"CREATE JOBS?!?!?!?!?!".....IF YOU ARE CREATING SO MANY JOBS, WHY, SAY FOR A CANAL, OR A ROAD, WHY NOT GIVE THEM SPOONS AND TOOTHPICKS?....people create jobs, not government.
Just spend a few minutes listening to him explain things, you can feel the cobwebs just falling from your mind. Listening to Sowell is like bathing in pure logic.
@xHippieHunter How do you figure that? Sowell may have the edge on statistics (naturally, since he's an economist), but his studies seem to be more focused on econometrics. Paul understands economic principles through the eyes of the Austrian school, which puts him leaps and bounds ahead of Sowell's Chicago-like thinking.
@shamgar001 Okay clearly you don't know anything about Thomas Sowell. He doesn't just focus on "econometrics" he has written over thirty books on Macro Econ, Micro Econ, Intellectuals, Econ History, Things like Affirmative action, Race and Econ, and the this goes on and on. He is not just knowledgeable, he is intelligent. He writes a book a year, he is much more of a critical thinker than ron paul as well as he is not a politician.
@xHippieHunter By econometrics, I'm referring to his methods. He strikes me as being more empirical, like someone in the Chicago school, which is dandy for making models and reading stats, but lacks the rational basis and stellar prediction record that the Austiran school has.
@shamgar001 so you are talking about his foreign policies? He is more of a noninterventionalist than anything else, certainly not an imperialist. He does go by charts and do you know what they are? History and rational thinking. He is absolutely a rational and logical thinker and you would understand this if you read even one of his books (which I encourage you to do). He also predicted these financial crisis much like Schiff, He even has 2 books on them so yes he thinks like these "austrians"
@xHippieHunter No, the Austrian School is a school of economic thought formed by Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard etc which is based on logical deduction from a priori statements. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff both belong to this school of thought.
The Chicago school was founded by Milton Friedman which is based on empirical observation, and Sowell belongs to that school.
@xHippieHunter Also, I have read several of Sowell's books, watched most (if not all) of his videos, and read his column. I really do like him. I respect his knowledge of history and sound economic thinking. and would certainly vote for him over any of the RINOs in this election.
My disagreement is your assertion that he is a greater thinking that Paul. I suspect that you underestimate Paul's solid grasp on economics.
LMAO.. Paul doesn't hold a candle to Sowell's intellect. You clearly have no clue about Sowell acting as if he's just some other libertarian type. Now, it's not that Paul is that bad. B/c he's solid. It's just that Sowell is that good. And I seriously doubt you've read several of Sowell's books as you claim. I don't think u know very much about him other than clips of him you've seen on youtube. And you're trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about in discussing him.
BTW.... If you think for a second that Paul has a better grasp on economics than THOMAS SOWELL (easily the greatest economist alive today and maybe the best of our era), than you are the ultimate blind paulbot. I like paul a lot and he's my guy for prez but lets be real here. LOL. To try to suggest that Paul would have a better idea of economics than Sowell is pure hysterical comedy.
@xHippieHunter Actually Sowell isn't Chicago School. He isn't a monetarist as Friedman is. He too, like the Austrians, would like to see the Fed removed. Definitely not a Chicago axiom. He also doesn't prefer charts or graphs or econometrics. He expresses that in his revised Basic Economics book. He was good friends with Hayek. He is also good friends with Dr. Paul. He is neo-classical economist as is Walter E. Williams. Both men agree closely with the Austrians.
You must be a lawyer. Lawyers prey upon the stupidity of the uneducated. As I said, I a bad outcome is not negligence. Otherwise, you would be negligient every day of your life and I should sue you. Punitive damages are meant to PUNISH, not reward the lawyer and his client. Punitive damages should go to the court system. The idiot that burned herself with McD's coffee should have got medical expenses plus reasonable fees. The rest should have went to the court system.
Seriously, I am not worried about the person that burns themselves because they put a hot cup of coffee between their legs and spilled it. I am not worried about the guy that used a lawnmower to trim his hedges.
I think a certain amount of patients that undergo heart surgery will die and sometimes because the surgeon made the wrong decision, but that is not negligence. The question is did they make a reasonable decision based on the information known to them at that time.
Blue collar workers (closer to slaves) are being exploited in China to take jobs away from America to make the Corporate Entitlement Class richer at the expense of the rest of the nation. And I am not a 99%er.
Torts are always decided based on hindsight. The doctor should have done this or the company should have foreseen that. A bad outcome is NOT negligence. Negligence is willful disregard of common sense. We are human beings and not all bad outcomes were our fault.
I am opposed to minimum wage laws, pro-union laws, pro-tort laws, lobbyists, campaign contributions from anything but individuals. But people need to understand the FULL CONSEQUENCES of free trade.
You cannot be FOR FREE TRADE and support the minimum wage, labor unions, tort laws, massive socal welfare and mandared employee benefits, high corporate taxes and massive government regulation (and a massice military). It does not work. Where do you think the jobs will go? DUH!!!!
The problem is that the government has taken credit for all facets of the economy and voters believe it. This has probably been the case since FDR and probably before.
Government's job is to create or allow an environment where value added jobs can be created. They do not create the VALUE ADDED jobs. But they can allow VALUE SUCKING jobs such as Unions, Lawyers, Lobbyists and Financial Gamblers. And this is exactly what they have done.
BHO cares nothing about US jobs, only HIS own. Witness HIS quashing of the Keystone pipeline; all for votes
Who's the winner & the losers? Americans are the losers of course & China appears to be the winner
Search-
[ Canadian PM eyes China after US pipeline delay ]
The conservative Canadian leader, taking part in a summit in HI hosted by BHO said the pipeline decision had produced "extremely negative reactions" and that he discussed oil exports with Chinese President Hu Jintao
Most everyone in the United States thrives in anarchy. Most of our lives contain zero government oversight or intervention. If it works for things like choosing who I associate with, what religion I follow and where I choose to shop why won't it work for everything? You are right about him paraphrasing Stefan Molyneux and its rather assumptive about you. I don't like when so called anarchist concentrate on the wrong things. Doubt calling out your parents will sway you. Ha.
@KaelinSaint LOL calling U.S anarchy is probably one of the dumbest things I've heard (no offense). Your freedom to associate and religion are protected by police and the court system. Go try the same in countries where they are not protected. That's how the real world works.
So you think that we are not born with rights and that our government only grants us rights to be kind? That they can take them away at a whim? The interesting thing is you compare one government to another. You don't compare one government to no government. So that comparison is kind of dumb (no offense). As for anarchy, it is by definition an absence of government. I've never had the government tell me what car to buy or where to go to college or live. Seems like anarchy to me.
@KaelinSaint Maybe b/c there aren't any to compare. What should I compare it to? Somalia? What is your example where markets and human rights and freedom has flourished w/o a state? A limited govt role would include examples like Hong Kong, what's your example of anarchy? Do tell.
No rights aren't granted by state by you do need someone to protect them. Can you defend yourself from any force? Can you defend yourself from a Chinese invasion? No? Then you need the state.
I'll get you a few examples as soon as I can track them down. I know there was a period of functioning anarchy in Iceland.
Voluntary action of individuals led to victory in the Revolutionary War, not state compulsion. Pretty sure there would be plenty of willing volunteers to counter a Chinese invasion.
In the end it comes down to, the initiation of force is immoral, government maintains power through the initiation of force, as a moral person I can't support any government.
Search Medieval Iceland and David D. Friedman for an example of anarchy in action with a market taking the place of most all government institutions. This existed for 300 years and the quality of life was better in many ways than other medieval societies of the time.
@KaelinSaint Comparing anarchy to feudalism is not an argument. And if they were so successful, they would still be around.
Most who fought in the Revolutionary war had training from the state, including Washington. If the U.S didn't have an army after the war, it most likely would not have survived.
And I highly doubt you can put together a rag tag gang to fight and win against Chinese army and AF. If you have an actual argument based in reality, let me know.
Is it okay to enforce YOUR opinion with a gun?...This is the difference in Anarchy and Statism (your method).
Anarchy does not legitimize nor advocate for forcing people to adhere to others opinions on life; on the other had, in your Statism - this is prevalent and deemed necessary.
"Hey...do you have weed in your pocket!?...Hands behind your back (with gun drawn)...you are going to jail"...very reasonable and sensible.
And please, dont let your love and passion for violence carry over into your parenting when you decide to have kids...otherwise; this lunacy of forcing everyone to adhere to opinions (or else be kidnapped or murdered) will never end.
Teach your kids to respect others by respecting them; dont spank or verbally abuse them as you were done to by your parents and as the State has done to you...Stop the Violence.
@helltrackrider LMAO Tell me will there be more or less crime when there are no laws and jails? Would crime be more or less profitable? You think there will be less violence in anarchy?? You and Stefbot are two delusional bastards LOL. Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. Whichever gang/faction will be the strongest will have the monopoly on force. And you'll pay up, except instead of taxes it will be called protection money LOL
You and Stefbot should try the real world sometime.
...and this "Gang/Faction" is today called "Government"
Does this legitimize the threat of and use of violence against EVERYONE on Earth?...just to make sure that Anarchy does not exist and these same people are not agressed upon???
Seems kind of illogical to me; use violence against peaceful people to stop violence from being used against peaceful people...
Wish this was my business model; i'd be rich as fuck and blaming the "free market" for everything as well.
@helltrackrider Yes it is. And I'd take this gang over criminal gangs in an anarchy anyday. You're free to leave though, or hire your own "private protection" like you told me last time. Sooooooooooooo why haven't you done anything?? Or maybe b/c you and Stefbot both know that you're full of shit LOL. Tell me, if you and Stefbot really believe what you say, why haven't you done anything????
@H1TMANactual I don't understand why statists keep bringing up Somalia.
Somailia is far less violent now than it was under the defunct Somali govt. The Somali people have also seen their standard of living rise very slowly, but very steadily since said government's demise. Somalia is therefore a good argument for anti-staism, not statism.
...but this is the U.S. not Somalia,and we have our own historical examples. You may want to look up frontier justice, the Pinkerton Agency, the posse.
@UtubeMyAccountName You don't know much about Somalia, do you? Piracy in Somalia started first as a self-defense then turned into piracy. That's exactly what happens in anarchy as crime becomes profitable (source: The Pirates of Somalia by Jay Bahadur)
And if you want to compare, compare it to neighboring states with identical demographics. Compared to Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are paradises. The life expectancy alone is some 10-12 years higher. Anarchy is a bigger pipe dream than communism.
...Last thing about Somalia; simply irrefutably, Somalia is a better place to live now than it was before the govt was thrown over. That is the only comparison between anarchy & govt that is relevant to Somalia. All the rest is meaningless deflection, distraction, and disingenuousness.
Now again about the U.S., I gave you several historical ex. of non governmental ways of dealing with crime here in the U.S. where we are. It is curious that you ignored this & went off on an irrelevant tangent.
@H1TMANactual First, the comparison of Somalia to Kenya & Ethiopia is disingenuous. I said Somalia sans govt is better than Somalia with govt. Comparisons of Somalia to other societies has nothing to do with my point., and unless you're stone stupid you're well aware of that.
Second, Somalia is a poor country so of course there's criminality, that has nothing to do with anarchy but with poverty, for 'comparison' check crime rates in poor neighborhoods/places in ANY country, of any wealth...
Nothing ingenuousness. Nothing wrong with comparing N to South Korea or East to West Germany. It's a comparison of results when people of the same demographics are subjected to different political systems.
But your comparison is analogies to saying that N. Koreans are better off now than they were 100 years ago. Is that an argument for communist dictatorship? Does correlation equal causation? Have you established any? Nope.
@H1TMANactual You brought up Somalia, you claimed Somalia was a failure of the anarchistic premise, when it is anything but. Now you've started in on N & S Korea, when neither of these places is the least bit anarchistic. DEFLECTION!
You stated that anarchy could not be superior to statism, and yet you can produce no evidence. I have offered you historical evidence of non governmental justice being more effective than govt justice repeatedly, please speak to this evidence, or just stop.
YOU need to provide the evidence. You haven't established a correlation between anarchy and prosperity. I showed you that neighboring states with a govt are much better off than Somalia. There are plenty of examples where a govt playing minimal role has resulted in tremendous prosperity. You haven't produced ANY such examples. Try again.
You have established no logical premise or evidential basis for you arguments. You have ignored relevant references in favor of inconsequential & unrelatable non-information. You have drifted aimlessly & desperately away from your own position. In short you have proven your own argument to be indefensible your own self.
@UtubeMyAccountName Nope. None of the above. There are plenty of examples of prosperity where the state played a minimal role. Hong Kong, Taiwan, just to name a few.
And nowhere in that dribble where you able to produce a single example to support your thesis. I think it's safe to say you don't have any. B-bye.
Somalia was a communist state before the civil war with an utterly incompetent, corrupt and inept govt. Of course they will be better off w/o it. That's not an argument.
But tell me you have something besides Somalia. Tell me you have some empirical evidence to support the hypothesis you have convinced yourself off.
@Cleopas82 Read his auto-biography and you see that he would of been active in the political arena if it wasn't for the Extreme amount of stress he receives, which puts a strain on his heart.
yep, he was offered chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under Ford. And something happened and he eventually declined. He was offered the Secretary of Labor under Reagan and declined. And was also offered the Secretary of Education under Reagan and declined. I find the last two ironic because those are two of the Cabinets that I know that he's called for abolishing along with about 3 others. LOL
He is not our president because he doesn't guarantee (or support) free rides for people.
What's funny is that the people who vote for these policies to help them gain don't realize a) it's at the expense of others, and b) the benefits are negated because society as a whole suffers (including themselves). Minimum wage is a great example.
"CREATE JOBS?!?!?!?!?!".....IF YOU ARE CREATING SO MANY JOBS, WHY, SAY FOR A CANAL, OR A ROAD, WHY NOT GIVE THEM SPOONS AND TOOTHPICKS?....people create jobs, not government.
iluvpoliticzz 2 months ago
Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man. This should be required reading for anyone high school age or older.
jamo387 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Notice how little you see this man on the MSM bur Sharpton get. his own show on TV Thank God for the Internet
norm741 3 months ago
Obama should have learned from Thomas Sowell....
Itugen88 3 months ago
Just spend a few minutes listening to him explain things, you can feel the cobwebs just falling from your mind. Listening to Sowell is like bathing in pure logic.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
No, even if Obama could produce jobs, he couldn't produce them at a faster rate than they are being outsourced.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
Thomas Sowell is much smarter than Ron Paul... I wish he would've run for president. Its too bad he is wayyy too intelligent to be a politician
xHippieHunter 3 months ago 2
@xHippieHunter How do you figure that? Sowell may have the edge on statistics (naturally, since he's an economist), but his studies seem to be more focused on econometrics. Paul understands economic principles through the eyes of the Austrian school, which puts him leaps and bounds ahead of Sowell's Chicago-like thinking.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 Okay clearly you don't know anything about Thomas Sowell. He doesn't just focus on "econometrics" he has written over thirty books on Macro Econ, Micro Econ, Intellectuals, Econ History, Things like Affirmative action, Race and Econ, and the this goes on and on. He is not just knowledgeable, he is intelligent. He writes a book a year, he is much more of a critical thinker than ron paul as well as he is not a politician.
xHippieHunter 3 months ago
@xHippieHunter By econometrics, I'm referring to his methods. He strikes me as being more empirical, like someone in the Chicago school, which is dandy for making models and reading stats, but lacks the rational basis and stellar prediction record that the Austiran school has.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 so you are talking about his foreign policies? He is more of a noninterventionalist than anything else, certainly not an imperialist. He does go by charts and do you know what they are? History and rational thinking. He is absolutely a rational and logical thinker and you would understand this if you read even one of his books (which I encourage you to do). He also predicted these financial crisis much like Schiff, He even has 2 books on them so yes he thinks like these "austrians"
xHippieHunter 3 months ago
@xHippieHunter No, the Austrian School is a school of economic thought formed by Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard etc which is based on logical deduction from a priori statements. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff both belong to this school of thought.
The Chicago school was founded by Milton Friedman which is based on empirical observation, and Sowell belongs to that school.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@xHippieHunter Also, I have read several of Sowell's books, watched most (if not all) of his videos, and read his column. I really do like him. I respect his knowledge of history and sound economic thinking. and would certainly vote for him over any of the RINOs in this election.
My disagreement is your assertion that he is a greater thinking that Paul. I suspect that you underestimate Paul's solid grasp on economics.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001
LMAO.. Paul doesn't hold a candle to Sowell's intellect. You clearly have no clue about Sowell acting as if he's just some other libertarian type. Now, it's not that Paul is that bad. B/c he's solid. It's just that Sowell is that good. And I seriously doubt you've read several of Sowell's books as you claim. I don't think u know very much about him other than clips of him you've seen on youtube. And you're trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about in discussing him.
lokey441 3 months ago
Comment removed
lokey441 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shamgar001
BTW.... If you think for a second that Paul has a better grasp on economics than THOMAS SOWELL (easily the greatest economist alive today and maybe the best of our era), than you are the ultimate blind paulbot. I like paul a lot and he's my guy for prez but lets be real here. LOL. To try to suggest that Paul would have a better idea of economics than Sowell is pure hysterical comedy.
lokey441 3 months ago
@xHippieHunter Actually Sowell isn't Chicago School. He isn't a monetarist as Friedman is. He too, like the Austrians, would like to see the Fed removed. Definitely not a Chicago axiom. He also doesn't prefer charts or graphs or econometrics. He expresses that in his revised Basic Economics book. He was good friends with Hayek. He is also good friends with Dr. Paul. He is neo-classical economist as is Walter E. Williams. Both men agree closely with the Austrians.
bmac6446 3 months ago
@bmac6446 Im not the one saying that genius.....
xHippieHunter 3 months ago
@xHippieHunter Sorry about that. I clicked on the wrong post.
bmac6446 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
Fuck obamanomics
johammbass 3 months ago
Creating employment is a straight forward craft,
When the nation’s at war and there’s a draft.
If every worker were staffed in the army and fleet,
We’d have full employment, and nothing to eat.
Hayleyfire929 3 months ago
@Hayleyfire929 Which way should we choose?
more bottom up or more top down
…the fight continues…
Keynes and Hayek’s second round
it’s time to weigh in…
more from the top or from the ground
…lets listen to the greats
Keynes and Hayek throwing down
MagnusIan 3 months ago
@LibertyPen was this one his recent publications?? Do you have a link?? Thanks :-)
djb5255 3 months ago
@26libertarian
You must be a lawyer. Lawyers prey upon the stupidity of the uneducated. As I said, I a bad outcome is not negligence. Otherwise, you would be negligient every day of your life and I should sue you. Punitive damages are meant to PUNISH, not reward the lawyer and his client. Punitive damages should go to the court system. The idiot that burned herself with McD's coffee should have got medical expenses plus reasonable fees. The rest should have went to the court system.
666sigma 3 months ago
@26libertarian
Seriously, I am not worried about the person that burns themselves because they put a hot cup of coffee between their legs and spilled it. I am not worried about the guy that used a lawnmower to trim his hedges.
I think a certain amount of patients that undergo heart surgery will die and sometimes because the surgeon made the wrong decision, but that is not negligence. The question is did they make a reasonable decision based on the information known to them at that time.
666sigma 3 months ago
@26libertarian
Blue collar workers (closer to slaves) are being exploited in China to take jobs away from America to make the Corporate Entitlement Class richer at the expense of the rest of the nation. And I am not a 99%er.
Torts are always decided based on hindsight. The doctor should have done this or the company should have foreseen that. A bad outcome is NOT negligence. Negligence is willful disregard of common sense. We are human beings and not all bad outcomes were our fault.
666sigma 3 months ago
leagalise employment!
HuxleyWasRight 3 months ago 2
I am opposed to minimum wage laws, pro-union laws, pro-tort laws, lobbyists, campaign contributions from anything but individuals. But people need to understand the FULL CONSEQUENCES of free trade.
You cannot be FOR FREE TRADE and support the minimum wage, labor unions, tort laws, massive socal welfare and mandared employee benefits, high corporate taxes and massive government regulation (and a massice military). It does not work. Where do you think the jobs will go? DUH!!!!
666sigma 3 months ago 3
The problem is that the government has taken credit for all facets of the economy and voters believe it. This has probably been the case since FDR and probably before.
Government's job is to create or allow an environment where value added jobs can be created. They do not create the VALUE ADDED jobs. But they can allow VALUE SUCKING jobs such as Unions, Lawyers, Lobbyists and Financial Gamblers. And this is exactly what they have done.
666sigma 3 months ago 3
BHO cares nothing about US jobs, only HIS own. Witness HIS quashing of the Keystone pipeline; all for votes
Who's the winner & the losers? Americans are the losers of course & China appears to be the winner
Search-
[ Canadian PM eyes China after US pipeline delay ]
The conservative Canadian leader, taking part in a summit in HI hosted by BHO said the pipeline decision had produced "extremely negative reactions" and that he discussed oil exports with Chinese President Hu Jintao
Searching4Truth1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how succinct and direct Thomas Sowell is. Why is he not our president?
Cleopas82 3 months ago 11
@Cleopas82 too intelligent.
Dadutta 3 months ago
@Cleopas82
"Our"...slave speak. I doubt Sowell believes in Collectivism; this is why he would probably never want to be "our" President.
helltrackrider 3 months ago
@helltrackrider Bitch you're back to trolling Libertarian channels.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
So much anger...horrid parenting and indoctrination at the hands of the State and the Military will definetely result in this.
You were obviously punished negitevely as a child in lieu of being taught "why" what you were doing was wrong or unacceptable.
Hopefully, you do not do the same to your kids...kids deserve better; you deserved better.
helltrackrider 3 months ago
@helltrackrider Yeah you're right, I should just regurgitate what I hear from Stefbot.
Child please! You and your Stefbot won't last two seconds in an anarchy.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Most everyone in the United States thrives in anarchy. Most of our lives contain zero government oversight or intervention. If it works for things like choosing who I associate with, what religion I follow and where I choose to shop why won't it work for everything? You are right about him paraphrasing Stefan Molyneux and its rather assumptive about you. I don't like when so called anarchist concentrate on the wrong things. Doubt calling out your parents will sway you. Ha.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@KaelinSaint LOL calling U.S anarchy is probably one of the dumbest things I've heard (no offense). Your freedom to associate and religion are protected by police and the court system. Go try the same in countries where they are not protected. That's how the real world works.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
So you think that we are not born with rights and that our government only grants us rights to be kind? That they can take them away at a whim? The interesting thing is you compare one government to another. You don't compare one government to no government. So that comparison is kind of dumb (no offense). As for anarchy, it is by definition an absence of government. I've never had the government tell me what car to buy or where to go to college or live. Seems like anarchy to me.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@KaelinSaint Maybe b/c there aren't any to compare. What should I compare it to? Somalia? What is your example where markets and human rights and freedom has flourished w/o a state? A limited govt role would include examples like Hong Kong, what's your example of anarchy? Do tell.
No rights aren't granted by state by you do need someone to protect them. Can you defend yourself from any force? Can you defend yourself from a Chinese invasion? No? Then you need the state.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
I'll get you a few examples as soon as I can track them down. I know there was a period of functioning anarchy in Iceland.
Voluntary action of individuals led to victory in the Revolutionary War, not state compulsion. Pretty sure there would be plenty of willing volunteers to counter a Chinese invasion.
In the end it comes down to, the initiation of force is immoral, government maintains power through the initiation of force, as a moral person I can't support any government.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Search Medieval Iceland and David D. Friedman for an example of anarchy in action with a market taking the place of most all government institutions. This existed for 300 years and the quality of life was better in many ways than other medieval societies of the time.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@KaelinSaint Comparing anarchy to feudalism is not an argument. And if they were so successful, they would still be around.
Most who fought in the Revolutionary war had training from the state, including Washington. If the U.S didn't have an army after the war, it most likely would not have survived.
And I highly doubt you can put together a rag tag gang to fight and win against Chinese army and AF. If you have an actual argument based in reality, let me know.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
My arguments are as solid and based in reality as yours.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaelinSaint If that was the case then you would have been able to provide some examples.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Maybe so; but that is YOUR opinion.
Is it okay to enforce YOUR opinion with a gun?...This is the difference in Anarchy and Statism (your method).
Anarchy does not legitimize nor advocate for forcing people to adhere to others opinions on life; on the other had, in your Statism - this is prevalent and deemed necessary.
"Hey...do you have weed in your pocket!?...Hands behind your back (with gun drawn)...you are going to jail"...very reasonable and sensible.
helltrackrider 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Have a good one...
And please, dont let your love and passion for violence carry over into your parenting when you decide to have kids...otherwise; this lunacy of forcing everyone to adhere to opinions (or else be kidnapped or murdered) will never end.
Teach your kids to respect others by respecting them; dont spank or verbally abuse them as you were done to by your parents and as the State has done to you...Stop the Violence.
helltrackrider 3 months ago
@helltrackrider LMAO Tell me will there be more or less crime when there are no laws and jails? Would crime be more or less profitable? You think there will be less violence in anarchy?? You and Stefbot are two delusional bastards LOL. Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. Whichever gang/faction will be the strongest will have the monopoly on force. And you'll pay up, except instead of taxes it will be called protection money LOL
You and Stefbot should try the real world sometime.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
...and this "Gang/Faction" is today called "Government"
Does this legitimize the threat of and use of violence against EVERYONE on Earth?...just to make sure that Anarchy does not exist and these same people are not agressed upon???
Seems kind of illogical to me; use violence against peaceful people to stop violence from being used against peaceful people...
Wish this was my business model; i'd be rich as fuck and blaming the "free market" for everything as well.
helltrackrider 3 months ago
@helltrackrider Yes it is. And I'd take this gang over criminal gangs in an anarchy anyday. You're free to leave though, or hire your own "private protection" like you told me last time. Sooooooooooooo why haven't you done anything?? Or maybe b/c you and Stefbot both know that you're full of shit LOL. Tell me, if you and Stefbot really believe what you say, why haven't you done anything????
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual Less.
Simply because punishments would be far harsher, and more final. Therefore criminality would be far more dangerous, and so far less attractive.
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Considering Somalia is a pirate haven, that theory makes no sense.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual I don't understand why statists keep bringing up Somalia.
Somailia is far less violent now than it was under the defunct Somali govt. The Somali people have also seen their standard of living rise very slowly, but very steadily since said government's demise. Somalia is therefore a good argument for anti-staism, not statism.
...but this is the U.S. not Somalia,and we have our own historical examples. You may want to look up frontier justice, the Pinkerton Agency, the posse.
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You don't know much about Somalia, do you? Piracy in Somalia started first as a self-defense then turned into piracy. That's exactly what happens in anarchy as crime becomes profitable (source: The Pirates of Somalia by Jay Bahadur)
And if you want to compare, compare it to neighboring states with identical demographics. Compared to Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia are paradises. The life expectancy alone is some 10-12 years higher. Anarchy is a bigger pipe dream than communism.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
...Last thing about Somalia; simply irrefutably, Somalia is a better place to live now than it was before the govt was thrown over. That is the only comparison between anarchy & govt that is relevant to Somalia. All the rest is meaningless deflection, distraction, and disingenuousness.
Now again about the U.S., I gave you several historical ex. of non governmental ways of dealing with crime here in the U.S. where we are. It is curious that you ignored this & went off on an irrelevant tangent.
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
Comment removed
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual First, the comparison of Somalia to Kenya & Ethiopia is disingenuous. I said Somalia sans govt is better than Somalia with govt. Comparisons of Somalia to other societies has nothing to do with my point., and unless you're stone stupid you're well aware of that.
Second, Somalia is a poor country so of course there's criminality, that has nothing to do with anarchy but with poverty, for 'comparison' check crime rates in poor neighborhoods/places in ANY country, of any wealth...
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName 1/2
Nothing ingenuousness. Nothing wrong with comparing N to South Korea or East to West Germany. It's a comparison of results when people of the same demographics are subjected to different political systems.
But your comparison is analogies to saying that N. Koreans are better off now than they were 100 years ago. Is that an argument for communist dictatorship? Does correlation equal causation? Have you established any? Nope.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual You brought up Somalia, you claimed Somalia was a failure of the anarchistic premise, when it is anything but. Now you've started in on N & S Korea, when neither of these places is the least bit anarchistic. DEFLECTION!
You stated that anarchy could not be superior to statism, and yet you can produce no evidence. I have offered you historical evidence of non governmental justice being more effective than govt justice repeatedly, please speak to this evidence, or just stop.
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Hmm you need to learn to read. It was an "analogy".
YOU need to provide the evidence. You haven't established a correlation between anarchy and prosperity. I showed you that neighboring states with a govt are much better off than Somalia. There are plenty of examples where a govt playing minimal role has resulted in tremendous prosperity. You haven't produced ANY such examples. Try again.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual I'm done.
You have established no logical premise or evidential basis for you arguments. You have ignored relevant references in favor of inconsequential & unrelatable non-information. You have drifted aimlessly & desperately away from your own position. In short you have proven your own argument to be indefensible your own self.
Well done.
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Nope. None of the above. There are plenty of examples of prosperity where the state played a minimal role. Hong Kong, Taiwan, just to name a few.
And nowhere in that dribble where you able to produce a single example to support your thesis. I think it's safe to say you don't have any. B-bye.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
*were
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName 2/2
Somalia was a communist state before the civil war with an utterly incompetent, corrupt and inept govt. Of course they will be better off w/o it. That's not an argument.
But tell me you have something besides Somalia. Tell me you have some empirical evidence to support the hypothesis you have convinced yourself off.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
Lol
TheNeodoxian 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About 2 years.
KaelinSaint 3 months ago
@KaelinSaint More like eternity. I am a wishful anarchist but it's a pipe dream. I have seen the real world to know better.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@Cleopas82 Read his auto-biography and you see that he would of been active in the political arena if it wasn't for the Extreme amount of stress he receives, which puts a strain on his heart.
Mezey5 3 months ago 16
@Mezey5
yep, he was offered chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under Ford. And something happened and he eventually declined. He was offered the Secretary of Labor under Reagan and declined. And was also offered the Secretary of Education under Reagan and declined. I find the last two ironic because those are two of the Cabinets that I know that he's called for abolishing along with about 3 others. LOL
wengete 3 months ago 14
@Cleopas82 Because people lurb sweet lies :D
PoppinSean 3 months ago
@Cleopas82 He doesn't lie enough. He is not a flatterer. Voters tend to elect liars after having been flattered by them.
MutantBamHammer 3 months ago
@Cleopas82 What party would accept him? He is just to logical for the establishment.
XCritonX 3 months ago
@Cleopas82
He is not our president because he doesn't guarantee (or support) free rides for people.
What's funny is that the people who vote for these policies to help them gain don't realize a) it's at the expense of others, and b) the benefits are negated because society as a whole suffers (including themselves). Minimum wage is a great example.
fountainherz 3 months ago