Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "ReasonTV" channel.

  1. He was economically progressive, not socially, taking a massive step towards unions, welfare and more.
    10
  2. He suspended the Constitution and marched the military into the legislature.
    8
  3. @willnitschke  It actually isn't. A ad hominem is when you attack a person rather than their position. You should know, it's your bread and butter. I literally gave you name of the fallacy you committed though. You could just look it up. But since you asked, the naturalistic fallacy is an appeal to nature. It's when people try to argue that since something is "natural" it is correct. For example, when you try to argue that capitalism is natural and therefore correct you are engaging in the fallacious idea that what is natural IS correct. I'm sure you didn't absorb any of that, but don't worry, you can go back to throwing out ad hominems with no real argument.
    3
  4.  @evann32033  I wouldn't ask Will here for an education about socialism. He's been peddling the same talking points for years without any sense of them. You are correct in your assessment. Common ownership requires actually asking the common owners how they would like their commonly owned assets to be managed. At the end of the day all left-wing politics is just democracy plus something else. In contrast all right-wing politics is just anti-democracy plus something else. For example, capitalist companies give no democratic decision making to their workers. They function as autocracies. I'm not sure however that a single person would argue that capitalism is anything but right-wing. The same is true for government. Monarchism was always put on the right-wing of the political isle. Feudalism is as right-wing as it gets, with an unelected leader and appointed land owners. Yet if we compare feudalism to the USSR we find they have some incredibly close similarities. In fact the only real difference is that the USSR at least pretended to have some semblance of democracy. The issue however is that at every single stage of the system disagreement could be met with governmental force from an unelected leadership. As a result the USSR, Nazi Germany and every single Leninist attempt at governance just ended in a right-wing autocracy.
    3
  5. He marched the military into the legislature and suspended the constitution.
    3
  6. @ExPwner  Quote it. Oh wait: "We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term."
    3
  7.  @MrFreeman0179  While the US prison system definitely has faults, El Salvador is substantially worse right now. Also unny you swallow the "Nazis in Ukraine" BS hook, line and sinker.
    3
  8. And the last time that happened the new leader refused to give up his power. We've all watched Batman.
    3
  9. ​ @willnitschke  Yes, free to pollute, free to enslave, free to exploit. Who needs that pesky government?
    2
  10. ​ @willnitschke  It's not propaganda. His own VP called him Hitler. 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  11. There aren't any experiments when those cities have guns flooding in from outside. Also, even the safest US states have high homicide rates.
    2
  12. Taxes have been going down for decades, and as a result debts have exploded. More than half the debt added this century was from tax cuts.
    2
  13. @willnitschke  Who doesn't like a nice naturalistic fallacy first thing in the morning.
    2
  14.  @willnitschke  "If there is no attempt to explain or justify the assertion, it's just an insult which is an attack on the person." No, it isn't. It's an unsupported assertion. That's not a personal attack. "And yeah, I know what the naturalistic fallacy is" Clearly not, or you wouldn't continue to commit it.
    2
  15.  @willnitschke  You really have a complex about arses Will. You should get that checked out.
    2
  16.  @willnitschke  Wait, so you think a tribe, which is a collection of people not an individual, is an example of capitalism? If 2 tribes trade with each other that's socialism mate.
    2
  17.  @themeettrees  Almost all of modern society is fighting human nature. Why should we use an economic system that encourages our worst aspects?
    2
  18.  @themeettrees  Back in the days of tribal warfare the homicide rate was about 60%. We are natually predatory, selfish, aggressive and illogical. We even natually create religion to explain phenomenon so that we don't waste time contemplating the true cause. We are literally built to not be scientifically curious and instead be overly religious. The idea that we should find a system that incorperates these things is ridiculous. All of human civilisation has been about fighting these things, not promoting them. "human nature also incorporates cooperation, something that couldnt be achieved under socialism." Ammusingly, while humans are open to trusting random people, they are also more prone to seeking out their own self-interests than their partner's interst. More than half of people will skim points off their partners. When put in a dictatorial position most paticipants hoard more than half the resources rather than sharing with theer partner. The idea that people are perfectly cooperative is nonsense.
    2
  19. Like making the process substantially cheaper and faster.
    2
  20. ​ @willnitschke  Love it when you describe capitalism 😂😂😂 Hand over your labour to support me dear worker. Still a clown aren't you Willy
    2
  21.  @willnitschke  We just agreed that Cuba doesn't have democracy. It therefore does not fit the definition of socialism. Sorry that facts hurt your feelings.
    2
  22.  @willnitschke  "The only way to achieve "common ownership of the means of production" is to organise, form governments, and then the government own everything." False. A worker cooperative would also achieve this. "Workers require representation and the government is that representation." Only in a democracy. Hard to represent the people of a nation if you never ask them what they actually want. "BTW, if an individual does not own anything, and there is a population of 1 million people, then 1 million x zero is still zero." And nothing exists 🙃 Next do the one about worker cooperatives being bad because they're just governments. I like that one.
    2
  23.  @evann32033  Will doesn't do arguments. He just waits for you to make a point, makes up some nonsense, then throws out insults. He is nothing because he stands for nothing. As for the Soviets, not really. Take their farming cooperative practices. The idea was that large farms were given collectively over to the workers who farmed them. The roadblock however was that the Soviet state put in state appointed managers to decide what was farmed and when. The farmers had zero say over who was in charge or what decisions were being made. It was as close to a worker cooperative as any capitalist business. The same continued for any other form of attempt to democratise the nation. Factories were managed at the top level using a 3-way system of governance. Equal decision making was given to the workers unions, the factory managers and the state. But factory managers were appointed by the state. So if they ever sided against the state what would happen to those managers? And that doesn't even get into the government elections. Since they used vanguardism to manage the nation, the vanguard were not voted in, ever. They could also not be removed. The vanguard then appointed political officers, who could theoretically be voted out by the locals. However should anyone ever get voted out, it was up to the state to fill the spot with someone new. Elections could then be delayed, giving the new person in charge time to actively punish the decision to remove their predecessor. Not to mention the mental game of only having a single candidate on the ballot, and being forced to remove, not elect them. Add to that the fear of retribution, and your democracy is just more feudalism with extra steps.
    2
  24.  @willnitschke  "A worker co-op in a Capitalist economy is not Socialism" Explain to me how a worker cooperative is privately owned. "What they don't want is Socialism" Good, because they don't have socialism. Isn't that convenient. "And there is no individual ownership" Yes, that is how cooperative ownership works. Imagine that. "so being a worker in a worker co-op has no actual value to the person working there" Do you know what a dividend is? How about the value of the vote? Come on Will, you live in a nation where voting in mandatory and you want to tell me that voting has no value?
    2
  25.  @willnitschke  "There are no shares." Yes there are. Equal shares, one per employee. "Except your ideology pretends to advocate for democracy, requires giving unlimited economic power to government" Except we're talking about worker cooperatives, which are not government. In fact within businesses owners already have 100% unlimited power. They are tyrants of their own domain. So thanks for arguing against capitalism. "They are not owned by individuals, hence individuals own nothing." They are owned collectively by the workers. "Who owns the national bus service? Can you identify the owner?" Owners, plural. It is owned collectively by all of the people within society, and managed by their elected representatives. "I mean, you can't show up at a bus depot and take a bus for a spin." Wait, do you think if you have shares in a company you can just show up and use their stuff? Do you think having Apple stock mean you can fly over to their offices and use their computers? Shares never give you the ability to just do whatever you want. They instead allow you to vote on the direction of the company. That's just how shares work. The only difference between publicly traded shares and worker cooperative shares is the method used to obtain those shares. Everything else about them is identical. "Does it confuse you that things can exist that aren't "owned" by someone?" You're just confusing yourself now. I mean seriously, your argument is that some businesses don't have owners. That's ridiculous. "There are no dividends, 99.9% of the time." Source? "There is no "tyranny" working at a business. You can just get another job if you don't like it." Don't worry. If you don't like working for someone who has absolute power over your working life you can always leave and work for someone else...who also has absolute power over your working life. "If an employer does something truly reprehensible, then there exist workplace laws to protect working people anyway." Depends on the country really, but thank you for agreeing that regulations enacted by a democratically elected government are essential to protecting workers. "I'm not "for" or "against" imaginary things, any more than I am for or against unicorns." Scotland will be very upset to hear that. "Yet the Far-Left always creates dictatorships in the real world 100% of the time." The left is literally incapable of making a dictator as dictatorships require anti-democracy. As I said, the right-wing is anti-democracy. They are anti-democracy in both government and in business.
    2
  26.  @ExPwner  It's like Billy just said: "if you piss the boss off, you can't be fired? Or the boss can't order you around" "And even if the boss just decides you piss him off and he wants to make your life hell, what do you actually think you can do about it?" Sounds plenty tyranical to me.
    2
  27.  @willnitschke  Wait, do you think trickledown works? BAHAHAHAHA!!!
    2
  28.  @ExPwner  Quick, engage in whataboutism. Meanwhile: The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich Hope, David and Limberg, Julian "We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The size of the effect is substantial: on average, each major tax cut results in a rise of 0.8 percentage points in top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term. Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich in both the short and medium term."
    2
  29.  @ExPwner  Yes, in a conversation about trickledown, mentioning trickledown is whataboutism 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    2
  30. @willnitschke  Almost as if they accounted for other factors. Maybe you should read the study. Honestly makes me laugh when you get all whiney because your worldview has been shattered.
    2
  31. @ExPwner  Their point was that not only did the top earners see lower taxes, they also saw increased pre-tax income. But I love that you reference people being poorer, because it isn't saying that the economy grew and their income grew as a result. It says that they had a larger share of the total income within the economy. If they have a larger share, then everyone else has a smaller share. In other words you are literally asking why I would be upset over growing income inequality.
    2
  32.  @ExPwner  Here, just to help you understand how much a 0.8% point shift is in total income share: The top 1% of earners in 1979 took in 7.3% of total income earned. A 0.8% shift would increase their income from 7.3% of the total share to 8.1%. That's an 11% increase in total income for top earners.
    2
  33.  @ExPwner  If they lowered taxes for top earners then then post-tax breakdown would also be even less equal. And again, it was not more or less income. It was a larger share of total income. The study literally says there was zero economic growth from cuts, so yes, it literally is a zero sum game. You are literally advocating for the rich having more money at the expense of everyone else.
    2
  34. @ExPwner  22% was in 2022. That was among record profits, after the pandemic. The year before was 14.6%. Of course, why you think it's acceptable that 1% of people are getting 22% of income is very odd. And a 0.8 percentage shift is still an increase of 3.6% income for literally the richest people in the country, with zero economic growth, meaning income will be directly removed from the bottom 99%.
    2
  35. @ExPwner  Except according to the study it is literally a zero sum game. And since they actually researched the economic growth factor it isn't a fallacy at all. They can proclaim it is a zero sum game as they can back up the claim. But I love that you admit you don't have morals. Makes this discussion far more obvious. "People are not equal" said the Nazi.
    2
  36. @ExPwner  Zero economic growth is literally a zero sum game. We get it, you don't think people are equal. This is also why you hate human rights. Please keep referencing the study you clearly didn't understand so I can laugh again. The study that said there was a gap income, you agreed there was a gap income, then you changed position and claimed the study was not measuring labour output, even though you couldn't explain how it was failing to do that 🤣🤣🤣
    2
  37. @ExPwner  Factually was. They were not dividing total GDP. Stop lying
    2
  38. @ExPwner  They don't need to be an authority. That's why they used sources and measurements to actually see the growth. Nope. Next time just read the study rather than relying on the "rich people should be in charge" foundation. You fail again. Oh, and human rights equality is the principle that all people are born free and equal, and are entitled to the same rights and respect. Being against the idea that people are equal is literally against the very principles of human rights.
    2
  39. @ExPwner  Can you give a single example that their measured output differs from your proposed metric?
    2
  40. @ExPwner  Nope, you just said that people aren't equal. Human rights are build on the idea that we are. This makes sense though as you view money as the be all and end all, do of course you think money makes people unequal.
    2
  41. @ExPwner  Capital contributions are an input, not an output. Do you even know what an output is?
    2
  42.  @willnitschke  Good point. Authoritarianism is terrible. We should stay away from that.
    2
  43. Weird you bring up God given rights when the document you are referring to still only allowed land owning men to vote and still had (and has) legal slavery. Maybe we need a better guide for what is and isn't a human right.
    2
  44. ​ @willnitschke  Slaves in the US were privately owned you dolt 😂😂😂😂
    2
  45. @willnitschke  But capitalists didn't have to keep slaves at all. Governments didn't force them to do it, they simply allowed it to happen. Then they banned it. But thanks for admitting that capitalists enriched themselves by owning other people.
    2
  46. @ExPwner  Slavery was the private ownership of other human beings, those human beings were considered capital. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, of which capital is a subset. Not hard to grasp, just an uncomfortable truth you can't ignore.
    2
  47.  @MrFreeman0179  The Azov Batalion was a few dozen Nazis who became an official part of the Ukrainian armed forces and were expanded with thousands of non-Nazi members.
    2
  48.  @MrFreeman0179  WW2 Nazi collaboration against Russia doesn't make someone a Nazi. Finland sided with Nazis too. Russia had controlled their nation for generations.
    2
  49.  @MrFreeman0179  I would argue that imprisoning innocent people and subverting the constitutional protections of the people IS a crime.
    2
  50.  @MrFreeman0179  Whataboutism doesn't change the point. Try addressing the argument.
    2