Comments by "RadicalRC" (@RadicalRC) on "Developing Nuclear Fusion in a Basement with a Reclusive Gunsmith" video.

  1. Communism controls everything by force and dictate.  Exchanging favor for availability of favor is Capitalism.  Transacting by voluntary exchange (Capitalism) simple means there is no force involved.  I do hope the giant collective does not crash down on his dreams and ruin his life.  The hysterical leftists nitwits often do that over the kind of science mentioned.  I am for Liberty.
    20
  2. Socialists in Germany killed 6 million for the "greater good".  Stalin killed 10 million was it?  for what?  For the ideology.  Kim Jon Il? What a loon.  Venezuela where the killing has begun?   You people are all the same, Ideology before human life.  Deny the blood afterwards.  After all, you've never been given the "proper chance" to fully install your hateful ideology and kill us all.
    6
  3. Oh, obviously.  You blame communists 10 million killed under Stalin as the fault of "a conservative state".   You leftists think everybody is stupid.  Every problem of socialism/communism/collectivism is the fault of "conservatives".   Keep blaming the failures of your system on Liberty.  The fools will continue to follow.   I judge the ideology. I don't choose what you identify as.  You can identify as a piece of oak of you wish.  I am for Liberty.  All alternatives are slavery and subjugation.  Evil in the extreme.  I am for Liberty.
    6
  4. Is that all you have Harald?  I'd happily review any actual comments on the subject.  I doubt anybody is interested in personal venom.
    3
  5. You confuse Communism with voluntary cooperation.  If there is no element of force, it's not Communism.  What you are doing by using the term is attempting to (or inadvertently) cast(ing) a positive light on dark history of communism.  It's like claiming to be good Nazi or a good slave master or the good kind of molester or the good kind of rapist.  Communism is evil.  It cannot co-exist with Liberty. Coercion and force of non-initiators of force against their consent is evil.   If what you do allows for Liberty completely, then you are no Communist in my estimation.  You are free to identify as whatever you want however.  As I am free to consider the merits of such.  I am for Liberty as the highest moral value.   The Liberty to cooperate or not to.  I am for voluntary exchange.  I am for Liberty.
    3
  6. Thank you for the link.  I did read it.   I contend "From each according it his ability. to each according to his need" is simply an establishment of slavery.  When one person is stripped of the results of their production for the use and disposal of another, he has become that persons slave.   Indisputably, a child is born into a debt of production for the purposes of other persons. How many societies do we have to establish of this nature before we realize that people only produce maximally for themselves.   They simply lay down their tools, only making what they themselves need if the surplus is stolen for another's purposes.    Will it take another 500 years? A need is not a claim.  Claims put upon people without their consent can only be enforced with violence or threat of same.  While the promise of free access to the larder is very attractive to many, it simply leads immediately to non-production.
    3
  7. Philip Hartmann I'm pulling for him.  An exciting mind and a productive purpose.  An Atlas among men.  May the Wesley Mouch's of this world be ridiculed out of his path.  I am for Individual Liberty.  His Liberty to proceed with his dreams.
    3
  8. I am for Liberty.  That means many things.  One of them is you may define yourself in any way you choose.  My interest is philosophical.  I regard all ideologies as equal which seek to rationalize the initiation of force against those who would force no one.  You did not define "communism" in the context of your comments.  I have owned expensive items in partnership (communally) with others.  You may include that under the heading of commun-ism.  I have no idea.  I would consider it (for myself) a voluntary exchange.  There is no loser if nobody is forced. If you do in fact believe in Liberty (the ability to peruse one's interests unhindered and not injuring of others) then It would be difficult for me to think of you as "Communist" which is historically an ideology of force.   We may or may not agree.  I really don't know.   I am for Liberty (as defined above).  You can be for whatever and identify as whatever you want.
    2
  9. channelchannel Very well stated.  Because people share property or labor communally does not make it communism.  It's the involuntary nature that makes it communist.  While it's the voluntary nature of things that make them an exchange under Liberty.  Thank you for a well put argument.
    2
  10. Kugel Blitz Capitalism is very simply stated voluntary exchange.  I reject all attempts the left make to describe their failures as failures of capitalism.  I'm sure if I looked into the situation you mention, the government was meddling around, licensing and all the rest of the socialist baloney before the failure. Voluntary exchange is a moral imperative.  The only alternative to voluntary exchange is involuntary exchange.   Involuntary exchange is slavery.  Slavery is immoral regardless of the increment.
    2
  11. channelchannel You have me correct.   I would state it as such.  The initiation of force is evil except against those who would or have initiated force.   This moral imperative separates the violent from the non-violent.  The warring from the peaceful.  
    2
  12. ***** "Capitalist competition yields monopolies....." Monopolies are created and maintained by government.  It's socialism for businessmen. The only non government created monopoly I can identify is Debeers.  Your argument is debased by the faulty foundation.  Monopolies only exist by aid and force of governments.
    2
  13. Harald Husum If you were right, you'd have provided a few indisputable commonly known and recognized examples.  Are you wrong or too impotent to respond intelligently?  Monopolies are a result of government force, not a common or long lived part of the marketplace.   
    2
  14. I never said I was Libertarian.  You did.  You will have to defend that claim, not me.  I will defend only my claims.  Thank you for admitting that government is the reason for for monopolies. (that there are no significant market examples) Lets neuter the force that creates them shale we?
    2
  15. Since it seems they do not exist without the aid of government, since you've acknowledged the same to be more or less true, why must I prove anything?   I cannot prove the existence of a ghost.  It's mythology.  Who can prove mythology?  They don't exist in any significance, we agree, there is no argument. I too was victim of a public education by leftists.  I overcame it.  You can overcome it also.  The basics of the scientific method are in play here.  No man may be called upon to prove a negative.  You prove positives.  I say they don't exist (statistical significance), you say they do.  You are making the positive claim.  It is up to you to prove the positive.  Nobody with even the most basic high school science class is fooled into proving negatives.   If you can think of one, name it.  Tell me how it became a monopoly without the force of government.  Please choose a company that is well known that I can research online.  I'm not traveling to Jackassistan to investigate the local monopoly Cobbler. If you can not then you've conceded the argument to me a second time.   It's no big deal, if we met you'd probably find we agree on more than we disagree.  It's knowing the truth that maters, not who is correct.  I love being proven wrong.  When I'm proven wrong, I learn something, I modify my ideology and I advance through the day less a fool.  It's fantastic! Understand, there are still men running those huge companies you can hate.  You can hate them because they enlisted the power and force of government to use Liberty and money taken by force from others in order to get ahead.  You can hate them because they initiated force against their fellow man for personal gain.   Where we disagree is the corporate haters hate them because they are big.  This is irrational.  You should despise that the power and force of government used to make them big, used to protect them from a free market.  Anybody will grow large protected from the free market.  Of course.  It's obvious.  It's the ideology that I hate.  The ideology that it is moral to enlist force and violence through government for personal gain.  It's what I hate about socialism.  The force is evil regardless of the wealth of the man who enlists it.  It is the initiation of force that we both hate. Now, consider the hypocrisy of hating others benefiting from government force but seeking to increase it for yourself.  You and I, we are not nearly as far apart as you think. To the degree a man enlists force against Liberty, I am against him.  That includes individuals and corporations.  To the degree a man (or company) lives voluntarily, deriving his means from voluntary interactions with other people, I am for him.   All involuntary exchange of goods and services is slavery.  I am for complete voluntary exchange.
    2
  16. Harald Husum You intend to convince the reader you can prove a negative "you know nothing about the history of communism."  You're lack of logical rebuttal suggests you seek only to appeal to those incapable of meaningful intelligence.
    2
  17. CarvingArtdotcom  If I could give you 40 thumbs up I would.  A very rational response.  Isn't it amazing what you have to explain to people?  Also, isn't it amazing how people will leap to conclusions aligning with their own bias.  The fusion hero we are all rooting for is a very intelligent and interesting man.  He uses the word "Communist" in a way that makes them think he is "like them", a communist (or sympathizer) wishing to gain a living collected by state force and violence from the backs of masses.  They presume he's some kind of anti capitalist like them who wishes to rob every productive person of every accumulated value they as theirs entitlement.  They leap to defend what they view as ground gained redefining the historic results of the evil they wish to impose on their fellow man.  I would suspect (with you) his leanings are quite a bit more peaceful and voluntary.  I would wager he is a lover of Liberty.  Communism cannot exist with Liberty just as a turd cannot exist in edible food.  I do not speak for him nor would I ever.  Thank you for thinking and standing for Liberty.
    2
  18. CarvingArtdotcom I agree, the communists here defending him for what he didn't mean have no intention of moving to where the job of Liberty's destruction is complete.  They are here to destroy her, to destroy you an me.
    2
  19. Mike Miller You seek to redefine a voluntary agreement between two people as involuntary.  Nobody reading this is that stupid.  You wish to work, accept the pay as agreed, then claim whatever you wish of your employers property as rightfully belonging to yourself.  You wish to establish slavery over other people.  You wish to make a claim against another person collect from them your desires.   Pure evil.  There are no justifications of slavery you will be capable of making me accept.   Those who make agreements then seek to change them are fraudsters.  Initiators of force.  Pure evil.
    2
  20. Mike Miller This has to be most ignorant remark ever: "Capitalism uses the same strategy as Cancer does with the same results. "    Lets see, cancer is rapidly replicating cells of no productive value to the human body.  A destructive process. Capitalism creates products and services and provides voluntary access to those goods and services to those who want to use them.   One thing kills you, the other makes the computer you're talking to me on and the automobile you drive to the welfare office.  Of  course.  These are the same things.  You're making useless worthless ignorant conversation.  It's cancer.  Exactly.  Brought to me by your participation in Capitalism (unless you stole the computer).   Did your parents have any children that lived?
    2
  21. Mike Miller "Capitalism is profiting off anothers labor (theft)." Defining "profiting" as "theft" has no purpose if not to slice throats and recover what has been stolen.   I know this is complex for you, but not for the reader. Your argument is not rational.  It's a wish.  It's a fantasy. It's a religion.  You want access to what others have.  You'll use force to get it.  You're advocating for force and violence.   Evil.
    2
  22. CarvingArtdotcom Thank you for being a maker.  A producer.  A person who adds wealth to the world.  An Atlas.
    2
  23. Julian Caldwell I wouldn't be surprised if he does.   Seems like a cool enough guy.
    2
  24. The initiation of force against any individual who would not or has not initiated force against another individual is immoral in the extreme.  Most moral theories are simply rationalization of the direct use of force from one angle of attack or another to gain compensation off the backs of others against their will.  To the degree they use force, I am against them.
    1
  25. Harald Husum Harald, what is impersonal property?  The establishment of communism will never guarantee everybody wealth.  Without person gain as an incentive, people simply do not produce.  Look at the long poverty of Russia and East Germany.  Oh, the ruling elite live just fine.  They control everything to their self interest just fine.  The extremely violent view "the greater good" is  used throughout history to enslave and hurt people.  It's the ultimate justification to cede power to those wishing to be ruling elites.  You're simply trading in a group of people that citizens trade with voluntarily for a group of people that deal non-voluntarily.  (you're exchanging capitalists for iron fist'd rulers who will make you comply) If communism is so good, why does it need to be forced on people?  
    1
  26. Harald Husum "The problem with that statement, is that it can be used to justify just about anything."  What evil could the non aggression principle possibly be used to justify?  
    1
  27. Harald Husum Communists define aggression as people trading voluntarily.  If one person does such a good job that they get the lions share of the business, then they grow rich and have been made rich by some sort of spooky evil.  We'll call that evil "Voluntary Exchange" or Capitalism.  They've been made rich by their fellow man making choices in the affirmative towards them.   That's right people.  They've been made rich by Liberty and choice of people.   Cattle should never be allowed to make choices.  If you don't want to be livestock without choices, lets ridicule them into the dark ages now.
    1
  28. You can't answer. You support an ideology that exists only by force.   Force is evil.  
    1
  29. Harald Husum My claims stand.  I offer ridicule for the claims socialists make on the lives of others.  No mater what the excuse, it is never for the greater good to press people you don't like onto trains.   It's never good to starve them out. The socialist Pol Pot was working for the evile of "greater good" as he was killing school teachers and everybody with glasses or any education.   Socialist paradise.  Great for the tomb stone engraver but nobody else.
    1
  30. I see no straw men. You are unable to quote a claim I cannot defend.  I wish you would.  It's how I tune up and perfect my philosophy.  You provide me no challenges.  Boring.
    1
  31. Harald Husum You will not be held accountable for the mistakes of others yet you wish to hold others accountable for services.  You enlist the force of the state to hold others responsible for your requirements.  Of course.
    1
  32. ***** I refuse to believe there is any ideology of force that is one of Liberty.  Communist Libertarian indeed.
    1
  33. ***** I didn't initiate the suffix "ism" into the conversation.  There is nothing immoral about helping each other or forming a collective to get a job done or build a park or whatever you want to do. What is evil is when a collective uses force to strip from the backs of people in a non-voluntary fashion it's needs.  That is what "Communism" does.  Communism cannot whitewash away the millions of starved and murdered with "new" definitions.  Using force on people who have forced no one is evil regardless of how the slavery is excused.  I am for Liberty.
    1
  34. ***** A non violent movement encouraging people to pass through this world without force, to live without coercion, without forcing others into involuntarily servitude would never include in it's description of volunteerism and cooperation "Communism".  While an individual man may miss-use this description not appreciating it's complete pure evil, it's complete rejection of Liberty, it's complete opposition to any Libertarian value, a movement cannot.  I will not accept any attempt to whitewash or find the good side of Communism or it's socialist kindred Nazism.  These are ideologies which rationalize the use of force and mass murder to establish utopia.  These ideologies teach an individual's purpose and duty to be a sacrificial animal to the collective regardless of personal choice.  These ideologies seek to take the personal choices of some and use force to impose them on others.  These rationals for stealing the lives of people to be burned for the purposes of a few ruling elites are to be rejected and ridiculed by men of reason. Leaving room for such ideas upon the stage of reason is an egregious dis-service to the highest potential of man.  Ridiculing them is a distinct kindness to mankind. I am for Liberty.  (This statement should not be interpreted to to imply acceptance of any duty to defend all things described as Libertarian. The intention is simply respect of most Libertarian values as generally pulling in the right direction.)
    1
  35. Carboncluster Why is using force on people, making them a slave to produce for others, why is this immorality better in a smaller setting than a larger one?  It's evil at all times.  That is what Communism is.  I'm not opposed to people working together to achieve things.  I'm for voluntary cooperation.  I'm opposed to the evil of Democracy when it's used to rationalize guns being held to one group to make them supply the needs of others.   Democracy is fine to choose leaders perhaps.  But, it's a high evil when it's used to decide who is made the slave of who.  For what is a person who has the results of their production taken away for the use and disposal of others?   A slave exactly.  Do you think a life that depends on the threat of violence from the state to obtain your needs is peaceful?
    1
  36. alex manatu After what?  120 million murders by communists over how many chances to get it right?  Hmmm, I'm very sure I'm going to deny you sanction to try again.  Slaves are fed, housed, medicated and clothed by masters.  Look at history and do not insult the intelligence of even the below average people by making that ignorant argument again.   I would respect you more if you didn't believe that when you wrote it than if you did.  I deny you sanction.  I am for Liberty.
    1
  37. Q Bert Yea, Libertarian Communist.  Exactly.  Nobody is disputing the words he used.  You're falling off the end of the conversation I think.  Grab on,  you can keep up.  Only systems that are fully free, fully voluntary are capitalist.  As soon as you introduce Crony Socialism, it's no longer based on voluntary cooperation. Licenses, government funding, protected markets and all that collectivist monopoly creating force.  That's all socialist controlling business.   That is what we have today.  Crony Socialism.  Who said anything about tea?  I'm so far to the right of most groups I passed GO and collected my $200 already.  In fact, you're voice is off in the distance.  It's hard to detect from here.   Loved that game.  Used to collect video games but never could find a stand up Q'Bert at the auctions.  Great game.  Frustrating!  We'll chosen moniker I'm sure.
    1
  38. Harald Husum I don't remember ever visiting your channel.  Why are you replying to me in my thread.  Please forgive if there is a mental deficiency I am unaware of.
    1
  39. I am for Liberty.
    1
  40. Harald Husum I am for Liberty.
    1
  41. Harald Husum Actually, far to the right of right.
    1
  42. Mike Miller How is profit equal to theft?  Without profit how does a baker obtain a bigger oven to produce more food?   How does an auto manufacturer accumulate the equipment required to make automobiles which liberated us from the buggy?  If you as a human cannot produce a profit, a value higher than your cost of existence, how is it that you buy your own home?   Is every lawn service who hires a kid for his first job, who puts time into that child teaching them how to work effectively, how to follow instructions, how produce a quality lawn cutting.  Is every one of these people thief?  If nobody accumulated equipment and materials, we'd still be cutting the grass with a scythe or perhaps pulling the weeds by hand.  I do not wish to live in this Stalinist world where we all starve to death in order to rid the world of meaningful production.  In order to rid the world of the results of profit which is wealth. The poverty of socialist ideology sucks.
    1
  43. Mike Miller "How do you measure evil's purity?" In the crucible of the Non Aggression Principle.  The initiation of force against those who force no one is evil.  You seek to control others.  Communism, Marxism, these are forms of pure control.  To the degree a person claims the right to force others to their own purposes they are evil.  Slavery is so old fashioned.   " Rock paper scissors? One potato two potato? Inee meenee minie moe ?   " An excellent example of a straw man.  Does this mean you are at the end of your capacity to make logical arguments?
    1
  44. Mike Miller I appreciate and recognize your sacrifice of surrender you acknowledge with name calling.  Thank you.
    1
  45. Mike Miller I consider the kindness of ridiculing ignorance a moral imperative.  Certainly the terms "loving", "kind", "honest", "peaceful", "non-violent" and "trustworthy" do not apply to any would be slavery beneficiary?  Do you wish me to use such terms to sooth shame?  I'd rather yank the rug off the sewer.
    1
  46. Please describe one or two of them in detail.   
    1
  47. I'm not surprised you were rewarded with a visit.  I'm glad you survived it Liberty intact.  Usually these types keep you on their radar and are unlikely to leave you alone now.  Each of them has an incentive to get a big resume score at your expense.  One of the rewards of collectivism.
    1
  48. Tori Gonzalez He's experimenting, not generating.  He's a steely eyed missile man with eyes on a distant horizon.....
    1
  49. Outstanding.  Can't wait for the special.
    1
  50. Enforcers presume intent for the purposes of creating enforcement opportunities. The defense of Liberty foremost in their oaths but furthest from consideration when resume' enhancement is the actual goal. There exists an ongoing effort to license and sell back to us every capacity and natural right possible.  It's how we are harnessed to the machine. It's how we are forced into keeping our wise overlords in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.  Any expanse in the capacity of the man must be outlawed and licensed back.  Control and profit.  The replacement of Liberty with controllers.
    1