Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Are we a Society, or Just a Collection of Individuals?" video.

  1. Thom says we "are a society and help one another" then we're a society. Well, this means you are an individual helping another individual. When you ask the Government to point a gun at your head, take some money, take a cut, give a little to the poor - that's the opposite of society.  See, Thom and other Regressives Socialists don't understand that what makes society IS the individuals and their freedom to help one another AS individuals.  Also, as Thom himself has pointed out, taxes are not about raising money, but about changing / manipulating behaviour. 
    1
  2. J GALT Stop and think about what you're saying. IF most people do NOT want to help other individuals, then in a democracy, a representative government would not be able to enact laws that do help other's as that would run counter to the will of those that are governed.  Further, in a free-market based society (no, not a free-for-all Regressives like to Strawman) the only way you can get along with other's is by offering them something of value. Thus, even if you didn't like other people, you'd still be stuck having to deliver value if you wanted to interact with others.  The very oxymoron that sits at the center of Progressive Ideology is that we need to use force / the State, in order to coerce some people, into helping others. All that has happened is the State has morphed into a Warmonger littered with Welfare ghettos where, instead of individuals helping one another, individuals say "I pay me taxes" and wash their hands of it. Too bad to, we could have organized a really wonderful society. But, instead we all get to live in the Regressive Police State we currently inhabit - and will for a long long time to come. Decades, if not centuries.
    1
  3. J GALT The role of Law in a free society is to protect property and uphold contract.
    1
  4. J GALT I re-read your post. Is English your first language? Your questions are all over the place. 1) Do individuals have rights? A: Yes. It should be noted that 'rights' are merely agreed to norms by many individuals. I would argue the most important "right" a person has is that of self-ownership.  2) If regulations are used to manipulate behavior what are laws for? A: They're very similar.  Laws are rules set up by social institutions to govern behavior. Laws are made by government officials. Laws must be obeyed by all citizens. Regulations set up a process of monitoring and enforcing legislations.
    1
  5. J GALT Please contact your doctor and ask to reinstate your previous medical treatment. Or, if you have stopped taking your pills, please contact your physician and discuss this with them. Or, if you have yet to see a physician, please make an appointment and do so immediately.
    1
  6. ***** 1) No one said 'free markets' are 'free for alls'. 2) Chinese are not slaves, any Chinese who does not want to work in a factory can quit, and finally, China is becoming one of the richest nations in the world and just passed the USA. China is watching it middle class explode in size and scope while ours implodes. Hell, many Americans only wish they could get a job in a Chinese factory. 3) Corporations do not take 'your' job anywhere. It's not 'your' job. You sell your labor, someone may or may not want to buy it. Your argument would be like a Starbucks barista saying you're taking "job" away because you choose not to buy a coffee from Starbucks. No, you choose from whom to buy your coffee just as business owners choose from whom to buy their labor and services from. It's thier business - THEY choose who they buy materials AND labor from. Again, NOT YOUR job. 4) You have some travel guides? Oh, good for you. I on the other hand have lived in 5 different countries. Some for over a decade.  If Americans want to become prosperous then we need laws that protect private property AND we need to return civil liberty to the people and put government back in its box. Until that happens, you can vote in whomever you like, but the country as a whole will continue to become poorer. This nation was founded on the principle of LIMITED government, basic common law and sound money. Now we have UNLIMITED government, millions of upon millions of lines of regulations and fiat currency used to by the State to bail out the rich and pay for never ending war.  All thanks to Regressive Socialists. 
    1
  7. ***** The USA never had a problem of people staving to death - ever. We've NEVER had a history of mass starvation with one exception the Progressive Central Bank caused Great Depression in the 1930s. As a matter of fact, regulations were very very limited in the 1800s, there were no social safety nets, and this is correlated with the greatest creation of wealth in human history as well as the second industrial revolution. It led to the modern world. movies, radio, private universities, electricity, cars - all of this came during the time when Government was limited. A Chicago census found Black Americans in 1910 had a higher literacy rate THEN as compared to NOW, one hundred years later. That was BEFORE public Government schools. The difference was 85% then compared with 50% now.  So, sorry, but history simply show's you're wrong. Starvation was never a problem in the USA. Either was literacy, either was job creation, either was finding work. People moved to the USA to find prosperity because we WERE prosperous. Today, after 100 years of Progressive Socialism and 60 years of hyper-Regulations, yes, there's serious problems with the unsound structure of society. So, the solution isn't to attempt to pull the table cloth out from under the dishware. No, the first step is to recognize and admit we have a problem with too much Government. Then we work towards finding private community based voluntary free-market solutions to our MANY government caused problems.  Solutions MAY include: 1. State based debt-free currency competition. 2. Competition in pedagogy using vouchers. 3. Winding back ALL regulations that result in rent-seeking and regulatory capture. 4. Ending income tax, the drug war, the wars in the ME. 5. And other ideas that society will come up with as it attempts to meet the needs of other's through free-market trade instead of relying on the use of State violence. But, none of this is going to happen. What's instead going to happen is we're getting many MANY more regulations, we'll lose our personal privacy, the NSA will be expanded, the internet will be regulated by the State (one day you'll need a State licence to log-in to the internet and a State licence to be allowed to create a website, you know "For the Good of Society" and because "You use the Roads".) We'll see decades more War (and new ones) and there'll be a lot less meaningful highly paid jobs. Luckily for me, I have an irreplaceable skill-set. I can move pretty much anywhere in the world. I cannot be replaced by a machine. So, I'm okay. But, for those who live in our hyper-Regulated Progressive Police State, many will simply have to sign up as Cannon Fodder in the Progressive Wars we fight to 'Bring Freedom' to the World.  So, lucky you, we're getting much more State and you needn't worry about scary things like being free to chart your life's course, having personal privacy or 'starving to death'.
    1
  8. ***** The Civil War was initiated by the State. So, this is an example of State violence. Yes, people do starve during State-initiated War as the State's troupes generally burn crops. I was referring to post-CW (I mean, before there were Slaves, this isn't exactly a free society right?). The Long Depression ended in 18 months. I do not recall reading of wide-spread starvation. The Great Depression, caused by the Progressive's Central Bank, and then extended far into the 30s, did result in starvation - particularly when the State paid farmers to burn their own produce and bury their own livestock to push up prices. THIS is the level of stupidity of the State. Again, fault of the State, not the free-markets. I'm telling you, we have too much Government. This IS the problem. And no, electing a new POTUS is never, ever, going to solve this problem. It will take decades, at least, to unwind all the mess the State has made of society.  You're correct, I don't need to worry. And, I don't need to move anywhere (although I do like living in Japan). I will do well with more Regulation. It's people like me who are tasked to regulate people like you. What I don't understand is this: I'm telling you, YOU don't need ME to regulation your life for you. Yet, you turn around and almost beg me to do so? Why? You can do things on your own. You're not a child. And get this, the more you're forced to do things on your own, the more you're likely to create a meaningful job, employ other people, and enjoy your life. We don't need the State. We never did. Actually, we don't 'need' any State at all. But, I accept we will for now, thus I suggest a slow-winding back. My own focus now is to work towards creating a new pedagogy for the next generation. I think it may require another decade before it's complete. And then another 2 decades before results are obtained. And then anther 2 decades before fruit is born. That's the time scale we need to think on. Anyway, in the meantime we're getting much more regulation and the common person is going to get poorer in some ways but enjoy technological advances which improve other aspects of life. So, you needn't worry that anything I'm writing about is going to happen any time too soon. No way. Americans now despise freedom. This level of hate for the individual and civil rights and freedom usually required 4 generations (or 80 years or so) to dispel. When people are starving for a good 2 decades - THEN they'll see reason. At least a good reading of history suggests that's the case.
    1
  9. J GALT  If you're going to copy and past information you should either (a) significantly modify it and cite or (b) link the source. Note: I don't really care what Ayn Rand did or did not do. A personality is not an argument. You both have yet to form an argument. Because neither of you understand what the word "argument" means. Copying and pasting is not an argument. What Ayn Rand did or did not do is not an argument. Using all caps is not an argument. Saying words like 'corrupt government' is not an argument. The fact is neither of you can make a valid or cogent argument because you have no idea what one even is. No wonder the elite in society pull you people around by your noses. I mean, you're like children. The DoE found the average American has the mental aptitude of between 7th and 8th grade. Well, they got that much right at least.  It's obvious, all I would have to do to placate either of you two is to tell you what you want to hear. Preferably in a short simple sound bite. "Hope and Change" or "Turkey in every pot". All I have to do is tell you it's all the big bad fault of Steve Jobs or the Koch Brothers or Satan some other bogeyman man.  Anyway, lucky for you two, I'm one of your Regulators. Isn't that nice? So, you pay your taxes like good little Citizens and people like me will regulate your lives for you just like the children you appear to be. Good day.
    1
  10. ***** Well, to be fair you've been cordial. I was referring to the Depression of 1920–21 (18 months). As for the Long Depression, this did not result in mass starvation. The USA has never had mass starvation (outside of when the State caused it). That aside, you are in luck. We are not going to be gaining more civil liberties in the coming decades.This year alone millions upon millions of more regulations were added to the 10s of millions from before that. And, we'll also see more loss of personal privacy via the NSA and etc... (well, to be fair, not much is left to lose anyway). I happen to be one of your Regulators. While I also happen to think that you, as an adult, are more than capable of living as a free person within the Law and with minimal regulation of your life. You seem to think otherwise. You want people in my position to Regulate your life for you. Okay. You're in luck. That's one of the things that I do. As I said, I am one of your Regulators. And believe me, you'll be hard-pressed to find people in my position with my attitude. Most think like you. That we should regulate you because, quite frankly, you're seen as imbeciles at worse, children at best. So, I suppose this is the deal: You keep paying your taxes and obey your betters in society. And, that's the way forward for you. If you're clever (I gave the keynote address at a top 10 University where I was awarded a full scholarship prior to completing doctorate work) then, perhaps you may become a Regulator. If not, well, I guess that's life. What you should NOT expect is to live a more prosperous life in the coming decades. You see, regulations in general hinder job growth because it favours rent-seekers and regulatory capture, leaving low paying low skilled jobs as greeters, waiters, ditch diggers, etc.... So, outside of those who are highly skilled in very specialized fields, then things in the USA are not going to get any better - at least in my opinion, we'll see. Summery: You both should be very happy with this arrangement, after all, this is what you want. Your role is to obey your Regulators. Our role is to Regulate you for your own good. Enjoy the State, you'll be seeing much more of it in the coming decades. That much I can say for sure.
    1
  11. J GALT Your statement regarding good government (oxymoron) reminds me of an Iranian who once told me: Once we get the right Ayatollah then everything is going to be perfect. The same was told to me from a Chinese about their Dear Leader. I'm sure E. Germans and N. Koreans thought/think the same thing. It's called magic-thinking. Humans, particularly the simple ones, seem to default into magic thinking. Probably why so many people believe in Gods. Because, your premise of getting the good Government is no different than E. Germans, N, Koreans, Chinese and Iranians: If only we could elect the right people elected THEN  *magic happens* and poof we'll have "good" government. I have a question: Why is it, do you think, the Communist's in Germany, China, Korea, etc... all seem to elect the wrong people and end up in dirt poor crap-hole dictatorships? Whereas, when the USA had extremely limited Government (mid to late 1800s) this is correlated with the greatest growth in ANY society in the history of humanity ushering in the second industrial revolution and the post-modern era.  Here's another question: How much is my tea cup (in my hand) worth, to me? You needn't see it. That's not going to make any difference. Take a guess. Is it worth $1, $80? $500, $5000 maybe there's no price I would sell it for. Maybe it was a personal gift from a dead relative who's memory is more important than what I could buy with money. Go ahead, tell me. See, you really don't get it. Your understanding of how things work in the real world is superficial. Child like. The fact is, you can NEVER know until the day I sell my cup. I need the freedom, in a free market, before that can happen. We need LIMITED government that protects private property, sound money and free markets. These are the ingredients to a prosperous society. But, you just keep praying for the magical "good" Government to poof into existence out of the void. See how that works our for you.
    1
  12. J GALT Do you have any evidence of corruption in the government? Do you? If so, why haven't you taken this to the police and seen that justice is severed? If you have evidence and are withholding it, then you can be held liable. Oh, but you don't have any evidence, do you? Nope. You just like the idea that the reason government is failing is because it's corrupt. It's a nice simple little bed time story. Easy to understand and devoid of complexity.  In short, you're doing your magic-thinking again. Next you'll go on a Left vs Right dichotomy and babble on about how it's all the other side's fault.  Again, don't worry, you ARE getting more government. So, don't worry, your betters are taking care of things for you. Now you can go back to watching TV.
    1
  13. J GALT You've yet to post anything intelligible. It's one post hoc magic-thinking rationalization after another. I'll tell you what, you go get a book, open it, read about induction and deduction, valid, sound, cogent and strong and then attempt forming a thoughtful argument. Because, until then, you literally just spout childish babble. Seriously, here's some terms for you to look up: Deduction, Induction, Validity, Soundness, Axiomatic, Cogent, Strong, Weak.  Do you know what a basic Venn diagram is? Basic set theory? How about rational? Empirical? David Hume ring any bells? Locke? Russel? Kant?  No, not bells. This strongly suggests you can't even begin to analyse an argument - ha! You don't even know what an argument even is. Do you know what an alpha value is? Could you apply bayesian inference to an argument?  Look, I'm paid a decent 6 figure salary purely to analyze and write arguments. I promise you, all you're doing is babbling. The reason you're babbling is because you have no idea how to reason. You don't even understand the different types of reasons. Having a discussion with you is like attempting to explain basic Nernst potentials to a toddler. Of course you don't understand any of what you're reading, of course it all seems to make no sense. You simply lack the lexicon and cognitive experience to understand what you're reading.  Again, according to the DoE the average American has a literacy rate of between 7th and 8th grade. Now, ask yourself, are you average. Be honest with yourself. At best yes. So, instead of wasting bandwidth - go read a book. Note: Your conversation has been useful. I need test material to explain formal fallacies. You're been an ample supply. Kind regards.
    1
  14. J GALT Here's some facts about the government you worship: - Invaded Vietnam and murdered millions of women and child over a lie.  - Rinse and repeat with Afghanistan and Iraq. - The US government is currently the largest polluter in the world. - The US government consumes more limited energy than any institution in the world. - US Government schools graduate functional illiterates at a rate of 1 in every 5.  - The US government spent $100 billion building yet another NSA spy center, not to spy on a few goat herders, but to spy on you and I. Which is against the US Constitution. - The FDA certifies boiled in ammonia off cuts of nose, ear, feet, snout processed and food colored (aka: Pink Slime) as edible for human consumption. I wouldn't feed that to a dog. - The US government just bailed out the very same richest 0.1% that you seem to worry about. How upside down is your world view?! The USA government just bailed out the very rich you complain about. Right now, those rich your whine about would be poor. But thanks to the US government not only are they not poor, not only did no one go to jail, but they're the richest class of humans in history and getting richer by the day.  - The US Government is spending $600 billion to lose the war another year. Up to $100 trillion has been wasted on the military since 1949 alone.    Now, in case you were confused. That list, is NOT an argument. It's a list of evidences that government doesn't not work for the social good IN my opinion. I'm not going to bother crafting an argument for you because you don't understand what one is. If you read that list and think that's all good for society. Well, then that's your opinion and we'll just have to agree to disagree on opinion. But, the list is factual - feel free to look up any one of those points. Again, the progressive government you worship just bailed out the richest 0.1% most corrupt humans on earth. It also wages a never ending war killing women and children with low-grade radioactive material in Iraq. You may think we need more of it. I OTOH think it should be limited to a VERY SMALL role in any society. Not that what I think or you think matters, because you just happen to be in luck. We're getting much more Government. You should feel good, each year the reach of government into our personal lives expands. Soon you won't have to worry about having these conversations, as the government will ensure they do not occur 'for the Good of Society". Lucky you.
    1
  15. J GALT Again, you're babbling.  Here's my advice (a) ask your doctors to reinstate your medication (b) attempt to convert one of your babbling magic-thoughts into basic modus ponendo ponens (c) if your premises are true, this propositional structure is truth conserving.  Done. See? It's really not that hard, I promise. And, no, I'm not going to wade through your ramblings of word-soup any longer. Either take the time to learn how to reason, or continue to babble to yourself. It's one or the other.
    1
  16. J GALT Here, let me take this as an example: You wrote: "Economics is neither science nor discipline and as such has no connection to reality and the physical world and is therefor both invalid and fraudulent." This is NOT an argument. This is you babbling. That aside, let's clear up a few of your premises: 1) Economics actually IS a discipline.  2) Micro economics can apply the scientific method. Behavior economics can apply the scientific method. Macro economics cannot apply the scientific method.  3) Of course economics has a connection to reality. Economic activity is buying and selling, this can be studied and described in the real world.  4) You're unsure of what the word invalid means. See, an argument needn't be true to be valid. Let me repeat that one more time in case you missed it. An "argument" does NOT have to be true to be valid. Let me repeat one more time to make sure you get it: An argument, does NOT have to be truth conserving in order to be valid. Validity is purely an aspect of argument form and is irrespective of whether the concluding proposition is truth conserving or not truth conserving.  Are  you starting to understand now? You are babbling. You're not arguing. You're babbling. An argument can be both VALID and FALSE. This is very very common. This concept is so basic as to be akin to not understanding how to speak a particular language and then expecting to have a meaningful conversation in it. You are babbling. You're babbling on and on using words you do not understand the meanings of. 5) Fraudulent has nothing to do with an argument's validity. Fraud is an aspect of contract law. Again, you're jumbling up a bunch of words into a Word Salad. I'm honestly sorry for you. But, it's not too late. You can still buy a book on basic intro to Logic (I suggest Hurley) and study it. After you feel comfortable with Venn diagrams and set theory (you know, the very basics) then come back and analyze your points and then you can have a good laugh. Okay? Does that seem reasonable? I'm giving you good advice. You can either take it, and maybe improve yourself, or you can live our the rest of your life babbling to people. Which is it? That's up to you.
    1
  17. J GALT 1) A premise alone, isn't an argument, it's just a proposition. 2) An argument does NOT need to be valid to be truth conserving. Validity only has to do with form/structure. An invalid argument may happen to have a conclusion that is true. 3) A declarative sentence is different from a proposition. The sentence is the words. The proposition is the meaning.  Example: "Good job Sherlock." could have multiple meanings depending on context. Even opposite meanings. Thus, while the sentence would remain the same, the proposition could vary dramatically. 4) I have, personally, argued for years that macro economics is being mistaken for 'science'. Particularly by the Government schooled functionally illiterate, quick to obey their Leaders, general public. So, I see no disagreement there. Let's remember it was the so-called Progressive Socialists who gave us both our Central Bank as well as our Progressive Income Tax / Labor Tax. Essentially paving the way for the functionally illiterate majority / middle class to create the society we inhabit today. That isn't changing any time too soon.
    1
  18. J GALT (1) Thomas Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1913 to 1921) and leader of the Progressive Movement.  (2) The Federal Reserve Act (1913) was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. (3) The Sixteenth Amendment was advocated by Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Party) and Woodrow Wilson (Democratic Party). I don't disagree that bankers met to ensure the central bank would unfold in their favor. Not that this would have mattered. It wouldn't matter as macro-economics / central planning is not effective at creating long term prosperity. So, we can agree that macro-economics is not scientific as it can not apply the scientific methodology. 
    1