Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Libertarian LOSES IT Over Roads" video.

So intellectually dishonest, Sam. The guy's debated this topic many times, you're just trying to make it look like this is the full extent of his thoughts on the matter. P.S. - Are you still afraid to go on Gavin McInnes' show? Just curious.
11
People voluntarily paying for other people's food, clothing, shelter, education, medical needs, etc.? Happens all the time. People voluntarily paying for other people's roads? IMPOSSIBLE!
5
@Post-buttwave Well if I were to use Sam's own reasoning (for why he refuses to go on Gavin's show), it would be because Sam is "just desperate, trying to get back into the YouTube community" (which he's already a part of), etc. The whole "legitimizing" excuse. But odds are, it's more about Sam not acting in good faith. If you know your opponent's just gonna try and misrepresent you, mock you, etc. you've no obligation to talk to them.
4
@whyamimrpink78 That's true also. And when I saw "Google it", I thought you were talking about when Cenk Uygur debated Ben Shapiro... Must be an epidemic on the left...
3
@whyamimrpink78 I agree, but I think it's more a problem with Politicon style debates than formal ones. If each speaker had set windows of time to talk uninterrupted so they could address each other's points back and forth, it'd be much more effective (but then, probably less "entertaining" for some). Speaking of Kirk, did you see his debate with Kyle Kulinski? I was shocked at how well it went for Kirk, because from what I'd seen of Kirk before he's not the best debater. But vs. Kulinski, IMO, he stomped him.
3
@melgibson7313 Well if you want any thinking person to believe I'm wrong here (including me), you'll need to provide some sort of argument. You know, the way I did.
3
@zackcolbourne6921 Most charity is incentivized by the giver's personal aims. But those personal aims can include everything but kindness to the want to brag about it for your own personal clout to the want to make their own neighborhood or city more efficient or even just nicer-looking and more. Investments come in many different forms.
3
@PoPZoMbiiE I'm glad you made it clear you were just joking. The truth is, Sam has no better excuse not to go on Gavin's show than Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin do not to debate Sam. But if it has anything to do with not wanting to debate someone who will twist words, be intellectually dishonest, etc., the latter might actually make more sense.
2
@Julius Pantera Nonsense. Kirk obliterated Kulinski. He countered pretty much every point, and Kulinski ended up either just mocking him or changing the subject.
2
@Julius Pantera Honesty would entail recognizing that Gavin literally never does that. It's always one on one. And quite frankly, if Sam's so sure of his position, what does it matter who he debates? I thought the whole point was to get closer to the truth, not see our "team" win.
2
@eiyukabe No, at most, you'd have to buy from others if you insisted on having access to those particular foods you can't grow on your own land/in your own home. And I don't see a problem with that; you're not entitled to someone else's property or labor just because you're "late in the game" or in some other way disadvantaged by no fault of theirs. They still put in the work and provided value to the people; they earned the rewards, which have to be minimized anyway if they want to keep going. It's not the case that you'll "win" just by owning particular properties or assets. Businesses (even big ones) go out of business all the time when the people decide their services/products aren't what they want anymore.
2
@eiyukabe "Like I said -- you can't when all arid land is already owned." We were talking about the individual "having to" buy from businesses, right? Well that's what I was saying; you only have to buy what you can't/won't grow on your own property. "You're not entitled to their labor, but you are no less entitled to the land they have monopolized than they are" Eh? Who the hell has monopolized land? You're not making any sense. No, people (tons of different people) own land because they or their ancestors bought it. And by the way, if we keep giving the government more power, then there will be a monopoly on the land and one that it's literally impossible to break. "just because they got there first or had the largest army to take it." Well we draw a clear distinction between the two. The latter is truly just "might makes right", the former is that, even though you had an advantage (not always, mind you, but usually), the land wasn't acquired by force but mutual exchange, and with money you typically had to create value for others in order to get. "If we are talking about people staking out the property that they need for their families (and no more)that is one thing -- but businesses try to own as much as they possibly can." So you would have everyone grow their own food? "If left unregulated, all arid land in a region would very quickly become privatized from a gold rush frenzy mentality. At that stage they aren't "laboring" even though they will later -- they are simply hoarding for wealth." If they can come up with enough uses of it to make it worth the money, they might. But more likely they'll expand as they can make that expanse worthwhile. "And the only reason you "need" their labor to give you food is because they took your ability to labor for food" I disagree. I could be growing tomatoes (at very least) outside my house right now, but I choose not to. I'd rather buy it, so I can spend my time sitting here arguing with you about how bad capitalism sucks :P
2
"Then they would only build roads that benefit them." Same for the government. Plus the government doesn't really have any direct incentive to do their job fully. And if they can get more votes or funding from higher government another way, they've no reason to build/maintain most roads. "But what will the poor do for roads?" Like you said, it's not a terribly difficult thing to build one. Are you saying the poor are too stupid to build a functional dirt road? And BTW they'd be less poor if they didn't have to pay taxes... "But then the rich people won't let them use the roads they built!" Fine, someone else will find a way to build one for public use and monetize it. You don't realize that your "Greed!" and "Lust for power!" narratives are conflicting here. And besides which, maybe you're just projecting your own personal potential attitudes in such an economy. Maybe you would be like that, but you haven't given us any reason to think anyone else would. "They would determine what benefits them not by having a civic society." Unfounded. Who are you to say that wealthy people wouldn't want a "civic society", or that it wouldn't be "smart" to work towards one? Seems to me that depends on your values. If I personally care about x problem in society, I'm going to want to fund fixing that problem, whether a monetary payback is promised or no. And let's not forget about charity. People give tons of money to strangers for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses, the list goes on forever. But then with roads no one would contribute (if and when the need arose) because, reasons?
2
@bloopandablast1345 Not any kind of "buff", I just happen to be correct.
2
@bloopandablast1345 Again, why would it be any different with roads than everything else which people are already giving to charity for? And keep in mind that charity isn't even the main argument; it's just a side note.
2
@bluespidergaming7719 Well no, we tend to oppose taxation because it's theft (literally). And charities seemed to be working just fine for the longest time, actually, if you look at a huge number of the hospitals and colleges that were built that way and still functioning today. And they continue to function well in those areas government hasn't completely taken over (yet), such as sending food overseas to feed the hungry. As for the roads, it's the "unless they have something to gain" point you need to think more about. What have they to gain from letting fewer people get from point A to point B? Especially to and from their business properties. Will their money just magically appear with no one to bring it to them? Again, are these people greedy or not? Because I've never heard of a greedy person wanting less for themselves.
2
@bluespidergaming7719 Well of course taxation is theft. Even if it's "with representation", it's generally common knowledge that stealing from people is wrong even if you intend on doing something "for them" afterward. You can argue that the theft is justified if you want, but you can't deny that it's taking someone's property without their permission (aka stealing). And I'm not sure what you mean by "no evidence". The hospitals and colleges still exist, as do the charities which feed the poor both here and overseas every year. Also, you never answered as to what this hypothetical greedy person would gain from closing the roads off to people at random (whether by arbitrary exceptions or overpricing). Yet again, your "power hungry" and "greedy" narratives conflict with each other.
2
@occhamsrazor Are you talking about the U.S. "following libertarian views"? Because that's a funny one. We're so non-libertarian in how we operate we barely function at all!
1
@eiyukabe Merry Christmas to you as well!
1
@laurelbeach4529 If there was a demand for it (e.g., if there was no tax-paid option), someone would step up to make a profit from that service as well. And they'd probably find a way to do it cheaper and/or better as businesses tend to do vs. the government. I'm also more concerned with what's motivated by profit (or fear of loss) vs. what can be stolen, than what can be considered "centralized". Wal-Mart is not successful because it managed to "centralize" something; it's successful because it found a way to provide goods cheaper than most companies. And it only did that because it couldn't just take our money and give us an unverifiable claim that it did something good for us in return. I don't think our healthcare system is worse than most developed nations (the insurance statistics often given are misrepresentations, playing with the definitions of "underinsured" and so on), but in any case the healthcare system is already run by our government so that's not to be blamed on the free market in the least. Generally, the most regulated industries are the ones in which costs continue to rise, with the healthcare and higher education industries being at the top of the list. But yes, if we could find a way to always have benevolent dictators, we'd see better results (provided they were also always competent and knowledgeable). But the free market seems to provide cheaper and more efficient means, so that's what I support.
1