Right on! Our founders reviled democracy for just those reasons, and thus democracy is not mentioned in our constitution, but democracy IS one of the planks of the depraved Communist Manifesto.
Spreading democracy is spreading pure BS and total global control: Agenda 21, communitarianism, NWO...
The problem with capitalism and money is that it inevitably leads to the accumulation of wealth. Generally this is good for the individual and counrty/society. Over time the problem arises where savings, be it held as money or working capital allows individuals to stop producing themselves and allows them to persue POWER. In the USA, inlike in a Parliamentary system, POWER and AUTHORITY have not been separated & the PEOPLE do not understand the difference.
@listen2meokidoki In the USA the people (I hear from afar) sometime TALK about the president acting PRESIDENTIAL. I'm not sure of the nuances, but I suspect it is when he exercises AUTHORITY and not POWER. Americans, I suspect, can distinguish the difference but they can not perceive the importance or purpose of separating POWER from AUTHORITY. Americans are violent by nature & so the Bay of Pigs did not cause Kennedy to resign. They like the president kickin arse. They are basically ruthless!
@Dirge987 I agree. Because I didn't comment on the so called interplay. I talked about the separation of Power & Authority. You don't confess to country of origin, so I assume you were born in the USA & if so. well, I offer my sympathies. & if you are then THAT explains why YOU didn't understand what I said. YOU, being of or from the USA, can not conceive the problem of which I speak. Similarly, YOU are confusing your sense of ANGER & the FORCE (or power) of your argument=an American mind-set..
@listen2meokidoki Wow, what does being an American or an Australian have to do with the basic fallacy of the state? Hmmm, none. And what makes you think I'm an American?
@listen2meokidoki Protip, if you're going to put together a coherent argument, or if you want to persuade, stay on topic. Egalitarianism, country of origin, history, don't have anything to do with the statement your originally made, or my response. Instead of tackling that issue, you performed the usual statist defense-mechanism - you shot off on a tangent and dodged the issue. Hint: don't, it makes you look stupid.
@Dirge987 But yes, you're right. I have forgotten the thread. But, my dear freind, egalitarianism is central to all political issues. Be they how society organises, to should there be absolutely no "state" and centralised government. Most people use common sense, They say I am proudly Statist. But I have an equal vote in a system which can change the government and constitution. And separation of power & authority. The USA presidency doesn't.
People don't consider themselves "statists" until it is brought up because statism is an implicit belief that was never logically or rationally justified. You didn't weigh the evidence and make a case for a state, you were a statist, and justify it after the fact.
Great video. The problem with opposition to private ownership of capital is that it leads to little incentive to produce capital in the first place. If a person cannot achieve the ends they desire with something they produce, then they will not produce. There would be an extreme lack of entrepreneurship under majority rule of capital, since there would be little risk taking. Mutualism would also give little incentive to "lend" capital out since you can't profit from it.
Democracy is the best system of government ever invented. The PROBLEM in America is society's ETHOS, the system of elections, Courts are political and the Judges are politically motivated (mainly by money and business). I suggest, for starters, they introduce preferential voting. Especially for the executive Presidency, which is the worst system. He is both head of state & government. It is the source of all the USA's bad politics. But what do I know? I'm not even an American.
@sydneybb2 Yes it's the problem with people wanting stuff, not the system that allows said people to take that stuff through force. No the system of force is totally okay, it's just the inputs that are all screwed up.
Democracy is the best system ever created, jeez the political classes must love you. If you make the slaves love the plantation, they'll never want to leave...
@Dirge987 Many forms of Government have been tried,and will be tried. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide and control the
@listen2meokidoki You are accepting the fundamental fallacy of government itself.
The fact is man has no inherent authority over another man. Period.
The servants, the elections, the ministers, they are all like the formulas trying to explain how the sun goes around the Earth. They may be diverse, tested, some working better than others, but they all embrace a fundamental falsehood.
@Dirge987 In AUSTRALIA the ethos is highly egalitarian. Much more so than in the USA.WIKI says: Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal") is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among moral agents, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality. That is, all people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race......
@Dirge987 .....of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage" end quote. That's why Australians in Vietnam treated the locals as equals and were favoured as friends and trusted far beyond any American soldier, most of whom expressed genocidal disdain of the Vietnamese. That's why the USA used Agent Orange. And why as an American, you still care less.
@Dirge987 You imply, by the way you use the word "inherent", that there is absolutely no natural difference between two people that can be leverage so one can in any way control the other. But so what? Who cares? If a group (tribe) make rules of behaviour, yes anyone can stand up and leave. I suggest you leave. Try setting off into outer space. Yes, there are unherent risks. But inherent is you operative word. Take it and leave. You pose an inherent risk to society. so I will be watching you!
Most of the planet is empty, there is plenty of space for people to live. The problem is that states claim the entire habitable planet and impose artificial barriers to entry and exit. "Love it or leave it" is an unthinking, reactionary argument.
@Dirge987 should shape, guide and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.: End Quote" You see the equivalent of a "Minister of government" is the USA's Secretary (eg: Secretary of State. But the difference is a Minister is, to a large extent, the Prime Minister's peer. And just like the Preferential voting system, Americans in the USA have an incredible inability to understand both th facts & nuances of other political systems-many are more democratic!
@gromtkn If the definition of a government is that it has a monopoly on the inition of the use of violence, then theoretically every form of government does not have to have taxes. It can be funded volountarily through fees or donations. The likelihood however of that happening in practice I don't know about.
There is no reason to say that forcing people to do something because of a majority is less arbitrary than forcing people to do something because of a what an oligarch says, unless you believe that the majority opinion in INHERENTLY less arbitrary. Now due to the problem of rational ignorance, voters spend less time researching, but are culturally compelled to vote, which results in decisions less thought-out than those of a monarch. So if anything, democracy is even more arbitrary.
We also need to make a distinction between democracy (the tyranny of the majority) and constitutional democracy.
I think that constitutional democracy, in its classical formulation, is not the solution. What about DIRECT democracy? A referendum is an instantiation of it. We have the technology to support it!
In short, there is something good in democracy. The decision should stay with the people. Representative democracy is the problem...
California is a great example of direct democracy. Also you can imagine theoretically a situation where anyone votes on whatever they want, basically turning all action into political action.
Representative democracy puts a limit and actually keeps the market alive a little bit. I'd rather have corporatism than direct democracy. What you think is preventing good things from happening is actually preventing worse things from happening.
@fringeelements The theoretical situation "where anyone votes on whatever they want, basically turning all action into political action." that's direct democracy. It's people voting lows instead of people voting people who vote lows. Not everyone is involved in every law, but I can grantee that more people, in absolute numbers, will vote for every law with a lot of interest than senators or congress man. I think we agree on this...
Right, that's the implied communism of democracy manifest. It makes doing business impossible because there's no stability of law, it makes all wealth up for grabs to whoever can get the most votes. Chaos. It makes a modern industrial firm and the intricate and fragile division of labor that occurs in a calibrated market economy impossible.
It's pre-economic barbarism, mobs of apemem smashing the machines. It's chauvinistic and tribalistic and utterly uncivilized. It's retrograde concentrate.
@multitude2009 Well no, we don't need to make a distinction between constitutional democracy and the tyranny of the majority since the former always devolves into the latter. There is no way to tell the majority that they can't do something in a democracy, since to do so would mean having a power greater than the demos and therefore an oligarchy, which the demos would eventually undermine because it's mythology isn't strong enough. Direct democracy only makes the t.o.t.m. easier.
Your criticism points to controlled or manipulated democracy, not to the democracy itself. By using modern knowledge and means to manipulate masses into voting one way or another you subvert democracy. What we have is subverted democracy. The real question is can we have true democracy? Is that possible?
lol no, I thought I was pretty clear. I oppose democracy theoretically, the idea that anyone can take shit from me just by voting is insane and leads to chaos.
@fringeelements But a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago says it's okay! You're philosophy is insane for suggesting that a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago doesn't give justification for people to take your stuff against your consent!
My biggest objection here is that your criticism is completely non-constructive.
However, I believe that strive for some kind of [ayn] randism-like system, where every man stands for himself. The problem with this borderline anarchy is that eventually groups of like-minded people come together to form that which you fought. In short: anarchy is self-defeating. Humans seek to live in these environments. Not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
You're not smart. Please stop saying "Ayn Rand". She is completely irrelevant. "Constructive" begs the question. I'm for lots of construction projects, and I think there would be a lot in a stateless society, and these construction projects would cater more to societal demand than antisocial state projects. I'm also for law, defense, roads, collective infrastructure grids, et cetera - assuming people want those things. Think of it like "privatizing" hamburger production.
Your assertion that people in the absence of a state today will just come together and form a new state is just "common knowledge" bullshit that you feel you can safely assert. If we look at the states that formed de novo around the world, they all centered around religion, what we today would call "extreme cults" was the norm. Circumscription explains the expansion of states, not their origin. This used to be a fringe view, but now the religion theory of early state formation is common.
And if we look at stateless societies after around 800 BC (The "axial age" or "pivotal age"), we see that none of them form states de novo. They're all conquered, and rather difficultly conquered. This is because a stateless society has no capitol, there's no flag to capture. All a state can do is enough damage that the people submit out of fear - but this usually costs more money than is immediately gained in tax revenue. So stateification only becomes profitable over generations.
If you want to point to the chaos of collapsed states as evidence that we need states, I hope you try to see why that's stupid so I don't have to explain it.
"Not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it."
Kim Jong Il sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
The Iraq war sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
The war on drugs sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
Please don't respond to this series of comments. You're really at fucking square one and you need to learn the basics before engaging. My book, linked at the top of my channel, gives IMO the best intro you can get in a very short time. I don't think it's the best book on "anti-statism" or unfortunately aka "market anarchy", but I do think it's the best intro book.
@fringeelements - Whats the name of your book? Is it on Amazon? I tried the link at the top and it blacks the screen unless I register to that site, which I have no interest in doing.
you cant make everyone happy in society. thats why democracy tries to make the majority of people happy. now i know very well that democracy has its faults, especially with corrupt politicians and elections, however, nothing is perfect. i would like to hear how you think a government should rule.
"Democracy" is mob rule. "Freedom" is each man ruling himself entirely. We need liberty, justice, and individual rights to infinity. And DEATH to majority rule!
is it recorded in history in democracy of athens only 3000 were eligible to judge by juror outta 100.000 ONLY 3 OOO WAS carry weapons...if your harvest over 5 tons and you can afford to pay for labor of ships as i think 500 shekel silver no slaves use to row the ship it is bullshit all paid..well if you can affor democracy consider you to own a ship a treme for 30 years to robb all arround than u return the ship as written why to debate to day
lol you can't. States exert control over the entire planet, including vast tracts of wilderness their agents have not touched. There is no "leaving", services cannot be opted-out of and any building of significant industry "off the grid" will be penalized just as much as on it. Survivalists living in woods being left alone is irrelevant.
Your campfire metaphor fails. If you're saying we need democracy for law and defense then that's just empirically false, it's not even debatable.
@fringeelements It not even debatable? WOW! thats some arrogance. Survivalists living in the wilderness is irrelevant? Why is it irrelevant? That is what you want. Complete liberty without compromise. You want to live amoung humans you MUST compromise, you must forgo some liberties in order to gain ANY liberties. Othermise you must suffer the consequences of all against all. No one wants that. "Mob democracy" is the opinion of someone biting the hand that feeds them.
@IronicKismet Survivalists living in the woods are irrelevant because being forced off all the most productive land is just as much being coerced as anything else. The question is not whether one must compromise but whether a group can coerce others so it doesn't have to compromise. The state isn't about giving up some liberties to gain others, all the liberties the state allegedly provides are provided better and cheaper without it. The mob doesn't feed anyone, they just take food.
Also, if it's such an optimal situation to choose to submit to a democratic state for it's supposed advantages, why must it be forced? When I have an idea about something people might like, I tell them about this great new idea, maybe one day start a business selling it. So that's another way your analogy fails.
I'm certain I know what democracy is better than you. It is the violent enforcement of the outcome of a contrived and unnatural election. These elections are involuntary and one cannot choose to opt-out of the system.
This allows group A to vote themselves the incomes of group B, and provides a vehicle for moronic do-gooders, and does not reward intelligence.
Any constraint on these effects comes from a limitation of democracy. Example: a poll-test or only allowing net contributors to vote.
The most a democratic state can be is a frankenstein market. It can increase the complexity of elections with instant runoff voting, voting power based on net contribution, and being able to cast 3 votes for candidate A and 1 vote for candidate C. These defeat the whole supposed purpose of democracy, which is to enable the numerical majority to exert their will over the minority. Demos - people archy - rule. Mob rule.
@EarnanOMaille I would let only people who give more money to the state in taxes than they take to vote. Other people dont have the right to say what to do with money that isnt theirs.
I was sent a friendrequest by you, and I´m unfamiliar with you and your videos. But I watched a few and found them interesting, including this one. I don´t agree, but I can see some of the points you´re making. But I wonder, do you have any video in which you present an alternative for democracy? I know democracy is far from perfect, but as far as I know it´s the best way available to us, that will work.
@fringeelements I´m not so familiar with the specifics about what the founding fathers fought against. I only know the basics. Constitutional monarchy? How would that work? And how would it be good?
And the stateless society. About that I think either utopia or dystopia. But I view both as highly unrealistic. But a society without the need of a state is what I want to. But I don´t see it happening anytime soon. We are still dependent on the state, and I see it as more positive than negative.
Well I'm not going to write a book I've already written in the YT comments section just for you. Nothing personal, just time preference and opportunity cost.
Although not TOTALLY taken out of the realms of IDIOCY, your progression of thought is merely based on preferences of an IDEOLOGICAL FLAVOR and loose associations and therefore - as a political statement - it is highly DUBIOUS.
Although not TOTALLY taken out of the realms of IDIOCY, your progression of thought is merely based on preferences of an IDEOLOGICAL FLAVOR and loose associations and therefore - as a political statement - it is highly DUBIOUS.
It is humanly impossible to get away from this "barbaric force". Every government system and every nongoverment system involves involuntary forcing of people. However a representative government, like a democracy or republic is our best bet to ensure that authority serves the best interests of the people, even if not every person wants the excact same things. There is possibility to oppress people under any form of government, but bashing democracy is foolish, we have no better option.
False. A certain amount of majoritarianism is inherent in reality. What you wish to do is make this majoritarianism sacrosanct. It snaps a tendency to an absolute, hence the title "mob ABSOLUTEism". If this principle were applied to food, everyone would vote on what to eat each day, and then everyone would be forced to eat that.
Also, scale. Claiming by fiat rule over fast tracts of wilderness is not analogous to a township or homeowner's association. Please, read my book.
@fringeelements I just gave it a quick skim, perhaps I'll read more later. But I think one must agree that there are limits to what the free market can accomplish, without a collective hand in things. I'll be the first to say that governments around the world have far overstepped their bounds, but there are certain nessesities the private market is not suitable to handle, for which we need forced compliance, under the direction of wise and moral leadership ofcourse.
I'm for regulations, law and it's violent enforcement, roads, property, collective plumbing, even social insurance. None of these things require a state and every service the state monopolizes and is commonly believed to be the sole possible provider of has been provided in a non-state manner. Every element needed of a stateless society has existed in isolation, and full-blown stateless societies have existed. The mild west is the best example.
Aaron russo and others did a lot of good work exposing the political systems of today but they all made a fatal mistake, they started using the word "democracy" as a term for "the enemy", thinking they had nailed down the culprit as "mob rule". There are several problems with that. It was never a majority of ordinary people who decided to take away the rights of 49% or take their money or start spending or start allowing and creating a central bank to rule the treasury and government. Elites did
Sorry, but if everyone was like me, nobody who supported a central bank would have been elected, only hardcore libertarian ideologues would ever have positions of power - though really there would be no state.
"Elites" is just a boogeyman cop-out phrase. Large firms have to lobby the state just to compete since their competition is, as that's the nature of democracy. Given democracy, rent-seeking follows deterministically.
Also I don't think you comprehend my main objection. I'm opposed to income and social security, medicare and medicaid, mandatory state-funded schooling, state police and "defense", the DMV, state regulatory agencies, the whole thing.
These are all things that the mob generally thinks are good things because people are stupid. On a total market, none of these things would ever come to be, and everyone - bottom 1% to top 1% - would be better off for it in the long run. 15 years is my estimate.
Let me give an example of a daycare: normally that can be fun, with the kids doing their own things all day. Then the teacher says, "lets decide to have a group project". Through voting, the children decide to force each other into doing something nobody would have done had they not adopted the ideology of the election.
Whenever I heard the daycare manager address the entire group, I would try to hide somewhere because I knew some bullshit was coming up.
@EarnanOMaille A republic always transitions from a body of fixed law into a democracy then into an oligarchy. It's a cycle. One body of law will never suffice because our world is dynamic. It is ever changing and we like all life are as well. However if we followed the founders example we could throw off our government nonviolently through peaceful secession and escape the state. If people wanted that.
The founding fathers hated democracy. They gave us the most anti-statist state ever erected. Though like all states it was doomed to failure. Democracy is a transitory phase. It never lasts long and always destroys itself.
Yeah, and they also loved centralized government and socialized medicine too, much like modern day democracy worshipers. Your point? Are you somehow implying that hating your sacred cow of democracy makes one a fascist? If you do, then let me give you a friendly advice free of charge: Your can't win arguments with logical fallacies against those who know better.
@Akatam0t0ma Look dude, you give me too much credit. I never accused anyone who didn't believe in Democracy of being fascist. I never even said weather or not I believed in Democracy myself. I simply pointed out a fact: The Nazi hated Democracy. They were fascists and part of fascist idealogy is oppostion to Democracy. They were elitists who believed in Autocractic rule. Democracy means rule of the people and they were aganist that. It doesn't mean that every Anti Democractic person is a Nazi.
interesting.......i learned something new today :-) loll .......i'm not all up on politics like i should be, but this is a good start nonetheless right? lolll
Excellent work.Please keep your videos this simple, they are easy to understand.
Most people haven't a clue that it is actually the very people we put into power, that keep us in the dark. We constantly mistake clever for intelligence, hence we either have the least intelligent leading us or, the least Human! I wonder.
Well first off your argument is for static law and against voting - yet you advocate republicanism. If you advocate only an elite can vote, then you're open to an egalitarian revolution in 100 years, and we're back at democracy.
Also "the system" vague. You mean the state? Non-state armies? That's rhetorical, please don't respond.
The mob cannot organize itself in the absence of a presupposed state. And if the top 20% resisted the bottom 80% could not organize any attacks.
Id have to agree.Democracy is insane as is the Public. The Public has no capacity to solve any disputes with their brother/sister on their own. This is why we have Police and Courts to solve problems for those who cannot solve their own problems. But then again we have been programed into this mindset.
Im so glad we are in this time. All my life I thought I was insane.well it turns out I was rite.Im no longer part of the Democracy and I now feel great and full of Life under God,Genesis 1;26-28
I think this video ultimately comes back around to ethics. You may see any initiation of force as unacceptable, while I see forced taxation as not only practical as a means to an end, but rather ethical when considering the circumstances of why taxation exists. If the elderly are unable to care for themselves once they are too old to work, I feel forced taxation to support them in one way or another is not only ethical, but imperative.
Well first off ethics and morality are just ways to give your preferences superpowers.
Second off you're assuming the very thing you should be trying to prove: that the bottom 1% aren't best off in a total market.
Even if you could show that over 50 years old / poor people are better off in some welfare state, the higher growth rate on a total market means that in say 200 years the poor would be better off if we decided to have a total market today. So your "ethics" have a presentist bias.
So, 200 years from now things might eventually come around for the poor, sick, and elderly, so we should just let them live in abysmal living standards so the market can grow a little faster? Not only is that an unreasonably callous approach to what those people go through, but I don't see how it benefits the overall economy either. High poverty and disease breeds crime and ultimately very high costs to society and the economy in one way or another.
@TheAtheistAllegiance The poor of today live better than the Kings of yore. The poor of tomorrow will live like the kings of today, if growth isn't hindered. Your proposal of welfarism hinders this. 100's of billions of men live in the future as opposed to the 100's of millions you wish to sacrifice them for. Instead of an argument as to why non-welfare would benefit the economy, a question: If one was to show you that nonwelfare does indeed benefit the economy would you abandon your position?
You're callous for demanding impoverishing monetary equality.
Just look at places like Botswana and Trinidad and compare them to their more statist neighbors, so even in periods of around 10 years freer markets do better for all strata. Free markets win in both long and short runs.
And sorry to break it to you, but subsidizing unemployment does not reduce crime or disease, and since employers are paying for the subsidy they have less money to hire new workers, and less total stuff is produced.
I'm not demanding monetary equality; leave the straw-men aside.
There are many societies that have benefited/suffered from Capitalism/Socialism due to a number of circumstances. Pure markets rarely win.
Unemployment insurance upholds people's ability to buy healthcare and other products, which reduces poverty and disease. Because this money is quickly returned to employers, more stuff is produced to meet the rise in demand, which wouldn't be present with a cut to benefits.
@TheAtheistAllegiance lulz, i don't think anyone is arguing against unemployment insurance. I have some right now...in addition to the unemployment insurance that is provided by the State. Even though the State crowds the market and has burdened the private suppliers with controls and taxes, unemployment insurance still exists today! It won't disappear on a total market.
The state does often crowd the market in various ways with taxes and needless regulations; however, unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits.
Your initial point was that the poor live better now than the kings of Medieval times, which is mainly due to technology. However, my point addressed your previous argument, which is that welfare will detriment future societies, which I'm stating isn't true because welfare doesn't exclude economic growth.
@TheAtheistAllegiance Right and technology is magical. Since time and technology are correlated we can just sit and wait around because technology gets better when time passes.
State unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits for what?
It doesn't stop economies from growing, depending on how much welfare is being provided by the State, however it doesn't allow for the maximization of economic growth. Maximization = greater quantity of happier people in the future.
Because unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits behind crowding the market, economic maximization is not hindered. As I originally stated, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Also, pure markets don't maximize technological growth, but rather whatever tech is profitable. Renewable energy isn't very profitable, so government grants for research, along with subsidies for production will accelerate technological progress in that particular instance.
When you subsidize unemployment, more people will be unemployed. People who were on the fence of unemployment will now choose to be unemployed, and firms have less resources to employ people with.
The two are mutually exclusive. This has to do with "the scarcity of resources". Taking resources from Bob and giving to bill doesn't result in more resources. Doing this a million times doesn't either. You need to get your head around the fact that PhDs are denying that the sky is blue.
People on unemployment insurance have to verify that they are filling out a certain amount of applications a week. Fraud and laziness is more myth than reality when it comes to welfare.
Not all resources are efficiently allocated, so when redistributed to people who need to spend money at various businesses to survive, it benefits the economy and those individuals. Firms will have more resources to work with due to a rise in demand, confidence, and ultimately investment.
Renewable energy is profitable today. Oil is still cheaper though, but burning oil violates the property of others (pollution is property violation). However, this property violation is endorsed by the state, thus each individual isn't paying the full price of the oil usage.
On a total market, pollution is property violation dealt with with class action lawsuits.
Renewable energy compared to conventional fossil fuels isn't nearly profitable enough to overhaul the current mode of production in time to preserve our environment.
Also, if pollution was handled your way, the auto, aviation, and many other industries would be non-existent. Additionally, the US military would be severely under-equipped for any sufficient defense. It's an approach that would ironically suppress technological advancement almost as much as the Catholic Church.
@fringeelements If you asked most people they would prefer alternatives to gasoline. If we were able to work towards this goal producing an affordable automobile with an equal or lesser cost to a gas powered vehicle at a very efficient rate we would have them. I know they are out their but the government won't let them compete fairly and has the market nearly monopolized with gas powered vehicle advertisements. It is preventing and distorting the way the market should actually look in this case.
Welcome to the real world and the age of scarcity. Libertarianism is Soviet Communism seen in a mirror - and just as impractical. You are arguing for anarchy and feudalism, although you do seem very good at hiding it from yourself.
"anarchy and feudalism" two completely different things, pending your definition of them. A free society(absence of a state) does not become a feudal plutocracy by default, not by a long shot.
Ryan, I don't think that it's fair to dismiss terms, and the people who use terms, like "equality", "fairness", "tolerance", etcetera, as being inherently authoritarian.
I use them all the time, and I have no interest in authorities, authoritarian institutions, or coercing other people's behavior.
I talk about those things because I have placed a value on them, they suit my preferences. I don't see why we should only concern ourselves with values relating to goods and services.
"Economic reductionism" is good for human action, means to ends assuming "rationality" in the sense of attempting to fulfill your values. What is "economic" and "non-economic" human action is relatively arbitrary though, and I believe Mises' cutoff was sentimental.
But it was mere semantics anyway, he applied just called it "catallactics", saying that economics was a subset of catallactics, but the division between economic and non-economic catallactics is arbitrary.
@fringeelements When I said down to DNA I meant it in the sense that in order to survive genes act in certain ways that may compromise one system in favor of another. This isn't much different than humans making decisions on the margin. Wouldn't you agree?
Monarchs once wanted to impose rule upon peoples out of a cynical belief in divine right. Libertarians believe that their preferred political system is justified because of "natural rights". Both are completely superstitious belief systems. Democrats believe that politics should reflect the wishes of the majority because only then can you have a justified order. Libertars presume that you can derive justified order from some kind of natural rights, which are conveniently defined by libertarians.
@fringeelements It really doesn't mean what you say at this point. Some libertarians reject the natural rights argument, thats true, but its also irrelevant, because they only substitute the natural rights part with some other arbitrary construct. Essentially, libertarianism is a twisted loop: a self-justifying, sanctimonious and selfish ideology. Libertarians invent morals to justify their own absurd propositions. Their values are rejected by the majority, thus they hate democracy.
Morality doesn't exist, stop talking about that. There is no need to talk about someone's "moral" arguments.
Well you're forcing me to be broad, but no, free markets lead to the bottom 1% being wealthier than any state-system. It also makes the top 1% wealthier. No, economic arguments are open appeals to subjective values. I assume people value prosperity and peace, thus a pure free market is the best way to have prosperity and peace for everyone rich and "poor".
Libertarianism is still largely based on the natural rights argument, not on inductive science and utilitarianism. Market system is good, but there is no evidence that an unbridled market delivers good results The third world has in fact moved toward this unregulated market and stagnated as a result: for example, South America's economy doubled between 1950-80, while it grew a meager 2-4 % (iirc) between 1980-05. This is an unprecidented growth failure, and it happened in free market conditions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video is composed of absurd rants and misconceptions about politics. Look, its very simple. There are no pre-political laws or rules of any kind: all established institutions, including the property of the taxed, are purely political constructs.
Democrats believe that policy should be guided by the desires of the majority. Monarchists believe that policy is the plaything of a monarch. Libertarians believe that laws and rights should be decided by libertarian judge-rulers.
Nowhere do I say there are pre-political rules. Stop with the implicit lies. Here I say why democracy goes against what I value, and I assume it goes against what the viewer values. A stateless society allows for more practical freedom for individuals from the bottom 1% to top 1% because they simply have more wealth and the law is regulated by ease of exit, and thus law conforming more to the demands of society (like a firm's selling product. Not simple or 65% majority absolutism)
For any good libertarian, the "moral" arguments are ancillary. Rothbard made his idiotic moral system long after his economics - appealing to subjective value - were established.
That is what Neon, Spawk, and I are trying to break away from, and BP, XOmni and Aaron and fighting to hold onto. This whole moral debate is about exactly what you brought up. Though Rothbard is a little bit better that those fools b/c his moral system was contrived to justify his subjective-value economic conclusions.
No. Libertarians still present the debate in the terms inherited from the natural-rights folks. This video is not an exception to that.
It is an issue of mandate: libertarians believe that democracy is evil, and therefore their preferred laws can be imposed on people regardless whether people like them or not. Democrats believe that the state can derive a democratic mandate, with which it can enforce taxes with greater legitimacy than you can own property without paying taxes.
If a capitalistic free market were to exist in the manner it was intended (keep what you earn), there'd be no reason for democracy. Once you, I and all others who create rather than take begin to suffer from, as you put it, "equality" and "fairness," things suddenly become less equal and fair to those with ability.
It's hard to say where we're headed as a society. I would like to think that as humans progress, the "need" for government will evaporate, but as it stands, we are definitely leaning into a more statist society. I'll stick to what Thoreau said, "when we're ready, that's the government we will have" i.e., no government
and the "thief" is really only taking what he values...whether you value it or not. "Hmmmm I want some more oil."...."Hey you got some oil, would you give me a deal on it?" ..."No!.....well I guess you got some weapons of mass destruction!....Don't ya!"....."To War! ... To War!...." ....."I love that I get to make shit up and make the people eat it."......."Guess you should have given me that deal eh. But enjoy your country house while we hang some poor sap look a like." ...Bilderberg...
haha, my wife just made a point.....isn't it hypocritical to complain about free speech aka "democracy" in a medium that was created from democratic rules?...anyways....its not that democracy is not working it is that the leaders driven by the corporate "dollar" can bend and completely avoid the laws that the common people have to follow....in fact everything should be put to a vote by the poeple...."Should we go to war with ......?" vote on friday!.....and not let the leader make big mistakes
So society is a "Platonic bugaboo"? Well I'm happy to live as a part of society, not out in the wild on my own. I wish you would back up your strident claims without just jumping to conclusions like this (and attempting to redefine the entire vocabulary). Also it would be interesting to hear what YOU consider civilised, modern and non-brutal. Fascism? Anarchy? You're talking about something that doesn't exist, some utopian form of afairs without a name. Democracy is the best thing we have.
Authoritarians love democracy? Bolsheviks? National socialists? Are you having a laugh? We had the bolsheviks over here in our country and 50 years of socialism - it wasn't bloody democracy and everyone knew it wasn't. Only one political party was allowed and ordinary people had no say in politics, where the Moscow line was followed and enforced.
Identical to the thief? WTF? That's completely wrong with the don't pay - go to camp - get shot bullshit - taxation has nothing to do with democracy - democracy is a form of government and all forms of government require funds (and have taxed their citizens). In a democracy however I get a say over how common funds are spent. Also no one is forcing you to use money - go live in a commune and produce your own food etc. Sheesh this vid shows a complete misunderstanding of all of the concepts in it
America is the worlds debtor. Everything is prepaid infact. Everytime you pay a debt in cash, you discharge it to a future date. It is an IOU. That's why Americas deficit is growing so much. Every account that isn't closed, America is left to fit the bill. You can pay a bill with set-off though. This is a way to adjust a bill to zero. Check out Winston Shrout and my vids too.
Great video. Did you have to pay /get permission to use the terminator footage? America is a democratic republic. Although it is really just a republic. The US is a corporation( not to be confused with USA). NESARA is an initiative to bring back a gold standard. As long as America has no real money they can't pay back british bankers that they borrowed from after winning independence
@xatumiller2 just because communism is worse than democracy doesn't mean to keep it so,in fact we live in a republic not a democracy.Democracies are always violent in their deaths. Thomas Jefferson
@MRELTUCO I can understand the point but what else would you use instead of democracy?Some thing that is less "brutish". I just hope it's not religion oriented because this is where everything goes not so good.
@xatumiller2 To me religion is a tool the elite use on the masses to divide and conquer,and as a form of government i think a constitutional republic is the best form as long as career family politicians and religion can be kept out of government.Of course this is only my opinion.peace.
@MRELTUCO You mean a non-democratic constitutional republic? Where representatives and lawmakers are non-elected. That is exactly what leads not only to career families in politics, but also to mass corruption and concentration of power and capital in the hands of the elite.
Religion was also mankind's first attempt at science.
@8DX I understand religion was used as a science at first but what about now?The whole jesus birth is astronnomical,so what use could we have to a primitive tool morphed into political power over the masses by dividing the human race.Religion today is folly! If we inacted harsher laws for men and women who would work in sensative positions like government i think we would have a sound republic .
@MRELTUCO I fully agree that religion today is obsolete (at least from a science/enlightenment point of view). However religion still does make sense in various ways:
As a cultural phenomenon - religions unite peoples and cultures and create additional value in literature and the arts.
As a human need - as pattern seeking mammals we naturally find order in the world. Until the world is properly educated in rational thinking, people will have to make do with religion.
@8DX Also harsher laws for police officers as well would promote honest policemen.and all that would want to join the forcewould be less mindless as today's cops and politicians.
Oh not this "the US is not a democracy" line again. Look up the word in a dictionary if you want to speak English. There are two kinds of democracies - direct democracy, which is what they had in ancient Greece, where every citizen voted on all laws and could punish their representatives directly. Then you have representative democracy, where people elect representatives from each region or town to form governments. Language changes... get it?
The US is a democratic and constitutional republic.
@8DX Again we are a constitutional republic with democratic principles! That's it. If we were what you claim then why isn't it anywhere to be found in our constitution?Or anywhere for that matter?Because they are only principles.All you have to back your claim is the left-right politician saying it here and there on the media whore
At the time of writing of your constitution, the word democracy had a more specific meaning. That's what I'm talking about .. the US is a representative democracy (I might say modern democracy). The UK is also a parliamentary democracy. The US is ALSO of course a republic (Just as the UK is in principle a kingdom - a constitutional monarchy.) If you weren't a democracy, you wouldn't have free and open elections to elect representatives to legislative bodies.
Oh and by the way: did you forget who ratified the US constitution and bill of rights? Wasn't it the US Congress as a democratically elected representative body? And don't your separate states have democratically elected lawmaking bodies?
Parliamentary or representative democracy was basis on which the USA was built.
So stop all the bull.
And if you're talking about your constitution, saying democracy is "only principles" - well the same is your constitution or any constitution.
@8DX wow just because the process of electing men to office is senn as democratic doesn't mean we have a democratic government,I mean if it is such a big thing then why didn't the founding father's bother with clarifing that we are a democratic republic insttead of a constitutional republic?Like I said we use some democratic principals but that's where it ends.If you can find written proof that we are a democracy then please show me.
@MRELTUCO "electing men to office is seen as democratic"? It IS democratic, that's what democracy means I keep telling you (as well as an equality of rights and priviliges in society) - look it up, read the bldy wikipedia article or go to a history/social studies class. And as I said - the US constitution itself and Bill of Rights were both ratified by democraticaly elected bodies, discussed and signed in a democratic process, their very claim to validity is based on democratic principles.
@8DX You seem to have a nerve for this so let me ask you something.Question,Do you have aparty you align yourself with?If yes whom?And why?For some odd reason i think your a democrat,am i right?Well please let me know if you wish.
Oh is that the problem? That you have a "democratic" party in your country so you have to somehow prove the word is un-American and un-constitutional? No I don't align myself with any party. I've voted for Christian Democrats/People's Party (centrist) and Civic Democratic Party (most conservative in our country) and am about to vote for a smaller conservative-to-centrist party in the coming elections.
But yes In PRINCIPLE I am a democrat - I believe in free elections and agreement by majority.
@8DX Well i hate to tell you man but your a sheep.A mindless sheep aligning himself with a party and ideology that has had violent deaths in the past and yet you also support majority rule as well,Let me guess,if majority rule which is mob rule would vote to take the rights of the 49 percent would you agree to that?It falls under your so called mob rule i mean majority rule?Please indulge.
@MRELTUCO And I could call you a goat with no effect (other animals spring to mind). Like I said I don't align with a party and have voted several local right-wing parties with different ideologies. On the other point - all forms of government have had violent deaths in the past I don't see what that has to do with modern democracies. Electing capable representatives and instituting a constitution are among the protections against 51%+ mob rule (as well as a free press, separation of powers etc)
@8DX I just dont see how using a voting process for our republc makes us a democratic one instead of a constitutional republic like stated in the contitution.But hey maybe the founders forgot to let us know that we really are a a democratic republic and are playing a joke on us by not clarifying it on the constitution!LoL.
@MRELTUCO I never claimed the US was "democratic" instead of "constitutional". There are various words to describe what the US is, and both of these are valid - yes you have a constitution, and yes you have democratic process. Maybe you didn't read the comment I posted on it but so far you've completely ignored the point I made about the very validity of the US constitution being based on democratic principles, free and equal rights, elected representatives and self-determination.
@8DX I understand where your coming from man but our founding fathers made sure we left old ideologies behi9nd in europe and yes we do have some democratic principals but that's as far as it goes.We have never been taught in school that we are a democratic republic and in fact the founding fathers spoke of democracy as a disease and a playground for oligarch's.And that is the game played in america right now,which is false info to decieve americans into believeing something that aint true.
@MRELTUCO Well it's sad your school system seems to ignore teaching basic political concepts such as democracy. As I said before, your founding fathers were referring to direct democracy (without a constitution), where EVERYTHING was decided by popular vote and the mood of the masses at any given time. Perhaps some people in the US want your republic to be more democratic? Aren't they entiteld to strive for that (just as any people has a right to strive for self-determination?) peace out.
@8DX conitnued..In my country we have alot of waking up to do.we have been lied to about almost every single war we've been in since korea on has been unconstitutional and undeclared!We are starting to get taxed like pathetic nation's lile france and britaqin where they have no freedom to do as they will.We need a new 1717 in america and i pray everyday to myself that it happens.peace.
@8DX continued..I dont align myself with any party either because we have been lied to to such an extent that I feel the only way we are to prosper is to hit the reset button on government and have some serious changes to as how severe punishment for politicians should be and also lobbying should be officaly made illegal with out using their little Quid pro Quo!
@8DX continued.And if I might add that to believe in the 2 party system is absurd today,because anyone with a 5th grade education can see that both democrats and republican are 2 arms of the same body.
Democracy is a logical fallacy, actually. An Argument from Majority. The way to know we're not living in one is because things would probably be completely tits-up.
Democracy is a form of tyranny ==>> "Majority Rules"
Universal suffrage is a form of socialism ==>> "The Right to Vote"
Equal suffrage is a form of communism ==>> "One Person, One Vote"
CherryGanz 1 week ago
Right on! Our founders reviled democracy for just those reasons, and thus democracy is not mentioned in our constitution, but democracy IS one of the planks of the depraved Communist Manifesto.
Spreading democracy is spreading pure BS and total global control: Agenda 21, communitarianism, NWO...
addvoc8 2 weeks ago
Damn good video
HotNationalist 2 weeks ago
The problem with capitalism and money is that it inevitably leads to the accumulation of wealth. Generally this is good for the individual and counrty/society. Over time the problem arises where savings, be it held as money or working capital allows individuals to stop producing themselves and allows them to persue POWER. In the USA, inlike in a Parliamentary system, POWER and AUTHORITY have not been separated & the PEOPLE do not understand the difference.
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki In the USA the people (I hear from afar) sometime TALK about the president acting PRESIDENTIAL. I'm not sure of the nuances, but I suspect it is when he exercises AUTHORITY and not POWER. Americans, I suspect, can distinguish the difference but they can not perceive the importance or purpose of separating POWER from AUTHORITY. Americans are violent by nature & so the Bay of Pigs did not cause Kennedy to resign. They like the president kickin arse. They are basically ruthless!
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki Something tells me you don't understand the interplay between the state and the economy, and so you should not comment on it.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987 I agree. Because I didn't comment on the so called interplay. I talked about the separation of Power & Authority. You don't confess to country of origin, so I assume you were born in the USA & if so. well, I offer my sympathies. & if you are then THAT explains why YOU didn't understand what I said. YOU, being of or from the USA, can not conceive the problem of which I speak. Similarly, YOU are confusing your sense of ANGER & the FORCE (or power) of your argument=an American mind-set..
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki Wow, what does being an American or an Australian have to do with the basic fallacy of the state? Hmmm, none. And what makes you think I'm an American?
The word of the day is sophistry.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki Protip, if you're going to put together a coherent argument, or if you want to persuade, stay on topic. Egalitarianism, country of origin, history, don't have anything to do with the statement your originally made, or my response. Instead of tackling that issue, you performed the usual statist defense-mechanism - you shot off on a tangent and dodged the issue. Hint: don't, it makes you look stupid.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987 But yes, you're right. I have forgotten the thread. But, my dear freind, egalitarianism is central to all political issues. Be they how society organises, to should there be absolutely no "state" and centralised government. Most people use common sense, They say I am proudly Statist. But I have an equal vote in a system which can change the government and constitution. And separation of power & authority. The USA presidency doesn't.
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
People don't consider themselves "statists" until it is brought up because statism is an implicit belief that was never logically or rationally justified. You didn't weigh the evidence and make a case for a state, you were a statist, and justify it after the fact.
fringeelements 1 month ago
Great video. The problem with opposition to private ownership of capital is that it leads to little incentive to produce capital in the first place. If a person cannot achieve the ends they desire with something they produce, then they will not produce. There would be an extreme lack of entrepreneurship under majority rule of capital, since there would be little risk taking. Mutualism would also give little incentive to "lend" capital out since you can't profit from it.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
Democracy is the best system of government ever invented. The PROBLEM in America is society's ETHOS, the system of elections, Courts are political and the Judges are politically motivated (mainly by money and business). I suggest, for starters, they introduce preferential voting. Especially for the executive Presidency, which is the worst system. He is both head of state & government. It is the source of all the USA's bad politics. But what do I know? I'm not even an American.
sydneybb2 3 months ago
@sydneybb2 Yes it's the problem with people wanting stuff, not the system that allows said people to take that stuff through force. No the system of force is totally okay, it's just the inputs that are all screwed up.
Democracy is the best system ever created, jeez the political classes must love you. If you make the slaves love the plantation, they'll never want to leave...
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@Dirge987 Many forms of Government have been tried,and will be tried. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide and control the
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki You are accepting the fundamental fallacy of government itself.
The fact is man has no inherent authority over another man. Period.
The servants, the elections, the ministers, they are all like the formulas trying to explain how the sun goes around the Earth. They may be diverse, tested, some working better than others, but they all embrace a fundamental falsehood.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987 In AUSTRALIA the ethos is highly egalitarian. Much more so than in the USA.WIKI says: Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal") is a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort among moral agents, whether persons or animals. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that equality contains the idea of equity of quality. That is, all people should be treated with the same dignity or be regarded as possessing the same intrinsic qualities despite our societal diversity of race......
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@Dirge987 .....of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability or cultural heritage" end quote. That's why Australians in Vietnam treated the locals as equals and were favoured as friends and trusted far beyond any American soldier, most of whom expressed genocidal disdain of the Vietnamese. That's why the USA used Agent Orange. And why as an American, you still care less.
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@listen2meokidoki I'll look at yoour videos later. They LOOK interesting. But probably stupid.
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@Dirge987 You imply, by the way you use the word "inherent", that there is absolutely no natural difference between two people that can be leverage so one can in any way control the other. But so what? Who cares? If a group (tribe) make rules of behaviour, yes anyone can stand up and leave. I suggest you leave. Try setting off into outer space. Yes, there are unherent risks. But inherent is you operative word. Take it and leave. You pose an inherent risk to society. so I will be watching you!
listen2meokidoki 1 month ago
Most of the planet is empty, there is plenty of space for people to live. The problem is that states claim the entire habitable planet and impose artificial barriers to entry and exit. "Love it or leave it" is an unthinking, reactionary argument.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@Dirge987 should shape, guide and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.: End Quote" You see the equivalent of a "Minister of government" is the USA's Secretary (eg: Secretary of State. But the difference is a Minister is, to a large extent, the Prime Minister's peer. And just like the Preferential voting system, Americans in the USA have an incredible inability to understand both th facts & nuances of other political systems-many are more democratic!
listen2meokidoki 2 months ago
@gromtkn If the definition of a government is that it has a monopoly on the inition of the use of violence, then theoretically every form of government does not have to have taxes. It can be funded volountarily through fees or donations. The likelihood however of that happening in practice I don't know about.
bradleyrimbleus 3 months ago
So what government type do you suggest other than democracy?
OaldMan 8 months ago
@OaldMan:
Read his book "For an Emergent Governance"(Google it) or watch his "Anti Statism at Light Speed" video series.
Akatam0t0ma 8 months ago
There is no reason to say that forcing people to do something because of a majority is less arbitrary than forcing people to do something because of a what an oligarch says, unless you believe that the majority opinion in INHERENTLY less arbitrary. Now due to the problem of rational ignorance, voters spend less time researching, but are culturally compelled to vote, which results in decisions less thought-out than those of a monarch. So if anything, democracy is even more arbitrary.
fringeelements 8 months ago 7
@fringeelements A genius can always make better decisions than an uneducated mass.
Luigi84289 7 months ago
To be concise, democracy is barbarism. People vote to destroy others' liberties.
UltraConservative298 9 months ago
democracy is but one step removed from anarchy or tyranny. it is a transitional, not a stable, form of government.
knowthingman 1 year ago
dude, you are kicking ass! you should start your own university. i would sign up in a heart beat.
Goldstein305 1 year ago
We also need to make a distinction between democracy (the tyranny of the majority) and constitutional democracy.
I think that constitutional democracy, in its classical formulation, is not the solution. What about DIRECT democracy? A referendum is an instantiation of it. We have the technology to support it!
In short, there is something good in democracy. The decision should stay with the people. Representative democracy is the problem...
multitude2009 1 year ago
California is a great example of direct democracy. Also you can imagine theoretically a situation where anyone votes on whatever they want, basically turning all action into political action.
Representative democracy puts a limit and actually keeps the market alive a little bit. I'd rather have corporatism than direct democracy. What you think is preventing good things from happening is actually preventing worse things from happening.
fringeelements 1 year ago 8
@fringeelements The theoretical situation "where anyone votes on whatever they want, basically turning all action into political action." that's direct democracy. It's people voting lows instead of people voting people who vote lows. Not everyone is involved in every law, but I can grantee that more people, in absolute numbers, will vote for every law with a lot of interest than senators or congress man. I think we agree on this...
multitude2009 1 year ago
Right, that's the implied communism of democracy manifest. It makes doing business impossible because there's no stability of law, it makes all wealth up for grabs to whoever can get the most votes. Chaos. It makes a modern industrial firm and the intricate and fragile division of labor that occurs in a calibrated market economy impossible.
It's pre-economic barbarism, mobs of apemem smashing the machines. It's chauvinistic and tribalistic and utterly uncivilized. It's retrograde concentrate.
fringeelements 1 year ago 10
@multitude2009 Well no, we don't need to make a distinction between constitutional democracy and the tyranny of the majority since the former always devolves into the latter. There is no way to tell the majority that they can't do something in a democracy, since to do so would mean having a power greater than the demos and therefore an oligarchy, which the demos would eventually undermine because it's mythology isn't strong enough. Direct democracy only makes the t.o.t.m. easier.
newperve 7 months ago
Your criticism points to controlled or manipulated democracy, not to the democracy itself. By using modern knowledge and means to manipulate masses into voting one way or another you subvert democracy. What we have is subverted democracy. The real question is can we have true democracy? Is that possible?
multitude2009 1 year ago
lol no, I thought I was pretty clear. I oppose democracy theoretically, the idea that anyone can take shit from me just by voting is insane and leads to chaos.
fringeelements 1 year ago 12
@fringeelements If they could do so in a democracy, they could do so under any kind of regime.
Bellator656 10 months ago
@Bellator656 But it wouldn't be as easy as voting.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@fringeelements But a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago says it's okay! You're philosophy is insane for suggesting that a piece of paper written hundreds of years ago doesn't give justification for people to take your stuff against your consent!
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
My biggest objection here is that your criticism is completely non-constructive.
However, I believe that strive for some kind of [ayn] randism-like system, where every man stands for himself. The problem with this borderline anarchy is that eventually groups of like-minded people come together to form that which you fought. In short: anarchy is self-defeating. Humans seek to live in these environments. Not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
VonCarlsson 1 year ago
You're not smart. Please stop saying "Ayn Rand". She is completely irrelevant. "Constructive" begs the question. I'm for lots of construction projects, and I think there would be a lot in a stateless society, and these construction projects would cater more to societal demand than antisocial state projects. I'm also for law, defense, roads, collective infrastructure grids, et cetera - assuming people want those things. Think of it like "privatizing" hamburger production.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Your assertion that people in the absence of a state today will just come together and form a new state is just "common knowledge" bullshit that you feel you can safely assert. If we look at the states that formed de novo around the world, they all centered around religion, what we today would call "extreme cults" was the norm. Circumscription explains the expansion of states, not their origin. This used to be a fringe view, but now the religion theory of early state formation is common.
fringeelements 1 year ago
And if we look at stateless societies after around 800 BC (The "axial age" or "pivotal age"), we see that none of them form states de novo. They're all conquered, and rather difficultly conquered. This is because a stateless society has no capitol, there's no flag to capture. All a state can do is enough damage that the people submit out of fear - but this usually costs more money than is immediately gained in tax revenue. So stateification only becomes profitable over generations.
fringeelements 1 year ago
If you want to point to the chaos of collapsed states as evidence that we need states, I hope you try to see why that's stupid so I don't have to explain it.
"Not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it."
Kim Jong Il sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
The Iraq war sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
The war on drugs sucks, but not everyone can be happy, it's just how it is, deal with it.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Please don't respond to this series of comments. You're really at fucking square one and you need to learn the basics before engaging. My book, linked at the top of my channel, gives IMO the best intro you can get in a very short time. I don't think it's the best book on "anti-statism" or unfortunately aka "market anarchy", but I do think it's the best intro book.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements - Whats the name of your book? Is it on Amazon? I tried the link at the top and it blacks the screen unless I register to that site, which I have no interest in doing.
spamllpitdept 1 year ago
you cant make everyone happy in society. thats why democracy tries to make the majority of people happy. now i know very well that democracy has its faults, especially with corrupt politicians and elections, however, nothing is perfect. i would like to hear how you think a government should rule.
d34d23 1 year ago
"Democracy" is mob rule. "Freedom" is each man ruling himself entirely. We need liberty, justice, and individual rights to infinity. And DEATH to majority rule!
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago 2
why to bopther philosophizing tooooo much
is it recorded in history in democracy of athens only 3000 were eligible to judge by juror outta 100.000 ONLY 3 OOO WAS carry weapons...if your harvest over 5 tons and you can afford to pay for labor of ships as i think 500 shekel silver no slaves use to row the ship it is bullshit all paid..well if you can affor democracy consider you to own a ship a treme for 30 years to robb all arround than u return the ship as written why to debate to day
artregeous 1 year ago
Then leave the mob. My opinion is that if you are leave the light of the campfire, you would last about 5 seconds in the darkness.
IronicKismet 1 year ago
lol you can't. States exert control over the entire planet, including vast tracts of wilderness their agents have not touched. There is no "leaving", services cannot be opted-out of and any building of significant industry "off the grid" will be penalized just as much as on it. Survivalists living in woods being left alone is irrelevant.
Your campfire metaphor fails. If you're saying we need democracy for law and defense then that's just empirically false, it's not even debatable.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements It not even debatable? WOW! thats some arrogance. Survivalists living in the wilderness is irrelevant? Why is it irrelevant? That is what you want. Complete liberty without compromise. You want to live amoung humans you MUST compromise, you must forgo some liberties in order to gain ANY liberties. Othermise you must suffer the consequences of all against all. No one wants that. "Mob democracy" is the opinion of someone biting the hand that feeds them.
IronicKismet 1 year ago
@IronicKismet Survivalists living in the woods are irrelevant because being forced off all the most productive land is just as much being coerced as anything else. The question is not whether one must compromise but whether a group can coerce others so it doesn't have to compromise. The state isn't about giving up some liberties to gain others, all the liberties the state allegedly provides are provided better and cheaper without it. The mob doesn't feed anyone, they just take food.
newperve 7 months ago
Also, if it's such an optimal situation to choose to submit to a democratic state for it's supposed advantages, why must it be forced? When I have an idea about something people might like, I tell them about this great new idea, maybe one day start a business selling it. So that's another way your analogy fails.
fringeelements 1 year ago
What absolute rubbish. You have no idea what democracy is...
2Majesties 1 year ago
I'm certain I know what democracy is better than you. It is the violent enforcement of the outcome of a contrived and unnatural election. These elections are involuntary and one cannot choose to opt-out of the system.
This allows group A to vote themselves the incomes of group B, and provides a vehicle for moronic do-gooders, and does not reward intelligence.
Any constraint on these effects comes from a limitation of democracy. Example: a poll-test or only allowing net contributors to vote.
fringeelements 1 year ago 2
The most a democratic state can be is a frankenstein market. It can increase the complexity of elections with instant runoff voting, voting power based on net contribution, and being able to cast 3 votes for candidate A and 1 vote for candidate C. These defeat the whole supposed purpose of democracy, which is to enable the numerical majority to exert their will over the minority. Demos - people archy - rule. Mob rule.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@EarnanOMaille I would let only people who give more money to the state in taxes than they take to vote. Other people dont have the right to say what to do with money that isnt theirs.
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
I was sent a friendrequest by you, and I´m unfamiliar with you and your videos. But I watched a few and found them interesting, including this one. I don´t agree, but I can see some of the points you´re making. But I wonder, do you have any video in which you present an alternative for democracy? I know democracy is far from perfect, but as far as I know it´s the best way available to us, that will work.
Astillion 1 year ago
Two:
- Constitutional Monarchy (what the "founding fathers" rebelled against would be preferable)
- Stateless society, and by that I don't mean what you might think.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements I´m not so familiar with the specifics about what the founding fathers fought against. I only know the basics. Constitutional monarchy? How would that work? And how would it be good?
And the stateless society. About that I think either utopia or dystopia. But I view both as highly unrealistic. But a society without the need of a state is what I want to. But I don´t see it happening anytime soon. We are still dependent on the state, and I see it as more positive than negative.
Astillion 1 year ago
Well I'm not going to write a book I've already written in the YT comments section just for you. Nothing personal, just time preference and opportunity cost.
fringeelements 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Although not TOTALLY taken out of the realms of IDIOCY, your progression of thought is merely based on preferences of an IDEOLOGICAL FLAVOR and loose associations and therefore - as a political statement - it is highly DUBIOUS.
Kristkindler 1 year ago
Although not TOTALLY taken out of the realms of IDIOCY, your progression of thought is merely based on preferences of an IDEOLOGICAL FLAVOR and loose associations and therefore - as a political statement - it is highly DUBIOUS.
Kristkindler 1 year ago
It is humanly impossible to get away from this "barbaric force". Every government system and every nongoverment system involves involuntary forcing of people. However a representative government, like a democracy or republic is our best bet to ensure that authority serves the best interests of the people, even if not every person wants the excact same things. There is possibility to oppress people under any form of government, but bashing democracy is foolish, we have no better option.
mouthpiece200 1 year ago
False. A certain amount of majoritarianism is inherent in reality. What you wish to do is make this majoritarianism sacrosanct. It snaps a tendency to an absolute, hence the title "mob ABSOLUTEism". If this principle were applied to food, everyone would vote on what to eat each day, and then everyone would be forced to eat that.
Also, scale. Claiming by fiat rule over fast tracts of wilderness is not analogous to a township or homeowner's association. Please, read my book.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements I just gave it a quick skim, perhaps I'll read more later. But I think one must agree that there are limits to what the free market can accomplish, without a collective hand in things. I'll be the first to say that governments around the world have far overstepped their bounds, but there are certain nessesities the private market is not suitable to handle, for which we need forced compliance, under the direction of wise and moral leadership ofcourse.
mouthpiece200 1 year ago
I'm for regulations, law and it's violent enforcement, roads, property, collective plumbing, even social insurance. None of these things require a state and every service the state monopolizes and is commonly believed to be the sole possible provider of has been provided in a non-state manner. Every element needed of a stateless society has existed in isolation, and full-blown stateless societies have existed. The mild west is the best example.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Aaron russo and others did a lot of good work exposing the political systems of today but they all made a fatal mistake, they started using the word "democracy" as a term for "the enemy", thinking they had nailed down the culprit as "mob rule". There are several problems with that. It was never a majority of ordinary people who decided to take away the rights of 49% or take their money or start spending or start allowing and creating a central bank to rule the treasury and government. Elites did
gunthaarz 1 year ago
Sorry, but if everyone was like me, nobody who supported a central bank would have been elected, only hardcore libertarian ideologues would ever have positions of power - though really there would be no state.
"Elites" is just a boogeyman cop-out phrase. Large firms have to lobby the state just to compete since their competition is, as that's the nature of democracy. Given democracy, rent-seeking follows deterministically.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Also I don't think you comprehend my main objection. I'm opposed to income and social security, medicare and medicaid, mandatory state-funded schooling, state police and "defense", the DMV, state regulatory agencies, the whole thing.
These are all things that the mob generally thinks are good things because people are stupid. On a total market, none of these things would ever come to be, and everyone - bottom 1% to top 1% - would be better off for it in the long run. 15 years is my estimate.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Let me give an example of a daycare: normally that can be fun, with the kids doing their own things all day. Then the teacher says, "lets decide to have a group project". Through voting, the children decide to force each other into doing something nobody would have done had they not adopted the ideology of the election.
Whenever I heard the daycare manager address the entire group, I would try to hide somewhere because I knew some bullshit was coming up.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@EarnanOMaille A republic always transitions from a body of fixed law into a democracy then into an oligarchy. It's a cycle. One body of law will never suffice because our world is dynamic. It is ever changing and we like all life are as well. However if we followed the founders example we could throw off our government nonviolently through peaceful secession and escape the state. If people wanted that.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@EarnanOMaille In Rome during it's democratic phase everyone could vote.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
The founding fathers hated democracy. They gave us the most anti-statist state ever erected. Though like all states it was doomed to failure. Democracy is a transitory phase. It never lasts long and always destroys itself.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
National Socialists hated Democracy. They were Fascists.
bostonbest0407 1 year ago
@bostonbest0407:
Yeah, and they also loved centralized government and socialized medicine too, much like modern day democracy worshipers. Your point? Are you somehow implying that hating your sacred cow of democracy makes one a fascist? If you do, then let me give you a friendly advice free of charge: Your can't win arguments with logical fallacies against those who know better.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Lenin abolished the Duma. He must've been a Nazi.
fringeelements 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Look dude, you give me too much credit. I never accused anyone who didn't believe in Democracy of being fascist. I never even said weather or not I believed in Democracy myself. I simply pointed out a fact: The Nazi hated Democracy. They were fascists and part of fascist idealogy is oppostion to Democracy. They were elitists who believed in Autocractic rule. Democracy means rule of the people and they were aganist that. It doesn't mean that every Anti Democractic person is a Nazi.
bostonbest0407 10 months ago
interesting.......i learned something new today :-) loll .......i'm not all up on politics like i should be, but this is a good start nonetheless right? lolll
oxforddictonary 1 year ago
Excellent work.Please keep your videos this simple, they are easy to understand.
Most people haven't a clue that it is actually the very people we put into power, that keep us in the dark. We constantly mistake clever for intelligence, hence we either have the least intelligent leading us or, the least Human! I wonder.
Whatever the case, your work is great!!
Kind Regards
Mick
SpiritualTruths 1 year ago
Well all this line-drawing is silliness. The market is the only way to determine optimal legal arrangements.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements Exactly. Always has been always will be. People's wants determine what rules they come up with.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Well first off your argument is for static law and against voting - yet you advocate republicanism. If you advocate only an elite can vote, then you're open to an egalitarian revolution in 100 years, and we're back at democracy.
Also "the system" vague. You mean the state? Non-state armies? That's rhetorical, please don't respond.
The mob cannot organize itself in the absence of a presupposed state. And if the top 20% resisted the bottom 80% could not organize any attacks.
fringeelements 1 year ago
Id have to agree.Democracy is insane as is the Public. The Public has no capacity to solve any disputes with their brother/sister on their own. This is why we have Police and Courts to solve problems for those who cannot solve their own problems. But then again we have been programed into this mindset.
Im so glad we are in this time. All my life I thought I was insane.well it turns out I was rite.Im no longer part of the Democracy and I now feel great and full of Life under God,Genesis 1;26-28
SteveTrinity 1 year ago
Nice video.
I think this video ultimately comes back around to ethics. You may see any initiation of force as unacceptable, while I see forced taxation as not only practical as a means to an end, but rather ethical when considering the circumstances of why taxation exists. If the elderly are unable to care for themselves once they are too old to work, I feel forced taxation to support them in one way or another is not only ethical, but imperative.
Views of Democracy can boil down to ethics.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
Well first off ethics and morality are just ways to give your preferences superpowers.
Second off you're assuming the very thing you should be trying to prove: that the bottom 1% aren't best off in a total market.
Even if you could show that over 50 years old / poor people are better off in some welfare state, the higher growth rate on a total market means that in say 200 years the poor would be better off if we decided to have a total market today. So your "ethics" have a presentist bias.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements
So, 200 years from now things might eventually come around for the poor, sick, and elderly, so we should just let them live in abysmal living standards so the market can grow a little faster? Not only is that an unreasonably callous approach to what those people go through, but I don't see how it benefits the overall economy either. High poverty and disease breeds crime and ultimately very high costs to society and the economy in one way or another.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance The poor of today live better than the Kings of yore. The poor of tomorrow will live like the kings of today, if growth isn't hindered. Your proposal of welfarism hinders this. 100's of billions of men live in the future as opposed to the 100's of millions you wish to sacrifice them for. Instead of an argument as to why non-welfare would benefit the economy, a question: If one was to show you that nonwelfare does indeed benefit the economy would you abandon your position?
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
@Chrisnoscrub047
Welfare is not mutually exclusive with economic growth, and I would abandon my position if it was demonstrated to substantially hinder the economy.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
You're callous for demanding impoverishing monetary equality.
Just look at places like Botswana and Trinidad and compare them to their more statist neighbors, so even in periods of around 10 years freer markets do better for all strata. Free markets win in both long and short runs.
And sorry to break it to you, but subsidizing unemployment does not reduce crime or disease, and since employers are paying for the subsidy they have less money to hire new workers, and less total stuff is produced.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements
I'm not demanding monetary equality; leave the straw-men aside.
There are many societies that have benefited/suffered from Capitalism/Socialism due to a number of circumstances. Pure markets rarely win.
Unemployment insurance upholds people's ability to buy healthcare and other products, which reduces poverty and disease. Because this money is quickly returned to employers, more stuff is produced to meet the rise in demand, which wouldn't be present with a cut to benefits.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance lulz, i don't think anyone is arguing against unemployment insurance. I have some right now...in addition to the unemployment insurance that is provided by the State. Even though the State crowds the market and has burdened the private suppliers with controls and taxes, unemployment insurance still exists today! It won't disappear on a total market.
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
@Chrisnoscrub047
The state does often crowd the market in various ways with taxes and needless regulations; however, unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits.
Your initial point was that the poor live better now than the kings of Medieval times, which is mainly due to technology. However, my point addressed your previous argument, which is that welfare will detriment future societies, which I'm stating isn't true because welfare doesn't exclude economic growth.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance Right and technology is magical. Since time and technology are correlated we can just sit and wait around because technology gets better when time passes.
State unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits for what?
It doesn't stop economies from growing, depending on how much welfare is being provided by the State, however it doesn't allow for the maximization of economic growth. Maximization = greater quantity of happier people in the future.
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
@Chrisnoscrub047
Because unemployment insurance and public sector jobs are not the culprits behind crowding the market, economic maximization is not hindered. As I originally stated, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Also, pure markets don't maximize technological growth, but rather whatever tech is profitable. Renewable energy isn't very profitable, so government grants for research, along with subsidies for production will accelerate technological progress in that particular instance.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
When you subsidize unemployment, more people will be unemployed. People who were on the fence of unemployment will now choose to be unemployed, and firms have less resources to employ people with.
The two are mutually exclusive. This has to do with "the scarcity of resources". Taking resources from Bob and giving to bill doesn't result in more resources. Doing this a million times doesn't either. You need to get your head around the fact that PhDs are denying that the sky is blue.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements
People on unemployment insurance have to verify that they are filling out a certain amount of applications a week. Fraud and laziness is more myth than reality when it comes to welfare.
Not all resources are efficiently allocated, so when redistributed to people who need to spend money at various businesses to survive, it benefits the economy and those individuals. Firms will have more resources to work with due to a rise in demand, confidence, and ultimately investment.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
Renewable energy is profitable today. Oil is still cheaper though, but burning oil violates the property of others (pollution is property violation). However, this property violation is endorsed by the state, thus each individual isn't paying the full price of the oil usage.
On a total market, pollution is property violation dealt with with class action lawsuits.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements
Renewable energy compared to conventional fossil fuels isn't nearly profitable enough to overhaul the current mode of production in time to preserve our environment.
Also, if pollution was handled your way, the auto, aviation, and many other industries would be non-existent. Additionally, the US military would be severely under-equipped for any sufficient defense. It's an approach that would ironically suppress technological advancement almost as much as the Catholic Church.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@fringeelements If you asked most people they would prefer alternatives to gasoline. If we were able to work towards this goal producing an affordable automobile with an equal or lesser cost to a gas powered vehicle at a very efficient rate we would have them. I know they are out their but the government won't let them compete fairly and has the market nearly monopolized with gas powered vehicle advertisements. It is preventing and distorting the way the market should actually look in this case.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
democracy was just a red herring.
hey, i saw spinney got blocked for daring to remind TJ about HIS plan to debate an anarchist... so he still aint takin the the bait huh? figures.
oojamaflipper 1 year ago
Welcome to the real world and the age of scarcity. Libertarianism is Soviet Communism seen in a mirror - and just as impractical. You are arguing for anarchy and feudalism, although you do seem very good at hiding it from yourself.
zer05ummedia 1 year ago
"anarchy and feudalism" two completely different things, pending your definition of them. A free society(absence of a state) does not become a feudal plutocracy by default, not by a long shot.
CivitasUltraAporia 1 year ago
I never EVER liked democracy.
PolTehPwnage 1 year ago
Ryan, I don't think that it's fair to dismiss terms, and the people who use terms, like "equality", "fairness", "tolerance", etcetera, as being inherently authoritarian.
I use them all the time, and I have no interest in authorities, authoritarian institutions, or coercing other people's behavior.
I talk about those things because I have placed a value on them, they suit my preferences. I don't see why we should only concern ourselves with values relating to goods and services.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol He isn't limiting his scope to goods and services, although goods and services are the base of human exchange.
Economics can be applied to every single action in nature, right down to DNA/RNA. It goes far beyond goods and services.
You choosing equality over inequality is an economic decision.
CivitasUltraAporia 1 year ago
No, not down to DNA.
"Economic reductionism" is good for human action, means to ends assuming "rationality" in the sense of attempting to fulfill your values. What is "economic" and "non-economic" human action is relatively arbitrary though, and I believe Mises' cutoff was sentimental.
But it was mere semantics anyway, he applied just called it "catallactics", saying that economics was a subset of catallactics, but the division between economic and non-economic catallactics is arbitrary.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements When I said down to DNA I meant it in the sense that in order to survive genes act in certain ways that may compromise one system in favor of another. This isn't much different than humans making decisions on the margin. Wouldn't you agree?
CivitasUltraAporia 1 year ago
This is ridiculous! I love it. It's so entertaining.
Kiddalee 1 year ago
Monarchs once wanted to impose rule upon peoples out of a cynical belief in divine right. Libertarians believe that their preferred political system is justified because of "natural rights". Both are completely superstitious belief systems. Democrats believe that politics should reflect the wishes of the majority because only then can you have a justified order. Libertars presume that you can derive justified order from some kind of natural rights, which are conveniently defined by libertarians.
Bellator656 1 year ago
"Libertarians believe that their preferred political system is justified because of "natural rights"."
- Not I.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements It really doesn't mean what you say at this point. Some libertarians reject the natural rights argument, thats true, but its also irrelevant, because they only substitute the natural rights part with some other arbitrary construct. Essentially, libertarianism is a twisted loop: a self-justifying, sanctimonious and selfish ideology. Libertarians invent morals to justify their own absurd propositions. Their values are rejected by the majority, thus they hate democracy.
Bellator656 1 year ago
Morality doesn't exist, stop talking about that. There is no need to talk about someone's "moral" arguments.
Well you're forcing me to be broad, but no, free markets lead to the bottom 1% being wealthier than any state-system. It also makes the top 1% wealthier. No, economic arguments are open appeals to subjective values. I assume people value prosperity and peace, thus a pure free market is the best way to have prosperity and peace for everyone rich and "poor".
fringeelements 1 year ago
Libertarianism is still largely based on the natural rights argument, not on inductive science and utilitarianism. Market system is good, but there is no evidence that an unbridled market delivers good results The third world has in fact moved toward this unregulated market and stagnated as a result: for example, South America's economy doubled between 1950-80, while it grew a meager 2-4 % (iirc) between 1980-05. This is an unprecidented growth failure, and it happened in free market conditions.
Bellator656 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is composed of absurd rants and misconceptions about politics. Look, its very simple. There are no pre-political laws or rules of any kind: all established institutions, including the property of the taxed, are purely political constructs.
Democrats believe that policy should be guided by the desires of the majority. Monarchists believe that policy is the plaything of a monarch. Libertarians believe that laws and rights should be decided by libertarian judge-rulers.
Bellator656 1 year ago
Nowhere do I say there are pre-political rules. Stop with the implicit lies. Here I say why democracy goes against what I value, and I assume it goes against what the viewer values. A stateless society allows for more practical freedom for individuals from the bottom 1% to top 1% because they simply have more wealth and the law is regulated by ease of exit, and thus law conforming more to the demands of society (like a firm's selling product. Not simple or 65% majority absolutism)
fringeelements 1 year ago
For any good libertarian, the "moral" arguments are ancillary. Rothbard made his idiotic moral system long after his economics - appealing to subjective value - were established.
That is what Neon, Spawk, and I are trying to break away from, and BP, XOmni and Aaron and fighting to hold onto. This whole moral debate is about exactly what you brought up. Though Rothbard is a little bit better that those fools b/c his moral system was contrived to justify his subjective-value economic conclusions.
fringeelements 1 year ago
No. Libertarians still present the debate in the terms inherited from the natural-rights folks. This video is not an exception to that.
It is an issue of mandate: libertarians believe that democracy is evil, and therefore their preferred laws can be imposed on people regardless whether people like them or not. Democrats believe that the state can derive a democratic mandate, with which it can enforce taxes with greater legitimacy than you can own property without paying taxes.
Bellator656 1 year ago
If a capitalistic free market were to exist in the manner it was intended (keep what you earn), there'd be no reason for democracy. Once you, I and all others who create rather than take begin to suffer from, as you put it, "equality" and "fairness," things suddenly become less equal and fair to those with ability.
Great video. New subscriber.
TyphoidBryan 1 year ago
It's hard to say where we're headed as a society. I would like to think that as humans progress, the "need" for government will evaporate, but as it stands, we are definitely leaning into a more statist society. I'll stick to what Thoreau said, "when we're ready, that's the government we will have" i.e., no government
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
and the "thief" is really only taking what he values...whether you value it or not. "Hmmmm I want some more oil."...."Hey you got some oil, would you give me a deal on it?" ..."No!.....well I guess you got some weapons of mass destruction!....Don't ya!"....."To War! ... To War!...." ....."I love that I get to make shit up and make the people eat it."......."Guess you should have given me that deal eh. But enjoy your country house while we hang some poor sap look a like." ...Bilderberg...
audiotomic 1 year ago
haha, my wife just made a point.....isn't it hypocritical to complain about free speech aka "democracy" in a medium that was created from democratic rules?...anyways....its not that democracy is not working it is that the leaders driven by the corporate "dollar" can bend and completely avoid the laws that the common people have to follow....in fact everything should be put to a vote by the poeple...."Should we go to war with ......?" vote on friday!.....and not let the leader make big mistakes
audiotomic 1 year ago
So society is a "Platonic bugaboo"? Well I'm happy to live as a part of society, not out in the wild on my own. I wish you would back up your strident claims without just jumping to conclusions like this (and attempting to redefine the entire vocabulary). Also it would be interesting to hear what YOU consider civilised, modern and non-brutal. Fascism? Anarchy? You're talking about something that doesn't exist, some utopian form of afairs without a name. Democracy is the best thing we have.
8DX 1 year ago
Authoritarians love democracy? Bolsheviks? National socialists? Are you having a laugh? We had the bolsheviks over here in our country and 50 years of socialism - it wasn't bloody democracy and everyone knew it wasn't. Only one political party was allowed and ordinary people had no say in politics, where the Moscow line was followed and enforced.
8DX 1 year ago
Identical to the thief? WTF? That's completely wrong with the don't pay - go to camp - get shot bullshit - taxation has nothing to do with democracy - democracy is a form of government and all forms of government require funds (and have taxed their citizens). In a democracy however I get a say over how common funds are spent. Also no one is forcing you to use money - go live in a commune and produce your own food etc. Sheesh this vid shows a complete misunderstanding of all of the concepts in it
8DX 1 year ago
democracy will always be hated by those in the minority
tannersanta 1 year ago
Majority rules, or nobody rules and then some form of anarchy.
tannersanta 1 year ago
America is the worlds debtor. Everything is prepaid infact. Everytime you pay a debt in cash, you discharge it to a future date. It is an IOU. That's why Americas deficit is growing so much. Every account that isn't closed, America is left to fit the bill. You can pay a bill with set-off though. This is a way to adjust a bill to zero. Check out Winston Shrout and my vids too.
julianmck 1 year ago
Great video. Did you have to pay /get permission to use the terminator footage? America is a democratic republic. Although it is really just a republic. The US is a corporation( not to be confused with USA). NESARA is an initiative to bring back a gold standard. As long as America has no real money they can't pay back british bankers that they borrowed from after winning independence
julianmck 1 year ago
You should live in a communist country for a while. I did, you would change you're mind about democracy being brutish.
xatumiller2 1 year ago
@xatumiller2
What, sawing your foot off is worse than getting your face bashed in? Great point!
fringeelements 1 year ago 2
@xatumiller2 just because communism is worse than democracy doesn't mean to keep it so,in fact we live in a republic not a democracy.Democracies are always violent in their deaths. Thomas Jefferson
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO I can understand the point but what else would you use instead of democracy?Some thing that is less "brutish". I just hope it's not religion oriented because this is where everything goes not so good.
xatumiller2 1 year ago
@xatumiller2 To me religion is a tool the elite use on the masses to divide and conquer,and as a form of government i think a constitutional republic is the best form as long as career family politicians and religion can be kept out of government.Of course this is only my opinion.peace.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO You mean a non-democratic constitutional republic? Where representatives and lawmakers are non-elected. That is exactly what leads not only to career families in politics, but also to mass corruption and concentration of power and capital in the hands of the elite.
Religion was also mankind's first attempt at science.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX I understand religion was used as a science at first but what about now?The whole jesus birth is astronnomical,so what use could we have to a primitive tool morphed into political power over the masses by dividing the human race.Religion today is folly! If we inacted harsher laws for men and women who would work in sensative positions like government i think we would have a sound republic .
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO I fully agree that religion today is obsolete (at least from a science/enlightenment point of view). However religion still does make sense in various ways:
As a cultural phenomenon - religions unite peoples and cultures and create additional value in literature and the arts.
As a human need - as pattern seeking mammals we naturally find order in the world. Until the world is properly educated in rational thinking, people will have to make do with religion.
Oh, I'm an atheist by the by
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX Also harsher laws for police officers as well would promote honest policemen.and all that would want to join the forcewould be less mindless as today's cops and politicians.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
Oh not this "the US is not a democracy" line again. Look up the word in a dictionary if you want to speak English. There are two kinds of democracies - direct democracy, which is what they had in ancient Greece, where every citizen voted on all laws and could punish their representatives directly. Then you have representative democracy, where people elect representatives from each region or town to form governments. Language changes... get it?
The US is a democratic and constitutional republic.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX Again we are a constitutional republic with democratic principles! That's it. If we were what you claim then why isn't it anywhere to be found in our constitution?Or anywhere for that matter?Because they are only principles.All you have to back your claim is the left-right politician saying it here and there on the media whore
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
At the time of writing of your constitution, the word democracy had a more specific meaning. That's what I'm talking about .. the US is a representative democracy (I might say modern democracy). The UK is also a parliamentary democracy. The US is ALSO of course a republic (Just as the UK is in principle a kingdom - a constitutional monarchy.) If you weren't a democracy, you wouldn't have free and open elections to elect representatives to legislative bodies.
8DX 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO
Oh and by the way: did you forget who ratified the US constitution and bill of rights? Wasn't it the US Congress as a democratically elected representative body? And don't your separate states have democratically elected lawmaking bodies?
Parliamentary or representative democracy was basis on which the USA was built.
So stop all the bull.
And if you're talking about your constitution, saying democracy is "only principles" - well the same is your constitution or any constitution.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX wow just because the process of electing men to office is senn as democratic doesn't mean we have a democratic government,I mean if it is such a big thing then why didn't the founding father's bother with clarifing that we are a democratic republic insttead of a constitutional republic?Like I said we use some democratic principals but that's where it ends.If you can find written proof that we are a democracy then please show me.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO "electing men to office is seen as democratic"? It IS democratic, that's what democracy means I keep telling you (as well as an equality of rights and priviliges in society) - look it up, read the bldy wikipedia article or go to a history/social studies class. And as I said - the US constitution itself and Bill of Rights were both ratified by democraticaly elected bodies, discussed and signed in a democratic process, their very claim to validity is based on democratic principles.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX You seem to have a nerve for this so let me ask you something.Question,Do you have aparty you align yourself with?If yes whom?And why?For some odd reason i think your a democrat,am i right?Well please let me know if you wish.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
Oh is that the problem? That you have a "democratic" party in your country so you have to somehow prove the word is un-American and un-constitutional? No I don't align myself with any party. I've voted for Christian Democrats/People's Party (centrist) and Civic Democratic Party (most conservative in our country) and am about to vote for a smaller conservative-to-centrist party in the coming elections.
But yes In PRINCIPLE I am a democrat - I believe in free elections and agreement by majority.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX Well i hate to tell you man but your a sheep.A mindless sheep aligning himself with a party and ideology that has had violent deaths in the past and yet you also support majority rule as well,Let me guess,if majority rule which is mob rule would vote to take the rights of the 49 percent would you agree to that?It falls under your so called mob rule i mean majority rule?Please indulge.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO And I could call you a goat with no effect (other animals spring to mind). Like I said I don't align with a party and have voted several local right-wing parties with different ideologies. On the other point - all forms of government have had violent deaths in the past I don't see what that has to do with modern democracies. Electing capable representatives and instituting a constitution are among the protections against 51%+ mob rule (as well as a free press, separation of powers etc)
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX I just dont see how using a voting process for our republc makes us a democratic one instead of a constitutional republic like stated in the contitution.But hey maybe the founders forgot to let us know that we really are a a democratic republic and are playing a joke on us by not clarifying it on the constitution!LoL.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO I never claimed the US was "democratic" instead of "constitutional". There are various words to describe what the US is, and both of these are valid - yes you have a constitution, and yes you have democratic process. Maybe you didn't read the comment I posted on it but so far you've completely ignored the point I made about the very validity of the US constitution being based on democratic principles, free and equal rights, elected representatives and self-determination.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX I understand where your coming from man but our founding fathers made sure we left old ideologies behi9nd in europe and yes we do have some democratic principals but that's as far as it goes.We have never been taught in school that we are a democratic republic and in fact the founding fathers spoke of democracy as a disease and a playground for oligarch's.And that is the game played in america right now,which is false info to decieve americans into believeing something that aint true.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@MRELTUCO Well it's sad your school system seems to ignore teaching basic political concepts such as democracy. As I said before, your founding fathers were referring to direct democracy (without a constitution), where EVERYTHING was decided by popular vote and the mood of the masses at any given time. Perhaps some people in the US want your republic to be more democratic? Aren't they entiteld to strive for that (just as any people has a right to strive for self-determination?) peace out.
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX conitnued..In my country we have alot of waking up to do.we have been lied to about almost every single war we've been in since korea on has been unconstitutional and undeclared!We are starting to get taxed like pathetic nation's lile france and britaqin where they have no freedom to do as they will.We need a new 1717 in america and i pray everyday to myself that it happens.peace.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@8DX sorry, my son pressed the wrong buttons as he wanted to help me type 1776.peace.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@8DX continued..I dont align myself with any party either because we have been lied to to such an extent that I feel the only way we are to prosper is to hit the reset button on government and have some serious changes to as how severe punishment for politicians should be and also lobbying should be officaly made illegal with out using their little Quid pro Quo!
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
@8DX continued.And if I might add that to believe in the 2 party system is absurd today,because anyone with a 5th grade education can see that both democrats and republican are 2 arms of the same body.
MRELTUCO 1 year ago
Way to think out of the box.
Democracy is a logical fallacy, actually. An Argument from Majority. The way to know we're not living in one is because things would probably be completely tits-up.
SexyMelon 1 year ago