Comments by "Crazy Eyes" (@CrizzyEyes) on "John Stossel" channel.

  1.  @NithinJune  That's the mentality our government and many employers have. If that's really what you think, then veterans shouldn't have a right to raise a family either. Why have a family if you can't protect them and they can't protect themselves from someone else with a gun? Seems reckless to me.
    22
  2. It's the same with asking the minimum wage to be raised to $15. You think everyone will keep their jobs and be paid $15 an hour now? No, half will be cut and the other half will be replaced with automated systems that have been in R&D for the past 5 years in preparation for this policy change.
    7
  3. In fairness, at least here in Texas, the assessment of a home for taxes drastically undershoots the real market value.
    7
  4.  @markwoods1530  It's virtually impossible to prove the motive of an employer for refusing a hire. In reality, employers discriminate hiring based on age, sex, religion, and ethnicity all the time, even though it's been illegal for almost 60 years. Fun fact: frivolously suing employers also tends to be really bad for your job prospects.
    6
  5.  @libertariantranslator1929  Maybe in the past, but that party, too, has seemingly been co-opted, at least on the federal level. Gary Johnson was not an appealing candidate
    3
  6. This is why no one takes lolbergs seriously now. Borders and sovereignty are the bare minimum needed for a nation to function
    3
  7. ​@TheSimba86 The government has to get money from somewhere. We already had this argument in the 1780s. Property tax is far and away preferable to income tax which is a relatively recent demon.
    3
  8.  @PeterGriffin-in5ut  Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't really pan out. People just don't have enough empathy for each other to make sure that their own employees and subordinates are treated appropriately. Not to mention the massive issues with anti-competitive and trust forming. The issue with laissez-faire capitalism is that the successful companies have every incentive to influence and change the market to make it ANTI-capitalist. They will steal trade secrets, intimidate their opponents, etc. Otherwise they would have to deal with more competition which makes their own lives harder. The government is not perfect but neither are CEOs. We need some regulation in order to at least make it more difficult for a successful company to undermine the whole point of the capitalist system, which is fair competition that yields a superior product and superior working conditions.
    3
  9.  @WinginWolf  I'd be more terrified of feds than local. That's why we have a federated government to begin with -- it is based upon the idea that governments closer to their citizens are more effective. Marginally perhaps, but it's easier to hold your mayor accountable than your senator.
    3
  10.  @orppranator5230  Even more ironic, the police may have created a new criminal in the process. They're lucky the print shop owner didn't turn to some kind of illegal activity out of desperation.
    3
  11.  @30803080308030803081  Many careers take a huge emotional toll on the person working them, doesn't mean they're illegal. In fact mental wellness is mostly ignored in this society. If you're mentally unstable people just avoid you.
    2
  12. I work in software and (ironically) I am visually impaired, to the degree that I cannot drive a car. I would be fascinated to know how many jobs the ADA has prevented me from getting due to skittish employers. I have to imagine it is at least a few, considering how many interviews went well, yet were followed by no calls.
    2
  13. b-b-but the anecdotes are totally worth giving my child stunted development!
    2
  14.  @leonidfro8302  Blaming the citizens isn't productive, especially when those "citizens" frequently haven't been in the US for more than a few years, if that. It would be ridiculous to expect someone from South America to understand US history and values.
    2
  15. I was fortunate enough to have a high school teacher who showed a few of his videos in class
    2
  16. AI is just the next step in automation. It is inevitable in taking steps toward a post-scarcity society. The type of thing you see in Star Trek where you push a button and get whatever you want, whenever you want. It will be a painful step, no denying that. Lots of people will lose their jobs. But, unless living a life as a woodsman appeals to you (and no judgement if it does), there's not much reason to avoid or fight against it. We must educate ourselves with the knowledge to make informed decisions about which products to use and which companies to support. Don't buy cars that can be remotely shut off or controlled by unseen actors, for example. It is possible, and it's a lot easier than trying to fight the implementation of AI as a whole.
    2
  17.  @markwoods1530  Until recently, in Germany, it was legal to ask for a photo of the applicant for a job interview (didn't matter which job) and almost all of them did. One of the most bizarre economic policies I ever heard about.
    2
  18.  @BuddyLee23  It would be better in the long term. The public perception of police is at an all time low. Lack of accountability feeds back into that. Make them accountable, people will feel better about the cops, and young people will want to become cops again. If you're a naïve kid who wants to do good by the world, and you become convinced that the cops don't do any good, then you won't become a cop.
    1
  19.  @PassengersMusic777  Criminals usually can't pay. The only alternative is to increase their sentence, but then the literal buck would be passed on to the government -- they would still have to pay the victimized bystander on behalf of the criminal.
    1
  20.  @Marin3r101  As much as I believe insurance is a scam, it doesn't really make sense for an insurance company to bear the burden of government action. The government is perfectly capable of paying; make them pay. Maybe it will make the police reconsider firing 30 grenades in your place of business. This isn't Iraq, it shouldn't be treated as such. What you're describing is only a band-aid solution to the real problem. That is to say, insurance companies litigating the government. That should not even be necessary to begin with, and only wastes more time and money. Except for that of the greedy lawyers' of course.
    1
  21.  @barryUFF  NASA has manipulated their graphs for temperature change per annum. This is an indisputable fact. They shifted the numbers higher as the years approach modern day, while keeping a similar form-factor for the line formed by the data points. This makes it appear as though the world is warming at historic rates when it reality it is not much different to how it was in the 19th century. I would provide you a source, but mysteriously, they keep disappearing when I revisit the issue. The reality is, we only have a very small sample size of yearly temperature averages -- less than 200 years -- and we know, as an absolute fact, that the Earth's temperature can change drastically for reasons totally beyond any of our control. The burden of proof to show that we are the ones causing it is absolutely massive. It cannot be overstated how hard scientists need to work to prove that we are causing the Earth to warm to temperatures never-before-seen (which, based on other evidence besides temperature graphs about years that came before the 19th century, we have not even reached yet)
    1
  22.  @secretbassrigs  Not everyone needs a degree. It's really that simple. Some are simply blessed with the talent and resourcefulness to not need it. Alternatively, some fields of study simply aren't as hard as profiteering educators would have you believe.
    1
  23. ​ @userhome3601 Yes. It's a constant struggle. The rich always strive for control to make themselves richer and the form of government is of no particular importance. It has been a constant throughout history. Objectively speaking, dynastic monarchy is better for stopping businessmen from taking control, but obviously that has its own serious problems. The only thing we know is that capitalism has allowed the poor to elevate themselves, not just the rich, although it gets harder with each passing generation and the ground gained by our forefathers vanishes.
    1
  24. In a more authoritarian society, your neighbor is likely to rat you out to the police for the most insignificant of crimes because they believe it will somehow get them favors. There's little to no real unity there. You can't achieve unity through an iron fist, unless you want the people to unite against your own administration.
    1
  25. Well, yes, but that's called a Loki's Wager. Anyone could tell the difference between a president like John F. Kennedy, and Trump or Biden, but you make it seem like they're equally as corrupt.
    1
  26. I work in software, despite the fact that I have a visual disability that makes it nearly impossible for me to drive (I don't, in case you were wondering). Sometimes I wonder how many times I was denied a job because of my disability. There were quite a few interviews that went swimmingly, yet I received no call after the fact.
    1
  27. @@stevel6660 With all due respect, your lack of voting means that you are partly responsible for that now. In other words, you should have voted when you could. But that only applies to a system working as intended, which this one is not. The taxation = theft line of reasoning is, frankly, a little too reductive and immature. Society requires compromise, and authority is one of those compromises. Unless you want to live in a village of about 200 people, which is the average number of people that the neocortex can support (in other words, the most people you could genuinely care about in your mind). A society based on donations to support infrastructure could work, but it would have to be extremely selective of who it lets in. Good luck getting that to fly in the modern zeitgeist. Your borders would be broken down by paid actors from foreign entities, masquerading as "innocent migrants." It is a moot point anyway. There are no unsettled lands, with reasonable means of living, left on this earth, and the lawless lands are abused by the lawless. You wouldn't live in the Republic of Congo because the lack of law there is an illusion of freedom; really, you are just waiting to be abused by some war band of men with cast-off weapons of war. Real freedom requires great sacrifice, whether that be in your own time cultivating and renovating a remote piece of land far away from the eyes of tyrants, or the sacrifice of blood in a revolution. The fact that you are posting on a YouTube comment section, like me, suggests that you aren't truly doing everything you can to be free, and neither am I. That's the nature of compromise.
    1
  28.  @joshhigdon4951  I think most would disagree on preferring to pay sales tax, because most young people do not own property. That's what I was getting at. If income tax were abolished, suddenly every gen Z/alpha person would only be paying sales tax to the government. People like me would still pay property tax, but I'd be fine with it since I too would not have to pay income tax. I don't know if that solution is the most effective, but it helps the people who need it more: those who can't even afford to own a home. It made more sense when voting was also tied to property ownership, so by owning a home you pay taxes, but you also get to vote. It used to be a trade-off.
    1
  29.  @guyforlogos  Let's not pretend income tax doesn't also increase.
    1
  30.  @josealexi5141  True, can't argue with that. But what I mean is that even if we weren't sending boatloads of money to Israel and NATO and other expenses, tax would still have to be paid.
    1
  31.  @josealexi5141  So we can have a standing army and roads. It's really not that complicated. I've seen what private companies do to roads here in Texas. Put tolls on all of them, and then lobby against public transit. It's quite annoying if you're disabled and can't drive, but most people don't care.
    1
  32.  @guyforlogos  Why'd you bring up a laundry list of other taxes if not to make property tax seem like the straw that breaks the camels back?
    1
  33.  @josealexi5141  People like you make it hard to be conservative, but I take solace in knowing that you're 50 or older 90% of the time and I'll just outlive your annoying opinions.
    1
  34.  @josealexi5141  So you're a Democrat... who doesn't care about disabled people or infrastructure...
    1
  35.  @richdudley257  Yep. Then after that we can get rid of alcohol. And gambling. And video games... Hmm. What else can we be addicted to? Oh yeah, sex! There should be government mandated times when it is acceptable to have sex solely for the purposes of procreation. Then finally everyone who has an addictive personality will stop being addicted to things. Right? There will always be people whose lives are ruined by addiction. Thing is we'd be better off, even potential addicts, if narcotics were legalized. Regulation and tracking would increase, studies and knowledge on said drugs would increase. Criminal organizations would be weakened. There would be no more illicit pill pushers in school or on the street who could tempt kids into buying their drugs solely because they want to make money. Demand would therefore decrease. Of course, legal companies could push them, but then they could be held liable -- they can't hide like drug dealers can. Even if you took the Duterte approach and killed drug dealers indiscriminately, more will take their place. It happens all the time in Mexico right now. The only difference is the killers are usually opponent cartels, not the state.
    1
  36. It's eye-opening that this system is basically like YouTube's content ID system, except instead of scanning for copyrighted property, it searches for "red flag" wrong-think names and terms, like Shellenberger. Either way, it clearly did not pass by human eyes on the first round.
    1
  37. Murray deals in facts. He provided statistics and implied, "This is a problem. What are we going to do about it?" The problem does not necessarily have to do with genetics. The solution, for young liberal arts majors, is to stick their heads in the sand and scream. There was no ideology attached to his book.
    1
  38.  @dadofducks  You have cause and effect backwards. A person who has a functional life has no need, or time, for heroin. But they almost certainly drink alcohol -- you know, that drug everyone does that magically does not persuade functional people everywhere to become heroin addicts somehow. Hmm, total mystery there. By the same logic marijuana, or any other physically un-addictive drug, does not persuade anyone to become opioid drug addicts. The person who becomes a heroin addict was already a wreck to begin with, and they were looking for an exit to escape some trauma or terrible feelings in their life. Or worse, they were prescribed a certain addictive drug by their doctor and are unable to wean themselves off it, like morphine. But those drugs are legal so they're okay, right?
    1
  39. You have it backwards. We're sending kids to die in wars.
    1
  40. Believe it or not one of his features was shown in my high school history class. I was awestruck at the time as a naive teenager. "He seems like a conservative but he's not a massive blowhard like Hannity or O'Reilly. How is this possible?"
    1
  41.  @minimalistic_banhaus  You don't need legal training to read a bill. Many representatives in Congress aren't "legally trained."
    1
  42.  @peaceful3250  Another thing that goes unmentioned is that a big reason that Nordic countries rank low on the "loneliness" spectrum is that those people are genuinely happier with fewer relationships. They are probably "objectively lonelier" than other nations in the sense that they have fewer regular interactions with people but it doesn't make them as unhappy. I've known a few Finns and other Nordic people. Norway, Sweden and Finland are nations with not very hospitable terrain that makes it difficult to get places. The Finnish invented IRC, probably the oldest real time chat protocol that was available on the world wide internet, to allow them to socialize while snowed in. The US is very large, and kids are encouraged to move out and buy their own house, so Americans don't visit each other that often. It's kind of become a part of those nations' respective cultures.
    1
  43.  @billw219  You could always raid their station, like the GIs did in '46. Athens, Tennessee. Check it out.
    1
  44.  @timl9724  Voting has meaning as long as everyone agrees that it does. That agreement falls apart over time, which many of the founders predicted. They assumed that violent conflict would be necessary from time to time.
    1
  45. That's actually even more absurd than similar policies in the US. China limits the amount of children a family can have, so the risk of accommodating the woman during pregnancy is much smaller. Not to mention the fact that married couples go most of their marriage without being pregnant.
    1
  46. @ Unless you're being hired as a waitress for Hooters, appearance is completely irrelevant to almost any career.
    1
  47.  @rispatha  Taxation without representation was a massive issue, though. It can't really be understated. It was also the fact that many of the rights written in our Constitution were violated whenever the Crown's own men would come to the colonies. Many people forget about the 3rd amendment, but that was a real and current issue at the time; British soldiers would demand hospitality in strangers' homes and it was legal.
    1
  48.  @rispatha  OK, I wanted to have a meaningful discussion with you, not have a "I'm older than you so my opinion matters more" dick-waving contest. Never mind, if my comment offends you that greatly.
    1
  49.  @1pcfred  "druggies have no disease. They're just wasteos. They're weak willed individuals that have let the drugs take them over." Huh. That's actually something I agree with. What's utterly baffling is that you conclude based on this that the drug is the problem and not the person taking them, and still advocate for narcotics to be illegal.
    1
  50.  @KingaMoor  It's normal now, but it shows a deep-seated insecurity of being ostracized for your views and it's completely redundant. It was not normal as recent as two decades ago. If I say "Apples taste good," for example, it's an obviously subjective view. It does not need to be elongated to "I think apples taste good." My teachers even taught us this in my grade school English class -- the difference between a fact and an opinion, just based on the verbiage used. Any intelligent person can extrapolate this idea to politics. Very immature people will take offense to the statement "Apples taste good" because they assume that you are some kind of arrogant malicious actor, who is making the absurd assertion that apples taste objectively good for all people. This fear of ostracization, and the brow-beating of outspoken people, doesn't just apply to important issues either. It's even present in mundane discussions about interests, like movies, games or other hobbies. It makes discussion of almost anything very tedious.
    1