Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "The BEST book I've EVER read on Hitler and National Socialism" video.

Seems like a fairly standard German name
3
This comment was fact checked by diciples of Zitelmann False
2
@charleymount582 This doesn't seem like a definition of state socialism which would apply to anything in reality, since it is impossible for the same scarce item to be directed in mutually exclusive ways by people who disagree on how it should be used. Hence, collective ownership is impossible.
2
@charleymount582 Seems like a very large area covering a large number of people, surely there had to be disagreements over what to do with the goods they had? If so, then one party would have to win this dispute, and they would be the owner rather than the loser. They would not both collectively own it.
2
@charleymount582 Why do you think we need property rights and ownership in the first place?
2
@charleymount582 So it doesn't matter who gets to do what with things?
2
@charleymount582 So we do need some form of property rights?
2
@charleymount582 And why do you think there needs to be this property right?
2
@charleymount582 But what would any of these property rights would matter if both parties in a dispute could direct goods in mutually exclusive ways at the same time?
2
@charleymount582 And why is it Ivan's and not yours as well at the same time?
2
@charleymount582 Is it not possible for someone to co-own something?
2
@charleymount582 So if I co own a car with you, and you wish to drive it to Boston and I wish to drive it to Los Angeles, who wins in that conflict?
2
@charleymount582 Socialism isn't about how resources should be directed?
2
@charleymount582 So socialism has nothing to say if a capitalist directs a capital good how he pleases?
2
@charleymount582 So socialism would say I should be allowed to direct my car?
2
@charleymount582 So socialism is about how resources should be directed?
2
@charleymount582 Never heard of the socratic method?
2
@charleymount582 yep
2
@charleymount582 yep
2
@charleymount582 yep
2
@charleymount582 Let's pick up where we left of:- socoalism doeshave something to say about how resources should be directed?
2
@charleymount582 Now, does socialism say that of there is a dispute over resources, one party must win or both parties can win?
2
@charleymount582 Well, I am a capitalist so you disagree with me on how resources should be directed, so clearly disputes are possible and we require a method to determine who should win them
2
@charleymount582 Right, but sociey consists of individuals who have the capacity to disagree, so what is the algorithm used to determine who should win in these disputes?
2
@charleymount582 So people cannot disagree?
2
@charleymount582 The fact that it cannot be used by anyone; I cannot drive a car to Boston at the same time as you are driving it to Los Angeles. This applies to any material good.
2
@charleymount582 Cars aren't resources?
2
@charleymount582 What's the essential difference between these goods and the capital goods used to make them that they require 2 different principles to determine who should win in a dispute over them? Further, you do not think that even hypothetically, we could own a car in common?
2
@charleymount582 But all these and consumer goods are scarce, so what makes them that different that we cannot have common ownership with the latter but not with the former?
2
@charleymount582 So let's take iron for example: is it possible for the same iron ore to be used as an art piece by one man and smelted into an ingot by another?
2
@charleymount582 But for this gentleman, it has to be the iron ore just after it has been mined. So would socialism mean he would lose this dispute? I am in the process of answering it, I am trying to bring forth an appreciation for the fact of scarcity
2
@charleymount582 But a member of this society would be excluded from the direction of the iron ore to be melted into steel? I am trying to answer your question by using this particular example to show how scarcity implies both parties cannot win a dispute and so a winner, the owner, must be ascertained
2
@charleymount582 scarcity implies both parties cannot win a dispute and so a winner, the owner, must be ascertained
2
@charleymount582 So the man, who is part of the society and the people, has to buy his own property?
2
"If those Marxists could read, they would be very upset."
1
@The Philosoraptor yes I have
1