Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. technatezin If the Slave voluntarily provides goods and services then they are, by definition, not having their labor stolen. If you've debated Libertarians and An-Caps without resolution, then this is futile. So, let's return to my original post where we surely can agree. I wrote: 3:00  "It must be what the School or The State wants them to believe."  Hypocrisy much? I don't want my children being indoctrinated by the crazy Theists or you crazy Statists." As a strong atheist, I do not want my child to be 'educated' in what to believe based on what Theists want my children to believe. Why? Because their thoughts run counter to my own. I also apply this reasoning to Statists.  Now, it's not that I do not think Theists have anything of value. Many in my family are Chritsitan and many are Buddhist. Both of these have ideas I will introduce to my children. Such as the concept of forgiveness (only I will make it clear that self forgiveness doesn't require a God). Buddhist mediation, is healthy (but doesn't require a non-physical realm).  See? Using Weber's definition of the State (as well as Kant's four types of government) we can clearly define the State as having the legal right to initiate violence against innocent humans (ample evidence for). According to Kant, this is not ideal. However, it is what most people currently appear to have a subjective preference for. I can accept that. I will ensure my children develop an understanding from empirical evidence gathered in the field of developmental neurobiology as to why this may be the case.  I study developmental neurobiology. While there's an application for Logic, it's limited (I suppose mostly only modus ponens and modus tollens?). Logic is superseded by Empiricism in terms of providing information that will allow you to better model the real objective world.  I'd say this, if you want to end Slavery, you probably don't want to let your children be taught by a Slave Master. The same applied to the Church. As well as the State. As you are well versed in Logic, that is great. Teach this way of thinking to your children. Never yell at them, make sure you have ample skin contact (ensures a good somatosensory cortical development), do not put them in day care (preferably raise them at home until at least 4) and never hit them. Do that, and maybe one day, far off in the future, this conversation will have been resolved satisfactorily to both of us. 
    1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. yourparagon 1. I did not use the word 'punishment'. I stated that an unskilled or low skilled laborer is only WORTH that much per hour. IOWs they can only SELL their work-hours at the minimum hourly rate. This isn't a value assessment - it's a fact.  2. I am not 'utterly indifferent' towards the homeless. This is you projecting. I noticed your entire post/rant reads like a D.C. comic book childish view of reality. 3. I am not talking about 'Social Darwinism' either. I'm talking about economic reality. Why don't you walk over to IBM and ask to be their CEO. When they say no, go away, or start as a clerk, you can tell them your theories on why they are social Darwinists.  4. 'Fair and Caring' Society. Well, first off, 'Society' doesn't care. This is a human emotion and can logically be attributed to a human - not a collection of humans. This is what you do through your entire post, you use a combination of analogy and magic thinking. In the real world, those homeless people are in competition with other Japanese for work. IF the hourly wage was $20 an hour to clean up - no one would hire the homeless person because they'd prefer a more dependable person if being forced to pay a higher wage. The ONLY thing saving those homeless people is the fact the wage is low. But hey, why don't you just climb up into your rectum and live in magic thinking world where 'society' can be attributed with emotions like 'hate' and 'love'. You remind me of when someone says "American' is in disagreement with 'China' over blah blah blah. It's pure nonsensical gibberish. 5. You are simply wrong. The Government hyper-regulates the markets. And I can promise you, as it goes broke doing so, those markets will become more liberal. Those with ambition and skills to freely trade wit other members of society will prosper and those that do not will not. Over the next 15 years, our economies are going to become LESS dominated by crony-capitalism and return to a state of free-markets.
    1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. karl john What are you crapping on about? Let's take Apple Inc as an example. Given it's the largest corporation in the USA. Then we'll look at Steve Jobs. By every account he was a total arse hole to work with/for. Now, do you see how in a FREE-ish market, even an arse-hole has to provide value to gain money and power? Do you understand that the State has NO obligation to provide you with ANY value. Just look at the Department of Education. Do you know what their budget is? It's $80 BILLION dollars a year! Apple Inc ONLY made $36 billion in total for a year. That's working their arses off to provide us with value. Want to know what the Dept of Ed has given us for our $80 billion this year? Yes, another year where 1 in 5 Americans are functionally illiterate. How wonderful! Oh, and do you know your public servant who runs the Dept of Ed is? Of course you don't. Oh, and if you don't pay the State it's due (who then pay this useless unknown director of the DoE), then you get shot in the head, or put in a State run rape-cage. See the difference? Not making myself clear enough?  Imagine if Apple Inc called you and wanted to do business with you. Now, imagine to you told them to piss-off. I bet you wouldn't have a care in the world would you? Nope. Now imagine it wasn't Apple but was the State. Say, the IRS. Now you're on your knees sweating bullets for your "Regulators" in the State. Starting to see the difference between FREE markets and dealing with the State? In one you're a free person. In the other you're a sniveling slave. Don't worry, we're getting more State. Not less. More. Much more. Much more regulations. More rules. More taxes. More inflation. More spying. Less freedom. Less privacy. Less prosperity. And this will continue for at least, at least, 30-40 more years. Minimum.  Hope you like the New Economy, it's here to stay.
    1
  27. 1
  28. Beelzeboogie Nice strawman. Feel better? Want to know what else 'most' economists have? A tract record of totally missing the GFC until after Lehman brothers collapsed. Until that day, "most" economists thought the global economy was doing 'great'.  Oh, and once these same Economists tried to fix the GFC, they messed that up as well - which is why we have QE1 (which was supposed to work, according to 'most' economists models) and then QE2, then QE3, then Operation Twist, then QE4 and then "most" economists just decided to drop adding more numbers to QE as this was an embarrassment and reminder of their total incompetence and go just with QEternity. Notice your argument is fallacious as it (a) appeals to authority and (b) appeals to majority. I'm sure you'd have a lot of flat-earth friends 1000 years ago. Now, let's apply your "argument" to electronics. The iPhone6 is a cheap and fast supercomputer that fits in your pocket because (a) Apple is in competition with other free-market smart phone makers or (b) Apple is in competition with government subsidized poor quality over priced public smart phones. Also, I wonder, why is it that our experience with Public Australian medicine was that it was complete shit (and thank the Gods we were able to fly to Japan where we received high quality private medical care). So, do tell me, why is it that the same Private care that cost us $5500 in Japan would have cost a little over $25,000 in Australia. So 'mate' explain to me why your 'theory' seems to fail in Australia where Public healthcare is horrendous and Private healthcare is 5 times more expensive than in Japan.
    1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. sharper68 Raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. But, let's stop and think about this another way. You seem to think it's 'fair' to use force and ensure a 'minimum wage' is paid to people - OK then, how about minimum prices? Why not ensure that all apples are sold at a minimum price. And gasoline? And rent? Why are you specifically picking out low skilled labor-hours? How about the Cafe' owner? You have no compulsion forcing her to pay her employee's (who volunteer to work in her shop) a minimum - even though the worker takes ZERO risk. She takes the risk investing in her Cafe', why not force customers to pay for her coffee? Regardless of what customers thinking coffee is worth - it should be worth what some bureaucrat thinks it worth. If you want to raise the price of labor-hours, then reduce regulation so that workers can open their own small businesses and compete for labor. That way labor-hour supply is reduced and the price per hour is raised until people no longer want to open businesses but want to instead sell labor. You may also want to ask yourself: WHY are their so many labor-hours on the market? What role does the Public "Schooling" play in ill-preparing young Americans to go out and START businesses? Or is Public School actually creating an over supply of labor-hours by training Americans to BE worker cogs?  Of course, the solutions: sound money, law, deregulation, ending public schooling and allowing for competition are NEVER EVER going to happen - because, at the end of the day, Americans like paying lip service to freedom, but being free, that is the very furthest from most Americans to-do-list.
    1
  36. 1
  37. sharper68 You're wrong, and I didn't say "tax". I said 'Income Tax" as in a tax levied on laborer when they labor. The USA had roads, hospitals, schools, town halls, police, fought the revolutionary war, fought the civil war - all WITHOUT using an Income Tax. As a matter of fact, the US constitution forbade taxing laborers. It required a 16th Amendment to make it legal. In the same year the privately owned Central Bank was created. From that point onward the State has been able to sell debt to any and every buyer, often used to buy votes and just as often to line their own pockets, and force to steal money from the laborer. Don't mistake force with civilization. Civilization arises through FREELY made interact. Force is a return to the jungle.  As for 'value' the State provides - maybe you need to step back and ask how you measure 'value'? What IS value?  Tell me, I have a coffee cup in my hand - how much do I 'value' it? Will you, or the State, ever know the answer to that question? No - it's impossible information. A prosperous society is one that uses sound money, law and gives people the freedom to freely interact with one another - thus will the value of my coffee cup be realize through free-trade with one another. Because the State can never know the value of my coffee cup - or anything else, as that information is only know when a true free-trade is made, it must use other means to approximate that information. Which is why it will use it's ability to initiate force against "Society" to reduce the variables - ie: reduce civil liberties and reduce privacy. AND even then - it still can not know, only make a very poor approximation of value. Don't worry - oh, we are headed in your direction. While it's sad to watch as freedom transpires and people lose their privacy, this is an inevitable journey. Expect to be much less freer, with much less privacy and less opportunity - and very much poorer. We're going to get all the State you want - and then some.
    1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. ETericET I'm not a Rethuglican. The problems with healthcare are actually just a symptom of the problems with the entire system. This is just the inevitable outcome of a State-run Centrally mismanaged monetary system, and three generations of regulatory mayhem.  The solution's are and are not simple. But the goal should be to create a social system where we do NOT lose more Civil Liberties. Losing MORE Civil Liberties is not the path to a prosperous society - nor to a healthy one. As for healthcare, we need to allow free competition between insurance providers, we need to deregulate and allow free competition in healthcare providers, this will reduce costs. As it stands today, many States only allow MD/DO to practice medicine - but a few allow Nurses to open and own GP clinics. Many cities are not allowed to open competing hospitals - specifically to keep prices high.  As for people who go into hospital, (A) catastrophic insurance is pretty cheap and could be a voluntary aspect of credit card approval (Japan does this). Thus, the once-in-a-blue-moon accident can be covered through voluntary means. (B) Simply refuse to treat non-life threatening diseases until an agreement is reached and then sue the person who doesn't pay - take their 'truck and their guns' as payments (C) children should be given "Free" healthcare as they are not responsible for their parents bad choices. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge more for people who are unhealthy (obese as an example) and less for people who actually work hard at staying healthy - together with competition, we would have affordable high-quality healthcare. As for ObamaCare, I can tell you right now what it's going to be like. The working-poor will pay a lot more than option (A) as outlined above (a lot more) and Public Hospitals will, in time, look like Public Housing Slums. The rich will get great healthcare - many of whom will write-off as an expense and probably get it deduced on their taxes, which they don't pay anyway. So, if you really cared about the poor - you'd NOT be in favor of ObamaCare.
    1
  45. 1
  46. ETericET I have no problem with people freely choosing to design and implement healthcare. I do have a problem with using the State to force people to buy private healthcare goods and services. If people really do think 'ObamaCare' is so wonderful - then good. There'd be no need to use the State to force people to buy it. And to force people to pay a fine if they don't. I've lived and worked in two countries with national public healthcare and in both cases the best option was private healthcare. As a matter of fact, the public healthcare is typically training grounds for surgeons as they work their way out and into a private practice. The quality and competence was much lower in public compared with private. As an example in CA (which I haven't worked in but lived about 45 min away from). Take lasik eye surgery. It wasn't covered by the CA healthcare scheme. Thus lasik eye surgeons had to compete in a free-market. At first it was expensive and only the wealthy could afford it. In about 15 years it became reasonably cheap and probably the by far some of the best practice and best surgeons in the world. We need more freedom - not less freedom. And that goes for healthcare as well.  As a final note, I'd say this: If people really did want ObamaCare, you wouldn't need to use the State to force it on them. The fact that ObamaCare comes with a gun to your head - shows it's just more Amerikkkan Fascism where the wealthy will force the poor to subsidize their healthcare.  Welcome to the USSA. Land of the Free. 
    1
  47. Well firstly we need to agree we do not live in a free society with a free market. If we did, then the question is, are there people who would not pay for healthcare insurance? 1) I'd posit that in a free society we'd have a lot LESS poor people. Dealing with a small number of poor wouldn't be a major issue.  2) It is possible to organize healthcare insurance as part of other services. In Japan, private health insurance is offered through your credit card company as part of your credit card service as am example. 3) In the past poor people in the USA were part of friendly societies. In a free society there'd be less workers and more owners (currently we have so many regulations the only people who start businesses are big box tops - which is why we have so many chain stores; you don't see this in Japan, but you do in AU). My point is with less workers on the market and more owners the demand for workers goes up (the price of labor goes up) and private unions would help organize for insurance. Healthcare is just one of many aspect of a failing society. The problem is NOT too little government - it's too much government. We need to return to a free society. Let Americans compete. THEN we will return to a prosperous society and along with it have affordable healthcare that is high quality. -- As an aside, I am sort of amazed to see how many Americans are talking about home-schooling their children. The evidence suggests that as the USA becomes highly regulated that even public schooling is now failing along with other public institutions.
    1
  48. 1
  49. NUTCASE71733 "public education has always been more sucsessful at what it does, or rather did before libertarians and republicans decided they had to destroy it " Are you serious? What planet are you on? Certainly not earth. -- Chicago is generally liberal progressive, public school teachers in Chicago make about 40% MORE than your average person living IN Chicago and paying tax for public schooling! The neighbourhood Obama represented has shit public schools with 40% functional illiteracy.  -- Detroit was run by Democrats unbroken for 50 years, public school teachers were being paid a 13 month bonus, many are on $75,000 a year, Detroit graduates have a 50% functional illiteracy rate. -- New York, ditto As for "Libertarians" give me a f*cking break. They make up less than 1% of the total voting population and to my knowledge there's never been any Libertarian POTUS or Senators. DO YOU KNOW OF ONE? Wherever you're getting your information it's totally lying to you. RE: Public Schooling vs Homeschooling. I suppose it all depends on what you want your child to learn. I'm honestly not worried at all about religious people, they're generally honest. While they may believe in superstitious nonsense, they generally think each to their own. And, more and more people are becoming less and less religious. This may or may not be a good thing. I think it could have a down side to it (and yes, I'm 100% atheist). I find there are more Statheist's now-a-days. You probably are. Well, think about this: The Government spent $8.5 TRILLION dollars on two made up wars. I don't know about you, but I imagine that money could have been better spent on schools and even provided tax credits to families who'd like to try homeschooling, alternative schooling, etc...  As I work in a University, I can see how poor the public schools are. These kids are supposed to be the best (which is why they go into university). Many can't even read and write well. Sometimes it looks like a 12 year old - I'm not kidding. Many can't even do simple math. I mean SIMPLE math in their heads. Like 12 x 8 or Log10 of 1000. It's as if they didn't learn anything at all other than basic reading. No understanding of philosophy, history, nothing. What the hell ARE they learning? Not to be religious? Big deal, that will happen anyway.
    1
  50. 1