Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "'Best Kind' Of Libertarian Calls To Thank MR Crew" video.

@vertigo0331 Governments of the people, for the people, were formed to protect the masses from rich private property owners who had a monopoly on land. A Libertarian government, that is going to protect rich landowners, giant corporations, and the like, is kind of pointless. Might as well just let them rule, directly.
2
@vertigo0331 Nonsense. Feudalism, and private property owners gaining monopolies over entire countries happened with zero oversight above them. With next to no oversight, on the US Western frontier, cattle barons pretty much did the same thing, hiring private armies of cowboys, and throwing their weight around ... slaughtering tens of thousands of sheep, tearing down fences, killing shepherds. The US had feudalism right into the 20th century. Little to no government oversight over private property owners has allowed for countless monopolies. Labor, health, safety, environmental, and other assorted regulations have come about exactly because giant businesses, and their owners, didn't self regulate. We've already done the less involved government schtick, and it sucked for most people. Giant corporations keep lobbying for exactly that, less regulation, but you're under some delusion that will hurt them. They, clearly, don't seem to think so. You'd be just handing them what they want, for free. Continuing to expand democracy is still the way to protect the people from those who want to lord over them.
1
@vertigo0331 Medieval feudalism was a bunch of rich private property owners, with private armies, with no oversight above them, running around doing whatever they wanted. That led to 100% privately owned and operated "governments". Their "governments" were more equivalent to landlords, not governments of the people who have some oversight over private property owners. Just like modern Saudi is a 100% privately owned and operated, purely capitalist, country. "Government" = House of Saud. And, I already gave a more modern example of how it starts, like on the US Western frontier, as a purely private property, purely capitalist, endeavor.
1
@vertigo0331 You get that handing down privately owned property is a capitalistic property rights thing, yes? Just because it's a "government" and an entire country, doesn't change that. They aren't publicly owned and operated "governments" and countries.
1
@vertigo0331 Exactly my point. A complete absence of any governmental laws and regulations lets a private property owner do whatever the hell they want. Monopolies have happened with a complete, or near, absence of government. Government is not required to create a monopoly. You can blather about voluntarism, but there's no enforcement of voluntarism with little to no government of the people. If you want to build a building, what's wrong with having the builder voluntarily agree to meet certain public safety standards? You'd rather wait for a collapse, and sue them after?
1
@vertigo0331 You just argued in favor of a democratic government taking away the property of a private property owner (monarch) and redistributing it, and then argued against a democratic government. Nothing about private property ownership says you can't set the fees for living on your private property, can't make your own rules for living on your private property, or that you can't hire your own security to enforce said rules and collect said fees, which is what absolute monarchs did, and still do.
1
@vertigo0331 You're either an anarcho-capitalist, or you do actually believe in a representative democracy of some sort, or you are a fascist of some sort.
1
@robinsss Right. Government should be more democratic and less of an oligarchy.
1
@robinsss Meh, the senate is not, at all, a very democratic body. Freezing the number of house seats, which froze the number of electorals, has also made the house and presidency increasingly less democratic. Having to rely on some massive nationwide protest, or whatnot, just to get something accomplished, isn't very practical.
1
@vertigo0331 You get that giving nobility more of a say, instead of just dictates from a king (a private property landlord with a monopoly), is a more democratic process ... giving merchants and yeomen more of a say, instead of just the king and nobility, is a more democratic process ... giving landowning white men more of say, instead of just the king, nobility, merchants and yeomen, is a more democratic process ... and so on, with women, minorities, non landowners, etc. How representative it is also makes it more, or less, democratic. Just like with a company ... if things are entirely dictated by a single owner, then it's equivalent to an absolute dictatorship ... if it has a board of directors, with an elected CEO, that's more democratic ... if it's unionized, with workers having more of a say and more power, then that's more democratic ... if it becomes a worker co-op, then that's the business equivalent of an all out direct democracy. So, yeah, you did argue in favor of a more democratic system, and then turned around and argued against a more democratic system. Where's your cutoff? You actually want democracy limited to rich yeomen and merchants, and the poor not be allowed to vote again?
1