When people are paid millions to do a job, others pay too much for the job those people are doing. Greed, insecurity, and fear rule the human experience these days so no rational thought can rise into action. We live in a delusional utopia that leaks common sense, a pretentious celebration of mediocrity that fosters depression and inequality. We are a dying species, corrupt and suicidal, closer to a cancer or virus than an intelligent sentient being. Hopefully we will evolve before...
I can't believe you Americans didn't nationalized your oil, your nation would make trillions, those trillions could be invested in healhtcare and in the educational system. But you prefer those trillions to be in the pocket of unelected men like David Rockefeller. You prefer your nation to be indebt then rich only because you are affraid of government elected by the people...
@philbox17 Nationalising oil would lead to economic chaos in that sector. Without market prices production would not be properly coordinated and americans would be improverished. Power would be concentrated into even fewer hands.
The problems with healthcare and education are systematic and are not caused by a lack of revenue. Government control has lead to the decay of these areas.
The economy is not a pie you can cut up. This is the real world and it's filled with complexities.
@darklordsma we don't have the same mentality, we are not from the same place, where I am from private company are mostly foreign, they are American. Our corrupted government sold them our natural ressource like gold, copper, ect, for half the price. But of course it create job, being a slave is great. In USA I suppose the private company are not foreign, keep your company home, let them steal you, I don't care. The world hate the USA because American company want the monopoly everywhere.
Obama is right, the governments are elected by the people and serve the interest of the people. Private contractor and private corporation are no elected, they serve their own interest, they only care about profit. If you do not understand that it will destroy the USA, it will destroy democracy. USA are dying, your State is weak and indebt, your constitution is destroyed, without a strong state and a democratic government you American cannot survive as a nation, you will loose your sovereignty.
@philbox17 explain how the Iraq war was in my fucking interest, explain how the debt, inflation and bailouts were in my interest. I get to vote every four years between puppet A and puppet B. Governments serve their own fucking interests. Also, "Private" military contractors are government entities, that's why they are unaccountable.
Real private companies that recieve no government privileges and money are accountable to consumer desires or else they don't make any money.
@darklordsma they are puppet of banks and private company. Anyways I don't care, do what you want. I don't say the US government is good, I simply say that the idea of an elected government elected by the people that serve the interest of the people is good. Anarchy is stupid.
@philbox17 Exactly. Government agencies are easily captured by special interests.
Just because you advocate states doesn't mean you get to control their behavior. Unless you analyse incentives and economics you're working in the realm of fantasy not political theory. Saying an impossible thing is a good idea is meaningless.
Anarchy is far from stupid, but I can't be bothered to explain it to someone who probably hasn't even read the 'Anarcho-Capitalist' wikipedia page. Ciao bella.
@darklordsma yeah and I can't argue with someone who use wikipedia as reference. You want to live in a world controled by private company, private police, ect, a world were there is no state, therefore no real laws, you are crazy. The people will never let you do that. You say power to the rich, I say power to the people. The united people will always be more stronger then a bunch of greedy and selfish individual.
@InTheEndIWasRight by State, I mean "État". The public institution supposedly control by the people. You are "United-States". You see the government as an independent entity that rule over the people. I see it as an entity control by the people. In my opinion all States should become independent and the federal should not exist. I live in Québec and I hate the Canadian Federal government. I just don't believe in capitalist anarchy, for me it mean letting the foreign company stole our ressources.
@philbox17 Actually I read books on political theory. I was saying YOUR knowlege of MY ideals are probably not even at wikipedia-level. You are blind to all of the arguements I made. "Government agencies are easily captured by special interests" you ignored that. "Just because you advocate states doesn't mean you get to control their behavior" you ignored that too. Why are governments free from greed?
And I never said "power to the rich" so your just being intellectually dishonest and lazy.
If "the state has a monopoly on violence," what is it when a drug addict beats and robs someone? They say "a 'crime,' and you are punished by the people with the monopoly." Hah! All this does is verify that there IS NO monopoly, for if there were, the state would be the SOLE agent responsible for ALL violence.
@tr00ths33k3r The state is the only one committing violence witout being punished. The police behaves as swines in United states arresting peacefull people that might have a diffrent view on things. The united states army is around the world murdering people and noone holds them responsible.
They do not have a a monopoly of violence, they are only "granted" the privilege to be the sole agent which issues punishment in REACTION.. The fact that I would be arrested for punching a cop only shows that they do not, and cannot have an actual monopoly... as I have already punched the cop. A "monopoly on violence" is impossible, but it's of utmost importance to the statists that they maintain the facade, the mythological concept of authority.
They do not have a a monopoly of violence, they are only "granted" the privilege to be the sole agent which issues punishment in REACTION.. The fact that I would be arrested for punching a cop only shows that they do not, and cannot have an actual monopoly... as I have already punched the cop. A "monopoly on violence" is impossible, but it's of utmost importance to the statists that they maintain the facade, the mythological concept of authority.
Remember kids, in a democracy, we hand our guns over to the police and military, and then vote to appoint people to decide how to use these guns against fellow citizens and foreigners. Because what sets apart the nation-state is a monopoly on violence. We can't just have people starting private security forces and resolving disputes through non-monopolistic courts!
Thanks for posting this, InTheEndIWasRight. In the end, you were right.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"He knows his Shit"? Wow, you obviously do not. Too many nit-wits like you spewing your half-assed opinions. Private contractors are hired by the Dept. of State. Obviously Congress and the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff feel that contractors are needed or they wouldn't exist. Barrack Obama is a shithead lawyer who never practiced law, who never had a job, who has zero life experience and whose resume amounts to nothing more than being an asshole. But you think he "knows his shit". Moron.
@Donnybrook10 Look up Max Weber's term monopoly on violence. Leviathan, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes.
The one thing that sets a nation state apart from any other institution is the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
By privatizing military operations, we are essentially taking the one thing away from government that sets it apart from any other institution (corporations, schools, churches,etc)
So in theory, with privatized military we will see the deterioration of the modern nation state.
@atheistworstenemy No Jesting, it's a matter of record !, Obama is Kenyan Born !..It's to do with the Washing of the brain (TV /Media)... This all happened on your watch my friend.....Ps, don't shoot the messenger !...Peace
@atheistworstenemy Okay, I'll bite. Are all of his records sealed or not? Is there a long form birth certificate, or not? Not that it matters so much to me, as so many of our pres.s. were secretely, and some not so secretely, hellbent on robbing,raping and pilaging the"public". But why shouldn't they? Survival of the most savvy right?Sorry to say, but Joe the plumber, on average, is only savvy enough to viciously defend their slavery under the guise of nationalism.Cuntry of idiots. Love em tho
@rvlqcitizen You're too funny. Care to explain why the birth certificate is even an issue for our first black president? It's not like you must look at him and see something foreign or anything... oh wait, that's exactly what it implies.
@atheistworstenemy It would certainly not be an issue if it were not for the secrecy. Secrets never hide good things. And it's not just his birth certificate either. It's almost ALL of his records. Why? I don't care what color he is, or sex for that matter. I just don't trust such secretiveness. Do you?
@KRiderMan1248 oK let's look at the real context: Neverending war, troops and hundreds of military bases all over the globe; US blockades or sanctions against multiple countries; Controlled economy and fiat money system that has bankrupted the world; bailouts and stimuli benefiting mega-corporation cronies that took risks but bear no consequences; biggest percentage of citizens in jail
than all other countries combined; laws against nearly everything, enforced by SWAT teams, tazers, guns.
in the context i dont think this is what you are trying to say. the nation state does have a monopoly on violence under the law right? i think he is saying what is obvious.
@sickoftards Under "law" that the state itself implemented. But anyway, try telling a lot of other people its a monopoly on aggression and violence, they'll rant to me on how its not.
historical note here, every empire that used private contractors, ie. mercenaries, in there military those empires have fall...just look at rome, england, france, spain...and the list goes on....
@InTheEndIWasRight Well, Im just a political scientist and thats one basic criteria for every working state. So I dont really see anything concerning here.
@Raccoonraper It sure is, but I find it inconsistent with others that the state can break common law, social norms and property rights that the rest of us have to follow.
@InTheEndIWasRight Thats for sure but thats not what he said in the interview. Its one thing to have a state monopoly on violence and quiet another to abuse it :-)
@InTheEndIWasRight I dont think so.... if you live in a country without the government having the monopoly on violence you know what trouble is.
Look at many countries in Africa.....
90% get killed by 10%...... a working governance system prevents that (in most cases). People need to be controlled. If they arnt only the meanest and most violent individuals rule over the rest. No civilisation was ever found on anarchy
@Raccoonraper So what about the fact that the state is the number one murderer of its own people? Civilization emerged in statelessness, that is a fact.
@InTheEndIWasRight Where do you get your "facts" from!? What state? All states?!
And of cause civilization emerges in statelessness...BECAUSE THE STATE IS CIVILIZATION! Please name one example where a "state" (stateless people/etc.) createt someting like civilization without creating a state / law-system etc.
There is also stateless Ireland which existed for 1000 years and stateless iceland as well. Not to mention others. There is an audio book in the description of that video that elaborates on all this.
@InTheEndIWasRight These were groups organized in tribes which by definition have a law system and a governmental system. You cant say that these groups were stateless cause their system includes everything what defines a state. Its just on a smaller scale.
@Raccoonraper Having governance in a society and being able to voluntarily opt out of that arrangement does not constitute a state. A state is a coercive monopoly on violence and other services in a geographic location and is based on a perversion on the norms of property acquisition in that given society. The state also has the political class, which prevents secession. The examples I gave allowed secession.
@InTheEndIWasRight I think you look at it too much from the outside. Even if someone voluntarily does something he has to act in an controlled environment. For that you need a state/a group etc. to ensure (at least) the status quo.
I respect your points but I think they are false imo. Governance (in a state /tribe whatever) ensures a society which can evolve.....unorganized groups cant to that and so they always got defeated by better organized ones.
@InTheEndIWasRight BTW the video is bullcrap imo. Who protected the grains? Groups hat to be organized befor they could even think about storing something and a territory hat to be declared as "theirs" and had to be protected so on....
Thank you for that video but i think its false in many ways....it tries to explain the things oversimplified and skips many questions imo.
@Raccoonraper Who protected? People did, people always do. Being anti-state doesnt mean one is against social organization, governance, law, order ect. And to think those things only can derive from the state is false. Also being anti-state does not negate property claims either. What Im saying is that the state is a perversion of common preferences, laws, views of property that most people view as legitimate. The only reason people view the state is due to traditional authority and ideology.
@InTheEndIWasRight I get your point and i agree to some extend. For small groups you may be right but nations cant be organized like this. I mean sure you are always involved in groups (family, neighbourhood etc) and sure in that dimensions its enough. But people arnt nice. Do you think people from NY would help people in CA in case of an emergency? They would think "Its not my business" or "Its too far away to care". You need a state to balance that out. People only care for what they see.
@Raccoonraper Its decentralized power, Im talking about something like county sized societies whom trade with one another, but work like the tuaths of stateless Ireland. As for help, removing that disconnect that is the state puts people directly in society, in this way everything is very much social, and in that people will deal with assistance in emergent ways. Those being social programs, charities ect
@InTheEndIWasRight Very nice if it works but i highly doubt it. The problem is that the distance is just to big to establish some kind of tribe feeling. People will never feel connected to other people which they never saw in their life. The uniting factor, the state is gone. So i think those groups will not coexist but compete. And btw the first few tribes that would form a "state" would be much more efficient in looting the other tribes as well....so someone will do so for sure.
Think of it like this: prior to the protestant reformation, people thought that association with the church was mandatory. During the reformation, people fought over which church people should have to associate with. After the reformation, people made an intellectual and emotional leap which allowed them to acknowledge that people didn't need to associate with a particular church, or any church at all.
Anarchists are suggesting exact same thing. Voluntarism as a solution.
@Raccoonraper Looting and pillaging if not in peoples intersubjective consensus will not be the norm if its not there. And today people know that that behavior will not lead to their overall stability and prosperity. And I would disagree that the state is a uniting factor, and say its a disconnect. You dont know who your helping with state programs, and also a good portion of your taxes just go to waste anyway. If people want to be social is working with a community, not a state.
@Raccoonraper You could not be more correct on this point.You say"people only care for what they see" again, you are correct.For what "they feel" affects them right now." For instance,9/11.my ex gf told me" Why do you care SOO much about 9/11?It was sooo long ago. And doesn't feel affected by other's loss.For this very disconnect our county is doomed.And how apropo it is. This very disconnect from others is what allowed this continent to be conquered by our forebears is the first place.
I am Troubled by huge contractors getting all the government contracts and the little guy does not! All because they have friends in Washington, this shit needs to stop and so to corporations donating to political campaigns!
@911truthseekers The only way to stop the system is to eliminate the system. Corporations are products of the state and the state will always be in bed with those who have political connections. No amount of laws or regulations will ever stop that. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate the state.
I can tell that Obama was trying to choose his words carefully here. He knows deep down the state isn't needed for anything, but he has to lie to the people that it is needed, This isvery telling and it suggests a lot about him.
Wait. I thought that "We are the government" so we must have a monopoly on violence, too. JK. Not only do nation-states have monopolies on violence but they acquire your business through extortion (taxation).
The problem is that Americans have forgotten that there are actually other nation states out there that may not have libertarian viewpoints.
Any state that does not fulfill its prime function (the protection of its citizens) is ultimately doomed regardless of its nature. The reason a state needs a monopoly on violence is because ten men with guns is usually scarier than one guy with a gun.
That is why states exist.
What good is you liberty if Mexico promptly occupies half the country?
@DarkwingScooter So each man should not have the ability to defend himself? And you make the presupposition that without a state everyone wants to kill one another. Also I would rather trust 10 men with guns then 1 with a nuke.
@InTheEndIWasRight No, the problem is not defending yourself against other citizens within the same society.
The problem is defending citizens against other citizens who have formed a larger gang, what you might call a state. That is the primary reason for the formation of states in the first place, protection against raiders and marauding gangs allows trade and agriculture to take without constant disruption.
Once you form a "gang" to protect yourself, you have formed a state in all but name.
@DarkwingScooter The larger gangs, as you said it yourself, you mean the state. What your saying is we need a monopoly on violence to solve the problems of violence in society.
@InTheEndIWasRight No, what I am saying is that even if you if you do manage to form a stateless society it does not mean that the rest of the world has.
States are often expansionist by nature (see 'manifest destiny') and "lawless" societies are seen, rightly or wrongly, as easy prey because they do not present a unified front.
The monopoly on violence is not for the benefit of society internally, it is for the protection of society against external threats.
@DarkwingScooter You don't use the threat of something to prove that you need it. If other state are a threat that is all the more reason to get rid of them!!! And state's naturally don't want to attack an anarchy. They want to attack a society that allready has a tax collecting apparatus and centrally controlled military.
@DaveDoggOwns I agree, get rid of all states! Just a word of caution though, states are wont to violently oppose any attack of them.
The whole stateless idea is a wonderful utopia, but completely ignorant of reality.
Even if people did not do a conscious cot-benefit analysis (which I believe they would naturally do), social selection would very quickly weed out unaligned individuals.
This is not theory, it is oft repeated historical reality.
@DarkwingScooter Oh, nice reversal there. The slave who objects to his slave owners is "attacking" them. Of course!!!!
The states that wish to steal the land of the stateless society should be eliminated. If they do not at least the stateless society can lead by example.
If there is a threat that unaligned individuals wll be weeded out be social selection what fucking sense would it make to have a state so that those who are arrogant and intolerant can used against the weak? And you also ignore the possiblity that the individuals being weeded out could be statists amidst a stateless society.
@DaveDoggOwns "you also ignore the possiblity that the individuals being weeded out could be statists amidst a stateless society."
No, what I am saying is that in the anthropological sense a state simply is a large society. The polity of that is statelessness and that polity must be enforced globally to ensure its maintenance.
@DarkwingScooter The the primary reason for state s was religious idealogy amonst the people's. It wasn't the result of some sophisticated cost-benefit analysis. And even if they did such a thing people can still be wrong in their analysis.
@DarkwingScooter What kind of bs reversal of moral responsibility is that? All I want to do is live for myself, not hurt anyone else, and not require that anyone have to obey me or any ruler they haven't chosen. How exactly does that make me more arrogant than the statist?
@DaveDoggOwns "All I want to do is live for myself, not hurt anyone else, and not require that anyone have to obey me or any ruler they haven't chosen. How exactly does that make me more arrogant than the statist?"
Because in order to get that you must get everybody else to believe what you do first.
@DarkwingScooter Getting people to believe in your rights is less arrogant than forcing people to obey your authority. There is no way around this. The slave who wisehes to be free cannot possible by more arrogant than his masters! This is nothing but doublethinking reversal.
@DarkwingScooter A a "group of people" is not EVERYONE that exists. There are always some people who do not consent to the authority of the state.
The state is force. The very fact that there is a community here on yt or that there even these fierce debates at Washington is 100% proof that the state is not derived from consent. There are those that are dominated and those that dominate.
@DaveDoggOwns "There are always some people who do not consent to the authority of the state."
Absolutely true. The point is that the state will always tend to be more powerful than this group of people because of the way states conglomerate.
The state does not need your consent exist, it exists. The consensual state as envisioned by the American founding fathers was a noble ideal, but its nature requires the citizens to uphold it.
When America voted for Bush the second time that ended.
That a conglomeration of anarchists is itself a state if they try to impose there position on others, and the only way for there position to be viable is if they impose it on others.
@DarkwingScooter No, an "imposition" of free competition and self-ownership is not the same thing as a monopoly state. Self-ownership is defended not "imposed". You sure have a neat trick going on here making self-ownership look like slavery, free competition look like monopoly, non-violence look like violence, retaliation look like initation, etc. Any more manipulative reversals you'd like to express?
@DaveDoggOwns "You sure have a neat trick going on here making self-ownership look like slavery, free competition look like monopoly, non-violence look like violence, retaliation look like initation, etc."
No, I think the only one doing reversals here is you.
I never equated the imposition of free-market principles as slavery, although it is historically usually the powerful who do so to their own advantage, I equated it to a state.
@DarkwingScooter What difference does is make if the government is
Spanish or English? Tyranny is still tyranny. And your are projecting the problems of statism onto anarchy. What we have RIGHT NOW is numerous government workers with guns scaring the fuck out of the citizens. The lone private criminal with a gun isn't as scary as a patroling police cars. That very scare story is happening RIGHT NOW!!!!
You know, typing "Fuck Obama" never seems to get old. If there's one good thing about this miscreant, its the possibility that his nasal mole will develop into a terminal carcinoma.
bullshit. " I am not arguing that they're never going to be USES FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTORS in some circumstances." who do you think PAYS BLACKWATER? The Government. he could end it anytime he wants, but he doesn't!
Why is it wrong with private contractors? I think it is an awsome way to save money.
If you are gonna murderer and rape a Nation then why not be cheap and efficent? It seems like the lesser evil considering whats going on... also it nice that he is trouthfull about the way it works.
1:15 to the end. Amazing that this was caught on tape. Obama should speak without a tele-prompter more often! Who knows what will come out of his mouth.
He wouldn't want to privatize something the state does so well, and for so little money.
Money is the true god in this world, and it is becomming ever more obvoius. Even some preaching religions are making money look like the real god. It's no secret.
@haroldsmegma1 : obama is not a muslim. he's eats pork! there for he is not a muslim, because MUSLIMS DONT' EAT PORK! learn something about someone before you talk shit you don't know.
Fine, the state has a monopoly on violence,a Neo Conservative concept that has pushed us to the brink of failure and set us up for the North American Union.
Privitization of the military was in full swing immediately after 911 and still is. HR 2568 has been introduced to prevent $100 billion in small business loans from being diverted to military contractors, but it sits in limbo, while Israel pushes for inevitable war in Iran. And you speak of a nation state?
No, sir, you miss the point. And it was made before "conservative" was a political philosophy, let alone neoconservatism.
The state does not HAVE a monopoly on violence, the state IS a monopoly on violence. That is it's ENTIRE basis of operation, both conceptually and in reality.
Thanks for your edification ,but Conservatism actually had its roots in18th century Great Briton. The Neo-Cons had their roots in the Ronnie Raygun administration.
My point is that HR 2568 would enable small business loans to actually go to the folks that need them instead of the military indu$trial complex, yet our well lobbied congreSS ignores the bill.
I don't think I've ever heard a politician speak that language before, but they
do drop hints once in a while that they're not as ignorant of political philosophy and economics as they like people to think. It would blow their cover if they
were exposed too much.
We're supposed to think they're pragmatists and "centrists" who never
contemplate the philosophical character of their actions.
So if we privatize the military that makes us less Statist? I don't agree the Carthaginians had an all mercenary army commanded by Carthaginian citizens (If the commanders failed in their duties they were crucified) and no one can doubt that they were Statist as well as Empirical. I believe not getting into wars of aggression is what deprives The State of it's monopoly on violence.
@M14Mann The state will still hold a monopoly on violence even if its not at war. Holding a monopoly or near monopoly on violence is one of the key aspects of what makes a state a state.
@InTheEndIWasRight I agree, what I was trying to say just because The State pays (with my money that it gets through threats of violence) private individuals to do its bidding doesn't make it less Statist.
The advantage of private competition in defense (already more than half of security in the US is private) tends to ensure quality and cost effectiveness.
@Telpeurion So you think Blackwater,KBR,and Halliburton are cost effective and deliver quality goods? If you do then why does the Gov. under threats of violence and imprisonment steal my money to fund them?
@InTheEndIWasRight It's all about the money. Once that changes, less people will abuse it. Until then, screw the planet up and screw people while you still can! One example: some water purifier systems are way over priced, for wealthy people who can throw money away unwisely, which is all too common, which makes most of them retards :). Problem is, some poor people get sucked into these scams. Nike Being so expensive based on solely a name, is a scam. Nike is a scam!
Most are missing the point here. Who's the biggest client of private contractors? Does the average American civilian have any need for highly trained armed thugs? Don't think so. Maybe if the state doesn't want its best manpower siphoned off to the private sector, it needs to stop paying billions of dollars for someone else to do their dirty work.
@atrickpay11 "Monopoly" doesn't mean that there's no aspiring competition - it only means that this competition is not successful in the longer term.
Besides, State has a monopoly on _legalized_ violence.
(Actually, I prefer the term "aggression", i.e. initiation of violence - use of violence in self-defense is a basic human right. State has monopoly on legalized aggression.)
Thank you, InTheEndIWasRight. That truly was an eye opener.What would be an even bigger eye opener is if the vast majority of Americans were to somehow come to that realization as well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So what is so controversial with this?
A nation state does have a monopoly on violence, and it must be so. The alternative is what you see in states like Somalia where the nation state does not have a monopoly on violence.
If they're in now, do ya think they're gonna leave with no problems? They are mercenaries..They know coercion and violence, avarice and intimidation.
What concerns me is their propensity to use extreme methods of control ( esp. if they are hired out to patrol U.S. citizens in civil unrest instances.).. DANGER AHEAD.>.>/
Well this country seems to have enough trouble with getting itself into conflicts through the guys we elected. Do we really want to let private corporations with private interests getting involved in armed conflicts? Anybody really dying to send their kid over there to fight for more profits for some corporation? Does somebody else own these security companies?
Yeah, it sounds like simple economics could kick in on this one. Why be a grunt and possibly get killed for low money when private corporations are paying more? Not sure it's setting good precedent if we allow private corporations with private interests to take armed part in conflicts though. What happens if they instigate a problem that escalates? Do we have to go save their asses? Anybody really want to send their son over there to die so a corporation could have better profits?
Cefuroxx, I like the train of thought, don't think its viable in the modern world but I do "dig" it so to say, @chatworthsharp420, I promise you I do, maybe you should quit thinking while toking...just a thought(which I don't have apparently)
private contractors get paid closer to the full value of their work. But that's not cool with Obama. Unless the Government steals your wealth and pays you slave pay you must not have a job in his opinion.
we're anarchists, we believe in liberty, and for the most part we try to shy away from the left/right paradigm in favor of recognizing systems of oppression and seeking to dismantle them. Conservative or liberal is meaningless.
Screw obama, that army pvt does not have the skill set that the contractor has ( former hard core killer muther fuckers for little pay for the US Army/Navy\ USMC) Damn right the Pro's go private contract too F-up our enemies across the globe! We get paid to kill the stupid of the world!!
I think he's dead on here. Even though the guy is way off base on healthcare for the most part he's not doing that bad. I mean in comparison to GW.....you right wingers need to take a step back and look at reality, getting all in a glen beck frenzy.
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCKIN NOBUMBA DON'T KNOW SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! LYING AND DECEIVING BARRY THE MUSLIM-COMMUNIST, FULL OF SHIT1!!!!
Micaiah2004 4 days ago
FUCKIN NOBUMBA DON'T KNOW SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! LYING AND DECEIVING BARRY THE MUSLIM-COMMUNIST, FULL OF SHIT1!!!!
Micaiah2004 4 days ago
For anybody who wants to keep shit like this website is keepvid
THAWK3 3 months ago
Holy Shit.....
And coming from the mother of all statists to boot
THAWK3 3 months ago
@InTheEndIWasRight :
Thanks, I appreciate your wording, the distinction between the words "private"
and "corporate. The linkage to the state is good, too.
Thanks.
I appreciate Obama's point.
aldenbuzz 3 months ago
When people are paid millions to do a job, others pay too much for the job those people are doing. Greed, insecurity, and fear rule the human experience these days so no rational thought can rise into action. We live in a delusional utopia that leaks common sense, a pretentious celebration of mediocrity that fosters depression and inequality. We are a dying species, corrupt and suicidal, closer to a cancer or virus than an intelligent sentient being. Hopefully we will evolve before...
candortube 4 months ago
Wow, I can't believe I'm barely seeing this. Obama, the top statist is saying what most statist refuse to admit!
19TEC85 5 months ago
I can't believe you Americans didn't nationalized your oil, your nation would make trillions, those trillions could be invested in healhtcare and in the educational system. But you prefer those trillions to be in the pocket of unelected men like David Rockefeller. You prefer your nation to be indebt then rich only because you are affraid of government elected by the people...
philbox17 8 months ago
@philbox17 I think you're an american working for the state.
turbofritz2 8 months ago
@philbox17
Or, we could just leave it the ground, where it belongs.
Jcolinsol 7 months ago
@philbox17 Nationalising oil would lead to economic chaos in that sector. Without market prices production would not be properly coordinated and americans would be improverished. Power would be concentrated into even fewer hands.
The problems with healthcare and education are systematic and are not caused by a lack of revenue. Government control has lead to the decay of these areas.
The economy is not a pie you can cut up. This is the real world and it's filled with complexities.
darklordsma 5 months ago
@darklordsma we don't have the same mentality, we are not from the same place, where I am from private company are mostly foreign, they are American. Our corrupted government sold them our natural ressource like gold, copper, ect, for half the price. But of course it create job, being a slave is great. In USA I suppose the private company are not foreign, keep your company home, let them steal you, I don't care. The world hate the USA because American company want the monopoly everywhere.
philbox17 5 months ago
Obama is right, the governments are elected by the people and serve the interest of the people. Private contractor and private corporation are no elected, they serve their own interest, they only care about profit. If you do not understand that it will destroy the USA, it will destroy democracy. USA are dying, your State is weak and indebt, your constitution is destroyed, without a strong state and a democratic government you American cannot survive as a nation, you will loose your sovereignty.
philbox17 8 months ago
@philbox17 explain how the Iraq war was in my fucking interest, explain how the debt, inflation and bailouts were in my interest. I get to vote every four years between puppet A and puppet B. Governments serve their own fucking interests. Also, "Private" military contractors are government entities, that's why they are unaccountable.
Real private companies that recieve no government privileges and money are accountable to consumer desires or else they don't make any money.
darklordsma 5 months ago
@darklordsma they are puppet of banks and private company. Anyways I don't care, do what you want. I don't say the US government is good, I simply say that the idea of an elected government elected by the people that serve the interest of the people is good. Anarchy is stupid.
philbox17 5 months ago
@philbox17 Exactly. Government agencies are easily captured by special interests.
Just because you advocate states doesn't mean you get to control their behavior. Unless you analyse incentives and economics you're working in the realm of fantasy not political theory. Saying an impossible thing is a good idea is meaningless.
Anarchy is far from stupid, but I can't be bothered to explain it to someone who probably hasn't even read the 'Anarcho-Capitalist' wikipedia page. Ciao bella.
darklordsma 5 months ago
@darklordsma yeah and I can't argue with someone who use wikipedia as reference. You want to live in a world controled by private company, private police, ect, a world were there is no state, therefore no real laws, you are crazy. The people will never let you do that. You say power to the rich, I say power to the people. The united people will always be more stronger then a bunch of greedy and selfish individual.
philbox17 5 months ago
@philbox17 States don't create laws, don't be so obviously uninformed.
InTheEndIWasRight 5 months ago
@InTheEndIWasRight by State, I mean "État". The public institution supposedly control by the people. You are "United-States". You see the government as an independent entity that rule over the people. I see it as an entity control by the people. In my opinion all States should become independent and the federal should not exist. I live in Québec and I hate the Canadian Federal government. I just don't believe in capitalist anarchy, for me it mean letting the foreign company stole our ressources.
philbox17 5 months ago
@philbox17 Actually I read books on political theory. I was saying YOUR knowlege of MY ideals are probably not even at wikipedia-level. You are blind to all of the arguements I made. "Government agencies are easily captured by special interests" you ignored that. "Just because you advocate states doesn't mean you get to control their behavior" you ignored that too. Why are governments free from greed?
And I never said "power to the rich" so your just being intellectually dishonest and lazy.
darklordsma 5 months ago
If "the state has a monopoly on violence," what is it when a drug addict beats and robs someone? They say "a 'crime,' and you are punished by the people with the monopoly." Hah! All this does is verify that there IS NO monopoly, for if there were, the state would be the SOLE agent responsible for ALL violence.
tr00ths33k3r 9 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Explain the difference between a alcoholic who beats and robs someone and a drug addict who beats and robs someone.
Sun6Tzu 9 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r
The state has a LEGAL monopoly on the right to initiate violence.
I can't legally tax you. I can't legally put you into a cage for having the wrong agriculture in your pocket. The state can.
TheCapitalistdog 8 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r The state is the only one committing violence witout being punished. The police behaves as swines in United states arresting peacefull people that might have a diffrent view on things. The united states army is around the world murdering people and noone holds them responsible.
turbofritz2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turbofritz2 lol, I am not American...
philbox17 8 months ago
They do not have a a monopoly of violence, they are only "granted" the privilege to be the sole agent which issues punishment in REACTION.. The fact that I would be arrested for punching a cop only shows that they do not, and cannot have an actual monopoly... as I have already punched the cop. A "monopoly on violence" is impossible, but it's of utmost importance to the statists that they maintain the facade, the mythological concept of authority.
tr00ths33k3r 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They do not have a a monopoly of violence, they are only "granted" the privilege to be the sole agent which issues punishment in REACTION.. The fact that I would be arrested for punching a cop only shows that they do not, and cannot have an actual monopoly... as I have already punched the cop. A "monopoly on violence" is impossible, but it's of utmost importance to the statists that they maintain the facade, the mythological concept of authority.
tr00ths33k3r 9 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 9 months ago
2:02
JacqueFresco1 10 months ago
lol
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
Max Weber said in Politics as a Vocation that a necessary condition for an entity to be a state is that it retains such a monopoly.
mateo3470 1 year ago
Remember kids, in a democracy, we hand our guns over to the police and military, and then vote to appoint people to decide how to use these guns against fellow citizens and foreigners. Because what sets apart the nation-state is a monopoly on violence. We can't just have people starting private security forces and resolving disputes through non-monopolistic courts!
Thanks for posting this, InTheEndIWasRight. In the end, you were right.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
@ericfontainejazz If "the state has the monopoly on violence" what is it when a really bad drug addict beats and robs someone?
tr00ths33k3r 9 months ago
Comment removed
eirikir90 1 year ago
omg, people of the mises institute should see this.
Omroon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"He knows his Shit"? Wow, you obviously do not. Too many nit-wits like you spewing your half-assed opinions. Private contractors are hired by the Dept. of State. Obviously Congress and the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff feel that contractors are needed or they wouldn't exist. Barrack Obama is a shithead lawyer who never practiced law, who never had a job, who has zero life experience and whose resume amounts to nothing more than being an asshole. But you think he "knows his shit". Moron.
Donnybrook10 1 year ago
@Donnybrook10 I was being sarcastic. I agree. And he does know his shit in the context that he realizes the state is a monopoly on violence.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 16
@InTheEndIWasRight OK...You get a reprieve then. I retract the mean names I called you...
Donnybrook10 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Ah! I send my profuse apology then as I missed your sarcasm.
Donnybrook10 6 months ago
@Donnybrook10 I think he might be right though... what do you say?
Elephantintheroom01 6 months ago
@Donnybrook10 Look up Max Weber's term monopoly on violence. Leviathan, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes.
The one thing that sets a nation state apart from any other institution is the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
By privatizing military operations, we are essentially taking the one thing away from government that sets it apart from any other institution (corporations, schools, churches,etc)
So in theory, with privatized military we will see the deterioration of the modern nation state.
calicheese23 2 weeks ago
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!
TimeLord361 1 year ago
Kenyan Born Obama is a private con-tractor !....
freedombiteback 1 year ago
@freedombiteback lol, "Kenyan-born"... I hope you're kidding, I don't understand how anyone is really that braindead.
atheistworstenemy 1 year ago
@atheistworstenemy No Jesting, it's a matter of record !, Obama is Kenyan Born !..It's to do with the Washing of the brain (TV /Media)... This all happened on your watch my friend.....Ps, don't shoot the messenger !...Peace
freedombiteback 1 year ago
@atheistworstenemy Okay, I'll bite. Are all of his records sealed or not? Is there a long form birth certificate, or not? Not that it matters so much to me, as so many of our pres.s. were secretely, and some not so secretely, hellbent on robbing,raping and pilaging the"public". But why shouldn't they? Survival of the most savvy right?Sorry to say, but Joe the plumber, on average, is only savvy enough to viciously defend their slavery under the guise of nationalism.Cuntry of idiots. Love em tho
rvlqcitizen 1 year ago
@rvlqcitizen You're too funny. Care to explain why the birth certificate is even an issue for our first black president? It's not like you must look at him and see something foreign or anything... oh wait, that's exactly what it implies.
atheistworstenemy 1 year ago
@atheistworstenemy It would certainly not be an issue if it were not for the secrecy. Secrets never hide good things. And it's not just his birth certificate either. It's almost ALL of his records. Why? I don't care what color he is, or sex for that matter. I just don't trust such secretiveness. Do you?
rvlqcitizen 1 year ago
These wars for Iraqi/Afghani "freedom" are stupid anyway!! SCREW WAR!!!
War = pet project for the state!!
Nawledge1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very skillful at talking from both sides of his mouth
pretorious700 1 year ago
This guy is the face of big government globalist propaganda... A product of the money masters in the western world.
Cettywise 1 year ago
you've gotta see humanas redempio:
I guess it shows in the pyramid of Giza
who the supposed anti-christ is. it's
pretty good shit if you believe this stuff
420ablesmoker 1 year ago
Pathetic liar and rambling idiot. I wonder if he is on drugs. Everything disJOINTed. Monopoly on idiocy.
hlwrites 1 year ago
I think what he's trying to say is that he doesn't want a non military armed force to exist incase he decides to overstep his bounds.
Phoenix5555522 1 year ago
i think this is being taken a bit out of context and people seem to hear what they want to hear.
KRiderMan1248 1 year ago
@KRiderMan1248 oK let's look at the real context: Neverending war, troops and hundreds of military bases all over the globe; US blockades or sanctions against multiple countries; Controlled economy and fiat money system that has bankrupted the world; bailouts and stimuli benefiting mega-corporation cronies that took risks but bear no consequences; biggest percentage of citizens in jail
than all other countries combined; laws against nearly everything, enforced by SWAT teams, tazers, guns.
leafwatch 1 year ago
in the context i dont think this is what you are trying to say. the nation state does have a monopoly on violence under the law right? i think he is saying what is obvious.
sickoftards 1 year ago
@sickoftards Under "law" that the state itself implemented. But anyway, try telling a lot of other people its a monopoly on aggression and violence, they'll rant to me on how its not.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 9
historical note here, every empire that used private contractors, ie. mercenaries, in there military those empires have fall...just look at rome, england, france, spain...and the list goes on....
abntemplar82 1 year ago
Whats the deal? Thats one basic criteria for a working state..... no big deal here.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Well if youre cool with that, your definitely cooler with legitimized coercion then me. Props.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Well, Im just a political scientist and thats one basic criteria for every working state. So I dont really see anything concerning here.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper It sure is, but I find it inconsistent with others that the state can break common law, social norms and property rights that the rest of us have to follow.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Thats for sure but thats not what he said in the interview. Its one thing to have a state monopoly on violence and quiet another to abuse it :-)
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Isn't just having it a problem to begin with?
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight I dont think so.... if you live in a country without the government having the monopoly on violence you know what trouble is.
Look at many countries in Africa.....
90% get killed by 10%...... a working governance system prevents that (in most cases). People need to be controlled. If they arnt only the meanest and most violent individuals rule over the rest. No civilisation was ever found on anarchy
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper So what about the fact that the state is the number one murderer of its own people? Civilization emerged in statelessness, that is a fact.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Where do you get your "facts" from!? What state? All states?!
And of cause civilization emerges in statelessness...BECAUSE THE STATE IS CIVILIZATION! Please name one example where a "state" (stateless people/etc.) createt someting like civilization without creating a state / law-system etc.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper watch?v=uVEjXp1xr0E
There is also stateless Ireland which existed for 1000 years and stateless iceland as well. Not to mention others. There is an audio book in the description of that video that elaborates on all this.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight These were groups organized in tribes which by definition have a law system and a governmental system. You cant say that these groups were stateless cause their system includes everything what defines a state. Its just on a smaller scale.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Having governance in a society and being able to voluntarily opt out of that arrangement does not constitute a state. A state is a coercive monopoly on violence and other services in a geographic location and is based on a perversion on the norms of property acquisition in that given society. The state also has the political class, which prevents secession. The examples I gave allowed secession.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight I think you look at it too much from the outside. Even if someone voluntarily does something he has to act in an controlled environment. For that you need a state/a group etc. to ensure (at least) the status quo.
I respect your points but I think they are false imo. Governance (in a state /tribe whatever) ensures a society which can evolve.....unorganized groups cant to that and so they always got defeated by better organized ones.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Dont conflate state with all social orgaization. Sure a state is a form of government, but it is not the only form of governance.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight BTW the video is bullcrap imo. Who protected the grains? Groups hat to be organized befor they could even think about storing something and a territory hat to be declared as "theirs" and had to be protected so on....
Thank you for that video but i think its false in many ways....it tries to explain the things oversimplified and skips many questions imo.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Who protected? People did, people always do. Being anti-state doesnt mean one is against social organization, governance, law, order ect. And to think those things only can derive from the state is false. Also being anti-state does not negate property claims either. What Im saying is that the state is a perversion of common preferences, laws, views of property that most people view as legitimate. The only reason people view the state is due to traditional authority and ideology.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight I get your point and i agree to some extend. For small groups you may be right but nations cant be organized like this. I mean sure you are always involved in groups (family, neighbourhood etc) and sure in that dimensions its enough. But people arnt nice. Do you think people from NY would help people in CA in case of an emergency? They would think "Its not my business" or "Its too far away to care". You need a state to balance that out. People only care for what they see.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Its decentralized power, Im talking about something like county sized societies whom trade with one another, but work like the tuaths of stateless Ireland. As for help, removing that disconnect that is the state puts people directly in society, in this way everything is very much social, and in that people will deal with assistance in emergent ways. Those being social programs, charities ect
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Very nice if it works but i highly doubt it. The problem is that the distance is just to big to establish some kind of tribe feeling. People will never feel connected to other people which they never saw in their life. The uniting factor, the state is gone. So i think those groups will not coexist but compete. And btw the first few tribes that would form a "state" would be much more efficient in looting the other tribes as well....so someone will do so for sure.
Raccoonraper 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper
Think of it like this: prior to the protestant reformation, people thought that association with the church was mandatory. During the reformation, people fought over which church people should have to associate with. After the reformation, people made an intellectual and emotional leap which allowed them to acknowledge that people didn't need to associate with a particular church, or any church at all.
Anarchists are suggesting exact same thing. Voluntarism as a solution.
feloniousbutterfly 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper Looting and pillaging if not in peoples intersubjective consensus will not be the norm if its not there. And today people know that that behavior will not lead to their overall stability and prosperity. And I would disagree that the state is a uniting factor, and say its a disconnect. You dont know who your helping with state programs, and also a good portion of your taxes just go to waste anyway. If people want to be social is working with a community, not a state.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper
There can be mutual agreements between militias, so that they come to each other's aid in time of general attack.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@Raccoonraper You could not be more correct on this point.You say"people only care for what they see" again, you are correct.For what "they feel" affects them right now." For instance,9/11.my ex gf told me" Why do you care SOO much about 9/11?It was sooo long ago. And doesn't feel affected by other's loss.For this very disconnect our county is doomed.And how apropo it is. This very disconnect from others is what allowed this continent to be conquered by our forebears is the first place.
rvlqcitizen 1 year ago
I am Troubled by huge contractors getting all the government contracts and the little guy does not! All because they have friends in Washington, this shit needs to stop and so to corporations donating to political campaigns!
911truthseekers 1 year ago
@911truthseekers The only way to stop the system is to eliminate the system. Corporations are products of the state and the state will always be in bed with those who have political connections. No amount of laws or regulations will ever stop that. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate the state.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I can tell that Obama was trying to choose his words carefully here. He knows deep down the state isn't needed for anything, but he has to lie to the people that it is needed, This isvery telling and it suggests a lot about him.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
Wait. I thought that "We are the government" so we must have a monopoly on violence, too. JK. Not only do nation-states have monopolies on violence but they acquire your business through extortion (taxation).
DoctorMurky 1 year ago
@DoctorMurky Great to know another friend :)
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
The problem is that Americans have forgotten that there are actually other nation states out there that may not have libertarian viewpoints.
Any state that does not fulfill its prime function (the protection of its citizens) is ultimately doomed regardless of its nature. The reason a state needs a monopoly on violence is because ten men with guns is usually scarier than one guy with a gun.
That is why states exist.
What good is you liberty if Mexico promptly occupies half the country?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter So each man should not have the ability to defend himself? And you make the presupposition that without a state everyone wants to kill one another. Also I would rather trust 10 men with guns then 1 with a nuke.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight No, the problem is not defending yourself against other citizens within the same society.
The problem is defending citizens against other citizens who have formed a larger gang, what you might call a state. That is the primary reason for the formation of states in the first place, protection against raiders and marauding gangs allows trade and agriculture to take without constant disruption.
Once you form a "gang" to protect yourself, you have formed a state in all but name.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter The larger gangs, as you said it yourself, you mean the state. What your saying is we need a monopoly on violence to solve the problems of violence in society.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight No, what I am saying is that even if you if you do manage to form a stateless society it does not mean that the rest of the world has.
States are often expansionist by nature (see 'manifest destiny') and "lawless" societies are seen, rightly or wrongly, as easy prey because they do not present a unified front.
The monopoly on violence is not for the benefit of society internally, it is for the protection of society against external threats.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter You don't use the threat of something to prove that you need it. If other state are a threat that is all the more reason to get rid of them!!! And state's naturally don't want to attack an anarchy. They want to attack a society that allready has a tax collecting apparatus and centrally controlled military.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns I agree, get rid of all states! Just a word of caution though, states are wont to violently oppose any attack of them.
The whole stateless idea is a wonderful utopia, but completely ignorant of reality.
Even if people did not do a conscious cot-benefit analysis (which I believe they would naturally do), social selection would very quickly weed out unaligned individuals.
This is not theory, it is oft repeated historical reality.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Oh, nice reversal there. The slave who objects to his slave owners is "attacking" them. Of course!!!!
The states that wish to steal the land of the stateless society should be eliminated. If they do not at least the stateless society can lead by example.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
If there is a threat that unaligned individuals wll be weeded out be social selection what fucking sense would it make to have a state so that those who are arrogant and intolerant can used against the weak? And you also ignore the possiblity that the individuals being weeded out could be statists amidst a stateless society.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns "you also ignore the possiblity that the individuals being weeded out could be statists amidst a stateless society."
No, what I am saying is that in the anthropological sense a state simply is a large society. The polity of that is statelessness and that polity must be enforced globally to ensure its maintenance.
Do you see the logical contradiction here?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter The the primary reason for state s was religious idealogy amonst the people's. It wasn't the result of some sophisticated cost-benefit analysis. And even if they did such a thing people can still be wrong in their analysis.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns So if a group of people decided (of their own free will) to form a state you would force them to subject themselves to your will.
Is that not exactly how a state behaves? Have you not instantly become "generalissimo"?
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter What kind of bs reversal of moral responsibility is that? All I want to do is live for myself, not hurt anyone else, and not require that anyone have to obey me or any ruler they haven't chosen. How exactly does that make me more arrogant than the statist?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns "All I want to do is live for myself, not hurt anyone else, and not require that anyone have to obey me or any ruler they haven't chosen. How exactly does that make me more arrogant than the statist?"
Because in order to get that you must get everybody else to believe what you do first.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Getting people to believe in your rights is less arrogant than forcing people to obey your authority. There is no way around this. The slave who wisehes to be free cannot possible by more arrogant than his masters! This is nothing but doublethinking reversal.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter A a "group of people" is not EVERYONE that exists. There are always some people who do not consent to the authority of the state.
The state is force. The very fact that there is a community here on yt or that there even these fierce debates at Washington is 100% proof that the state is not derived from consent. There are those that are dominated and those that dominate.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns "There are always some people who do not consent to the authority of the state."
Absolutely true. The point is that the state will always tend to be more powerful than this group of people because of the way states conglomerate.
The state does not need your consent exist, it exists. The consensual state as envisioned by the American founding fathers was a noble ideal, but its nature requires the citizens to uphold it.
When America voted for Bush the second time that ended.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter And if a bunch of anarchists conglomerate the anarchists will be more powerful than the statists. What exactly is your point?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns "What exactly is your point?"
That a conglomeration of anarchists is itself a state if they try to impose there position on others, and the only way for there position to be viable is if they impose it on others.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter No, an "imposition" of free competition and self-ownership is not the same thing as a monopoly state. Self-ownership is defended not "imposed". You sure have a neat trick going on here making self-ownership look like slavery, free competition look like monopoly, non-violence look like violence, retaliation look like initation, etc. Any more manipulative reversals you'd like to express?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveDoggOwns "You sure have a neat trick going on here making self-ownership look like slavery, free competition look like monopoly, non-violence look like violence, retaliation look like initation, etc."
No, I think the only one doing reversals here is you.
I never equated the imposition of free-market principles as slavery, although it is historically usually the powerful who do so to their own advantage, I equated it to a state.
State=/=Monopoly=/=State
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter What difference does is make if the government is
Spanish or English? Tyranny is still tyranny. And your are projecting the problems of statism onto anarchy. What we have RIGHT NOW is numerous government workers with guns scaring the fuck out of the citizens. The lone private criminal with a gun isn't as scary as a patroling police cars. That very scare story is happening RIGHT NOW!!!!
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
You know, typing "Fuck Obama" never seems to get old. If there's one good thing about this miscreant, its the possibility that his nasal mole will develop into a terminal carcinoma.
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
Blackwater=liberty
Ha ha, oh wow.jpg
AltairEgo1 1 year ago
bullshit. " I am not arguing that they're never going to be USES FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTORS in some circumstances." who do you think PAYS BLACKWATER? The Government. he could end it anytime he wants, but he doesn't!
TacticalAngel86 1 year ago
Why is it wrong with private contractors? I think it is an awsome way to save money.
If you are gonna murderer and rape a Nation then why not be cheap and efficent? It seems like the lesser evil considering whats going on... also it nice that he is trouthfull about the way it works.
rafen8705 1 year ago
That was the most impressive thing i've ever heard Obama say, and he didn't even use a teleprompter!
Why can't he talk like that more often? America would be a better place if politicians had any guts to tell the truth.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
O.O
omg... he just semi-quoted Rothbard there
darklordsma 1 year ago
I saw this on TV a month or so ago; I just about shit myself when I heard him say that.
Agitpropist 1 year ago
I can't believe he actually said "monopoly on violence". Maybe he IS at least a little honest.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol I guess he isn't as stupid as we all thought
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight
I never thought he was stupid. Naive maybe, cynical maybe.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
What does one call what a military does if not violence?
The retards are the people who think they give out candy in Iraq.
*Imagines the US Army running around like gay lords trying to tempt Al Qaeda out with flowers & talking them into being good boys now.*
Right-wing nutters have less than a fucking clue.
marsCubed 1 year ago
1:15 to the end. Amazing that this was caught on tape. Obama should speak without a tele-prompter more often! Who knows what will come out of his mouth.
He wouldn't want to privatize something the state does so well, and for so little money.
repfreedomforce 1 year ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
WOAH! Obama isn't a complete fucking retard!?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo : its not really obama.
thekingofpopmj1234 1 year ago
@migkillertwo i was just as surprised haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Money is the true god in this world, and it is becomming ever more obvoius. Even some preaching religions are making money look like the real god. It's no secret.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 The future is uncertain, but one thing that is is: Money and Taxes.
luc59457 1 year ago
What a bastard, no wonder hes presedent.
Elephantintheroom01 1 year ago
@Elephantintheroom01 true haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@Elephantintheroom01 : this is not obama. obama doesn't look like a retard. THIS IS FAKE!
thekingofpopmj1234 1 year ago
@thekingofpopmj1234 yeah i made this thing up in my secret lab funded by the rothschilds, you got me
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight : ahaha, you should change your user name to : ''InTheEndIWasWrongt''
thekingofpopmj1234 1 year ago
@thekingofpopmj1234 Someone already tried to make fun of me with that name, but in doing so, they pwnd themselves. Nuff said.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Fuck Off Obama you Muslim POS.
haroldsmegma1 1 year ago
@haroldsmegma1 : obama is not a muslim. he's eats pork! there for he is not a muslim, because MUSLIMS DONT' EAT PORK! learn something about someone before you talk shit you don't know.
thekingofpopmj1234 1 year ago
Fine, the state has a monopoly on violence,a Neo Conservative concept that has pushed us to the brink of failure and set us up for the North American Union.
Privitization of the military was in full swing immediately after 911 and still is. HR 2568 has been introduced to prevent $100 billion in small business loans from being diverted to military contractors, but it sits in limbo, while Israel pushes for inevitable war in Iran. And you speak of a nation state?
wordgeezer 1 year ago
@wordgeezer
No, sir, you miss the point. And it was made before "conservative" was a political philosophy, let alone neoconservatism.
The state does not HAVE a monopoly on violence, the state IS a monopoly on violence. That is it's ENTIRE basis of operation, both conceptually and in reality.
Kbiomech 1 year ago
@Kbiomech
Thanks for your edification ,but Conservatism actually had its roots in18th century Great Briton. The Neo-Cons had their roots in the Ronnie Raygun administration.
My point is that HR 2568 would enable small business loans to actually go to the folks that need them instead of the military indu$trial complex, yet our well lobbied congreSS ignores the bill.
wordgeezer 1 year ago
Sounds like Barry has been reading Rothbard.
I don't think I've ever heard a politician speak that language before, but they
do drop hints once in a while that they're not as ignorant of political philosophy and economics as they like people to think. It would blow their cover if they
were exposed too much.
We're supposed to think they're pragmatists and "centrists" who never
contemplate the philosophical character of their actions.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
WTF is it with all these YT wannabe network editors who can't resist the useless repeating of a money phrase? it ruins the impact.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 1 year ago
So if we privatize the military that makes us less Statist? I don't agree the Carthaginians had an all mercenary army commanded by Carthaginian citizens (If the commanders failed in their duties they were crucified) and no one can doubt that they were Statist as well as Empirical. I believe not getting into wars of aggression is what deprives The State of it's monopoly on violence.
M14Mann 1 year ago
@M14Mann The state will still hold a monopoly on violence even if its not at war. Holding a monopoly or near monopoly on violence is one of the key aspects of what makes a state a state.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 6
@InTheEndIWasRight I agree, what I was trying to say just because The State pays (with my money that it gets through threats of violence) private individuals to do its bidding doesn't make it less Statist.
M14Mann 1 year ago 6
@M14Mann Oh my bad, I agree lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
The advantage of private competition in defense (already more than half of security in the US is private) tends to ensure quality and cost effectiveness.
Telpeurion 1 year ago
@Telpeurion So you think Blackwater,KBR,and Halliburton are cost effective and deliver quality goods? If you do then why does the Gov. under threats of violence and imprisonment steal my money to fund them?
M14Mann 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight That and territorial jurisdiction
Sinisterene 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight It's all about the money. Once that changes, less people will abuse it. Until then, screw the planet up and screw people while you still can! One example: some water purifier systems are way over priced, for wealthy people who can throw money away unwisely, which is all too common, which makes most of them retards :). Problem is, some poor people get sucked into these scams. Nike Being so expensive based on solely a name, is a scam. Nike is a scam!
luc59457 1 year ago
Lovely.
Chainedorlo 1 year ago
Most are missing the point here. Who's the biggest client of private contractors? Does the average American civilian have any need for highly trained armed thugs? Don't think so. Maybe if the state doesn't want its best manpower siphoned off to the private sector, it needs to stop paying billions of dollars for someone else to do their dirty work.
Veerwhil 1 year ago
Hey? The State doesn't have a monopoly on violence. Violence is used routinely by private criminals.
atrickpay11 1 year ago
@atrickpay11 "Monopoly" doesn't mean that there's no aspiring competition - it only means that this competition is not successful in the longer term.
Besides, State has a monopoly on _legalized_ violence.
(Actually, I prefer the term "aggression", i.e. initiation of violence - use of violence in self-defense is a basic human right. State has monopoly on legalized aggression.)
averros31415926 1 year ago 4
Thank you, InTheEndIWasRight. That truly was an eye opener.What would be an even bigger eye opener is if the vast majority of Americans were to somehow come to that realization as well.
globbo100 1 year ago
Wow. It's amazing to hear him use that language to describe the "essential" characteristic of the nation state.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago 4
@tumbleweedjoe yes its very essential for the political class and those connected to it...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what is so controversial with this?
A nation state does have a monopoly on violence, and it must be so. The alternative is what you see in states like Somalia where the nation state does not have a monopoly on violence.
Siddis33 1 year ago
If they're in now, do ya think they're gonna leave with no problems? They are mercenaries..They know coercion and violence, avarice and intimidation.
What concerns me is their propensity to use extreme methods of control ( esp. if they are hired out to patrol U.S. citizens in civil unrest instances.).. DANGER AHEAD.>.>/
informationplz 1 year ago
never would i have ever dreamed mainstream politics, let alone the president, admit what is in the dictionary.
FeelGoodinc91 1 year ago
id kill for more money... wouldn't you?
Id keep the violence going as it keeps me in a job!
*sarcasm*
texme 1 year ago
Well this country seems to have enough trouble with getting itself into conflicts through the guys we elected. Do we really want to let private corporations with private interests getting involved in armed conflicts? Anybody really dying to send their kid over there to fight for more profits for some corporation? Does somebody else own these security companies?
taoguitar55 1 year ago
Yeah, it sounds like simple economics could kick in on this one. Why be a grunt and possibly get killed for low money when private corporations are paying more? Not sure it's setting good precedent if we allow private corporations with private interests to take armed part in conflicts though. What happens if they instigate a problem that escalates? Do we have to go save their asses? Anybody really want to send their son over there to die so a corporation could have better profits?
taoguitar55 1 year ago
Cefuroxx, I like the train of thought, don't think its viable in the modern world but I do "dig" it so to say, @chatworthsharp420, I promise you I do, maybe you should quit thinking while toking...just a thought(which I don't have apparently)
justnich 1 year ago
. . . [the sound of one million army privates filling out job applications for xe] . . .
negator365 1 year ago
where'd my comment go?
Luigi84289 1 year ago
private contractors get paid closer to the full value of their work. But that's not cool with Obama. Unless the Government steals your wealth and pays you slave pay you must not have a job in his opinion.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
you guys are too far down the rabbit hole for me.
justnich 1 year ago
we're anarchists, we believe in liberty, and for the most part we try to shy away from the left/right paradigm in favor of recognizing systems of oppression and seeking to dismantle them. Conservative or liberal is meaningless.
Cefuroxx 1 year ago 3
Screw obama, that army pvt does not have the skill set that the contractor has ( former hard core killer muther fuckers for little pay for the US Army/Navy\ USMC) Damn right the Pro's go private contract too F-up our enemies across the globe! We get paid to kill the stupid of the world!!
GhostDog65 1 year ago
I think he's dead on here. Even though the guy is way off base on healthcare for the most part he's not doing that bad. I mean in comparison to GW.....you right wingers need to take a step back and look at reality, getting all in a glen beck frenzy.
justnich 1 year ago
nobody here believes in the "right/ left" bullshit, or likes glen beck
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 18
@justnich
I gain little solace from the idea that he's not as bad as Bush.
AnarchyInYourHead 1 year ago 4