Comments by "CedarHunt" (@CedarHunt) on "Haiti's Gang Politics Problem Is Not as Weird as It Seems" video.

@Xazamas I would have settled for 10% accuracy. He was wrong at virtually every turn and completely ignored huge aspects of community formation like family alliances and mutually supporting group dynamics. "Man with sword takes over town without swords" is a child's interpretation of early human history.
9
Especially since it's pretty damning if this garbage is actually what political scientists believe. Why listen to people who are so wrong?
7
Not really. Laws are agreed codes that denote accepted penalties for conduct that society deems undesirable or harmful.
6
This is a bizarrely superficial "analysis" of sociopolitical realities. Calling governments equal to bandits is anarchist BS.
4
@velenteriushendeneros3251 Maybe if the person making the analysis is an edgy teenager or some ancap dullard but not in real life. There is a reason you have to go back to the beginning of human history to make the analogy something less than laughable: because governmental and sociopolitical systems have advanced significantly in the last 5000 years. Trying to make a comparison between a modern government and a barbarian warlord is absurd.Moreover, early man developed based on a complex network of family and personal relations. Farms and villages, composed of families, formed deeply rooted communities of mutually supporting groups. If a bandit or group of bandits showed up, they'd be driven off by the community and the idea that a community was one man with a sharp stick away from being dominated by outsiders is childish nonsense.
2
@velenteriushendeneros3251 The whole thing. The entire proposition is wrong.
2
@CultureCrossed64 How is this not a video on human social organization? What is a government, if not a form of human social organization? He brought up early human history and then misrepresented the reality of that era to prey upon misconceptions about early human social organization.
2
@CultureCrossed64 Nah, I'm right. He is misrepresenting reality with his supposed example in order to push a BS narrative about how people use violence to enforce laws so that he can pretend that his comparison of governments to protection rackets isn't laughable nonsense. If he didn't want to discuss actual history, then he shouldn't have brought it up.
1
@ThePurplePassage The early "history" was brought up to make a false impression of human history. It was a fake narrative intended to make the following drivel seem more plausible. The claim that people turn to systems for protection is false. They create systems to allow for coexistence and create a variety of outcomes. The claim that a government is some kind of protection racket is false.
1
@ThePurplePassage The early "history" was brought up to make a false impression of human history. It was a fake narrative intended to make the following BS seem more plausible.
1
@ThePurplePassage That's a bunch of drivel. The early "history" was brought up to make a false impression of human history. It was a fake narrative intended to cover for bad reasoning.
1
@ThePurplePassage The early "history" was brought up to make a false impression of human history. It was a fake narrative. The claims put forward in the video are wrong. Correct theories don't need to use false narratives.
1
@ThePurplePassage The early "history" was brought up to make a false impression of human history. It was a false narrative. The claims put forward in the video are wrong. Correct theories don't need to use false narratives.
1
@ThePurplePassage It matters when the actual mechanism is nothing close to what is being presented as an example of the supposed point of the video. People don't accept any form of authority for "protection." That's simply not true.
1
@ThePurplePassage I say the "presented mechanism" is nothing close to what would actually happen because it's a false narrative that is nothing close to what would actually happen.
1
@ThePurplePassage Oh, now you want a history lesson? I thought it was irrelevant to the supposed point. Protection rackets are parasitic and require a pre-existing system to work. Mafias are not governments and do not function like governments. Extraction of wealth is not the same as governing. Saying that protection rackets exist is not the same thing as saying mafias and governments are the same, which was the videos claim. So what's your point?
1
@ThePurplePassage Nah, you're just wrong. Protection rackets don't actually provide protection, and they aren't "symbiotic" as you put it. Governments and mafias have nothing in common. The very idea is stupid. The closest you could get would be some kind of feudal lord, and even then, you'd still be wrong.
1