It's commonly argued that without a State society will degenerate into chaos and mankind would wipe itself out. I have to wonder why that didn't happen the first 190,000 years of human existence.
We should socialize the production of bullets and guns for the military. Guvmint could make bullets more efficiently! Just look at how cheap guvmint healthcare is! Why give tax moneez to inefficient evul capitalists when guvmint can do everything better?
Wait, if the default position is neutrality and proof must be provided, then it would be fallacy to assume service X can be provided without a state. That is, if X is already currently being provided by a state. As that has already been proven.
Service X may or may not be able to be provided without a state, but it is known that service X can be provided by a state. So, by your own logic, your argument doesn't really hold up. So, get better logic.
@amcnea That is beyond the scope of this video. This video was merely meant to show that even if something has yet to be proven, that does not speak of its truth or falsity. Is X being provided by the state at the highest quality and lowest price? THIS has not been proven, since states refuse to try any legitimate experimentation into stateless solutions.
@tecknotroniks Atheism refers to a belief. Agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can be both an agnostic and an atheist (which I am), since one has nothing to do with the other.
The second one isn't necessarily a fallacy. In science, the concept of the Null Hypothesis is a basis for the testing of every new claim. The claim is tested against H0, and if the test isn't successful, H0 is assumed. This is necessary because otherwise you end up considering all sorts of things that don't have evidence, like Russel's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Since you brought up religion, I feel compelled to use it in my arguement. While I don't agree with what you're saying about abolishing governments, in favor of multiple smaller companies, I do see your point of view. (By the way, there is no possible way to exagerate how far ahead of the vast majority that places you.)
But, as with religion, when it comes to these companies being able to properly sustain societies in the hundreds of millions, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
@CaitiffFTW Such companies would not have the responsibility of sustaining society, so it's not a relevant issue. It would instead be society, that sustained any such companies.
If you feel that government serves a necessary purpose, how do you propose preventing it from violating whatever mandate you deem appropriate? What mechanism would you use?
The Constitutional Government setup by the founders, is as close as anyone has yet come to fixing limits upon the state, but as you can see...
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, that part's already taken care of. Well, in America, at least. Have you actually read the Constitution? There are multiple checks and balances that a bill would have to go through in order to be made into law. You honestly forget exactly how little power any one person has in the American system, even the President.
Generally speaking, a government is a product of the society that it governs. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi? Well, garbage in, garbage out.
@CaitiffFTW "Have you actually read the Constitution?" Uhh, yes actually. I prefer the Declaration myself, but the one is the law of the land, and the other isn't, oh well.
...and this is what I was asking in the first place. The Constitution was supposed to "bind them (bureaucrats) down from mischief " I'm arguing that it didn't get the job done.
I'm asking if you felt it did, and if you don't, what you would suggest, as a more effective method.
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, as you said to begin with, America has come closer than most nations to fixing limits on the state. But, this nation has gone off course, enacting laws and programs that were never considered at the founding of this nation.
But, the problem isn't the Constitution. the proble lies in the fact that it's not implemented fully. There's a reason that I hold a cautious optimism in regards to the TEA Party.
@CaitiffFTW So, your answer is, you think the Constitution -could be- an effective method of constraining the politicians, if it were 'fully implemented'. I guess I'm not really surprised a libertarian would think this way. It begs another question though:
How do we implement the Constitution 'fully', to prevent manipulation?
The Constitution already does'nt authorize (prohibits) the politicians to do many (most) of the things they do. They simply ignore it.
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, the most direct way of implementing this change would be to vote out people who would abuse the system that the Constitution put into place. The first step on that transition can be seen in the most recent round of Congressional elections this past November. You'll note that I'm not saying that this change would be either fast or easy.
Now, another solution is to impeach officials who don't adhere to th Constitution. They did, after all swear to uphold the Constitution when they took the Oath of Office. Violating that oath is Perjury. Perjury is a felony, which certainly can be defined as a "High Crime." Just ask former President Clinton. I know. "He wasn't removed." But, that was more a case of Congresional jury nulification than of Clinton being innocent of the charges.
...people accepting, demanding, that the state satisfy some need/desire of theirs.
Will you consider the possibility, that just as there will always be people who rob, and steal, and murder, that there will also, always be people who will turn to the state to do there robbing, and, stealing, and murdering for them.
If so, I ask is it really possible to have a free society, if at its center, a body exists that is no more than an instrument of force & violence, to be called upon by such people?
@UtubeMyAccountName I agree with you about pretty much everything you've said here. Even about corrupt politicians being guilty of treason. I simply went with perjury, to avoid charges of hyperbole.
That said, I stil don't see the answer lying in the dissolution of governments, as a whole. The main reason behind that, from my point of view, is that corperations can be seen as a smaller form of government, being more or less exempt fro the checks and balances that the American government has.
@CaitiffFTW I hear this a lot; 'govt keeps us 'safe' from corporations. If this were true, it would be a compelling argument, but it isn't. The govt is a corporation's single greatest ally and benefactor.
The truth is, govt is wholly responsible for corporatism, not a defense against it. It's not really possible for corporatism to exist without the state. There would certainly be businesses that people could invest in, and hold shares, but the 'corporate person' could not exist.
@UtubeMyAccountName I'm not saying that governments keep us safe from corperations. I can understand where that can be implied, though. What I am saying, however, is that ther are still a few people in government who actually believe inth individual. To be blunt, that's more than I can say about how mot company's are protrayed. Seriously, would you want BP placed in charge of major sections of society? Whether the perception is accurate or not, it exists, and perception can easily be reality.
@CaitiffFTW No, I wouldn't. The thing is though, is that BP, and any other multinational corps, in fact any business, can only exist sans govt, if people 'willingly' patronize & invest in them. Corporations have no power to compel my patronage. They rely on govt to FORCE me to do business with them, i.e. health insurance.
Without govt BP is no more than a seller, and has to SERVE me to get my business. If there's no govt, just who exactly is going to place BP in charge of anything? How?
@UtubeMyAccountName How much should read into the fact that "willingly" is placed in quotation marks?
But, I argue tht, once a company becomes large enough, without some monopoly protection, a single corperation certainly can "compel" patronage, by sole virtue of being, literally, the only business in the area that can meet a specific need. That power becomes even more profound when that specific need is an essential of life, like food or power.
@CaitiffFTW The quotes simply acknowledge that nefarious/criminal activities, can trick individuals into patronizing a particular business, against their best interest. This is where a private court system would comes in.
...and no, I don't have any specific argument on how such would operate, just a general idea. For that, and arguments against the fallacy of a natural monopoly, I refer you to Mises, Hayek, and other free market giants.
So then, that's my argument, no govt, no corporatism.
@UtubeMyAccountName irst, I don't believe that a monopoly is as uch a falacy as you're letting on. As evidence, I present Ma Bell. Granted, that monopoly was government sanctioned in 1913, but it was easily a monopoly before that. In fact, even with competition from other nations, Bell became the largest corperation on the planet before the anti-trust decisions in 1984.
Ma Bell is the exception, not the rule. But it is proof that exceptions happen. It is possible, and long odds don't matter.
@CaitiffFTW "...Granted, that monopoly was government sanctioned..." This is my argument; monopolies are not a natural phenomenon, this example only serves to support this argument. How is this an exception?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say, that every monopoly that has existed, except among small homogeneous populations, has been the result of some form of state or social, market manipulation.
...and Bell, look at what market competition has done for this industry, since Bell was broken up.
@UtubeMyAccountName Google Xeer. That is the Somalia justice system that existed prior to the existence of the state and is now used in the absence of the state (to a lesser degree it even existed when there was a state).
@CaitiffFTW Perjury? Try treason, but enough of that.
Is the problem really the politicians, or is it perhaps the citizens, the 'people'? You acknowledged yourself, that a govt is generally, a reflection of its people. The pols couldn't get away with the things they do without the willing acceptance, many times outright demands, of the people.
Will you consider the possibility, that you could construct the most limited govt possible, and it would make NO difference, so long as there were...
Probably just poor wording but it's not a fallacy to say "Because there's no evidence to support it" as an argument. That's how it works in science. Until something is fact, it is fiction.
Fallacy s why we will have the ever an every bleeding hearts, telling us that government should provide this and that, and the vote pandering in office will give it in to it. That is, until there is no choice but to go back to what the founders indentured, it is either this, or we will destroy our selves as we have been doing for 75 years..
No Jacob, we must tax the rich and provide the poor with welfare. Just because you are some rich capitalist, doesn't mean you should screw society over and be anti-social. Society is defined as collective effort hence why we must tax the rich and provide to the poor.
@KillTheGunNotPeople "doesn't mean you should screw society over and be anti-social."
(if you're a troll I fell for it):
Do you appreciate that trade is inherently social? that it's a non-zero sum game? While Jacob is trading, and while he's not aggressing, he's very likely 'contributing to society' on net.
By contrast, here's a truly anti-social idea: Peaceful people should systematically be made to surrender the product of their labour under threat of force.
The opposite is also true... just because the the free market can provide something, doesn't mean that government can't do it as well (or better even)... /devilsadvocate
@eagleeye1975 True, but there are plenty of valid arguments that can indeed be used for why the government would do it worse. It's just that the argument that "lack of proof that it can is therefore proof it can't" is definitely not one of those valid arguments.
If the State was the default position, there would be no need for violence or coercion to perpetuate it. Then it wouldn't be a state because it would contradict the definition of 'State'
Its no different to Theism being considered the 'default position' because the Church brutally repressed anyone who questioned it for centuries before it became OK to contradict them.
@DKshad0w "Nothing this complex can exist without a creator." I'm going to make a leap here. You're a Christian, and possibly a Creationist, aren't you? I only ask this because you recited a main Creationist talking point, almost ver batem.
@freemarketfascist but fascism is a mix of sociallism and capitalism ... how can there be a free market the only thing i can assume you mean is an authoritarian capitalist society
It's commonly argued that without a State society will degenerate into chaos and mankind would wipe itself out. I have to wonder why that didn't happen the first 190,000 years of human existence.
PissedFechtmeister 3 months ago in playlist My Top Videos
I like your voice =]
LittlePOPLolli 3 months ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
Spinney just went super saiyan on richard dawkins original idea in this video.
lashkaretoiba 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowgeyser
"The preconceptions are me condensing your fog."
What? Whatever.
"The inference comes from your argument against Spinney which he's addressed"
Actually, he did not address it. He stated, "That is beyond the scope of this video" and sidestepped my comment.
Have you actually read any of this?
amcnea 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser
"You believe X cannot be provided without a state because the state has provided X for so long"
No I don't I specifically stated, "Service X may or may not be able to be provided without a state"
"Further, you seem to be implying that even if X could be provided without a state, we should continue having X provided by the state"
I never implied such a thing.
Perhaps you should re-read my post? And try not injecting preconceptions into my post.
amcnea 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser
Umm, no I'm not. Perhaps you should try looking that up.
amcnea 1 year ago
OK
However without the onus of proof you can't start to extrapolate any theory, right?
That would be like building a house on sand.
billburns2 1 year ago
wat up with that hair gurl?
happymax1 1 year ago
We should socialize the production of bullets and guns for the military. Guvmint could make bullets more efficiently! Just look at how cheap guvmint healthcare is! Why give tax moneez to inefficient evul capitalists when guvmint can do everything better?
lolololol
Morrakiu 1 year ago
Wait, if the default position is neutrality and proof must be provided, then it would be fallacy to assume service X can be provided without a state. That is, if X is already currently being provided by a state. As that has already been proven.
Service X may or may not be able to be provided without a state, but it is known that service X can be provided by a state. So, by your own logic, your argument doesn't really hold up. So, get better logic.
amcnea 1 year ago
@amcnea That is beyond the scope of this video. This video was merely meant to show that even if something has yet to be proven, that does not speak of its truth or falsity. Is X being provided by the state at the highest quality and lowest price? THIS has not been proven, since states refuse to try any legitimate experimentation into stateless solutions.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 10
@tecknotroniks Atheism refers to a belief. Agnosticism refers to knowledge. You can be both an agnostic and an atheist (which I am), since one has nothing to do with the other.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
The state has the ability to collect revenue by force, but not the "right" to.
egokick 1 year ago 2
The second one isn't necessarily a fallacy. In science, the concept of the Null Hypothesis is a basis for the testing of every new claim. The claim is tested against H0, and if the test isn't successful, H0 is assumed. This is necessary because otherwise you end up considering all sorts of things that don't have evidence, like Russel's teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
shanedk 1 year ago
Since you brought up religion, I feel compelled to use it in my arguement. While I don't agree with what you're saying about abolishing governments, in favor of multiple smaller companies, I do see your point of view. (By the way, there is no possible way to exagerate how far ahead of the vast majority that places you.)
But, as with religion, when it comes to these companies being able to properly sustain societies in the hundreds of millions, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW Such companies would not have the responsibility of sustaining society, so it's not a relevant issue. It would instead be society, that sustained any such companies.
If you feel that government serves a necessary purpose, how do you propose preventing it from violating whatever mandate you deem appropriate? What mechanism would you use?
The Constitutional Government setup by the founders, is as close as anyone has yet come to fixing limits upon the state, but as you can see...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, that part's already taken care of. Well, in America, at least. Have you actually read the Constitution? There are multiple checks and balances that a bill would have to go through in order to be made into law. You honestly forget exactly how little power any one person has in the American system, even the President.
Generally speaking, a government is a product of the society that it governs. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi? Well, garbage in, garbage out.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW "Have you actually read the Constitution?" Uhh, yes actually. I prefer the Declaration myself, but the one is the law of the land, and the other isn't, oh well.
...and this is what I was asking in the first place. The Constitution was supposed to "bind them (bureaucrats) down from mischief " I'm arguing that it didn't get the job done.
I'm asking if you felt it did, and if you don't, what you would suggest, as a more effective method.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, as you said to begin with, America has come closer than most nations to fixing limits on the state. But, this nation has gone off course, enacting laws and programs that were never considered at the founding of this nation.
But, the problem isn't the Constitution. the proble lies in the fact that it's not implemented fully. There's a reason that I hold a cautious optimism in regards to the TEA Party.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW So, your answer is, you think the Constitution -could be- an effective method of constraining the politicians, if it were 'fully implemented'. I guess I'm not really surprised a libertarian would think this way. It begs another question though:
How do we implement the Constitution 'fully', to prevent manipulation?
The Constitution already does'nt authorize (prohibits) the politicians to do many (most) of the things they do. They simply ignore it.
What will change (prevent) this?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Well, the most direct way of implementing this change would be to vote out people who would abuse the system that the Constitution put into place. The first step on that transition can be seen in the most recent round of Congressional elections this past November. You'll note that I'm not saying that this change would be either fast or easy.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW (cont.)
Now, another solution is to impeach officials who don't adhere to th Constitution. They did, after all swear to uphold the Constitution when they took the Oath of Office. Violating that oath is Perjury. Perjury is a felony, which certainly can be defined as a "High Crime." Just ask former President Clinton. I know. "He wasn't removed." But, that was more a case of Congresional jury nulification than of Clinton being innocent of the charges.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
...people accepting, demanding, that the state satisfy some need/desire of theirs.
Will you consider the possibility, that just as there will always be people who rob, and steal, and murder, that there will also, always be people who will turn to the state to do there robbing, and, stealing, and murdering for them.
If so, I ask is it really possible to have a free society, if at its center, a body exists that is no more than an instrument of force & violence, to be called upon by such people?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I agree with you about pretty much everything you've said here. Even about corrupt politicians being guilty of treason. I simply went with perjury, to avoid charges of hyperbole.
That said, I stil don't see the answer lying in the dissolution of governments, as a whole. The main reason behind that, from my point of view, is that corperations can be seen as a smaller form of government, being more or less exempt fro the checks and balances that the American government has.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW I hear this a lot; 'govt keeps us 'safe' from corporations. If this were true, it would be a compelling argument, but it isn't. The govt is a corporation's single greatest ally and benefactor.
The truth is, govt is wholly responsible for corporatism, not a defense against it. It's not really possible for corporatism to exist without the state. There would certainly be businesses that people could invest in, and hold shares, but the 'corporate person' could not exist.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I'm not saying that governments keep us safe from corperations. I can understand where that can be implied, though. What I am saying, however, is that ther are still a few people in government who actually believe inth individual. To be blunt, that's more than I can say about how mot company's are protrayed. Seriously, would you want BP placed in charge of major sections of society? Whether the perception is accurate or not, it exists, and perception can easily be reality.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW No, I wouldn't. The thing is though, is that BP, and any other multinational corps, in fact any business, can only exist sans govt, if people 'willingly' patronize & invest in them. Corporations have no power to compel my patronage. They rely on govt to FORCE me to do business with them, i.e. health insurance.
Without govt BP is no more than a seller, and has to SERVE me to get my business. If there's no govt, just who exactly is going to place BP in charge of anything? How?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName How much should read into the fact that "willingly" is placed in quotation marks?
But, I argue tht, once a company becomes large enough, without some monopoly protection, a single corperation certainly can "compel" patronage, by sole virtue of being, literally, the only business in the area that can meet a specific need. That power becomes even more profound when that specific need is an essential of life, like food or power.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW The quotes simply acknowledge that nefarious/criminal activities, can trick individuals into patronizing a particular business, against their best interest. This is where a private court system would comes in.
...and no, I don't have any specific argument on how such would operate, just a general idea. For that, and arguments against the fallacy of a natural monopoly, I refer you to Mises, Hayek, and other free market giants.
So then, that's my argument, no govt, no corporatism.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName irst, I don't believe that a monopoly is as uch a falacy as you're letting on. As evidence, I present Ma Bell. Granted, that monopoly was government sanctioned in 1913, but it was easily a monopoly before that. In fact, even with competition from other nations, Bell became the largest corperation on the planet before the anti-trust decisions in 1984.
Ma Bell is the exception, not the rule. But it is proof that exceptions happen. It is possible, and long odds don't matter.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW "...Granted, that monopoly was government sanctioned..." This is my argument; monopolies are not a natural phenomenon, this example only serves to support this argument. How is this an exception?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say, that every monopoly that has existed, except among small homogeneous populations, has been the result of some form of state or social, market manipulation.
...and Bell, look at what market competition has done for this industry, since Bell was broken up.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I already answered that one. It was already a monopoly prior to being sanctioned by the US government.
And, what happens after being broken has no effect on what what hapened when it was around.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Google Xeer. That is the Somalia justice system that existed prior to the existence of the state and is now used in the absence of the state (to a lesser degree it even existed when there was a state).
PissedFechtmeister 3 months ago in playlist My Top Videos
@CaitiffFTW Perjury? Try treason, but enough of that.
Is the problem really the politicians, or is it perhaps the citizens, the 'people'? You acknowledged yourself, that a govt is generally, a reflection of its people. The pols couldn't get away with the things they do without the willing acceptance, many times outright demands, of the people.
Will you consider the possibility, that you could construct the most limited govt possible, and it would make NO difference, so long as there were...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
I'll add: If X can only be proven by a supernatural cause then supernatural is part of the world so it is natural.
tubetib 1 year ago
Adding to your point, as QualiaSoup put it, it's also a contradiction.
It's saying, "I don't know X; therefore I know X."
vspqbd 1 year ago
Probably just poor wording but it's not a fallacy to say "Because there's no evidence to support it" as an argument. That's how it works in science. Until something is fact, it is fiction.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
Fallacy s why we will have the ever an every bleeding hearts, telling us that government should provide this and that, and the vote pandering in office will give it in to it. That is, until there is no choice but to go back to what the founders indentured, it is either this, or we will destroy our selves as we have been doing for 75 years..
marcef100m 1 year ago
No Jacob, we must tax the rich and provide the poor with welfare. Just because you are some rich capitalist, doesn't mean you should screw society over and be anti-social. Society is defined as collective effort hence why we must tax the rich and provide to the poor.
KillTheGunNotPeople 1 year ago
@KillTheGunNotPeople Get that gun outta ma face!
Agitpropist 1 year ago 3
@KillTheGunNotPeople "doesn't mean you should screw society over and be anti-social."
(if you're a troll I fell for it):
Do you appreciate that trade is inherently social? that it's a non-zero sum game? While Jacob is trading, and while he's not aggressing, he's very likely 'contributing to society' on net.
By contrast, here's a truly anti-social idea: Peaceful people should systematically be made to surrender the product of their labour under threat of force.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@KillTheGunNotPeople
"Society is defined as collective effort"
By you, just now (effort towards what? effort by whom?).
Less idiosyncratic definitions emphasise the word's use to mean a network of relationships and interactions between a group of individuals.
bitbutter 1 year ago
Comment removed
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Theories cannot be proven, only disproved.
herne 1 year ago
The opposite is also true... just because the the free market can provide something, doesn't mean that government can't do it as well (or better even)... /devilsadvocate
eagleeye1975 1 year ago
@eagleeye1975 True, but there are plenty of valid arguments that can indeed be used for why the government would do it worse. It's just that the argument that "lack of proof that it can is therefore proof it can't" is definitely not one of those valid arguments.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 20
@eagleeye1975
Only if you ignore history.
Buffalo122333 1 year ago
No Jacob, the State is the default position. Look at how complex civilization is, there must be a designer i.e the State.
DKshad0w 1 year ago 12
@DKshad0w LOL
herne 1 year ago
@DKshad0w You almost got me there.
Zoiros85 1 year ago
@DKshad0w
If the State was the default position, there would be no need for violence or coercion to perpetuate it. Then it wouldn't be a state because it would contradict the definition of 'State'
Its no different to Theism being considered the 'default position' because the Church brutally repressed anyone who questioned it for centuries before it became OK to contradict them.
Alastrian83 1 year ago
@Alastrian83 He was being tongue-in-cheek.
Tsicar 1 year ago
@Tsicar
Ah... gotcha. Text doesn't convey context nearly as well as spoken words :P
Alastrian83 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DKshad0w
I hope you are being sarcastic.
BrokenMikrofone 1 year ago
@DKshad0w "Nothing this complex can exist without a creator." I'm going to make a leap here. You're a Christian, and possibly a Creationist, aren't you? I only ask this because you recited a main Creationist talking point, almost ver batem.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@DKshad0w How has that designer worked out this year with this designer being raged against by it's subjects all over the world?
YaHuWaHservant 2 months ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
Free Market Fascism > Libertarianism
freemarketfascist 1 year ago
@freemarketfascist but fascism is a mix of sociallism and capitalism ... how can there be a free market the only thing i can assume you mean is an authoritarian capitalist society
dafydd93 1 year ago