Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" channel.

  1. ​​ @willnitschke one agree with Sowell. Keep reaching. And yes, gas prices effect a whole range of other goods. Their price skyrocketing due to a global shortage is an issue.
    1
  2. ​ @ExPwner I'm not the one incapable of researching a single interview. It's not a non sequitur. If the claim is that crime increased because of welfare then surely welfare should have continued to cause crime. It did not however.
    1
  3. ​ @ExPwner Sorry that you follow a hack.
    1
  4. ​ @ExPwner Still waiting for you to actually read a Sowell book or watch an interview. His position is incredibly well noted on welfare. It is also false.
    1
  5.  @ExPwner  You mean aside from the books and interviews?
    1
  6. ​ @ExPwner  And other crackpot anarchists that don't understand what a power vacuum is lol.
    1
  7. ​ @willnitschke Because businesses never increase corruption.....
    1
  8. ​ @willnitschke What an illogical argument. Here, let me apply it to literally anything: Government is made up of people...people don't "increase corruption" blah blah blah. Pathetic reasoning. Try harder. Meanwhile companies do indeed act corrupt. Just look at the Sackler family. 100% motivated by greed. Maximised profits as much as they could. Ruined the lives of millions, including children.
    1
  9.  @ExPwner  "In your world a democratic government can do no wrong while a person literally just employing others is evil" Not what I said at all. I said that using Will's exact logic corruption doesn't exist at all. "Face it, you wouldn’t know logic if you were sitting in a course on logic." I used Will's own argument against him. What could be more logical?
    1
  10.  @ExPwner  Lol, okay champ. You keep believing that.
    1
  11.  @ExPwner  Will tried to claim that businesses can't be corrupt because businesses are just people. That exact same logic would apply to literally every single claim of corruption as corruption is done by people. But sure, claim your "win". 🤣🤣
    1
  12.  @ExPwner  "Businesses are made up of people... people don't "increase corruption"" You're a moron.
    1
  13.  @ExPwner  You really are completely blind to the point aren't you.
    1
  14.  @ExPwner  I quoted what he said directly.
    1
  15.  @ExPwner  Yes it was.
    1
  16.  @ExPwner  But his reasoning was that businesses are just people, and people don't increase corruption. That was his entire argument.
    1
  17. ​ @ExPwner It is if you use his logic and apply it to literally everything.
    1
  18. ​ @willnitschke Wow, wrong 3 times in a row. Yes, businesses are capable of far more corruption than an individual would be. Their pooling of wealth allows them to buy off people, and with less government regulation that would only worsen.
    1
  19.  @willnitschke  Glad you're here to not make an argument.
    1
  20. ​ @willnitschke Again, you're just calling yourself out.
    1
  21. ​ @ExPwner Glad even the most basic logical steps allude you. Really puts everything you say in perspective.
    1
  22.  @willnitschke  I'm not the one trying to argue that businesses can't be corrupt. I'm also not the one saying that insults show you are wrong then hurling insults. You really need to stop projecting with all that, you sound very emotional.
    1
  23.  @ExPwner  You're right, Will did say some illogical nonsense. Glad that we agree.
    1
  24.  @willnitschke  You made yourself look foolish Will. Honestly, the claim that businesses cannot be corrupt and cannot cause corruption is just sad.
    1
  25.  @ExPwner  So we agree that businesses can be corrupt.
    1
  26. ​ @ExPwner My original point was that businesses CAN increase corruption. I never said they always do. So according to you, you and Will were fighting a strawman. Cute.
    1
  27.  @ExPwner  You can read my comment for yourself James. Where did I say that businesses equal corruption?
    1
  28.  @ExPwner  Then his entire point was stupid, and not at all relevant to my point. But keep trying to gaslight.
    1
  29.  @willnitschke  You're right, it's stupid because the way James interpreted your argument was nonsensical. What even was your point? I'm sure it was equally dumb, but Indo have to ask.
    1
  30. ​ @willnitschke  That man couldn't destroy a sheet of paper with what he put out, nevermind anyone's ideology, or their religion.
    1
  31.  @ExPwner  I love how salty you are now. You're wrong about all of those and I've proven it a dozen times over.
    1
  32. ​ @ExPwner  Yeah, I addressed it all multiple times. Your definition doesn't even include market socialism.
    1
  33. ​ @willnitschke  Again, production is done by labour. Labour does not EQUAL production. Squares and rectangles mate. You made this mistake already.
    1
  34.  @ExPwner  Right, because all squares are rectangles, but not all rectanges are squares. Production is done by labour, but not all labour is production.
    1
  35. ​ @ExPwner  Nah, it's labour. Materials and machinery are not production, they are simply there to be used by labour when producing things.
    1
  36.  @ExPwner  "wrong because without other things you have no production." So if I dig a hole did I produce a hole or not?
    1
  37. ​ @ExPwner  With nothing. I'll do it with my hands.
    1
  38. ​ @willnitschke  I agree, not all labour is production, but a hole is a product. People do get paid to dig holes Will.
    1
  39. ​ @ExPwner  So you admit it's possible but are now deflecting.
    1
  40. ​ @ExPwner  Again, you are ignoring the fact that I have defined a product with zero capital investment, only labour. If you want I can add "pulling weeds" to the list.
    1
  41. ​ @ExPwner  Yes I did. Stop running James.
    1
  42. ​ @willnitschke  Who said nobody wanted it? Why are you making thing up?
    1
  43. ​ @ExPwner  You disappeared up your own arse. Again, if someone pays me to dig a hole, and I do it bare handed, what capital was used? Here, let's try another one. If someone pays me to pull weeds what capital was used? I have a product (hole digging/weed pulling) and can fulfill deliver that product with my own hands. Can't wait for you to tell me that my own hands are capital goods now.
    1
  44. ​ @ExPwner  So no response, only mimicry. Sad.
    1
  45. ​ @willnitschke  Lol, corporatism is capitalism you child.
    1
  46. ​ @willnitschke  Silly boomer doesn't know what corporatism is it seems. Businesses are privately owned in corporatism. That's capitalism.
    1
  47. ​ @willnitschke  You see how it says alternative? Something cannot be an alternative to socialism while also being socialism. What's funny is corporatism is specifically about giving corporations, as in capitalist owners of said corporations, a say on policy. The New Deal was not a dictated approach to policy, but instead an agreement between businesses and government. So thanks for proving you have no idea what you're talking about lol.
    1
  48. ​ @willnitschke  It doesn't say alternative version of socialism, it says alternative to socialism. Is English not your first language?
    1
  49. ​​ @ExPwner  Of course I admit it. Again, the New Deal was made in cooperation with businesses. Acting like America hasn't always been corporatist capitalism is joke. Even when creating policy that helps workers, they only did so with heavy corporate input. Bigger, more unilateral change, like that of many European nations, was made without businesses getting their shoe quite so hard in the door. Businesses have far too much influence on this nation. Acting like that's socialism is just pathetic. They are privately owned businesses, and that makes it capitalism.
    1
  50. ​ @willnitschke  Worker cooperatives are not private ownership, they are common ownership, as has been explained multiple times to you. Fascism is indeed an alternative to socialism, communism however is not. True communism would be a type of socialism. I can't believe you're getting this upset over your own source calling corporatism separate from socialism. Silly capitalists and their support for corporatism.
    1