Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Stossel: Why Some Capitalists Are the Worst Enemies of Capitalism" video.

@Flatunello whoosh
6
@cheydinal5401 "government has no right to interfere with sexual activity between consenting adults" "I do want the government to stop the sexual activity of rape, don't you?" WHOOSH way over your head
6
@cheydinal5401 how do you enforce the status of a business license? How do you enforce fines? How do you force someone to stand trial? You sure the ultimate step of justifying force isn't death? NEVER back a law that you're not willing to kill someone over. Because to an extreme all laws are enforced by violence. And death tends to be a consequence of violence.
5
@UglyTruth_UglyTruth "Force Walmart and Amazon to have union instead of having the government step in." "Force Walmart and Amazon to have union" "instead of having the government step in." "Force Walmart and Amazon" "Force" "instead of having the government step in." And how... how exactly are you planning to force companies to do something... without the government stepping in...?
5
@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 Yeah, making prostitution illegal will definitely end child prostitution and abuse. Just like Prohibition didn't create the incentive for alcohol to be mixed with dangerous chemicals or the War on Drugs didn't create the incentive to mix dangerous chemicals on the street drugs.
4
@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 the point is that someone ironically mentioned that as soon as "consensual" sex involves money it's suddenly immoral, and you retorted by saying that the sex business has child prostitution, traffic/abuse, etc. which are not consensual and therefore legitimize the use of force in a libertarian system.
4
@cheydinal5401 1. Why the fuck did I go through the desert without supplies? 2. Why have I not taken steps to find ground water? 3. I still don't get moral justification to kill the person with literal tons of fresh water in order to take his stuff.
4
@cheydinal5401 the use of force culminates in killing and there's no point in denying it. "So he can demand like up to 10 bucks per liter, but not demand sex in exchange for water" - how does that make any sense? If you don't have the 10 bucks you'll die either way. How do you quantify that sex is worth a lot more than the 10 bucks? There's places on Earth where sex is extremely cheap. How do you determine the prices of sex in the desert? "If he does demand more, his business is shut down" - ???? that's just vindictive, it would be harder to get a business shut down for fraud or illegally dumping toxic waste. I mean I hate Apple but I don't want them out of business by passing a law saying that whoever charges too much for something has to be shut down. "Nobody will kill a business owner for paying less than minimum wage, his business would just be shut down " - how do you shut down a business? How do you physically stop him from just continuing his operations independently of what you say?
4
I applied for a ton of jobs when I was search for a first job but never got a reply - the economy was so bad nobody wanted to employ me with no experience. Youth unemployment hit record highs back then. When Portugal recovered from the crisis I started applying for jobs again and I got a call back literally on my first application despite no changes to my curriculum. The minimum wage priced me out of the jobs market, and it sucked. You have to realize that we pay more for gas, cars, computer/electronics stuff (but it seems the US is gonna hit Chinese with tariffs so that's gonna suck for you guys too until all the corporations move to Taiwan/Vietnam/Mexico/etc), our top tax brackets reaches like almost 40% income tax and our sales tax can get to 23%. The only thing we probably pay less is internet. Places that have a healthy industry can do well DESPITE the min wage because all these taxes can cover the unemployed. But if you're like me and live in the doormat of Europe, these "Northern European" utopia policies leave you at the mercy of economic crisis because if the country can't profit there's not enough tax revenue for all the people you have on welfare.
4
@UglyTruth_UglyTruth okay you said forcing them to have unions, now you're just saying "bring back the unions" - that's a very different concept.
4
@Hans "A right to self-ownership is unnatural." - if we don't have the right to self-ownership then fuck it, we're all slaves. Nice going, Hans.
3
@Hans how the hell is it a false dichotomy? You either own yourself or you don't. If there is no right of self-ownership it means ownership can be revoked at any time and thus doesn't exist. "A government is partial slavery" - I thank you for being honest "such as self-defense could be partial slavery if you push someone from your property" - not at all. By evicting someone you're not exercising ownership over anyone but over the property itself. If there's a huge duffel bag blocking an entry, pushing it aside isn't theft.
3
@Hans "The opposite of self-ownership is death, but the opposite of a RIGHT to self-ownership is neither death nor slavery (see 1.)." If you do not have a right to something, then the opposite of it can be enforced at will. "Removing an invader from your property is forcible interference into the invader's ownership of his own property" - physically removal of property from one place to another does not equal re-appropriation. "This forcible removal is slavery in self-defense." - no it fucking isn't. Even if moving property was re-appropriation, for the sake of the argument the person who owned itself voluntarily transmitted "ownership". But that doesn't even work because if I enter a store and start kicking stuff out of shelves I am being a nuisance, but not guilty of theft.
3
@cheydinal5401 "The ultimate force isn't death, unless the other person starts shooting back" - One, you essentially admitted that that's the ultimate consequence of the use of force but you're trying to use caveats to weasel out of the admission. Even then people can get killed in physical altercations without guns being drawn, but if guns are drawn then that certainly is the ULTIMATE consequence. Two, people have died in police custody/cops have made mistakes and killed people when it wasn't warranted. The whole point of law is justifying the use of force. If you come for someone to demand money or try to kidnap them then certainly the victim is entitled to shooting those coming for him. It's the law that justifies that use of force and makes an act of defense illegitimate. "The most that will happen is you get arrested for not paying fines" - and how do people get arrested? Through force.
3
@Hans "That's what i actually said, it CAN be enforced" - the fact that it can means you have no actual right to live. You can be dispatched anytime. "And i never said so." - then relocating someone does not equal slavery. "Slavery means forcing someone to do something." - "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration." making someone leave your property doesn't mean you own them. Someone being evicted could have withdrawn unilaterally by not trespassing in the first place. It's not slavery, no matter which half baked definition you come up with. "you have to enslave him, forcing him something to do, which is the definition of slavery." - except it fucking isn't. Parents can force children to go to school, it isn't slavery. If I take you by the ankles and force you to dip your head in the toilet I am forcing you to do something but at most that's a form of aggression, not slavery. If I force you to give me your lunch money it's not slavery. Hell, rape is forcing someone to do something, but there's a big difference between a rape and full-on sexual slavery. There's so many caveats to your definition it's essentially worthless. "And that definition does not change in situation XY." - IRONIC. How nice of you, you had your own arguments completely obliterated and you're unable to defend them without coming up with your own (incorrect) definitions so you claim I need to be lectured on logic. Priceless.
3
Paralyta the problem is that for millions of years we managed to live without jobs or education as we know it so clearly there is a choice. Blame the government for banning homesteading in 1971. "believe that the government has every right to force all people into this system, even if many people don’t want to be part of it." - bullshit. There's communists living in communes. Probably 1% of them. Literally anyone is free to live under communism but only a few actually have the balls to do it.
2
@Angelo Stevens "Nothing will end child prostitution and abuse" - that's why I said it sarcastically.
1
"yes, john people are 'forced' to work somewhere" - that doesn't mean you're entitled to get paid. If you can only generate 7 bucks of revenue per hour to a business don't expect to be paid 15 dollars. Since the dawn of times every living thing has been forced to work for a living. This will not change independently of what system you choose. If all the commies actually wanted to get shit done they'd all be in communes proving that communism works and not being forced to work for anyone. How many people actually have the balls to try and live in their utopia? A few thousands? Like, one or two million TOPS in all of the developed world?
1
"A rising minimum wage creates jobs in the long term" - if I lift you up in the air, and then you pull me, we both start flying.
1