Comments by "James Adams" (@ExPwner) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

I'm down, but it would be a while before I'd be free to call in at such a time slot. Is this offer still good? Btw, not interested in engaging in straw men like "companies putting stuff in water hue hue" but the actual principles of libertarian philosophy.
3
"when has a free market ever existed?" Depends on how one defines a free market. If you're talking about all of the trade occurring in a particularly large geographical area then you might be hard pressed to find an example. If you look at just individual buyers and sellers you see it all of the time when buyers and sellers just do their thing. "Why do you discount the examples of companies dumping toxic waste into the water?" I don't. I was responding to the video. The person in this video tried to imply that libertarians were somehow A-OK with companies dumping stuff into the water. That's a straw man.
3
"generally Libertarians want less regulation, less regulation may lead to companies dumping waste into the water." No, this is a straw man. Libertarian philosophy is all about how that regulation is structured. The statist argues that only government regulation works. The libertarian points out how government failure brought on government regulation, which is still suboptimal when compared to the libertarian system of protecting property rights. Dumping waste into the water is a violation of the non-aggression principle, and libertarians generally don't want this happening and want to ensure that it doesn't happen through private ownership of resources as well as being able to sue for damages if it does. This aligns the incentives as well as the penalty so that victims can see a benefit when it inevitably does happen (because let's be real and acknowledge that government regulation does not prevent all pollution and punishes polluters but in the form of fines payable to the state and not victims).
3
You haven’t “dismantled” anything. The constant formula for this hack is make shit up, demand answers for made up problems, talk over the opposition and then have pile ons from the studio say stupid shit throughout.
3
"Btw, if "the actual principles of libertarian philosophy" apply, how is "companies putting stuff in water" a strawman? What is to stop them if it helps them make a quick buck?" It is a straw man because it isn't what libertarians are advocating. What's to stop them? The legal system.
2
Why does this dumb bitch at the beginning think that she owns words? The left doesn't own "libertarian" and never did. It started not as a leftist thing but literally meaning a lover of liberty. And to pre-empt the retardation of the left, no, it is NOT a contradiction because property rights are enforced just like bodily autonomy (or for the special idiots: "personal property") is enforced. No difference. AnCap means anarchy (no rulers) and capitalism (private property rights). It is not enforced or created by any one entity. It is emergent. No, I do not imagine the rich as being leaders. In fact many would suggest that an AnCap order would be significantly different from our current society, and others have suggested that getting there would involve some form of redress to address statist injustices. The notion of the market devolving into monopoly is pure fiction. It does not have any historical basis whatsoever. Sam is begging the question by asserting his conclusion in the premise. Begging the question isn't an argument, it's shutting down the argument. The caller didn't do a great job at shutting down the bullshit, but Sam is pushing blatant bullshit nonetheless.
2
@DogmaFighter try learning history and you'll get it.
2
"the problem with the non aggression principle is that you have no guarantee others will follow it." That isn't a problem with the principle. This is specifically referencing the implementation of the principle, which is different. "This requires enforcement. The libertarian solution is DROs, dispute resolution organizations. These are, in such a system, by necessity private." Agreed. "Because of this, those with less resources will have less ability to sue." This remains to be seen. Voluntary human interaction has done quite well in terms of access to more and more things for the common man (ie those with less resources). "I would rather have worker ownership of factories and other industries." As long as it's voluntary association and not stealing, cool beans. I personally don't see the economic success in having workers own factories, but if they're buying them then I have no beef with it.
1
No. This idiocy conflates free markets with the perfect market hypothesis which is a straw man.
1
@aresrin no, that is non-sequitur. Equality and voting are not equivalent to fair.
1
@Pfhreak no it didn't start as a leftist thing. The literal origin of the word was "lover of liberty" and you dumb fucks want to try to monopolize the word just because some jackass started claiming it as a political position some 40 years later.
1
@mariomime5068 question begging, fucktard.
1
stealthballer no it is not you liar. Leftism is not compatible with liberty and never has been.
1
@LostButBroken fuck off, dumbass troll.
1
@admiral7599 no it didn't you goddamn liar. I literally copied and pasted the fucking link.
1
@james396 no it didn't liar. It started as a lover of liberty. Quit lying. Property predates government, fucktard.
1
@seandevine5836 fuck off, dumb fuck.
1
@jacques15 not an argument, dumbass. What Rothbard said is not the same as truth.
1
@Sorrac0001 I did you dumbass: "The first recorded use of libertarian was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in the context of metaphysics.[26] As early as 1796, libertarian came to mean an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, when the London Packet printed on 12 February the following: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians".[27] It was again used in a political sense in 1802 in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir" and has since been used with this meaning" NOT communist in origin.
1
@james396 I made my argument and it is crystal clear, dumbass. The word libertarian did NOT start with leftists. "The definition of property requires some type of law based on consensus." Yep, and this is still NOT an argument against AnCap. Law does NOT require government. You need to quit acting like we don't have any arguments when it is clear that you haven't even bothered to listen. You can start with Bob Murphy and David Friedman on the concept of decentralized law.
1
@zacg_ you were never a libertarian. Quit trying to LARP. It's pathetic.
1
@zacg_ I don't need the validation. You do. Yet I can prove it because you haven't read any libertarian literature. The problem with lying is that you can't back it up when you're actually pressed. The cool thing about pointing out LARPing leftists is that they fail an ideological Turing test.
1
@jonstone9741 no you weren't. Again more "hurr I was libertarian when I was young because it's stoopid!" in place of a real argument. If you had one then you'd be able to present it instead of LARPing.
1
@frenchtoasty17 sure, as soon as you also put on the wig and clown nose.
1
@jonstone9741 yeah, you did. You imply that anyone who is libertarian is young and stupid. It is lazy. It is unsubstantiated. It does absolutely nothing to argue against libertarian ideals. And it clearly shows that you don't know libertarian ideals at all. You never were a libertarian. You're a leftist prick trying to LARP as a "former libertarian, and I know this because I've seen dozens of you dipshits say the EXACT SAME THING. Go fuck yourself you lying asshole.
1
@jonstone9741 " I didn't imply anything." Yes, you did. You implied that people who are libertarian are young and stupid without forming any argument against libertarianism. It's a lazy and irrelevant statement only meant to drum up support from people who already agree with you. "If you find yourself reading the crap written by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, etc., then you should realize that you've definitely gone off the deep end into libertarian idealism, and you should try to get in touch with reality." And more dumbass platitudes without an argument. Like I said, you're a retarded leftist LARPing as a "former libertarian" because you cannot form an argument. Same with your last paragraph. Just more idiotic rambling and baseless assertions. Your ideology is such utter dog shit that you can't even form a coherent argument against what is presented against you. What's more is that you're proving my point because you can't even NAME a libertarian concept, let alone argue against it. And the literature consistently shows that libertarians are most able to identify what they are arguing against while you leftists aren't. That's how I know you never were libertarian. Now fuck off, clown.
1
Angel Fox no, it isn't. Again with the retarded thought-terminating cliches.
1
@TheAmericanAmerican wow what an eloquent argument. Can't argue against fucking emojis from a dipshit like yourself. Guess you won!
1
@TheAmericanAmerican no, I recognize a dipshit without an argument when I see it. Hey, at least you're more honest than the others.
1
Yes it is.
1
@imavileone7360 yes, it is, because anarchy is not limited to your dumbass "anarchism as a political philosophy with a government that totally isn't a state." Anarchy at the root of the word is "no rulers." That is literally what it means. Not a fucking thing to do with hierarchy.
1
@NJ-wb1cz "hate to break it to you, but any strongly hierarchical authoritarian system has no rules for the people at the top. " I agree. It's a good thing that the capitalist hierarchy is not authoritarian then, because otherwise there wouldn't be any rules for capitalists, but there are through a system of law. No, neither corporations nor billionaires create rules for others. The state does that. If you want to piss and moan about rich people getting to speak into their ears when writing said rules then it won't do to suggest that it will be better if others do the speaking. I'm in favor of eliminating the state and all authoritarian rule.
1
@ilikeme1234 no, I don't, dumbass. I've spoke to tons of those "scholars" of your "anarchism" and at the end of the day they are embarrassed Democrats that don't understand economics and think that burning shit because they're angry is a good way to improve society. I've heard this stupid shit from the likes of Wolff to Chomsky to stupid shit like The Conquest of Bread to various other supposed intellectuals that think that they're really smart and edgy. They're not, you're not, and like everyone else you have nothing of substance to back up your claim that "anarchism" as practiced by "the real anarchists" have any grasp of anarchy.
1
@douglaslangley9251 a ruler does not just make rules but enforces them upon unwilling participants. Guess what? Capitalists aren't doing that. Again, try an argument that is more than narrative. No one makes you take a job.
1
@seandevine5836 no, they haven't, because anarchy is not a political philosophy. It is not your dumbass "anarchism" and never will be. The parent child relationship is a hierarchy. The teacher student relationship is a hierarchy. You dipshits aren't against hierarchy and always have to move the goalposts when someone brings this up. Your next line is "but only UNJUST hierarchies!" as if you can just assert that one is just and another unjust without argument. Capitalism is a just hierarchy no different than teacher-student or parent-child. It is absolutely justified on the basis of consent. "B-but work or starve isn't consent and it's involuntary!" No, dumbass, work or starve is Mother Nature. The capitalist literally only gives you another option. Property is not zero sum. Learn economics.
1
@NJ-wb1cz "where does the anarchy comes in then, if in your opinion anarcho capitalism has both billionaires and the state?" Straw man. I never said that AnCap includes a state. " It can come from wealth and the lack of state" No, it cannot, because a society based on property rights and NOT having a state means that those people with the wealth can't force their rules onto you.
1
@douglaslangley9251 lobbying doesn't mean shit in and of itself. What matters is the force of government to force it onto the rest of us. Lobbying does not exist in the market environment. It's just people paying for various goods and services. Even without rich people lobbying it is still wrong to force rules upon a minority that doesn't consent, and that is why "anarchists" aren't for anarchy at all. They are socialists for democracy, and they are still for forcing their rulers upon others.
1
I'll take "doesn't know economics" for $1000.
1
Neither. I was replying to OP.
1
@51dz3j.8 😂 no it isn’t as demonstrated by the ECP
1
@51dz3j.8 government cannot meet the demands of consumers like prices do.
1
No it isn't, but you dumb fucks don't care about what words mean.
1
Flightof2Owls "At least feudalism developed naturally" Imagine unironically thinking this stupid shit. Imagine thinking that fucking feudalism just "happened naturally" as if land grants by kings was just the most natural thing in the world. Once again you show that statist critics have no substantive arguments against AnCap. You people are dumbasses.
1
Angel Fox wrong. I showed that feudalism was not based on legitimate property rights. Capitalism does not derive legitimate property rights from land grants. It derives legitimacy through homesteading and voluntary exchange. I get that moral philosophy is above your grade level, but you shouldn't try to argue when you're clearly unfamiliar with what you're arguing against.
1