organized club with a leader and executive. However like your zionist butt buddy Mr Baconfat loves to quote "By their fruits ye shall know them" You are an admitted Troll who is anonymous and you do attack innocent people for your shits and giggles thus you are by definition part of the ANONYMOUS crowd of nasty perverts EH Qwen Baby?
nope, anarchism is a political philosophy, whereas anonymous is a specific organisation. you clearly know nothing about either of them.
and i never attacked your family but to be quite honest i really dont give a shit what baconfat says anymore, i let him do what he wants. if i deleted the comments youd accuse me of backtracking, and if i didnt delete them youd accue me of allowing harassment of your kids, so i cant win eitherway.
@Ilikenuman Qwen Baby however when I was running in the election of the 38th Parliament I approached a bunch of fainthearted chickenshit anarchists like you in Fat Fred City They talk the talk just like you but fail to walk the walk like all of you do. The ones who raised hell in Toronto are a fine example of chickenshit anarchists they covered their faces because they were afraid of being identified They knew what they did was wrong If they were ethical they would act with a name and a face
@Ilikenuman Just because you had a falling out with your Canadian zionist hero baconfat53 blogspot com and some of your Trollish your butt buddies such as the RedFistofEurope it does not follow that you are not one very sick little ANONYMOUS Troll who supported the Death threats against against my family and even participated in the sexual harassment of them as well. No matter what you convince your 13 year old fanboyz such as austin Baby everybody can see that the Trolls FAILED in their game
1. "Just because you had a falling out with your Canadian zionist hero baconfat53 blogspot com " Havent fallen out with him, we just dont talk anymore because youre blocked from my channel ^^
2. "and some of your Trollish your butt buddies such as the RedFistofEurope" still friends with him lol.
3. now youre actually accusing me of taking part in the harassment myself? well id love to see some evidence for that, Anus.
Keep at it Dave, perhaps the queen will help you <3
@Ilikenuman Anyone can review what is left of the comments in your channel that you have not deleted or search out many other videos where you opted to publish your obvious criminal malic. As you well know I saved everything and sent to the RCMP as the shit went down I told you Trollss out of the gate back in March that I am using the proof of the RCMP's support your malice as evidence in a lawsuit against the CROWN Even your Fat Daddy should understand that the QUEEN is my opponent EH PERVERT?
Voluntarism? It sounds like you're talking about privatizing everything, which would lead to the same result as our current government. Instead of paying taxes to the Gov., you'll be paying taxes to whichever corporation owns the roads, the schools, and the fire department. All you've discovered is another way to get to the same place. Maybe you should come up with something that works before you start criticizing the current system.
All hitherto instances of privatization are when a state monopoly is given/sold to a corporation. That's about as voluntary as a syndicate stealing your car, and selling it to the mafia.
These legal fictions you refer to as "corporations" are explicitly state-created legal persons (which obfuscates accountability) who are granted artificial limited liability that could never exist on a genuinely free market.
I support decentralized firms emerging in response to consumer demand (something the state has little incentive to do, as it doesn't have to rely on price signals, but its own self-serving & arbitrary decision-making). I support the freedom to choose what firms provide people with goods and services, & the freedom to disassociate from firms as well
When it comes to the state monopolies, one has no choice but to pay for them, and one cannot opt for a better alternative service
@LaughingMan0X I'm not sure I always could opt for an alternative service. There's only one road in front of my home. If the roads suddenly become privately owned, I can't find a better alternative road provider if I decide I don't like the price or terms to use it. Again, I'd be in the same situation as I am now. Paying taxes and following laws I don't actually consent to.
You're making a number of bad assumptions here: 1) you assume that there couldn't be public roads/utilities without a state, 2) you seem to be equating taxation with things you would rather not pay for.
A) If there it a demand for public services (which there certainly is), and if that price is below the equilibrium, a shortage will emerge, and the price for public goods will rise, sending price signals to decentralized firms to invest in being able to provide that service.
@LaughingMan0X Whether the road in front of my house is public or private is irrelevant. Use of the road is a necessity, and if I want to use it, I'll have to pay for it. If I don't want to pay whoever owns, for whatever reason, I can't go get another road from someone else. This means I have no choice but to pay to use it. If I'm still being subjected to taxes and regulations I don't consent to, then how is voluntarism an improvement?
B) Taxation by definition is when a group of persons with a monopoly on violence over a territorial area, uses (and backs up) the threat of theft (property seizure), violence, death (if you resist), and kidnapping (prison) to extort the fruits of your labor from you without your consent
You cannot opt out of the relationship with the state who collects taxes. When it comes to a firm on a free market, you can opt out of a business relationship without retaliation.
@LaughingMan0X A definition that is a matter of fact, even though you can't point to a single dictionary that contains it.
When I said tax, I really just meant a charge to use something. I suppose it implies a periodic fee as opposed to a one time fee, but I can't see why it couldn't be either. I'm also still not convinced that voluntarism is offering any solutions that would work in reality.
@LaughingMan0X i really dont know how you can stomach arguing this over again and again. In the words of InTheEndIWasRight: "Gawd help you with these "people". Im about done here with the free-dumb."
I support a standard for property norms (concerning land) based on use and occupancy; i.e. if you use the road you get a share of ownership of it/access to it.
@LaughingMan0X That's great, but if I don't want people to own my road just because they use it, will your view be forced upon me under this "voluntary" society?
Property norms aren't "voluntary" without qualification, what determines them is ultimately whatever the prevailing inter-subjective consensus happens to be. A given action that is "voluntary" when it comes to property is context-specific (i.e. contingent upon the specific system or set of property norms in question).
@LaughingMan0X When you say things like prevailing consensus, it sounds like you're talking about majority rule. Also, you said you support a standard for property norms based on use and occupancy. Perhaps this would be a solution, but it wouldn't even be worth considering if it was not the consensus.
Its practically a tautology to say that those with the most power in a society will determine how that society formally functions; might makes reality. In most cases (exceptions: British vs. Zulu, etc) those with the most power are a majority, who exercise control themselves, or permit by their action or inaction a minority to rule; the effect is the same. The end result can range from freedom to authoritarianism. I'm not making a value claim here I'm saying this is how things are
Also, to say that a series of newly proposed property norms "wouldn't be worth considering" because they're inconsistent with the current consensus assumes that society and its property norms are static (which is false). They're not. Societies and property norms change all the time: slavery, abolishment of slavery, homesteading, easements, corporations, eminent domain, adverse possession, are all examples of property norms that changed at one time or another.
@LaughingMan0X Now you're talking about common law, which is essentially judge made law. Who made the decision to change those property norms? Easements, eminent domain, adverse possession... It was a judge in a court room. If I decide I don't consent to the authority of the "Great Decider" when he says society's standards for property norms have changed, will I be coerced? Or will I be free to function in society with my own special set of property norms?
LaughingMan0X this was a producer destroying a looter. Thanks for your words because they give me hope. Fact is that at least half of America is being LOOTED by the other half - that is half are paying taxes and the other half are not paying any taxes. HOW IS THIS NOT THEFT?
teaching people what is ant what is not, followed by a bark of sorts, this will get the politicians in line. but approx 60% of the population needs to be in the now, and about 8% need to bark. that takes some effort. it would make em poop. ... by "bark" i mean protest in one way or another, but in a way that turns heads non-violently, don't want too much whiplash. a protest of art variety, performance, paint, music, poets, etc
"It's not a case of the state dictating anything" - so the government doesn't decide how much to tax you? Thats what it sounds like you're trying to say. Which is really stupid btw.
dont we in essence consent to pay taxes by the fact that we do in fact pay them? yes, we consent due to threat of the use of force (which im not saying is legitimate or should exist), but isnt it still consent (that is, agreement to pay)?
"On a point of accuracy, it's not possible to copyright an "idea" per-se. You need to have a bit more than that." - First comes the idea, then the good, service, or product, then the copyright. The copyright does not protect the physical thing itself, but the IDEA that brought it into existence.
Right - but you need to have a good or service or product as well. Otherwise I could simply take out a copyright on, say "synthetic gasoline" and then litigate against any future inventors of synthetic gasoline on the basis that I thought of it first.
Bill, I may agree with a tiny little bit of the arguments you use against the anarchists, but It's clear to me that you're a collectivist, and not as smart as Larken, or LaughingMan, your use of curse words and slander in responses makes it clear you're in over your head with these people. I'd get out while you still have a little of your ego left intact.
So because you've labeled me as a "collectivist" I'm now supposed to behave in the way that you've defined?
I'll argue that I'm demonstrably smarter than both Larken and "John", but that's just my opinion :)
Curse words? Slander? please cite where I've resorted to any ad-hominem attacks other than teasing "John" about his age.
My ego is a lot more robust than you think. I'll stay for as long as it takes to show Libertarianism as the misguided cult that it is. Sorry if it irritates you.
It's pretty easy to label you as a collectivist, seeings how you have a hammer and sickle as your profile picture. Hows the collectivist utopia of the Soviet Union working out?
"seeings how you have a hammer and sickle as your profile picture"
If that makes him a communist, it would be the first one I've seen openly support IPR.
" then you've taken away the right of use and disposal of your own property. "
Property is physical; it is made to deal with scarcity of resources. I cannot be in the same place you are, but, we can both recall the pythagorean theorem at the same time. In the market, property has cost because of scarcity ...
Ideas are not in scarcity, therefore, if they were 'legitimate' (for the lack of a better word), property, they would have no cost at all, like rocks. It is pointless to try to lump IPR and property rights together, for the reasons stated above and the fact IPR requires one person deciding for another what that other can and cannot do with their own property.
IPR don't apply to ideas. You can't patent or copyright an idea. A creative piece of work such as music or video is unique. That's about as scarce as you can get.
The person who creates it also owns it and has the right to prevent others using it without consent.
Lets say I have an idea for a new device that i'm going to invent i've spent 20 years of my life working on this idea but I don't have the start up capital to create this thing. So I go to a bank show them my idea and ask for a loan the bank says no we wont give you the money then they take my idea and develop the "Thing" themself and sell it. That is why we need copyrights and patents. The process of shaping reality to fit some need, needs to be protected, or else you don't have property.
If you've spent 20 years of your life than I'd hope you have a bit more than just an idea. A plan, a blueprint, a process, a prototype - all of those things can be copyright and patented. NOT ideas.
Don't believe me? Try taking out a patent on an idea that exists nowhere except inside your noggin.
ok, for sake of argument, i have a blueprint that i bring to the bank, and they take a picture of the blueprint, so they didn't steal my property (the blueprint) they just took a picture of it and then developed it. Still didn't take my physical property, but the idea is the same.
so you don't believe in IPR either. Took you long enough to say so. Why are you arguing with the anarchists then? You both are marxists when it comes to property.
Oh for heaven's sake - why don't you actually READ my posts before making your assumptions?
I fully support the concept of Intellectual Property Rights as they are presently defined. Your misinformed idea of the copyright or patenting simply of IDEAS is not the law, nor has it ever been the law and I very much doubt it will ever become law.
It's really not very hard to look this stuff up before you post.
I agree with you that you have to have some physical object before you can copyright it. That wasn't what I was trying to say.
The physical labor of copying is not the source of the objects value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent
"If that makes him a communist, it would be the first one I've seen openly support IPR." - Shouldn't that tell you something about your anarchist theory, if you have the same views on property rights as the Communists?
"did your mommy and daddy provide a police force, fire department, road networks and clean streets?"
- Pictures AND words
This is a quote from you, and its obviously suggesting that you think the Govt. is responsible for Roads, clean streets, clean air, fire departments, ect ect.
If you would've just said police force Military, and a court system, i'd agree with you. But you lumped a bunch of Collectivist ramblings in with it, so you = statist
Well, you have 2 choices, you can either attempt to define the proper role of government in a free society, or you can just say i'm an idiot. Since Collectivists (you) are usually mush for brains, you resort to name calling.
I could see you saying something like...
"But if the Government didn't provide schooling, everyone would be illiterate, and poor!"
"If the govt. didn't builds the roads, we wouldn't have roads!"
Roads, schooling, police, courts etc. etc are all services which the government provides to the people. They can be used by everyone. They are paid for through taxes which are proportionally paid by everyone.
Those taxes are paid from income earned by utilizing those services.
Sounds like a pretty good system to me.
Is it the ONLY way? - No.
Is it the BEST way? - Yes.
Is it the way that the people have decided upon? - Yes
The state is just a bunch of people who have been voted into office by other people who would like them to spend some of the people's money on a bunch of stuff that the people can benfit from.
If you think that those people have got it wrong you can elect different people - you could even have a go yourself.
I'll let the anarchists tear this post up. It's full of funny shit.
"...who would like them to spend some of the people's money..."
- What is the difference between a person's money and "Peoples money" ?
"If you think that those people have got it wrong you can elect different people - you could even have a go yourself." - wow you mean I get to pick who steals from me? Or I could even be a theft myself?
I'm not sure why I keep asking you questions, you haven't answered one yet
WHY is it the governments responsibility to provide education, roads, clean streets, fire departments. Because some group of people decided that it was? Is that why?
If so, does that mean I can group together some people and decide it's the governments job to cut my lawn for me? Or kill people I don't like? How do you determine what is the proper role for Government?
It's simply the supply of services that the people have required - just because YOU PERSONALLY don't value something doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.
The government cuts your lawn all the time. All those public parks still belong to you, remember?
The government also kills people you don't like - like all those nasty Al Qaeda people who so desperately want to fuck you up.
btw, I would much rather use the term Objectivist rather than Libertarian. Libertarians hijacked Ayn Rands political philosophy, while disregarding the other 3 fields which give the defense of the politics part. They're intellectually dishonest if you ask me.
how is Libertarian Minarchy mob rule if you can't vote to take away anyone elses rights? Governments only legitimate function is the protection of individual rights, a separation of state and economics is 100% necessary. Government = the use of force. They don't build, they don't invent, they use GUNS. Police, military, and courts (contract mitigation) thats it. Anything else is not the proper function of a Government. End of story.
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries) a mans right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. The concept of a right pertains only to action specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.
As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation
I hope you're not trying to imply that you wrote that?
Plagiarising Ayn Rand is also a type of theft.
The big problem here is when you put all these clunky phrases into practice. Personal freedoms start to overlap quickly in the real world. This is why we have regulations.
The previous posts that define the nature of Individual Rights came from page 93 (paperback version) of the Virtue of Selfishness. I haven't edited the contents, or claimed it to be my own original work.
"and btw you don't even have that - just the abstract, fact-free musings of..." Trying to steal a page out of the anarchist playbook are we? Simply because something is an "Abstraction" does not mean it isn't part of reality. The "Abstract" part of IP is why anarchists have a hard time.
Oh come on. You can't sit there and try and claim that the 1000's of years of recorded history isn't a referendum on collectivism. There is TONS of objective evidence that shows that when you disregard individual rights, men suffer because of it.
lol, bill you're starting to bug me. Just because you refuse to acknowledge proof doesn't mean I have to keep trying different ways of "Prooving" it to you.
From 1776 to 1900 in America was the closest a civilization has come to what we're calling the "Theoretical Ideal"
What happened in America during those years?
We went from being an undeveloped infant nation that was 1000's of years behind europe, to the greatest country on the planet by all measurable standards. Why?
How does the success of America NOT provide proof of the greatness of capitalism, and individual rights?
Contrastly, how does the failures of collectivist states not also proove this?
Cause and effect Bill. This is scientific shit here. Sure there may be some variables in each country you could nitpick at....but the result has been prooven time and time again from the beginning of recorded history.
you want me to go further back? Ancient Greece and Aristotle Vs. the Dark ages. The Dark Ages Vs. the Age of Enlightenment. What is the defining characteristics of these places/times in history? Which one is successful, Vs. Failed? How does this correlate with more modern times? The answers to these questions provide the PROOF of what I'm saying :)
21st Century America is an appalling divide between the haves and have-nots. It's not a pretty picture.
The Libertarian notion that capitalism is innocent of these stark inequalities and that the future lies in preparing a groundwork to increase that divide still further is something I object to
The worship of the already successful and the disdain for the weak and powerless is the morality of t thug.
A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one anothers expense by an act of government i.e., by force.
Everyones interests are on a public auction block and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system or, anti-system breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps.
Mixed economies are not "ruled" by anyone - you've just been suckered into that mindset by idiots like Glenn Beck. Regulation is not about anything except insisting that producers play fair with consumers.
Limiting the excesses of the free market so that it benefits more than just a tiny minority of the super-rich is a GOOD thing. It's possible to have the benefits of capitalism WITH the ethics of socialism. It's how economies like Germany work. It's a proven success - unlike Libertarianism
It's really very easy to understand - it's just that you make your conclusions before you've got to the end of the sentence.
Read before you write - that's my socialist tip for the day Twiggy.
The MIX between capitalist economics and socialist ethics in the USA is wrong. The mix in most western European countries is better. The Libertarian ideal is the worst mix of all.
I've never denied the success of capitalism as an efficient way of generating wealth.
I've never claimed that socialist countries have done a better job of creating wealth than capitalist ones.
My stance is that the mixture of capitalist economics and socialist ethics provides the best mix for a civilized society. Fundamental things such as life, health and justice should not be entirely dependent on how much money you have.
"It would be better if you had a working example of your ideology to point to.
Do you have one?"
No society has ever had a laissez faire capitalist economy within a constitutional republic. So no, I don't have a working example. But I do have tons of circumstantial evidence that shows the closer a society comes to this ideal, the more prosperous the society is.
You can't just lump together all kinds of things and say it's the governments job to do these things without going through a little bit of mental effort first.
Firstly, what is government? What makes it different than other things that exist in a society? How do you determine if a good service or product meets the criteria of being a necessary aspect of a "Government" ?
Nah, he should definitely keep going, if only for my amusement. I love watching pseudo-intellectuals like billburns2 get their metaphorical asses handed to them, and LaughingMan is doing an excellent job of it.
OK, let's get to work on the pubescent "anarchist"
I'll start by asking you for confirmation that you have written permission to use the copyrighted music of Manfred Mann as well as footage from the TV series Ready Steady Go and LazyTown
(or has the gloved bierstein "anarchist" stolen someone else's property?)
Without this confirmation I can go no further as I will also be party to the theft.
You're essentially asking if an "anarchist" views the STATE institution (of intellectual property) as legitimate?
The short answer: Hell no
Consider the fact that when so-called IP is supposedly "violated" (from piracy) that nothing is actually stolen; as the act of theft entails a deprivation of justly acquired property (i.e. if I steal your car, I am depriving you of the use of that car that you would have otherwise had, supposing I hadn't stolen your car).
When something is "pirated," nothing is "stolen" because the original copy remains intact, and the author has not been deprived of the use of the information he/she created.
Also, even if I did accept IP as legitimate (which I obvious don't) this video would qualify as "fair-use."
Have you obtained permission to use the material without payment?
Pirating copyrighted material deprives the copyright owner of money. It's another type of theft. That's why it's illegal.
Don't you think it's a bit off that you've taken someone else's property without their consent and used it in a video about how taking property without consent is wrong?
I'd advise you to look a bit deeper into "fair use" before you start throwing that defense around.
It doesn't "deprive" the owner, as owner isn't (under a rational conception of property) entitled to a coercive monopoly, especially over property which he doesnt have claim to (in this case): copies which do not harm the or deprive the owner of the original & reparations from the copiers
EX: If Google claimed that it owned all auditory enunciations of the word "Google," & that anyone who spoke the word Google (without explicit permission) was depriving Google of the funds they were entitled to
You are depriving the copyright owners of revenue that is rightfully theirs and your defense shows a woeful ignorance of what constitutes Intellectual Property.
In short, portions of your video constitutes THEFT.
1) Fair Use (the video is wholly non-commercial in nature, it is intended to be educational, it provides criticism and social commentary, and the amount of copyrighted material proportional to the amount of my own content is extremely minimal)
2) Fair Use material is not in breach of YouTube terms of use
3) Vacuous Assertions Without Justification (question begging)
(Seriously? I was making an "argument from analogy" not defining what constitutes de-jure IP)
And you're trying to convince us that you're NOT a 14 year old living with mom 'n' dad?
1) although your video may be all of those things, you haven't used the stolen material in that context. Using an unathorized clip of LazyTown isn't required to illustrate the concept of piracy - you've simply used it as a cheap gag. Nor is the amount of material used germane to your defense. A copyright lawyer would have you for breakfast.
OK. If it upsets you I'll quit teasing you about your age.
1) Unfortunately for you it's a valid argument. Your defense is not a defense. Using material under the terms of "fair use" does not extend to decorating an educational video with material that you think will get a laugh from your cronies. Don't believe me? Ask a copyright lawyer.
You have committed theft as part of your video on how taxation is theft. Until you remedy that error you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
why is this unlisted?
wood9670 5 months ago in playlist wood9670's Favorited Videos
well said
ForAVoluntarySociety 8 months ago
u sure r credible advocating anarchy from the comforts of socialism in ur parent's home.
kajmobile 8 months ago
ur moronic, simpleton ideology overlooks a critical fact: under ur definition of theft, no property can ever be legitimate.
all ur so-called property is made from material that is mined from land that at some point was acquired thru theft, murder or plunder.
unless u can show a contract u made with nature granting u exclusive ownership of the planet, all private property is theft.
kajmobile 8 months ago
Great!!!!! Are you a knower of Fundamental Basic Natural Principles?
ferval59 8 months ago
If North Americans eliminated all forms of gov't and lived as ideal anarchists how would we deal with other people groups who formed powerful states that were hostile toward us? This is not a loaded question, just simple curiosity.
howser12 9 months ago
@howser12 We become an angelic society and slaughter demons without mercy.
Unrealll6666 9 months ago
If the state owns your property so that you have to leave it to be free (leave the country) then you have no property rights
If you don't have those, you have no rights at all. Any study into this matter will lead to that conclusion.
This video doesn't even touch on the truth that most tax money is wasted on bureucracy and corrupt looting.
With this 'volunteerism' no charity and donation would be wasted.
HEREclickPlease 10 months ago
what do anarchists commonly believe exactly? would it be false If I assume that they all believe that little to no government is better for people?
superjam18 10 months ago
@superjam18 You would be correct, though you might as well take it to its extent which is anarchists believe in no government, opting for voluntary association. There are different kinds of anarchist, though I think the most popular is anarcho-capitalist. The other big kind is anarcho-communist, which assumes that in an anarchic society there will be no such thing as property ownership and it will be a voluntary communist utopia. IMO, it fails for the same economic reasons as communism.
zoogle1 10 months ago
THANK YOU for being an intelligent person who can think for yourself! lol Rock on, brother!
thetourwithnoname 10 months ago 2
I have to go, but in a nutshell I both disagree with you that Tax is theft and that Tax is not theft, the same way I cant agree with an argument that car is best vs boat is best (as if it either were right on their own regardless of the situation; ex: lake vs road)
cheers (great video about Dual Power btw)
Rickdeckard2020 11 months ago
Lets say you want to buy a home, theres no world gov or trans-continental gov, you have 3 cities right next to each other, Town A has 0% tax, Town B has 10% with bah services, Town C has 40% taxes and you get UHC Education 4 day work week low crime etc. If you have the option to choose among these or others with no taxes of various %, and you choose a town with 10% tax, is this "really" the same as gun point theft? If you are forced at gunpoint to buy a house in town B I would get your point...
Rickdeckard2020 11 months ago
"1) Markets have"
Misleading generalization imo, it depends whats the situation and what you really get instead of PS, this argument has swindled many people that found out the hard way privatizing a public service CAN in fact be worst. We can tell them its not fair because its not really a "free" market and that ideally there's not supposed to be collusion, profiteering, non-disclosure or conflicts of interest, but they still need to pay the bill while the owners laugh with huge profits.
Rickdeckard2020 11 months ago
Good video, I agree with some of what you say and not about other stuff though your rhetoric kung fu is good. I'll comment in ad hoc fashion.
Rickdeckard2020 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you da man.. people with brains on their head can totally agree with you.. and the extreme left will put their whole family, wealth and anything else into the hands of this demonic government,. you are a good breath of fresh air. don't forgot what you stand for. what we stand for,. fuck social standards and social popularity and status quo.. put the government lapdogs in their place.
letsgoforajoyride 1 year ago
you da man.. people with brains on their head can totally agree with you.. and the extreme left will put their whole family, wealth and anything else into the hands of this demonic government,. you are a good breath of fresh air. don't forgot what you stand for. what we stand for,. fuck social standards and social populairty and status quo.. put the government lapdogs in their place.
letsgoforajoyride 1 year ago
So you want a volunteer society for libraries, fire department, cops, road maintainence, etc.?
.
If all roads are privately owned, there's the possibility that the owner could keep you from traveling to your destination for whatever he reason he wanted to? How would go about resolving that? When if multiple people didn't like u cause your black and prevent you travelling just about anywhere because they own the roads?
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
good luck with all them volunteers there fella
CHASCHARLTON 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Taxation pays for the fire dept. when your house is burning down. It pays for the highways. It pays for the military.
It's easy to be an angsty little faggot teenager and whine and bitch about taxes.
If you love Anarchy so much, go move to Somalia, and get back to us on how awesome it is.
17thknight 1 year ago
@17thknight
1) Markets have empirically outperformed states at providing services repeatedly throughout history. You don't need a state to provide what have typically been "public services."
2) The fact that you resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of real arguments merely shows that you're losing the argument.
3) Somalia isn't anarchist and never claimed to be; at best its an example of decentralized statism with some free market activity.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago 12
@LaughingMan0X - "IF U LIKE ANACHY SO MUCH, WHY COME U NO LIVE ON TH MOON!"
GeneralEAwesome 11 months ago
@LaughingMan0X LMAO too bad the quality of life in Somalia can't even come close to socialist nations like Norway/ Sweden. But offcourse, continue living in your capitalist bubble.
turgore 7 months ago
@turgore
You're living in a bubble of idiocy.
No one was claiming that quality of life in Somalia was ever higher than in Scandinavian countries, I was claiming (and this is matter of factly true) that qualify of life in Somalia under a comparatively more free market was far better by both absolute and relative standards than it ever was under absolute statism.
(All of this development inspite of the fact that insane Muslim extremists are current trying to take over the country, as is the UN)
LaughingMan0X 7 months ago
@turgore
Secondly, Scandinavian countries aren't nearly as state socialist as you think, this is the myth of Scandinavian socialism:
2011 Index of Economic Freedom:
Switzerland: 81.9 - #4 (ahead of the USA)
Denmark: 78.6 - #7 (ahead of the USA)
Sweden: 71.9 - #21
Norway: 70.3 - #30
All of these countries are noticeably higher than their regional average (66.8).
LaughingMan0X 7 months ago
@LaughingMan0X Are you trying to prove my point ? So they do pay taxes, get services AND are economically more free than the USA.
turgore 7 months ago
@turgore
High taxes, welfare statism, and public works projects (i.e. traditional state socialism) are negatively added to the ranking (they decrease the overall level of economic freedom of a country according to the index). Scandinavian countries tend to make up for the difference by having high levels of other kinds of economic freedom (such as free of trade, financial freedom, property rights, etc)
So no, I'm not proving your point; they're free in-spite of those things not because of them
LaughingMan0X 7 months ago
@LaughingMan0X also the organziation is really biased. " The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense" For example, they take points off for workers rights or minimum wages. Bunch of BS.
turgore 7 months ago
@turgore
First you claim I'm proving your point by pointing to an index that shows how free several Scandinavian countries are, now you're claiming I'm wrong because my source is wrong (BS in your words). Necessarily you can't have it both ways; contradict yourself much?
Furthermore, claiming a something is wrong because of its origin is a classic example of the genetic fallacy; better luck next time with logic 101.
LaughingMan0X 7 months ago
@17thknight
3.5)Also, since Somalia became comparatively more free market its GDP, General Health, & Standard of living has increased more than it ever did under the centralized authoritarian statism; measured by both absolute and relative standards. Prior to the civil war Somalia had one monopoly national airline that couldn't state competitive, ran at a loss, and eventually wen bankrupt when the collapse occurred; now it has over 14 private airline with the most competitive prices in Africa
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago 5
@LaughingMan0X Duh. That's what happens when a corrupt gov. that doesn't give a damn about its people loses power.
turgore 7 months ago
@17thknight
When it was comparatively more statist, Somalia had 1 monopoly telecommunications provider with waiting lists up to 10 years long, poor and limited service generally only available to the upper echelons of society or state bureaucrats. Now now private competitive telecommunications firms in Somalia provides some of the highest quality telecommunications in Africa, with the lowest costs and wait times on the continent.
Your insinuations are baseless.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago 8
@LaughingMan0X You need to make more videos like this one.
juliaisafilmbuff123 10 months ago 2
minimum wage is theft. not so many people make vids about that.
fringeailments 1 year ago
Clueless, table for one.
liberalguy513 1 year ago
Capitalism and the state are one in the same. The state is the biggest capitalist landlord of them all and taxation is the biggest rent. Abolish both.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123, No, capitalism is anarchy
see: Capitalism Is Anarchy
We live under coporatism. The State owns nothing.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670 How do you define "capitalism"?
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123, an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined through the free market or matrix of voluntary exchanges amongst individuals regarding the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services.
The key aspect to all this is voluntarism. No regulations, controls, or coercion of any kind. I reject the notion that the State actually owns anything.
wood9670 1 year ago
Great video, man
PhoenixFlag1776 1 year ago
You make her point for her. There are roads, and if you use them, then you should pay for their usage. You are free not to.
There are job payment systems that are designed and protected by the government. If you use them, then you should pay for their usage. You are free not.
There is nothing keeping you from living in the woods without owning any property. You are free to do so. If you did so, you would not be taxed.
If you're using a service the government has provided, prepare to pay.
essencestar 1 year ago
@essencestar
1) Neither I nor you have a choice in what roads are built/paid-for or aren't; the state has a artificial monopoly on roads (and uses the threat of violence, death, and kidnapping to maintain this monopoly). I have no problem voluntarily paying for roads; I have a problem with being extorted to pay roads
2) Not sure what you're referring to: public workers, price floors, price ceilings, social security? In any case, the burden of proof is on you why I "should" have to pay for them
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@essencestar
3) There is alot keeping me from living in the woods (aside from the fact that I don't see why I should have to do that in the first place). Most "woods" as you call them are owned by the state (an absentee owner). Thus, the state under threat of violence and theft (fines), prevents me from developing land in the "woods" or forming my own voluntary society there. Plus the fruits of my labor would still be "taxed" as I'd still technically be within what the US calls it's "territory"
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@essencestar exactly, if were using a service that the government pays for using money it stole from us... then we should be prepared to pay... for the service, that the government pays for with money it stole from us.. in order to... facepalm
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman lol Total facepalm.
InsurgenistCujo 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman If you're using a service that the government pays for using money you paid it, that's the same as using a service that Dunkin' Donuts pays for using the money you paid it. There is no "stole" involved.
If you don't use the donuts, you don't have to pay for them. If you don't use the government, you don't have to pay for it. If you use the donuts, you have to pay for them. If you use the government, you have to pay for it.
You pay for what you use. How is that bad?
essencestar 1 year ago
@essencestar
ummmm no because i never agreed to pay money to the government, the government just takes it and spends it. but i DID agree to pay the dunkin donut guys.
If your argument now is "if you dont wanna pay the government, fuck off then" then where am i supposed to go? everywhere other than the north pole and the ocean is claimed by a government.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman You're working inside the government's system, and they're collecting money from you.
There's plenty of people living in communes that don't pay any taxes at all, nor do they work within the government's system. Again, let me make that REAL clear: They DO NOT pay taxes. They don't have to. They don't want to. They don't use the government's monetary system, and they aren't involved in it.
There's also reservations all over with the same deal. Taxes are optional.
essencestar 1 year ago
@essencestar I agree and I for one am one of the people you speak of
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman FYI your Fat Daddy agreed for you when he REPORTED your birth in not so merry old England. He sold your dumb nasty arse as a wage slave to the UK on the day you were born his natural born son. You really should ask that old pervert why once he quits checking out the teenage porn in ED EH Qwen Baby?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos my dad doesnt look at teenage porn on ED, you just pulled that insult out of your ass, along with all of your theories.
and yes, i agree. the government owns us. we are farmed as slaves.
doesnt mean i have to LIKE you.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman However Qwen Baby you should not deny my family and I the right to HATE you and your Fat Daddy becuase of what he allowed you to published about our family and friends on your channel. He does pay for your Internet access and keeps you warm fed and dry while you torture the world as a very nasty ANONYMOUS troll CORRECT Sgt Moe?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos
im not in ANONYMOUS GODDAMMIT!
now stop polluting other peoples comment sections with your bullshit, take it somwhere else.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman YOU are the TROLL not I. You opted to attack m family and I am fighting back.. However being part of ANONYMOUS is like being an anarchist it ain't an organized club with a leader and executive. However like your zionist butt buddy Mr Baconfat loves to quote "By their fruits ye shall know them" You are an admitted Troll who is anonymous and you do attack innocent people for your shits and giggles thus you are by definition part of the ANONYMOUS crowd of nasty perverts EH Qwen Baby?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos
nope, anarchism is a political philosophy, whereas anonymous is a specific organisation. you clearly know nothing about either of them.
and i never attacked your family but to be quite honest i really dont give a shit what baconfat says anymore, i let him do what he wants. if i deleted the comments youd accuse me of backtracking, and if i didnt delete them youd accue me of allowing harassment of your kids, so i cant win eitherway.
now talk to me somewhere else.
i
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Qwen Baby however when I was running in the election of the 38th Parliament I approached a bunch of fainthearted chickenshit anarchists like you in Fat Fred City They talk the talk just like you but fail to walk the walk like all of you do. The ones who raised hell in Toronto are a fine example of chickenshit anarchists they covered their faces because they were afraid of being identified They knew what they did was wrong If they were ethical they would act with a name and a face
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
Comment removed
planck0001 1 year ago
@planck0001 Omy you have mixed up with Qwen Baby be nice to him and perhaps he can share hs date with Numan
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos the black block wankers in toronto were socialist anarchists. Either that or they were police officers in disguise.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Grow up pervert learn to read then try telling me something I that I don't already know Get it yet Qwen Baby?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos yeah and im not affiliated with them.
there we go.
fuck you :)
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Just because you had a falling out with your Canadian zionist hero baconfat53 blogspot com and some of your Trollish your butt buddies such as the RedFistofEurope it does not follow that you are not one very sick little ANONYMOUS Troll who supported the Death threats against against my family and even participated in the sexual harassment of them as well. No matter what you convince your 13 year old fanboyz such as austin Baby everybody can see that the Trolls FAILED in their game
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos
1. "Just because you had a falling out with your Canadian zionist hero baconfat53 blogspot com " Havent fallen out with him, we just dont talk anymore because youre blocked from my channel ^^
2. "and some of your Trollish your butt buddies such as the RedFistofEurope" still friends with him lol.
3. now youre actually accusing me of taking part in the harassment myself? well id love to see some evidence for that, Anus.
Keep at it Dave, perhaps the queen will help you <3
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman Anyone can review what is left of the comments in your channel that you have not deleted or search out many other videos where you opted to publish your obvious criminal malic. As you well know I saved everything and sent to the RCMP as the shit went down I told you Trollss out of the gate back in March that I am using the proof of the RCMP's support your malice as evidence in a lawsuit against the CROWN Even your Fat Daddy should understand that the QUEEN is my opponent EH PERVERT?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
Voluntarism? It sounds like you're talking about privatizing everything, which would lead to the same result as our current government. Instead of paying taxes to the Gov., you'll be paying taxes to whichever corporation owns the roads, the schools, and the fire department. All you've discovered is another way to get to the same place. Maybe you should come up with something that works before you start criticizing the current system.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
All hitherto instances of privatization are when a state monopoly is given/sold to a corporation. That's about as voluntary as a syndicate stealing your car, and selling it to the mafia.
These legal fictions you refer to as "corporations" are explicitly state-created legal persons (which obfuscates accountability) who are granted artificial limited liability that could never exist on a genuinely free market.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
I support decentralized firms emerging in response to consumer demand (something the state has little incentive to do, as it doesn't have to rely on price signals, but its own self-serving & arbitrary decision-making). I support the freedom to choose what firms provide people with goods and services, & the freedom to disassociate from firms as well
When it comes to the state monopolies, one has no choice but to pay for them, and one cannot opt for a better alternative service
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X I'm not sure I always could opt for an alternative service. There's only one road in front of my home. If the roads suddenly become privately owned, I can't find a better alternative road provider if I decide I don't like the price or terms to use it. Again, I'd be in the same situation as I am now. Paying taxes and following laws I don't actually consent to.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
You're making a number of bad assumptions here: 1) you assume that there couldn't be public roads/utilities without a state, 2) you seem to be equating taxation with things you would rather not pay for.
A) If there it a demand for public services (which there certainly is), and if that price is below the equilibrium, a shortage will emerge, and the price for public goods will rise, sending price signals to decentralized firms to invest in being able to provide that service.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X Whether the road in front of my house is public or private is irrelevant. Use of the road is a necessity, and if I want to use it, I'll have to pay for it. If I don't want to pay whoever owns, for whatever reason, I can't go get another road from someone else. This means I have no choice but to pay to use it. If I'm still being subjected to taxes and regulations I don't consent to, then how is voluntarism an improvement?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
B) Taxation by definition is when a group of persons with a monopoly on violence over a territorial area, uses (and backs up) the threat of theft (property seizure), violence, death (if you resist), and kidnapping (prison) to extort the fruits of your labor from you without your consent
You cannot opt out of the relationship with the state who collects taxes. When it comes to a firm on a free market, you can opt out of a business relationship without retaliation.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X Which dictionary did you get that from?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
Not from a dictionary, simply a matter of fact.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X A definition that is a matter of fact, even though you can't point to a single dictionary that contains it.
When I said tax, I really just meant a charge to use something. I suppose it implies a periodic fee as opposed to a one time fee, but I can't see why it couldn't be either. I'm also still not convinced that voluntarism is offering any solutions that would work in reality.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LaughingMan0X i really dont know how you can stomach arguing this over again and again. In the words of InTheEndIWasRight: "Gawd help you with these "people". Im about done here with the free-dumb."
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
I support a standard for property norms (concerning land) based on use and occupancy; i.e. if you use the road you get a share of ownership of it/access to it.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X That's great, but if I don't want people to own my road just because they use it, will your view be forced upon me under this "voluntary" society?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
Property norms aren't "voluntary" without qualification, what determines them is ultimately whatever the prevailing inter-subjective consensus happens to be. A given action that is "voluntary" when it comes to property is context-specific (i.e. contingent upon the specific system or set of property norms in question).
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X When you say things like prevailing consensus, it sounds like you're talking about majority rule. Also, you said you support a standard for property norms based on use and occupancy. Perhaps this would be a solution, but it wouldn't even be worth considering if it was not the consensus.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
Its practically a tautology to say that those with the most power in a society will determine how that society formally functions; might makes reality. In most cases (exceptions: British vs. Zulu, etc) those with the most power are a majority, who exercise control themselves, or permit by their action or inaction a minority to rule; the effect is the same. The end result can range from freedom to authoritarianism. I'm not making a value claim here I'm saying this is how things are
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@thegreatfish
Also, to say that a series of newly proposed property norms "wouldn't be worth considering" because they're inconsistent with the current consensus assumes that society and its property norms are static (which is false). They're not. Societies and property norms change all the time: slavery, abolishment of slavery, homesteading, easements, corporations, eminent domain, adverse possession, are all examples of property norms that changed at one time or another.
LaughingMan0X 1 year ago
@LaughingMan0X Now you're talking about common law, which is essentially judge made law. Who made the decision to change those property norms? Easements, eminent domain, adverse possession... It was a judge in a court room. If I decide I don't consent to the authority of the "Great Decider" when he says society's standards for property norms have changed, will I be coerced? Or will I be free to function in society with my own special set of property norms?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
LaughingMan0X this was a producer destroying a looter. Thanks for your words because they give me hope. Fact is that at least half of America is being LOOTED by the other half - that is half are paying taxes and the other half are not paying any taxes. HOW IS THIS NOT THEFT?
TeaParty2012 1 year ago
my god she is ugly
impulsetospit 1 year ago
teaching people what is ant what is not, followed by a bark of sorts, this will get the politicians in line. but approx 60% of the population needs to be in the now, and about 8% need to bark. that takes some effort. it would make em poop. ... by "bark" i mean protest in one way or another, but in a way that turns heads non-violently, don't want too much whiplash. a protest of art variety, performance, paint, music, poets, etc
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
Hell Yeah! Wealth is created from efforts of human labor.
prst99 1 year ago
"It's not a case of the state dictating anything" - so the government doesn't decide how much to tax you? Thats what it sounds like you're trying to say. Which is really stupid btw.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
dont we in essence consent to pay taxes by the fact that we do in fact pay them? yes, we consent due to threat of the use of force (which im not saying is legitimate or should exist), but isnt it still consent (that is, agreement to pay)?
techjunkie92 2 years ago
On a point of accuracy, it's not possible to copyright an "idea" per-se. You need to have a bit more than that.
I'm assuming that the silence from our "anarchist" host implies tacit acceptance that he's stolen someone else's property.
I expect we can all soon look forward to a revised snarky video about taxation as theft that doesn't itself incorporate theft
billburns2 2 years ago
"On a point of accuracy, it's not possible to copyright an "idea" per-se. You need to have a bit more than that." - First comes the idea, then the good, service, or product, then the copyright. The copyright does not protect the physical thing itself, but the IDEA that brought it into existence.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Right - but you need to have a good or service or product as well. Otherwise I could simply take out a copyright on, say "synthetic gasoline" and then litigate against any future inventors of synthetic gasoline on the basis that I thought of it first.
billburns2 2 years ago
Bill, I may agree with a tiny little bit of the arguments you use against the anarchists, but It's clear to me that you're a collectivist, and not as smart as Larken, or LaughingMan, your use of curse words and slander in responses makes it clear you're in over your head with these people. I'd get out while you still have a little of your ego left intact.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
So because you've labeled me as a "collectivist" I'm now supposed to behave in the way that you've defined?
I'll argue that I'm demonstrably smarter than both Larken and "John", but that's just my opinion :)
Curse words? Slander? please cite where I've resorted to any ad-hominem attacks other than teasing "John" about his age.
My ego is a lot more robust than you think. I'll stay for as long as it takes to show Libertarianism as the misguided cult that it is. Sorry if it irritates you.
billburns2 2 years ago
It's pretty easy to label you as a collectivist, seeings how you have a hammer and sickle as your profile picture. Hows the collectivist utopia of the Soviet Union working out?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
"seeings how you have a hammer and sickle as your profile picture"
If that makes him a communist, it would be the first one I've seen openly support IPR.
" then you've taken away the right of use and disposal of your own property. "
Property is physical; it is made to deal with scarcity of resources. I cannot be in the same place you are, but, we can both recall the pythagorean theorem at the same time. In the market, property has cost because of scarcity ...
xStil090 2 years ago
Ideas are not in scarcity, therefore, if they were 'legitimate' (for the lack of a better word), property, they would have no cost at all, like rocks. It is pointless to try to lump IPR and property rights together, for the reasons stated above and the fact IPR requires one person deciding for another what that other can and cannot do with their own property.
xStil090 2 years ago
IPR don't apply to ideas. You can't patent or copyright an idea. A creative piece of work such as music or video is unique. That's about as scarce as you can get.
The person who creates it also owns it and has the right to prevent others using it without consent.
To argue otherwise is pointless
billburns2 2 years ago
Lets say I have an idea for a new device that i'm going to invent i've spent 20 years of my life working on this idea but I don't have the start up capital to create this thing. So I go to a bank show them my idea and ask for a loan the bank says no we wont give you the money then they take my idea and develop the "Thing" themself and sell it. That is why we need copyrights and patents. The process of shaping reality to fit some need, needs to be protected, or else you don't have property.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
the bank STOLE 20 years of my life from me. Even though they didn't take any piece of physical property from me.
How are you going to have incentive in a society to create things when the process of creation is not protected?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
If you've spent 20 years of your life than I'd hope you have a bit more than just an idea. A plan, a blueprint, a process, a prototype - all of those things can be copyright and patented. NOT ideas.
Don't believe me? Try taking out a patent on an idea that exists nowhere except inside your noggin.
billburns2 2 years ago
ok, for sake of argument, i have a blueprint that i bring to the bank, and they take a picture of the blueprint, so they didn't steal my property (the blueprint) they just took a picture of it and then developed it. Still didn't take my physical property, but the idea is the same.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
If they've devloped something of their own from your idea that's not copyright theft.
Karl Benz didn't get to copyright the idea of a car. Tim Berners-Lee didn't get to copyright the idea of the Internet.
You should do a bit more research son
billburns2 2 years ago
so you don't believe in IPR either. Took you long enough to say so. Why are you arguing with the anarchists then? You both are marxists when it comes to property.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Oh for heaven's sake - why don't you actually READ my posts before making your assumptions?
I fully support the concept of Intellectual Property Rights as they are presently defined. Your misinformed idea of the copyright or patenting simply of IDEAS is not the law, nor has it ever been the law and I very much doubt it will ever become law.
It's really not very hard to look this stuff up before you post.
billburns2 2 years ago
I agree with you that you have to have some physical object before you can copyright it. That wasn't what I was trying to say.
The physical labor of copying is not the source of the objects value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent
Twiggy269 2 years ago
...which is what I've been saying since my first post. Which is why consider "John the Anarchist" to be a hypocritical smartass.
Jeysus!!!
billburns2 2 years ago
" Still didn't take my physical property, but the idea is the same."
If the bank took credit for your idea and/or receives profits from it without your consent, that is FRAUD. Copyright is again, unnecessary.
"like all those nasty Al Qaeda people who so desperately want to fuck you up."
Or just trying to eliminate the competition...
xStil090 2 years ago
"If that makes him a communist, it would be the first one I've seen openly support IPR." - Shouldn't that tell you something about your anarchist theory, if you have the same views on property rights as the Communists?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Is that what you base your assumptions on?
Are pictures easier for you than words?
I'd get out whilst your ego is still intact.
billburns2 2 years ago
"did your mommy and daddy provide a police force, fire department, road networks and clean streets?"
- Pictures AND words
This is a quote from you, and its obviously suggesting that you think the Govt. is responsible for Roads, clean streets, clean air, fire departments, ect ect.
If you would've just said police force Military, and a court system, i'd agree with you. But you lumped a bunch of Collectivist ramblings in with it, so you = statist
Twiggy269 2 years ago
"you think the Govt. is responsible for Roads, clean streets, clean air, fire departments"
er...yes.
That's collectivist ramblings is it?
you=idiot. Ad-hominem, but accurate.
billburns2 2 years ago
Well, you have 2 choices, you can either attempt to define the proper role of government in a free society, or you can just say i'm an idiot. Since Collectivists (you) are usually mush for brains, you resort to name calling.
I could see you saying something like...
"But if the Government didn't provide schooling, everyone would be illiterate, and poor!"
"If the govt. didn't builds the roads, we wouldn't have roads!"
who's the idiot again?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Roads, schooling, police, courts etc. etc are all services which the government provides to the people. They can be used by everyone. They are paid for through taxes which are proportionally paid by everyone.
Those taxes are paid from income earned by utilizing those services.
Sounds like a pretty good system to me.
Is it the ONLY way? - No.
Is it the BEST way? - Yes.
Is it the way that the people have decided upon? - Yes
billburns2 2 years ago
I rest my case, collectivist.
You as well, don't believe in property rights, since the state can dictate how much of your property you're allowed to keep.
Whats up with all you people having such broken ass ideas when it comes property?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
It's not a case of the state dictating anything.
The state is just a bunch of people who have been voted into office by other people who would like them to spend some of the people's money on a bunch of stuff that the people can benfit from.
If you think that those people have got it wrong you can elect different people - you could even have a go yourself.
Look up Representative Democracy.
billburns2 2 years ago
I'll let the anarchists tear this post up. It's full of funny shit.
"...who would like them to spend some of the people's money..."
- What is the difference between a person's money and "Peoples money" ?
"If you think that those people have got it wrong you can elect different people - you could even have a go yourself." - wow you mean I get to pick who steals from me? Or I could even be a theft myself?
I'm not sure why I keep asking you questions, you haven't answered one yet
Twiggy269 2 years ago
If you think that playing semantics makes you look clever then you're sadly mistaken.
As for anarchists - I've been educating them for many years now.
I've answered every one of your questions. You're just too plain stupid to understand the answers.
billburns2 2 years ago
bullshit, you haven't answered anything.
WHY is it the governments responsibility to provide education, roads, clean streets, fire departments. Because some group of people decided that it was? Is that why?
If so, does that mean I can group together some people and decide it's the governments job to cut my lawn for me? Or kill people I don't like? How do you determine what is the proper role for Government?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
RESPONSIBILITY??
Whoever claimed it was a responsibility?
It's simply the supply of services that the people have required - just because YOU PERSONALLY don't value something doesn't mean that the rest of us don't.
The government cuts your lawn all the time. All those public parks still belong to you, remember?
The government also kills people you don't like - like all those nasty Al Qaeda people who so desperately want to fuck you up.
billburns2 2 years ago
btw, I would much rather use the term Objectivist rather than Libertarian. Libertarians hijacked Ayn Rands political philosophy, while disregarding the other 3 fields which give the defense of the politics part. They're intellectually dishonest if you ask me.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Representative Democracy = mob rule.
Much like anarchy
Twiggy269 2 years ago
LMFAO
in which case Libertarianism = Corporate Feudalism, regardless of how much you like to prattle on about free markets.
And it you're so anti-anarchist then your solution of Libertarian Minarchy is simply another form of mob rule.
billburns2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how is Libertarian Minarchy mob rule if you can't vote to take away anyone elses rights? Governments only legitimate function is the protection of individual rights, a separation of state and economics is 100% necessary. Government = the use of force. They don't build, they don't invent, they use GUNS. Police, military, and courts (contract mitigation) thats it. Anything else is not the proper function of a Government. End of story.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
"Governments only legitimate function is the protection of individual rights"
who decides those rights?
who enforces those rights?
Police. Military. Courts = MOB RULE.
It would be better if you had a working example of your ideology to point to.
Do you have one?
billburns2 2 years ago
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries) a mans right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. The concept of a right pertains only to action specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.
As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I hope you're not trying to imply that you wrote that?
Plagiarising Ayn Rand is also a type of theft.
The big problem here is when you put all these clunky phrases into practice. Personal freedoms start to overlap quickly in the real world. This is why we have regulations.
billburns2 2 years ago
The previous posts that define the nature of Individual Rights came from page 93 (paperback version) of the Virtue of Selfishness. I haven't edited the contents, or claimed it to be my own original work.
"and btw you don't even have that - just the abstract, fact-free musings of..." Trying to steal a page out of the anarchist playbook are we? Simply because something is an "Abstraction" does not mean it isn't part of reality. The "Abstract" part of IP is why anarchists have a hard time.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
LOL - I'm just kidding. And that would be a valid example of Fair Use anyway, unlike "John the Anarchist's" video .
Abstraction isn't evidence. Not even circumstantial evidence.
billburns2 2 years ago
Oh come on. You can't sit there and try and claim that the 1000's of years of recorded history isn't a referendum on collectivism. There is TONS of objective evidence that shows that when you disregard individual rights, men suffer because of it.
Jamestown Colony
Soviet Russia
16th century Britain
Cuba
East Germany
Zimbabwe
Should I continue?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You'll need a bit more than that to convince the rest of us.
Defining the failure of other regimes doesn't mean that your theoretical one must therefore be successful by default.
Proof is what is required.
billburns2 2 years ago
lol, bill you're starting to bug me. Just because you refuse to acknowledge proof doesn't mean I have to keep trying different ways of "Prooving" it to you.
From 1776 to 1900 in America was the closest a civilization has come to what we're calling the "Theoretical Ideal"
What happened in America during those years?
We went from being an undeveloped infant nation that was 1000's of years behind europe, to the greatest country on the planet by all measurable standards. Why?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Was it because the Government provided roads, and fire departments, and clean streets?
Uniform currency controlled by central planners?
Public works?
National Parks?
Government Land?
Free Health Care?
Welfare?
Income Taxes?
SEC? EPA? ATF?
Any of that stuff? Haha...
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You don't HAVE any proof. That's your big problem.
And how on earth does the success of America over 200-odd years tie in with the dream of a Libertarian utopia?
Please stop skipping around and stick to your point.
billburns2 2 years ago
How does the success of America NOT provide proof of the greatness of capitalism, and individual rights?
Contrastly, how does the failures of collectivist states not also proove this?
Cause and effect Bill. This is scientific shit here. Sure there may be some variables in each country you could nitpick at....but the result has been prooven time and time again from the beginning of recorded history.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
you want me to go further back? Ancient Greece and Aristotle Vs. the Dark ages. The Dark Ages Vs. the Age of Enlightenment. What is the defining characteristics of these places/times in history? Which one is successful, Vs. Failed? How does this correlate with more modern times? The answers to these questions provide the PROOF of what I'm saying :)
Twiggy269 2 years ago
21st Century America is an appalling divide between the haves and have-nots. It's not a pretty picture.
The Libertarian notion that capitalism is innocent of these stark inequalities and that the future lies in preparing a groundwork to increase that divide still further is something I object to
The worship of the already successful and the disdain for the weak and powerless is the morality of t thug.
billburns2 2 years ago
You've completly contradicted yourself in these 2 posts bill.
"My stance is that the mixture of capitalist economics and socialist ethics provides the best mix for a civilized society"
"21st Century America is an appalling divide between the haves and have-nots. It's not a pretty picture."
How do you say, a mixed economy is the best system. Then Decry that America, a truely mixed economy is "Appalling" ????
Hello??
Anyone in there bill?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one anothers expense by an act of government i.e., by force.
Everyones interests are on a public auction block and anything goes for anyone who can get away with it. Such a system or, anti-system breaks up a country into an ever-growing number of enemy camps.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Btw, if you want to know this came from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Pg. 206 chapter "The New Fascism, Rule by Consensus"
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Comment removed
billburns2 2 years ago
Mixed economies are not "ruled" by anyone - you've just been suckered into that mindset by idiots like Glenn Beck. Regulation is not about anything except insisting that producers play fair with consumers.
Limiting the excesses of the free market so that it benefits more than just a tiny minority of the super-rich is a GOOD thing. It's possible to have the benefits of capitalism WITH the ethics of socialism. It's how economies like Germany work. It's a proven success - unlike Libertarianism
billburns2 2 years ago
It's really very easy to understand - it's just that you make your conclusions before you've got to the end of the sentence.
Read before you write - that's my socialist tip for the day Twiggy.
The MIX between capitalist economics and socialist ethics in the USA is wrong. The mix in most western European countries is better. The Libertarian ideal is the worst mix of all.
billburns2 2 years ago
I've never denied the success of capitalism as an efficient way of generating wealth.
I've never claimed that socialist countries have done a better job of creating wealth than capitalist ones.
My stance is that the mixture of capitalist economics and socialist ethics provides the best mix for a civilized society. Fundamental things such as life, health and justice should not be entirely dependent on how much money you have.
billburns2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It would be better if you had a working example of your ideology to point to.
Do you have one?"
No society has ever had a laissez faire capitalist economy within a constitutional republic. So no, I don't have a working example. But I do have tons of circumstantial evidence that shows the closer a society comes to this ideal, the more prosperous the society is.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Would circumstantial evidence hold up in one of your property courts?
and btw you don't even have that - just the abstract, fact-free musings of Ayn Rand.
billburns2 2 years ago
You can't just lump together all kinds of things and say it's the governments job to do these things without going through a little bit of mental effort first.
Firstly, what is government? What makes it different than other things that exist in a society? How do you determine if a good service or product meets the criteria of being a necessary aspect of a "Government" ?
Twiggy269 2 years ago
Her video is rather funny. Who do I vote for if I don't want to "support programs" that require theft to stay afloat? lol
Sarahon06 2 years ago
billburns2, perhaps you should just quit while you are behind.
discordian420 2 years ago 3
Nah, he should definitely keep going, if only for my amusement. I love watching pseudo-intellectuals like billburns2 get their metaphorical asses handed to them, and LaughingMan is doing an excellent job of it.
AlaskanAnarchist 2 years ago 3
OK, let's get to work on the pubescent "anarchist"
I'll start by asking you for confirmation that you have written permission to use the copyrighted music of Manfred Mann as well as footage from the TV series Ready Steady Go and LazyTown
(or has the gloved bierstein "anarchist" stolen someone else's property?)
Without this confirmation I can go no further as I will also be party to the theft.
billburns2 2 years ago
You're essentially asking if an "anarchist" views the STATE institution (of intellectual property) as legitimate?
The short answer: Hell no
Consider the fact that when so-called IP is supposedly "violated" (from piracy) that nothing is actually stolen; as the act of theft entails a deprivation of justly acquired property (i.e. if I steal your car, I am depriving you of the use of that car that you would have otherwise had, supposing I hadn't stolen your car).
LaughingMan0X 2 years ago
When something is "pirated," nothing is "stolen" because the original copy remains intact, and the author has not been deprived of the use of the information he/she created.
Also, even if I did accept IP as legitimate (which I obvious don't) this video would qualify as "fair-use."
LaughingMan0X 2 years ago
Have you paid to use the material?
Have you obtained permission to use the material without payment?
Pirating copyrighted material deprives the copyright owner of money. It's another type of theft. That's why it's illegal.
Don't you think it's a bit off that you've taken someone else's property without their consent and used it in a video about how taking property without consent is wrong?
I'd advise you to look a bit deeper into "fair use" before you start throwing that defense around.
billburns2 2 years ago
It doesn't "deprive" the owner, as owner isn't (under a rational conception of property) entitled to a coercive monopoly, especially over property which he doesnt have claim to (in this case): copies which do not harm the or deprive the owner of the original & reparations from the copiers
EX: If Google claimed that it owned all auditory enunciations of the word "Google," & that anyone who spoke the word Google (without explicit permission) was depriving Google of the funds they were entitled to
LaughingMan0X 2 years ago
@LaughingMan0X
You are in breach of copyright law
You are in breach of the YouTube terms of use
You are depriving the copyright owners of revenue that is rightfully theirs and your defense shows a woeful ignorance of what constitutes Intellectual Property.
In short, portions of your video constitutes THEFT.
Hypocrite? Much?
billburns2 2 years ago
*facepalm*
1) Fair Use (the video is wholly non-commercial in nature, it is intended to be educational, it provides criticism and social commentary, and the amount of copyrighted material proportional to the amount of my own content is extremely minimal)
2) Fair Use material is not in breach of YouTube terms of use
3) Vacuous Assertions Without Justification (question begging)
(Seriously? I was making an "argument from analogy" not defining what constitutes de-jure IP)
4) IP = Illegitimate
LaughingMan0X 2 years ago
"facepalm" !!!!???
And you're trying to convince us that you're NOT a 14 year old living with mom 'n' dad?
1) although your video may be all of those things, you haven't used the stolen material in that context. Using an unathorized clip of LazyTown isn't required to illustrate the concept of piracy - you've simply used it as a cheap gag. Nor is the amount of material used germane to your defense. A copyright lawyer would have you for breakfast.
billburns2 2 years ago
2) YouTube makes no reference to fair use - that's just something you've made up.
3) An unpleasant truth that you have no comeback for isn't defined as "vacuous" - look it up sonny.
5) see: 4
Have you had enough yet?
Or do you want some more?
billburns2 2 years ago
@billburns2
If I was 14, Hitler, or Genghis Khan, it wouldn't make your argument any less of an ad-hominem fallacy
1) You're actually not making an argument here
2) google com / support / youtube / bin / answer. py ?answer =83753 &hl= en-US
3) An assertion without justification is still an empty assertion UNTIL justification is given (reasons as to why the assertion is the case).
LaughingMan0X 2 years ago
OK. If it upsets you I'll quit teasing you about your age.
1) Unfortunately for you it's a valid argument. Your defense is not a defense. Using material under the terms of "fair use" does not extend to decorating an educational video with material that you think will get a laugh from your cronies. Don't believe me? Ask a copyright lawyer.
You have committed theft as part of your video on how taxation is theft. Until you remedy that error you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
billburns2 2 years ago
"2) google com / support / youtube / bin / answer. py ?answer =83753 &hl= en-US"
link doesn't work, even after taking out spaces. Try again
billburns2