Youtube comments of (@freesk8).
-
3600
-
1500
-
848
-
798
-
400
-
345
-
344
-
316
-
310
-
277
-
250
-
230
-
211
-
210
-
195
-
185
-
184
-
180
-
177
-
177
-
167
-
160
-
156
-
154
-
150
-
149
-
145
-
143
-
133
-
132
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
123
-
112
-
111
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
102
-
101
-
98
-
94
-
93
-
88
-
87
-
82
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
71
-
69
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I like how in the image at 3:12 of the Silent Parade march in NYC in 1917, the lead banner has the best part of the Declaration of Independence in it: We hold these truths... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." It says that America's founding was not racist. The only thing necessary was to extend the principles of the founding to all races, especially the blacks. But I like the line that comes right after that: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Dan Hannan MEP is right. Think about all of the monopolies we face on a day-to-day basis: home electricity, home natural gas, cable TV, the Post office, garbage collection, state ferries, bus and train service, roads, drivers licenses... all government-mandated monopolies. Now think of the big corps with near monopoly power. We used to worry about Standard Oil, GE, IBM, Microsoft. None of these are monopolies anymore. Now we worry, as we should I think, about Google. But I can still use DuckDuckGo. So I worry when corporations collude with government. That's where real, lasting monopoly power comes from. Government force.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
People should be judged, when such judging is necessary, as individuals. That said, it is wise to be aware of stereotypes, because they are often based on statistical truths that are on average true of a population. For instance, I'm an American, and I can tell you that on average, Americans do have the stereotypical traits you mention in the video, especially compared to the rest of the world. But not EVERY American is that way. I think it's wise to learn from other cultures, and to take their good traits, while trying to avoid the bad traits of their culture, and of one's own.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I have a friend who was born in Argentina but is now living in Panama. Here is his response to the comment from Mecata444 above:
"This is a pretty interesting and accurate summarization of Argentinian political history. And yet, it is not an isolated case. Many other countries in South America experienced (or are currently experiencing) something similar in terms of the political "messiahnization" of political figures, and the blind fanatism that comes with it. They will come into power and promise a change. While sometimes there is a radical change, it's never for the better. It often results in oppression, poverty, misery and economic collapse.
We've seen it in Argentina's neighbor country with Augusto Pinochet, in Bolivia with Evo Morales, In Venezuela with Hugo Chavez (and subsequently with Nicolas Maduro), in Panama with Manuel Noriega, etc...
While not all of these political leaders subscribe to the exact same political ideologies, the truth is that, for some reason, South America seems extremely prone to dictatorships, as we've seen so many times throughout history.
Despite the struggles most people suffer during these, often abnormally extended, mandates, it is impressive to see the fanatism that some people still carry to this very day towards these despotic figures. Both the old, that look at them with nostalgia (It's not uncommon to see some very old people in Spain that say things were better with Franco), and the young, that were indoctrinated into a warped. glorified retelling of their own history.
And yet, times change, and so do politics. The dichotomy regarding politics in "the olden days" as compared to now is an interesting one, and it's mostly due to the introduction of the internet, and the globalization of communication and the free access to information. Back in the day, a dictator could feed you lie after lie, and you'd be convinced that they speak the truth, since the majority just didn't have the means to check the veracity of those claims, and anyone opposing them or propagating ideas that were contrary to their doctrine were easily silenced. They benefitted from the ignorance of the masses, because ignorant people are easy to control, that's why most countries that are ruled by this poisonous system invest so little in education. Nowadays, however, particularly prevalent in the younger generations is the wholesome habit of questioning authority. And with free access to information, people are way more difficult to deceive.
Which brings me back to Milei. His battle has not been just a political battle, but a cultural one. Argentina is a country that has been under the rubble of what was once one of the richest nations in the world, by the socialist political figures that subscribe to the Peronist ideology to an almost fanatic extent. They've done everything to convince the people that their system is the right one, manipulating and bribing the masses with empty promises and miserable handouts. And the people eat it up with plastic spoons. As they're sunk into poverty and misery, they're convinced that the government is there to help them, and that the reason why they're in poverty is due to external forces.
I find interesting how the text mentions that throughout the history of the Argentinian political regime, it's been common to blame failures on others. Never able to point the finger at themselves. This is not new, it's one of the most basic strategies in the socialist playbook. Blame their woes on others so you can rise up as the savior. Think about every socialist dictator, and look at the ideals they proposed when they rose to power. They'll create a proverbial boogeyman that they can use to blame the people's problems on. Be it imperialism, the rich, landlords, men, jews, muslims, companies, employers, etc. The point of this strategy is to create a common enemy, as they say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", right? And when they're already in power, they will continue to blame their inevitable failures on that same boogeyman. Which serves to distract the people and convince them that "the fight" is still going on and that this boogeyman is scared of their success and will stop and nothing to trump it.
Funny enough, as a side note, it reminds me of how Nicolas Maduro often blamed the frequent power outages on the CIA disrupting their power grids. Surely it had nothing to do with the government expropriating and nationalizing power companies, and leaving them at the hands of incompetent idiots.
But nowadays, this is a lie that people will hardly swallow. They will look at external, alternative sources that oppose the venomous deceit the regime is trying to ingraine into their minds. They will look at dissenting opinions and see through the lies. The will look for truth.
And this is how Milei rose to power. Initially he was a joke and a meme. Because, let's face it, the man's excentric demeanor and absolute lack of filter makes him a pretty funny and endearing character. But when the laughs died down, people started to realized that the words he spoke not only made sense, but resonated with them. He said the things everyone thought, but didn't have the voice to speak. He spoke the truth.
He hardly had to spend any money on an electoral campaign, because everybody already knew who he was and what he stood for. And while the regime tried its best to discredit him by spreading lies and false rumors, the people saw right through it.
The man is not really a career politician, and, as he's said before, he doesn't live off of politics (He's not a rich man, yet he's gone as far as to donate and give away his salary), and this constitutes a trend I've seen happening recently. People have been electing outsiders. Non-politicians that propose fresh ideas, in contrast with the established "politisaurs" that have been in the political arena their whole lives, and stand much to gain from it. Proposing the same tired ideas time after time. People seem to have grown tired of them, they are all the same and they know it. One good example is Nayib Bukele in El Salvador. He was an outsider, a business man. A man that stood to gain nothing from going into politics. And he came in with fresh ideas. He proposed, and he delivered. They like them because they're there not to fill their pockets, but because they care.
And that brings us back to Milei. He's centered and extremely diligent. He never seems to stop working (I often wonder if the man actually sleeps) towards his goals, and he hit the ground running, working incessantly since the day he came to office. And in the short time he's been in office, he's made drastic changes in the Argentinian political ground. He's already introduced over a thousand reforms that remove many of the unnecesary and abusive taxing and regulations. External investment has never been this high, and the people are already noticing changes for the better.
And of course, the regime is scared of this. They know if Milei succeeds, they will never have another chance to govern again. People will learn liberalism is the way to go and that freedom brings prosperity. And they're trying their best to block them at every turn. Unions and regime politicians are protesting incessantly since he won the elections, and they won't stop protesting (this is another strategy in the socialist playbook). But it's ultimately nothing more than a tantrum. And everybody is aware of it. This won't stop him, and he's already said that, while people have the right to protest, he won't allow them to block the streets and any attempt at violent protest will be met with extreme force. He's not fucking around.
While I don't believe in blindly and unconditionally subscribing to any political figure, as it often leads to fanaticim, I do have a lot of faith in him. I see potential and determination. And I hope with all my heart that he succeeds. And judging by the way things are going, I believe he will. As he says, "Viva la libertad, carajo!" (Long live fucking freedom)."
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Fascism is a form of socialism. NAZI meant National Socialist Party. Basically, socialism plus racism is fascism. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. The corporations are nominally left in private hands, but the leadership threatens the business leaders to do their will, so it amounts to government control of the means of production. Socialism is just that: the government ownership of the means of production. Individuals have no rights under socialism. Only the group matters, and the will of the leadership is taken for the will of the masses. The USSR was called communist, but it was not. USSR meant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They promised their people they would eventually evolve in to communism, but they never did, and never would. True communism is voluntary. Everyone works for the good of all without any government control. It is a sort of anarchy. The family is a commune. The Israeli Kibbutz or the Hippy Commune are also communist. Such things do not last long when they get over about 30 people, and could never work at the level of the nation state. But socialism is the great evil. It must be resisted wherever it raises it's ugly head. The more completely socialism is implemented, the sooner and the worse is the collapse of the economy, and the harsher it is for the poorest.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Libertarians should never drop out and endorse R's or D's. We are not about the lesser of evils. But when we run, we can emphasize issues that draw votes from incumbents to try and change the outcome! I've run against incumbent D's a lot, since I live in Western WA State. I run on social tolerance, marriage equality, drug legalization, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, bringing troops home, etc. All issues that tend to draw some D voters. I seldom mention free markets and tax reduction. The incumbent D's always win, anyway, but I wiggle the needle slightly away from the incumbent. I've got research that proves it. But we should never endorse opponents. That's against our long-term interests. It's also treason against the Party.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Both left wing socialism, like that practiced in Cuba, the USSR, Venezuela and China under Mao and fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini are forms of socialism. Under socialism, the means of production is controlled by the government. Under left wing socialism, the business enterprises are run directly by government functionaries. Under fascism, the ownership of the factories is left nominally in the hands of the private business owners, but the owners are forced, under threat of violence, to produce what the fascist leaders require. But they amount to the same socialist thing: government control of the means of production. Left wing socialism is publicly atheist, and fascism is publicly racist. Both are expansionist. As a first rough cut, Fascism = socialism + racism.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@docan5248 I oppose ALL monopoly. But let us list the monopolies we face today. You will notice that all of them are government-enforced monopolies, and that those few that are private monopolies seldom last more than ten years: Monopolies: post office, home natural gas, home electricity, home cable, land line phone, sewers, home fresh water, ferry service, garbage collection, central banks (the US Federal Reserve), fire protection, roads and highways... Now name the private monopolies: A long time ago we were worried about the railroad and oil monopolies. No problem today. Notice the railroads got free land grants from the politicians they bribed, defended by the military killing Native Americans. Back in the '70's we were worried about the power of GE and IBM. No problem today. In the 80's and 90's we were worried about Microsoft. No problem today. In the '00's we are worried about Google and Amazon. Still a problem, especially because they collude with government. So I am worried about all monopoly. But the worst things happen that destroy choice and increase waste and corruption and hurt the poor when the monopolies get official protection or subsidies by the government. Government should NEVER subsidize or give regulatory advantage to ANY business for ANY reason. These are steps in the direction of fascism, the merger of state and corporate power. So, I ask you: why are you so worried about corporate monopoly, when these never last, but not about government monopoly which lasts forever? How can you say you are worried that corporations have bought too much influence with government, and then want to extend more power to the government that sells access to that power to the highest bidder?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yep, well put. A short list of government forced monopolies: Cable TV, Home Electricity, home natural gas, sewer, water, garbage collection, state ferries, postal service, land line phone, most roads, the FDA, the AMA, drivers license ID, state liquor stores, the certificate of need system that regulates new hospitals, occupational licensing...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The CBDC is coming, and it will be a massive blow to human freedom. We must resist it with everything we have.
We have a right to a free market in money. We get to choose the money we use without forced monopolies from governments. We should be able to choose any or all of Gold, Silver, Bitcoin, ETH, Monero, Ripple, Theta, or even fiat money, whether private or government. Violating our rights to use any currency or money we choose is morally wrong, even if democratic majorities or politicians prohibit it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Near the end of The Republic, Plato opines that in his ideal Republic, the Philosopher Kings must also control reproduction... they must approve who may have babies, and who may not, and even determine which men and women should form couples for reproductive purposes, the better to produce stronger citizens... A sort of eugenics or breeding program for citizens. All babies born without permission were to be "exposed" to the elements... left for the wolves.
Such a system is clearly an abomination. Does Plato see this? I have always wondered whether this was a sort of reducto ad absurdem... showing how all benevolent dictatorship was doomed to failure or evil, and that the opposite, a system that honored individual liberty, or some other system, would be better?
But most of contemporary western government seems to be based on Plato's elitist, collectivist, socialist idea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was at the 4th of July parade in Edmonds, WA. Bob Furguson walked by with his supporters. I reached out to shake his hand, and as I shook it, I looked him in the eye and said: "Yay, Tim Eyman!" His response, with sad, dead eyes, was "...yay, tim eyman..." I'm still smiling about that! It's like, he thought he had vanquished that foe, but finds that he lives on in the hearts of the people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Our society is not purely capitalistic. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Think of all the government owned industry, even in the US? Trains, home electricity, water, sewer, cable TV, landline phone, garbage collection, post office, state ferries, government schools, bus service... The list goes on and on. And the other big corporations are all in bed with government. This represents a partial merger of state and corporate power. Health care is nationalized in most nations, and partially nationalized in the US. Nah, ya gotta look hard for a free market economy today. Ireland? Estonia? Singapore? Switzerland? These come closer, but even they have significant socialistic elements. Don't know where you get the idea that pure capitalism exists anywhere on Earth these days?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pigeon0213 The point of insurance is not to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. For that, you need medicare or welfare. The point of insurance is to spread risk. The odds are small you will get cancer, but if you do, you could bankrupt your parents paying for your treatment. But the odds are you won't get cancer. So you pay a few hundred dollars a month and expect that this will never pay off, so that the ins co will pay for your cancer treatment if you are unlucky. The ins co pays the cancer treatment costs of others with the premiums of those who do not get cancer, and they keep 10% or so as profit. Now, if government just ran an insurance program, that might not be so bad, but the problem is that the government wants a monopoly. It would force people to be in their program, even if they did not want to be. Monopoly sucks, because then quality of service falls, and there is no incentive not to waste money. Competition between ins cos tends to keep costs low and service high. Government tends to be less efficient and more wasteful than the private sector, and this market discipline is the main reason why.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zarategabe OK, so, practically, lets say there is a factory, and the people own it collectively. Now, a decision has to be made about expansion, or putting a new roof on the factory, or buying some new capital equipment. How is that decision made? Do the workers vote on everything? And why should it be limited to the workers at the factory? Don't ALL the citizens have a stake in the factory? So now, everyone in the socialist nation has to vote on whether to replace the roof or not? So, let's say you realize that that is too cumbersome, and you have government officials make the call. Now you have government control and ownership of the means of production. Because ownership is just the right to control something. That's how it was done in all the socialist utopias like the USSR, China under Mao, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. And all of those were total disasters. In practice "the people collectively owning the means of production" actually means government monopoly control of the means. So, name a country where socialism was done "right?"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I said hey, sugar, take a Wakanda wild side,
and the colored girls sing,
do, do-do, do-do,
do-do-t-do
do, do-do, do-do,
do-do-t-do
dooooo...."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RJ_Ehlert I have an Ivy-league BA, and an MBA from a top-5 school. I was a national merit finalist back in the early '80's. So, here is what I know: academics are often out of touch in their ivory towers. Harvard law profs are almost all left-wingers. A lot of them are Marxists. And power corrupts. Even intelligence is a power that can corrupt. When smart people figure out how to game the system, they can promote all sorts of ideas that are to their advantage, but that hurt the regular people. Yeah, my argument was a sort of straw-man. Just because he is part of the intellectual elite, does not mean he is wrong. But arguing from authority is also invalid. And like I said, he offers no alternative to meritocracy. Meritocracy has flaws. But it is better than the egalitarian socialism that is usually offered as an alternative. This guy is using emotional arguments, just like I was when I pointed out his elite status. "Wouldn't it be nice if we were more equal?" But his argument is just an appeal to emotion. There is no reason, and no science behind it. Through history, the more socialist the society, the more you try to implement egalitarian outcomes by force, the worse things get for the people as a whole, and for the poor especially.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you borrow $100 today, you will pay interest, plus you will pay back $100 in the future. But under conditions of higher inflation, you will pay back the $100 with cheaper, inflated dollars. Lenders try to take this in to account by charging interest rates high enough to cover inflation, but if inflation rises a lot higher than they plan for, they lose, and the borrower wins. So, if you want to bet on higher inflation, borrow money to buy an income-producing asset like real estate, who's rental or other income covers the loan payments. Your asset will appreciate, and you will pay off the loan with cheap dollars. But you are still gambling. If inflation stays low, your loan could be expensive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BetaKeja When the government runs industry, when it has the monopoly, there is no choice, no competition, and low efficiency. You call it state capitalism, but I call it state socialism, since socialism is literally defined in the dictionary as "state ownership of the means of production." And these days, if a corporation pollutes, it tends to hurt their bottom line. Customers find out about it and boycott the polluter. We have far more democracy when we can vote with our dollars than if we can only vote for a politician every 2 to 6 years. The USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Marx saw state socialism as a step in the historical process leading to communism, which was supposed to be a voluntary anarchy. The problem is that the state never withers away. State socialism festers until the economy collapses from it's own inefficiency. Now, if you want to propose some other form of corporate control, like employee ownership or something, all those forms of corporate governance are tried from time to time within a free market system. Sometimes they work for a while. But most of the time they are short-lived.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christianbarnay2499 I guess what I am really concerned about is the scope and power of the government. The FAA represents the government, and should be limited by the Constitution. Should government have the power to decide what is too risky for us? If we grant them that power, then they might decide that single-engine planes are too risky. When self-driving cars get really good, which they will, there will be calls to outlaw human driving on faster highways. Is it the proper function of the government to protect the safety image of any industry, including the aircraft industry? I say, no. Their job is to protect our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. They are not to protect us from ourselves. They are not to prohibit us from doing things THEY think are too risky, or that might make idiots in the public think that flying airplanes is too risky. I think the pilots and engineers harmed no one else, and I think they had a right to risk their own lives. I think the FAA has made a lot of limited-govenrment types in the US think they have too much power, and ought to be reined-in. I think they risked, rather than preserved their own power when they prohibited this stunt. And spectators also have a right to risk their own lives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesstrawn6087 It's a matter of individual liberty. If a woman is not being coerced in to prostitution, if she is really engaging in the activity voluntarily, then she has a right to offer sex for money. And if a man wants to pay for sex, and is not married, then he is his right to do so. Our job, as right-thinking people, is to persuade both of them that it is not a good idea, not in their own interest to engage in prostitution. But we may not resort to force to stop their peaceful, consensual commerce. And making prostitution illegal is using force to violate their rights to liberty. Furthermore, making prostitution illegal is not effective at reducing prostitution, and has many unintended negative social consequences.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I just sent the following to mhoffman OF wiaa:
"Mick Hoffman,
Please support amendments 7 & 8.
It is unfair for trans girls to compete, head-to-head, against cis girls.
At the swimming club where my daughter competes in the summer near Seattle, there is a big pool record board. On that board are the records for all of the age and sex classes down to 9 years old. Each of the records for the boys is faster than the records for the same age girls. This indicates that the advantage to having a Y chromosome accrues BEFORE puberty. It accrues in the form of greater muscle mass, longer limbs, and more aggression. Giving kids hormones does not level the playing field.
We have a girls category for a reason. It is UNFAIR for girls to compete against boys, at least as far down as age 9, and probably lower. It is our job as adults to defend the girls.
I support the participation of trans girls in sports in WA. I am a speed skating coach, and a kids ski instructor, and I want all kids to feel comfortable competing and participating in sports. I'm happy to use preferred pronouns. But the presence of genetic males in competition against genetic females is horribly demoralizing and demotivating to girls.
It is unfair for trans girls to compete against cis girls. Please give trans girls a different competition category, or require that they compete against biological males.
Thank you for your consideration.
(My Name)
USS Level 2 Speed Skating Coach
PSIA Level 2 Alpine Ski Instructor
City, WA"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To Chris Cuomo, CNN
The right-wing is all "lit-up" about the discussion you had with the Alabama judge about the origin of rights. They want rights to come from God, and we know this would undermine the important secular basis for our government. We don't want theocracy. But on the other hand, rights are important. If you will bear with me, I can offer you a secular justification of rights that honors minorities. Will you listen? Thanks.
Does a woman own her own body? Or is her body owned by the community, the government or God? Well, most of us want to think we own our own bodies. I think it is absurd to assume we are owned by gods or governments. We are not slaves. I think that self-ownership is a self-evident truth.
Well, a direct, logical result of making this assumption is that individuals own their lives in the past, present and future. The ownership of our lives in the present is why it is bad to enslave someone. This is where our natural right to liberty comes from. Our ownership of our natural future lives is why it is wrong to murder us, and where our right to life comes from. Our property comes to us from our effort in our past. That is why our property is properly ours and is our right. Theft is wrong because it violates our ownership of our own labor in the past.
Notice that I have an origin for rights that does not depend on God. Notice further that these rights pre-date governments. Good governments exist to defend those rights. Bad governments, like those in N. Korea and Iran violate those rights. If rights were only agreements among people, or if rights came only from governments, then dictators could do whatever they liked. Democratic majorities that violated the rights of minorities could not be accused of doing anything wrong.
Please do not perpetuate the mistaken notion that rights come from governments. Oh, some civil rights like voting and social security come from the government. But fundamental, natural rights like life, liberty and property come BEFORE governments, not from them.
The right is all on fire over this issue. Rush Limbaugh ripped in to you this morning. You provided him a lot of red meat to rile up his own audience.
But please don't undermine the philosophical basis for our own secular government. Thank you for listening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trystdodge6177 I've heard a lot about H H Hoppe, but have never read any of his works. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I almost am. If it were up to me, there would be only three functional areas of government: police, courts and national defense. I think the source of most of our problems today is that the people, in the name of making society better, have given, or allowed to be seized, too much power to the politicians. These politicians have been corrupted by that power, and sold it to the highest corporate, or special interest bidder. The solution is to revoke large swathes of that power. But the only way that will happen is to educate the regular voters. And that's a long, hard, expensive project. But I'm trying to do my part. I'm an Ayn Rand fan, a Libertarian, an atheist, and a parent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm white, but If in the next generation, all of the white people voluntarily married and had kids with people of other races, so that no more "pure" white people existed I would have no problem with that. But what I DO care about is the idea of liberty and individualism. I think that collectivism and socialism are evil things, and that people of all races are harmed by their implementation. All people are better off free. To the extent that non-whites tend to be more socialistic and collectivist, that is a bad thing. But there are plenty of socialists who are white. That bad ideology must be fought, instead of racial diversity. If Western Civilization is individualism, free markets, free inquiry, rationalism, science, and liberty, then I will defend Western Civilization. But Wn Civ is not just skin color. It is an idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larrote6467 The other thing about socialism is that it denies individual rights and self ownership. Under socialism the collective, the group, the nation is considered primary. Any individual may be sacrificed to the benefit or at the whim of the group. Free markets and classical liberalism flip that: instead, all rights inhere with the individual, who owns his or herself. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and their only legitimate function is the defense of individual rights. So, under socialism, or unlimited democracy, if the group wants to seize the assets or even murder any individual, then that is considered just and proper. But under libertarianism, the majority, and the group, may NOT violate the rights to life, liberty and property of any individual. And since the ultimate minority is the individual, this means that libertarianism is the real defense of minority rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dielfonelletab8711 Actually, under free market conditions, monopolies tend to be quite unstable. They may exist for a decade or so, but are nearly always undercut by new technologies or upstart entrepreneurial competition. To really preserve a monopoly, you need government involvement. Government created the railroad monopolies by granting land. Governments preserved the Bell telephone monopoly until cell phones and cable destroyed them. Governments maintain monopolies in electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, garbage collection, cable TV, ferry and bus service and fire protection. Now name a private sector monopoly? I'd be surprised if you could come up with more than one or two. Monopolies nearly always result in lower product quality, worse customer service, and higher prices. And government is the main creator and defender of monopoly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respectfully disagree. Governments should not produce medicines. Government ownership of the means of production has failed everywhere it has been tried. Having governments too involved in the production and distribution of medicine is the very root of our problems. When government has a monopoly, there is no incentive for cost reduction, quality improvement, or innovation. When Pfizer sold medicine to the government, and then the government required everyone to take the medicine, then this was a step in the direction of that situation. State ownership of the means of production failed in the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, China and Britain before Thatcher. Instead, we need freedom. We need free and competitive markets, where no corporation has the power to bribe officials in order to get special advantages. Power corrupts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lexluthor9509 All I have to do is compare outcomes in the relatively free market nations like Switzerland, Canada, Hong Kong before 2000, Australia, New Zealand and the Scandinavian nations, to the more socialist nations like N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China under Mao, the USSR, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. It is obvious to anyone who examines these nations that free markets work better than socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As an American, I'm always embarrassed for the actions of the US against American Indians, Viet Nam, Korea, the Iraq war, the Iran coup, Iran-Contra, the drug war, the Tuskagee Syphilis experiment.... the list goes on and on. But fortunately for us, we are only really to blame for the evils that we do, and not for the evils others do who happen to share our race or nationality, etc. Bon chance, mon ami.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canofsand Victimless crimes: prostitution, drug use, doing business without a professional license, violating zoning laws, loitering, vagrancy, panhandling, sleeping in public, speeding, drunk driving (without causing any accident) marrying while gay, videotaping or photographing police... And then there are other police abuses such as violating our 4th amendment rights...
I agree that drugs should be legalized in stages. First decrim, then full legalization. First pot, then shrooms, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are all individual human beings. Our rights are equal, because they all come from the fact that we each own our own bodies. Our rights do not come to us from our identity, such as being male, female, other, cis, trans, white, black, etc... Our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property should be the thing that unites us all. Instead, the system divides us, in favor of the power of politicians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stargirl1796 Both philosophy and science both ask and answer questions. Good philosophy and good science both ask questions about how the world works, what it is, and what it contains. Philosophy asks and answers questions about the nature of knowledge, ethics, metaphysics and even aesthetics. Science asks and answers questions about matter, energy, chemistry, life, and technology, etc. Good philosophy is practical, like good science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aaron Hackett Hitler said that he cared not who owned the business in name, so long as the business owners had to do what he wanted. But ownership is just the right to control something. So the real ownership of these businesses was the Nazi party. So this is state ownership of the means of production. Keeping the "owners" was just a clever way to get good managers to run the businesses instead of government hacks who had no real experience running a business. The Nazi party also wanted to BE the workers unions. They destroyed the independent trade unions, or co-opted them, only if they competed with Nazi party union organizations. Under socialism, of course, there is also only one workers organization per industry, so again, it amounts to the same thing. The Nazis ruled in a time of war. The industrialists, who were nearly all co-opted for the war effort, of course made off well since the state bought war materiel from them. This is why the share of their income increased. But this is what happens in all oligarchies, whether socialistic or crony-capitalist. Again, the difference between Fascism and socialism is mostly just racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What would a libertarian planet be like? I mean, I saw your Democratic planet, your Republican planet, and your Green planet.... Let's see, government is small, and limited to the functions of defending the equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. Government was funded voluntarily, and mostly by the rich, but was Constitutionally limited in size and scope, so it had nothing to give to those powerful interests who wished to bribe officials. People were generally tolerant of the foibles and differences between people, so long as the people were peaceful. Charity was funded voluntarily, and since the free market generated a lot of wealth and good jobs, charities tended to be well-funded. Pollution was dealt-with as a property rights issue. There was no tragedy of the commons, because there was very little property held in common.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A teacher's job is to educate, not indoctrinate. Every controversial issue (abortion, taxation, war, etc) is an opportunity for a kid to develop critical thinking skills. The teacher should present all sides, with the best, most persuasive readings from multiple perspectives, and then let the kids write essays, have debates, etc, defending their positions. But the teacher's job is to present the material in such a way that the kids have no idea which side she or he is on. Anything other than that is indoctrination, and an example of educational malpractice. It's not really about free speech. It is about teaching critical thinking, instead of indoctrinating. But they don't want kids who can think critically and rationally. They only want kids who can criticize.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carlin has misunderstood what rights are. When a woman is raped, for example, her rights are violated. It is not that her rights have been taken away, so that she never had them. It is that her rights have been violated. If all you had to do to make rights go away was to violate them, then nothing would be immoral. Rape would be OK. And rights do not come from governments. Rights are defended by good governments. If rights were just things that were defined by governments or listed in Constitutions, then whatever a government decided were your rights would be all that you would have. So N. Korea would be violating no rights. But this is absurd. We know N. Korea is a bad government because it violates rights. And, yes, Christians think that rights are God-given. I'm an atheists, and I still believe that rights are real things. Rights can also come from making a simple, self evident assumption: that each individual adult owns her or his own body and life. The individual rights to life, liberty and property are a logical result of making this assumption, and it is an assumption that all but the most extreme socialist or communist wants to make. No, Carlin misunderstands what rights are. But generally, he was a wise, smart, and hilarious fellow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onbored9627 Well, as I have said above, I don't think it is a problem to use liberty in the definition because we are not talking about our own liberty in that clause, just the liberty of others. But using "rights" instead, just conceals the fact, because you then want to ask, "well, what ARE those rights" and Liberty is one of them. So you haven't really solved your circularity problem, just hidden it. But anyway, as I have said, I don't really think this is a problem. Instead of being circular, I think of the definition of Liberty as being recursive. Our rights must be compatible with each other's rights. The only way to address this is to refer to the rights of others in our definition.
1
-
@MR-zf2di Interesting, and well-considered. I'd like to quibble with a few points. 1) "having a positive effect on society" opens the door for liberals to define what is good for society, and then to impose that on the individual. If they see gun ownership as a social health problem, then they can violate your individual rights. The term opens a loophole you could drive a T-38 through. 2) The social contract has problems. A valid contract has to be voluntarily agreed to, and must be possible to read and understand. It has to be signed by someone who can reasonably be assumed to understand it. There can be no coercion to sign it. The current situation in the US fails on all these points. Now, if the social contract were just this: "I agree not to violate your rights to life, liberty and property if you agree not to violate mine" then I would make that agreement with nearly everyone who offered it. But that is not what we have. We can not possibly read all the laws that might apply to us. Few even understand the Constitution. We are forced to agree to it, as a condition of remaining in the place of our own birth. We do not actually sign it. There is no practical way to opt-out of it. Furthermore, the US government is in material breach of most of the Bill of Rights, including especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments. So, I don't think your argument about the social contract can help guide us, here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heathersmith4042 Government is actually the greatest PROTECTOR and CREATOR of monopoly in the US. Short list of government-protected monopolies: cable tv, city water, natural gas, land line phone, sewer service, roads, home electricity, local bus, passenger trains, garbage collection, state ferries, postal service... And many private organizations have monopolies guaranteed by law. The AMA, major sports leagues like the NFL and NBA, etc... But old corporate near monopolies never last for more than a decade or two. IBM, Microsoft, Standard Oil, the "robber barons'" railroads, GE.... All lost their monopoly status. But the government-defended monopolies are forever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A fossil is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood and DNA remnants." Wikipedia.
Petroleum Oil is not a preserved remnant of a once living thing. It is a sort of derivative. It is not an impression. Perhaps it is a sort of trace, most of the time. When we commonly use the term "fossil" it is a mineral image of a biological remain. The biological remain is gone, all of it's elements and cells having been replaced by mineral. But the way in which Petroleum might be considered a fossil is totally different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DexterGraphic "
@DexterGraphic
The goal of promoting these ideas is the annihilation of the individual, who alone is capable of thinking, choosing, and acting creatively, productively, and ethically. This clears the way for statism, socialism, collectivism, altruism, mysticism, and nihilism: the irresponsible escapist pursuit of unreason and unreality, non-being. And the unavoidable result of accepting these perverse anti-life philosophies is of course societal chaos, horrific human suffering, and the destruction of civilization itself. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's a total hypocrite. Matthew 6:6: "5And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. 6But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard.…" Both Cuomo and Trump are trying to use their faith to promote their own political power. They are trying to project the idea that they are men of faith. They are using the Bible for their own personal advantage. Let them pray in privacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love your intelligent analysis! In addition to the retribution and utilitarianism ideas of justice, you left out logical/rational systems of justice, based on moral assumptions. Kinda like Euclid built his system of Geometry on basic assumptions about the definition of a line and a point, etc. For instance, most of us want to assume that each individual adult owns their own body and life. A logical result of this is the right to liberty, which just means you have a right to do anything you want as long as you are not hurting or stealing from someone else... I mean, most of us want to assume we own our own bodies, right? Well, except for those who think your body is the property of your family, or the community, or the government... The right to liberty might need to be rationalized in some other way for them... Maybe that rights are just things that come from governments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kimobrien. And yet, capitalism has never developed in to feudalism as Marx predicts. Also, Socialism has never developed in to full anarcho-communism as Marx predicts, either. Seems like he was wrong all around. And then just compare the nations that are relatively free market, like Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, England and the Scandinavian nations on the one hand, to the nations that aspire to Marxist values on the other: China, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, etc. Which set of nations would you rather be in? In which set of nations would you prefer to be poor? The free market nations, of course. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and to the greater extent that socialism is implemented, the sooner the economy collapses and the greater the poverty and hardship for the poor. Most people learned something from the collapse of the USSR in 1991: socialism doesn't work. As Deng mentioned, it's a dog that won't hunt. And the only way that Socialism continues to gain followers is that the History of the failure of socialism is censored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atraxisdarkstar I think of it this way: I'm an old, straight, white guy. Albert Einstein was an old, straight, white guy, too. But I deserve no credit for his great accomplishments, now, do I? And Hitler was an old, straight, white guy. But I deserve no blame for the horrible, racist, anti-semitic, dictatorial, evil, murderous things he did, right? Even if I had an ancestor who profited from slavery, so long as I inherited no money from that ancestor, then I personally did not benefit. And since the institution of slavery actually REDUCED economic development in the South, the 75% of white people who did not own slaves also did not benefit from the evil institution. Now, I have 1/4 Scottish descent. Scots were stolen and sold in to slavery for hundreds of years by the Vikings. But I deserve no reparations for that. And I have 1/4 Norwegian descent. Does that 1/4 of me owe reparations to the other quarter? The English were really bad to the Scots for many generations. Do they owe me something? I don't think so. Now, what about blacks who came here from Africa after 1970? Do they get reparations along with the descendants of American slaves? I'm totally on your side when you say that slavery was horrible and evil. But I see no practical and just way to give the descendants of American slaves reparations. Here is what I support: if there is a descendant of slave holders who still owns the plantation land, he should still be liable for a lawsuit from a black American who can trace his ancestry to a black slave who was at that plantation. Bring on the lawsuits, and let the descendants of the slave owners defend themselves in court. My guess is that they will appeal to some kind of statute of limitations or something like that? All I can say is, good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ouis8348 Of course I think the nation has gotten worse under the Biden Admin. But your question presumes that my voting in a different way could have changed that. I live in a dark Blue state. My voting a different way would not have changed the electoral college outcome. Look, your vote can do only ONE thing: it can make you feel good or bad about how you voted. For me, personally, voting for the lesser of two evils makes me feel like crap. But voting Libertarian makes me feel good. It makes me feel like I have stood up and represented my values to the system. Holding my nose and voting for the lesser of evils hurts me. It means I have put my signature on partial evil. It hurts me. So, I won't do it. And if everyone did this, we would never have horrible choices of candidates like Bush, Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Dole, McCain, Obama, Biden and Trump. Voting Libertarian means I share no guilt for the bad things my candidate does while in office.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sig_P229 The aspect of East Germany I was referring to was the Stazi police, and their Stazi files kept on each citizen. The Stazi police got neighbors to snitch on each other, and kept embarassing information about everyone so they could be manipulated if needed. When the Berlin Wall fell, regular East Germans went to get their Stazi files so they could destroy them. But today, the NSA keeps records of our phone and text message headers, our cell tower pings, our credit card transactions, our bank transactions, and our social media posts. Facial recognition software makes logs of our comings and goings as we walk past surveillance cameras. Our front door ring cameras are accessible by police. Siri listens to us all day long like our kitchens are literally bugged. Like I say, the Stazi police would be jealous. As for my response above, you suggested I leave. I prefer to stay and fight. And if you just accept the tyranny that we live under, may history forget your were our countryman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grimaffiliations3671 I tend to favor national sovereignty, especially over global power. But do you know what is even better than national sovereignty? Individual sovereignty. And that is what tends to be reinforced by a gold standard. No doubt speculation is a risk, but in each and every case in world history, fiat currencies have eventually failed. They often end in hyperinflation, and this is what lead directly to WW2 after the Wiemar hyperinflation in Germany. Yes, all of the nations today have fiat currencies, but that is like saying "but dad, all my friends are getting tattoos!" My bet is that the US dollar is heading towards devaluation, and that this will hurt the poorest the most. I don't trust the federal reserve with the power to manipulate the currency. I think history shows they either do it badly, or under the influence of corruption. There is speculation that China or Russia might back their currencies with Gold, as a way to undermine Dollar hegemony. I think having a fiat dollar has left us vulnerable to that attack.
1
-
1
-
@BetaKeja Hmm. Sounds like our conversation is hampered because we do not agree on the definitions of terms. What would you like to call "government ownership of the means of production?" Also, the term "capitalism" has several different meanings and connotations. Some think of it as "crony capitalism," "mercantilism," and others think of it as the free market. Personally, I am an advocate of the free market. Under my definition of the term, corporations may not buy special power from politicians, because politicians lack the power to grant special advantages in the marketplace. As far as democracy is concerned, I tend to agree with Churchill: "democracy is the worst form of government, unless you consider all of the others that are tried from time to time." I like the fact that politicians must stand for elections periodically, but I want to avoid a "tyranny of the majority," where democratic majorities are allowed to violate the rights to life, liberty or property of any minority group. You say that "Capitalism enriches the already rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. It is fundamentally undemocratic and oppressive, and its association with liberty is a farce." If by "capitalism" you mean crony capitalism or mercantilism, then I agree with you. But if you mean "free market" then I disagree. Under free markets, business owners can only get rich by offering better jobs to employees and better products at lower prices to consumers than existed before they arrived on the scene. And I think that the ability to "vote with your dollars" is far more democratic than the ability to vote for some corrupt politician once a year or two or six. I will join you in boycotting a cake baker who won't bake for gay weddings, but I will never join you in voting for a politicians who advocates shutting down the baker's business by force of law. We have far more individual freedom within free markets than we do under any form of socialism. And I see a contradiction in your definition of socialism: you say that under your definition of socialism: "you rule yourself and no others, the group is the only one to make decisions for the group..." You give power to the group to make decisions for all members of the group, yet at the same time you claim that you would rule yourself. These two are in contradiction. Under free markets, you truly own your own life, and make decisions for yourself, and are free from the oppression of the group.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a corp starts making crappy products and has high prices and bad customer service, it will tend to lose business to other competitors, some of which are smaller, or more efficient, or innovative. If a big corp starts paying lower wages, cutting benefits, pushing for crappy hours, then the best employees will tend to leave. The worst will tend to stay. The best will move off to corps that pay better, have better management, etc. This effect of competition tends to stop the trend mentioned in your video. But if an entity is owned by the government, it tends to enjoy monopoly protection that lasts forever. Cable, natural gas, grid electricity, post office... crap like that. The only thing worse than a big corporation is a government monopoly. And socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Socialism sucks even worse than big corps and private equity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonMaaskant The regulation Smith advocated involved prohibiting force and fraud. Defending property rights. Even we free market fans have little or no objection to this kind of regulation. Now let's think about monopoly. Think about the biggest monopolies we now have. They are ALL government-enforced monopolies. Here is a partial list: post office, home electricity, cable TV, garbage collection, state ferries, natural gas, land-line phone, Federal Reserve, highways, local roads, water and sewer... Now think of all the big private near-monopolies that have existed. They were all temporary, and ended when small upstart companies sold better products at lower prices. Standard Oil, Railroads, IBM, Microsoft... In the private sector, monopoly is a temporary thing, and is created by an innovator delivering needed products better than anyone else. But once the government gets involved, we wind up with permanent monopoly that you can never compete against.
1
-
1
-
@JasonMaaskant Wow, Uganda! More power to ya, man. Glad you have found freedom there and have figured out how to bribe the politicians and cops. Now, let me tell you the REAL story of Microsoft. Back in the '80's, MS made almost NO political contributions to politicians. But then people started being concerned about their power. Politicians started holding hearings in to the possibility of breaking them up. Then, Gates started making BIG campaign contributions. The hearings ended with NO legislation. NO anti-trust legislation was passed to break up MS. Gates learned his lesson. He HAD to bribe politicians in order to function within the current, half socialist system. But what I propose is the opposite of what we have in the US, and what you fled to in Uganda: I propose that politicians be prohibited from setting different tax rates in different industries. I propose that what regulation applies to one industry, must apply to all industries. I propose that the power to grant subsidies and special tax breaks to different corps and different industries should be DENIED to all politicians. I want to make it impossible for politicians to grant special advantages to CEO's and big corps, to the disadvantage of small entrepreneurial companies. Now, the bribes and campaign contributions will simply dry up, as they can buy no advantage to the corp or CEO. Power corrupts. The way to reduce the corruption is to reduce the power that politicians have seized to meddle in the free market. My bet is that this policy would make you better off in Uganda as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlkoWilco Actually, there is no right to job security. Think about it: if a company is losing money, can they fire people? They have to, right? If an employee is doing a crappy job, and can't be trained, or is being violent or distracting to other workers, he should be fired, right? If a company can fire a worker in order to hire a more productive one, they have the right to do that. You see, employment is like friendship: it is a voluntary association. BOTH sides have to want it. If one side wants to end it, they have a right. The employee can quit at any time, right? An employer has no right to enslave an employee, right? The employee can quit whenever, and the employer can fire whenever, and for whatever reason. There are other jobs available in every city.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlkoWilco If employment is not worth it, because wages are too low, or demands are unreasonable, then it becomes harder for employers to attract employees. The employment marketplace is competitive. If it is better to work elsewhere, employees will tend to leave. A wise employer works to attract good employees because they are worth it. But they have to be able to fire bad ones, because it is hard to tell who is good, and who bad, at a job interview. And, yes, you are advocating force against employers. Think about it: you want laws that require employers to negotiate with unions, and laws that make it hard for employers to fire employees, and laws that set minimum wage laws. What happens if an employer violates these laws? Well, men come with guns and arrest or fine the employers. That is force. Even if the cops never arrive, the employer has to be afraid that they will. So, this is a threat of force. You are violating the rights of the employer to hire and fire whomever they want. It is like (but not as bad) as forcing a woman to stay in an abusive relationship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlkoWilco The labor theory of economics is false. An hour of labor from a surgeon is worth more than an hour of labor from a ditch digger. Also, a ditch digger's hour is more productive if they use a backhoe. The backhoe is designed by an engineer. It is made more valuable by the mix of capitol, design, and labor. An efficient factory produces the backhoe at a lower cost. There is design efficiency in the factory process. Labor is not the only thing that goes in to the value of a product. Instead, all value is totally subjective. It is not determined by the inputs of labor, capital and design. Instead, value is in the mind of the buyer, the user, the customer. It is totally subjective. There is no way to determine an objective value, because value is not objective. This Marxist hypothesis has been totally discredited, and it is one of the main reasons Marxist state socialism does not work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scxble Americans spend more on health care, not because it is more expensive here if you really compare like procedures, it is because Americans are RICHER. They are richer because of free markets and property rights. Americans sometimes get prescription drugs overseas, taking advantage of the fact that drug companies sell for less there. They make their capital costs back in the US, and know they can't charge as much in foreign countries because they are poorer. But when they need cancer treatment and MRI imaging, they come to the US. We are the only country that doesn't have socialized medicine, but that's no argument. If every other nation were a socialist dictatorship, we would still be stupid to copy them. Health care can never be a "right" because it requires the labor of others to provide it. Life, liberty and property are rights because they come from self-ownership. Food, shelter, clothing and health care are not rights, they are goods, needs, or benefits. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. The more completely it is implemented, the more spectacularly it has failed, and the poor are hurt the most. Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea are examples of socialism.
1
-
@scxble Definitions of words are important. I do not accept your definition of the term "rights." You may use the term as you choose, of course, because I believe in the right to liberty, but rights do not come from governments. They come BEFORE governments. Good governments defend the individual rights to life, liberty and property. Bad ones violate those rights. Governments can give bribes to people from taxpayers to pay for food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, but that does not make these things "rights." Socialism exists on a spectrum. Some nations have more government control, and some have less. Switzerland and Singapore are at the free market end of the spectrum, and Cuba, N. Korea and Venezuela are at the other. The US is only the 30th most free market nation on the planet, lower than the Scandinavian nations and Canada. The AHA was a step in the direction of socialism, and it resulted in increased health care and health insurance costs. Free markets and competition do a better job of reducing costs than do government controls. As far as your statement about percentage of US GDP is concerned, when you get rich, you tend to shift the amount you pay for different things. When you have more money, you CAN spend more on health care, and Americans do this because they can. Single payer would reduce efficiency, increase waste and wait times, and reduce outcomes. When comparing different nations, it is impossible to account for racial and immigrant diversity. Since the US has so much more of these than most other nations, comparing superficial outcomes makes little sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ya get one vote, right? What are the odds, even in a swing state, that your single vote will change the outcome in your state? Just about zero. Right? Even in a swing state there are hundreds of votes between the winner and the loser. Now, I'm not talking about your sending $1 million to spend in a swing state, or having a million views on a YouTube video changing the outcome. Of course, that might. I'm just talking about your single vote. It lacks the power to keep the greater of evils out of office. So, what CAN your vote do? It can make you feel good or feel bad. That's all. Now, I would never vote for Trump. But I would have to hold my nose to vote for Biden, and then take a long, hot shower, and maybe a bottle of Scotch to forget. Now, Howie Hawkins and Jo Jorgensen are on the ballot. I voted for Jo because I am socially liberal, but a fan of the free market. That makes me feel good. Now, if voting for Biden really makes you feel good, then by all means have at it. But don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That is literally why we have such horrible candidates. Low standards of the American electorate. Vote for a candidate who rises to your standards. Your single vote can not keep Trump out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, no, no! It is NOT true that nothing matters! Mission matters! Pride in a job well done matters! We get to decide what the meaning is for our lives. If you do not choose the meaning, you will be sad. You will hurt yourself! Look, from the perspective of the Universe, or the Earth, or the sun, we do not matter. Nothing we do matters from that perspective. But we matter TO US! You should matter TO YOU. The people you love should matter to you. Perhaps the opposite of cringe is pride in a job well done. I'd like to propose that self esteem is important, and that it often comes from doing a good job, and that by this standard, ContraPoints deserves to have high self esteem because she does an incredibly good job on these videos! :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@visionvtm Forgive me. I should not have turned personal. Tucker is by far the most popular news commentator in the US. Maybe even in the Western World. He generated massive profit for Fox News. He was not fired for under-performance. He was fired for what he said and the issues he championed. You call them lies, and perhaps some of them are. We could have an interesting discussion on each issue you claim to be a lie, I am sure. But Fox's corporate overlords censored Tucker for his speech. Yeah, what they did is not illegal, and should never be illegal. If you violate instructions from the boss, you can expect to get fired. But it erodes my respect for Fox, because I favor media institutions that allow rich discussion on even the most sensitive of topics. This is how we solve problems. This is how we expose the misdeads of those in power. My response is to boycott Fox News until they hire him back. If he lied, we should have an open, civil, rational discussion on these topics. I have faith that there is better good to be achieved by allowing free speech than by censoring it, even if that allows some real lies to be promulgated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rodney King. Kent State.
Oscar Grant killed by BART police 2009.
UC Berkley Occupy protestors beaten in 2011.
Amadou Diallo, Kathryn Johnston, Robin Kassner, Cornell Greathouse, Timothy Thomas, Howard Morgan, Jason Alan Kemp, Patrick Lee 2005, Christopher Harris 2009, Derek Copp, Adolph Grimes III, Anthony Warren, Darren Hunt, Christopher Ferrell, Sean Bell 2006, Jeff Pataky, Matt Duran, Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik, Leah Plante, Fong Lee2006, Christopher Long, Baron Pikes, Emily Delafield...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are so many good teachers out there. But here is my pet peeve: political bias. Look, a primary goal of education is to teach people critical thinking skills. The kids need to be able to think for themselves. Every controversial issue is an opportunity to develop those skills. Some issues, like abortion, gun control and immigration are controversial issues. Others, like the spelling of words and basic math facts are not. When there is a controversial issue, there is an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills. To do this, the strongest cases for multiple sides must be presented. But the biased teacher presents their favored position strongly, but sets up straw-man arguments for the other positions. Kids know the straw-man positions are bad, and never really have to confront them. The result is not education, it is indoctrination. Most of us can not see our own biases. So, perhaps a guest speaker makes sense. Assign kids different positions and argue them. But teachers who indoctrinate are committing educational malpractice. The goal should be that the students have no idea what the teacher's own position is on controversial issues. We should not be able to guess the teacher's politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let me ask you a question: in your state, do you think your single vote will change the electoral college outcome? Odds are about zero of that, right? This means your vote lacks the power to keep the greater of evils out of office. So, why vote? I say, the reason to vote is only to make yourself feel good. Voting Libertarian makes me feel good. I've done it since the mid '90's and don't regret a single vote. If you hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, you feel abused. Dirty. And then if your candidate wins, you have to feel guilty for all the bad crap they do. I say, vote so that you, when you are sitting alone thinking, can feel good about yourself, and what you have represented in society by your vote. But lesser of evils represents a sort of bad thinking. Your vote can not keep the greater of evils out of office. The electoral college vote has never in history been determined by one vote in any state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue of rights is confusing this argument. It is not about rights. In a privately-owned locker room facility, the facility manager is trying to please customers. When the customers needs are in conflict, the owner has a tough decision, but as the property owner, has the right to property to decide the locker room policy. In practice what this means is that urban health clubs will allow trans people in women's locker rooms, but in rural areas they will be prohibited. If anyone has a problem with this policy, they have a right to boycott, to picket on the sidewalk, to speak about it, but there is no right to engage the police, absent an actual assault. In the government locker rooms, there is also the power of the ballot box that can be brought to bear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I will tell you who benefits from feminism: The Marxists. You see, radical feminism, woke, defund the police, BLM, CRT, DEI, etc are all parts of the same strategy. The Marxists know that we will never consider their utopian socialist schemes as long as capitalism produces such wondrous consumer choices and wealth and freedom. They first must break down our society. It must get bad enough that they will seek out other social organization schemes. So they break down the family, heterosexuality, religion, the free market, the government, the gender binary, anything that keeps us stable in society. They want to break it all down so they can build communism in it's place. It is cultural Marxism. It's ultimate target is our freedom and the free market. The enemy is Marxists, and they care nothing for women or gays or trans people. They are USING these groups to tear down our culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rebn8346 Thoughtful answer. Thanks. I appreciate that. Here is my thinking: God does not put a soul in to a rock. Not in to a worm or an ant, or even a mouse. Why would that be? What if God puts souls in biological beings with "sufficient" brain capacity, but not in things and animals and plants which don't have sufficiently complex brains? If you only have 25 brain cells, it is hard to have a thought, or even a feeling, and there can be no soul. An adult human being, though, has billions of brain cells, thoughts, emotions, and a soul. So, now let's consider the moment after a sperm fertilizes an egg. You are correct that the species (human) is determined. But there are no differentiated cells yet. No neurons. No brain. So there can be no soul. Wait a few months, and you have millions or even billions of brain cells. My position is that in the last three months (or so?) of gestation, the baby has sufficient brain complexity for a soul. I would make abortion illegal in this period. But in the first three months (or so?) of gestation, the fetus does not yet have sufficient brain complexity for a soul. A soul is an emergent thing. It can only exist after God has created "enough" brain complexity. Where to draw this line is currently unknown. But before this line, the fetus is a potential human being. After this line, it is an actual human being with the right to life. What do you think about that reasoning?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Macchiavillain Nordic leaders have repeatedly denied that their nations are socialist. Ikea, Nokia, Volvo... all private corporations. If you go to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, you will find all of the Nordic Nations listed as MORE free market than is the US. And you are right, that socialism is the collective/non-private ownership of the means of production, and what this means in practice is that the government owns it and controls it. This was true in the USSR, China until Deng, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. There is no place where significant collective ownership of factories took place completely separate from government, even though that is the stated socialist ideal. So, no, I do not accept the idea that the Scandinavian nations are socialist. They are LESS socialist than is the US, even though they have larger welfare programs as a percentage of GDP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bambismomkelly7423 The planet is fine. Better than it was in the 1970's. Think of avoiding the biggest health crisis in America: diabetes and heart disease. These are caused by seed oils, and high carbohydrate diets. The amount of protein you can get from plants per ounce or bite of food is TINY compared to the protein you can get from animal muscle. Instead of a high carb vegetarian diet, eat mostly meat and leafy-green vegetables. Avoid bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Instead eat steak, fish, pork and chicken, with veggies like broccoli, spinach, asparagus, and brussels sprouts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isengrom6883 Where I'm from, cops use binoculars to see if you are wearing seatbelts as you drive by. Then they pull you over and issue a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, even if you were not speeding, talking on the phone, or having a tail light out. The ends don't justify the means. Forcing someone to wear a bike helmet or a seatbelt or to have a fire extinguisher in their homes is STILL wrong, no matter what harm it would prevent. Instead, we should try harder to persuade people peacefully to do these things, without the force of law. It absolutely is infringing on our rights to liberty. It is granting too much power to government. If they can require these things, then they can force us to eat what their experts say. For our own good. It's the road to dictatorship. But people work best when they are free. I'm like Thomas Jefferson in this way at least: I prefer a dangerous freedom to a safe slavery. But there is one way in which you are correct above: I am a Libertarian. But more than that, I am a Libertarian who doesn't resort to calling people names like "shit-brained." Just makes you look bad, my good man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like your natural rights. Even we atheists can value them. Instead of god-given, we start with a kind of Euclidian assumption: that we own our own bodies and lives. You Christians might say your life is a gift from god. We come to the same place. Well, if you own your life, then you own your future, your present and your past. This is where life, liberty and property come from. Killing you deprives you of your natural future. Enslaving you deprives you of your present. And stealing from you deprives you of the fruits of your past labor. John Locke came up with the triad of basic rights we find in the 5th and 14th amendments. But theist or atheist, as long as each individual adult is said to be the proper owner of their own lives, then the natural rights are a logical result. Socialists, on the other hand, assume the individual is owned by the collective, or by the state. Royalists assumed the king owned you.
1
-
@1MarkMoss Christians tend to argue for natural rights by saying they come from God, and that is a persuasive thing IF you happen to be talking to a Christian, Jew or Muslim. But most of the lefties we are trying to persuade about natural rights are not impressed by that approach. But they DO want to say that individual adults own their own bodies. They need this particular assumption for their abortion position! So, we can use that to persuade them that the most important, fundamental rights come BEFORE governments and not from them. If we really can show them that an underlying assumption of collectivist ideologies like socialism and democratic socialism and communism actually is the opposite, that the state or the community or the collective own their bodies, we might get some traction. Lefties seem to appreciate the right to liberty, especially in sexual matters, and with respect to opposition to slavery. But lefties tend not to be so happy about property rights. If we can show them that they are all one thing, indivisible, then maybe we can make some progress. Property rights are about defending a woman's ownership of her own body! Anyway, that's my strategy for persuading lefties. Love your video. We Libertarian atheists are happy and proud to fight for liberty at the shoulders of our Christian Libertarian friends! :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1