Comments by "Aleksa Žunjić" (@aleksazunjic9672) on "The National Socialist Welfare State" video.

Not true. He had lot of vons around him. They did try to ditch him in 1944 to save their own skin. But other than that, old Prussian nobility supported Hitler while he was winning.
8
"Free market" is also a religion. There was never free market in any period anywhere in the world.
7
Other people's money imply that we should all respect property rights. I.e. state should protect property of billionaires, but not take some of that protected property to help the poor. It is simply ludicrous idea by so called free marketers .
7
@matthiuskoenig3378 Billionaires are not perfectly capable of defending their own property, that is why they push the idea of "free market" state 😁 Having private armies was already tried by rich in middle ages, and in the long term is not effective (too many people have nothing to lose, mercenaries are expensive) . This is the reason rich push the idea of "equal protection", which ends up like it does (gated communities vs slums) . Idea of moderate socialism is only thing that brings reasonably stable society - rich would have to pay more, so poor would not be tempted to break their property rights.
6
@robertmartin6800 There were no free markets anywhere anytime . Market by definition requires regulation (or someone would rob you). Regulation require power, and power dictates to markets.
3
@robertmartin6800 Markets do require state control, because what would stop someone from robbing you at gun (sword) point while you sit in the market 🤪 Historically, markets developed not by cooperation of free people, but by protection of a ruler or feudal lord. Such ruler would grant traders right to sell their goods at certain spot, for a fee or share of their gain. And of course, if he did not like what was being sold (for example someone selling weapons to peasants) he would stop such trade. This remains to this day, states do intervene in "free" markets when they deem necessary.
2
@MrRogerogerio As I said before, private armies are expensive 🤪Already tried and is much cheaper for the wealthy to push idea of "free market" state where police would defend mostly them. You said it yourself, police in US mostly patrol rich neighborhoods and criminals get the slap on the wrist if they do not attack someone important and well connected.
2
@MrRogerogerio Private security becomes private army if you need to repel large gang, or large number of smaller gangs. Again, already tried in the past. Billionaires tend to push for a state where their "property rights" are sacred, i.e. state has a duty to protect their wealth. Everything else (education, healthcare, care for elderly ...) could be "voluntary" i.e. state will not be obliged to provide it.
2
Your premise no 3 could be wrong 😁
2
@night6724 Privately they could have hated him as much as they wanted 😁 But in reality they cooperated pretty nicely until 1943,44 when defeat started to loom over horizon . Then they stared distancing themselves, preparing exit strategy. As a class Prussian nobility was very resilient and opportunistic, and they did what was best for them. On the other hand, Hitler kept them around because they were competent in military affairs and some other sectors.
1
Left and right are misused terms. Someone could be extremely nationalistic (right) but also wanting to protect poor, workers etc (left) ... Similarly, we are now ruled by globalists that are not nationalistic at all (left) but would rob a candy from the baby (right) .
1