Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "North Korea: What You Need to Know (Pt. 2) | Michael Malice | INTERNATIONAL | Rubin Report" video.

Anarchism isn't so much a political ideology as a nihilistic abdication of all responsibility. It's where people go when they have no answers, only criticism. Although many anarchists (especially on the far left) are actually far from anarchistic. And are, in fact closet authoritarians. The whole 'anarchy' bit is simply a way of hiding their true ideology. Either way, society has progressed to a point where interdependence makes their half-assed theories unworkable. Most recognise this. And that's the real aim. As avoidance of responsibility means that you can never be wrong and never be blamed for anything.
5
Taxation is a way to provide for the things society wants and needs. We have progressed beyond the ability to live in caves totally cut off from everyone else. Humans are social animals. It's really not that big a sacrifice.
3
Adam Smasher Who's using violence to coerce you into conforming? You're free to do whatever you want. Just not to leach off society and expect everyone to owe you a standard of living. You sure you're not just desperate to feel oppressed in some way?
1
There has always been leaders and governments for as long as humans have walked the earth. There are leaders in the rest of the animal kingdom too. We just happen to live within a golden age where we can decide who gets to lead us. Obviously, that doesn't mean we can literally all pick our own leader. Neither does it mean we can pick a leader from everyone available (although in theory, given enough support this would be possible). And while democracy doesn't necessarily give us the best leaders for the job, it does allow us to replace the people at the top without the need for a civil war. To say 'in the 20th century alone, governments are responsible for 200 million murders' is a puerile statement. It's as true as saying ''in the 20th century alone, humans are responsible for 200 million murders'. And therefore, all of us are equally as guilty for the deaths of 200 million people as anyone else. It also doesn't take into account the reasons why people go to war in the first place. It simply ignores everything and reduces the subject to an infantile level. Are you saying there are never any good reasons to use force? Are you saying that there is no point in using force? Or are you saying that as everyone and everything is all as bad as everyone and everything else, the fight for something better is pointless? That is nihilistic thinking. Which gets us nowhere. It doesn't improve things, and really only benefits those who are the most cynical and ruthless. But like I said. Nihilism plays a big part in the anarchists' bullcrap ideology. That's if you can even call it an ideology.
1
'The Truth' I don't have to explain how continuing slavery is right just because it went on for 100,000 years. Because I'm not advocating for slavery.
1
Basically, a rush to the bottom where anything goes. No standards. No recourse to the law (its non-coercive, so unenforceable). Instead of a democratically representative state, you have multiple self-interested agencies with no democratic oversight at all. An unworkable and unnecessary ideology. Badly thought out.
1
Contracts mean nothing if only one side agrees. And how would they be enforced? And by who? What kind of contract would their be between a thief and your multiple private security agencies? And I don't know where you get the idea that democracy tends to totalitarianism. The reality is quite the opposite. Those lucky enough to live in the west enjoy more rights, freedoms, and privileges than at any time in human history.
1
You make the exact same mistake that communists make. Only the other way around. If communists are to have everyone believe that the boss class (big industry) has too much power, then why concentrate that power into the hands of those who run the state and who already have enough power as it is? (in other words, they want to concentrate all power in the hands of an even smaller minority). You're ideology runs in the opposite direction. The boss class (big industry) would not only have the power to set prices, hire and fire people, but apparently to make the laws and enforce them as well. Where is your democratic oversight? Where is the balance of power? You seem to be very confused on the whole 'non-coercion' thing when it comes to applying the law (or as you call it 'contracts'. Who oversees these contracts? What legal responsibilities to they hold? And how are they enforced (if they are non-coercive)? Reduce it to a guy on the street. Who mugs an old lady. 1) Has he committed a crime? 2) By what authority is it decided that the guy has committed a crime? 3) Who has the authority to act against him? 4) Where does that authority come from? 5) Who made the law that decided mugging old ladies is a crime? 6) Who enforces the law and how?
1
1) Who decides what a crime is? 2) The law needs to be specific. Who wrote it and by what authority? What if one private agency says one thing is a crime and another says it isn't? 3) If it has been proven that he committed the crime, everyone has the authority to act against him? But who decides whether he is guilty or not guilty? He hasn't yet been judged by anyone. What if he refuses to be judged? 4) Again, who decides? A judge? A magistrate? Who? How did he get the job and who pays him? 5) What agencies? What authority do they have and who gave that authority to them? How do they enforce their authority? Who pays them and how are they held accountable? What is a 'natural right'? 6) Isn't threatening to kill someone coercive? What if the mugger doesn't recognise the authority of Defense Agency X or Defense Agency Y? Who says he has to? What if he decides to use all the money he stole to set up Defence Agency Z? And then he 'authorises' the arrest of those in Defense Agency X and Defense Agency Y? using lethal force. Or supposing the mugger accepts the authority (clearly by threat of force) to submit himself to a 'court' (one of many self appointed courts that simply issue fatwahs against whoever depending on who pays them). And it's not a corrupt court that simply passes judgement on whoever is willing to pay the most (not the old lady, she was mugged). Then what? What happens to the mugger? Is he imprisoned? Who by? Who pays for his imprisonment? The old lady?
1