Comments by "Nanofuture87" (@Nanofuture87) on "Jubilee" channel.

  1.  Sic Semper Tyrannis  No, overreaching government is what's hurting America.
    1
  2.  Sic Semper Tyrannis   The only control that is justified is protecting individual rights. More than that slides into authoritarianism and tyranny. Public education has actually become a vector for socialism.
    1
  3.  Sic Semper Tyrannis  I mean, fascists are against both socialism and capitalism, so simply being against socialism isn't sufficient.
    1
  4. The mass Canadian gun registration program got scrapped after it went way over budget. The US also has national gun registration for certain restricted firearms.
    1
  5. Gun control is a violation of rights. Yes, murder is also a violation and we should take steps to prevent it, but violating the rights of innocent people isn't one of those steps.
    1
  6.  @mads494  "It's not a violation of your rights to regulate guns." Yes, it is. The government lacks the authority to do as you say. I don't care what you are doing in Canada.
    1
  7. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1986.
    1
  8. They already made a pro gun vs anti gun video.
    1
  9. A sense of self-sufficiency, individual responsibility, and liberty combined with a history that makes the gun culturally significant. That's what. You say non-Americans don't need guns, but whenever I see someone who is victimized in any country I wonder if they might have been able to save themselves if they had been armed.
    1
  10. Because they are put into literal warzones? What sort of bad faith question is that?
    1
  11. The system we currently live in didn't result from capitalism, it resulted from cronyism, from the state having the power to grant special favors to certain people.
    1
  12.  @h.hholmes3118  Still no real response I see.
    1
  13.  @h.hholmes3118  Not necessarily. Capitalism is an economic system, it doesn't really tell you anything about the political system. Just like how socialism can range all the way from anarchists to marxist-leninists, so too does capitalism cover a wide range.
    1
  14.  @h.hholmes3118  "depending on which branch" Socialists can hate other socialists just like capitalists can hate other capitalists. Most American conservatives are capitalists, sure, though their talk of small government isn't exactly consistent.
    1
  15.  @Maksie0  It's not a matter of whether or not you "like" your job. It's a matter of whether or not the job is valuable to you, which it clearly is or else you would quit. If wage labor was exploitation, if employers were simply taking value from you and not providing value to you in return, then people really would just quit. It's not as though this is only true of poor people either, people with plenty of savings and high paying jobs continue to work at those high paying jobs rather than quit.
    1
  16.  @Maksie0  I'm not ignoring economic realities, I'm stating them, which you confirm yourself when you say that having a job is better than no job. If employers were not providing value, then it would not be true that having a job is better than no job. You would simply live on your own labor which you would be reaping the full benefit from without having the employer taking your surplus value.
    1
  17.  @Maksie0  Are they? I'd rather be starving in the wilderness than be a slave. That's the thing about slavery: it's involuntary. On the other hand, employment is voluntary.
    1
  18.  @Maksie0  Yes it is, and again, if employers were not providing value then the alternative wouldn't be destitution.
    1
  19. @Albert Whisker Interesting that you would talk about a company buying resources from a government to obtain a monopoly and then say the problem there is the company and not the government for having the power to create the monopoly in the first place.
    1
  20.  @arthurmorgan1550  A couple points. 1. Not having a job doesn't imply that you will starve. Charity and welfare are both things that can and do exist in capitalist systems. 2. The analogy doesn't hold up. Your body metabolizing food to survive is a natural state. There is no agent imposing starvation onto you.
    1
  21.  @arthurmorgan1550   Ideally, yes, libertarians want to abolish welfare, though many of us are realists about it and want to reform welfare instead. Regardless, capitalism and libertarianism are not equivalent. Capitalist systems can run the gamut from very libertarian to extremely authoritarian. I didn't miss what your point was with the analogy, I pointed out how your analogy fails. You don't necessarily die without a wage and no one is holding a gun to your head. There is no coercive action occuring. There is no individual that you can point to and say they are starving you.
    1
  22.  @arthurmorgan1550  Sure, there are plenty of places where conditions are harsh relative to what we have become accustomed to in developed countries, but developed countries became developed because they went through those harsh conditions. People move to cities and agree to work in sweatshops because it's better than what they had before out in rural areas. They voluntarily choose the hard work and harsh conditions because it is bettering their lot in life. It is the point. You can repeat your analogy as many times as you wish, but my response doesn't change.
    1
  23.  @arthurmorgan1550  You're just repeating the premise that I've already argued against. The concept of exploitation of surplus value is bogus. The labor theory of value is not true as value is instead subjective.
    1
  24.  @zubairkhan1439  Soviet Union collapsed, China had to enact economic reforms to bring in more capitalism, Cuba is facing much the same, North Korea is sad and pathetic. The record is clear: capitalist markets work, socialist planning does not. In that there are problems which occur in capitalist countries, it is invariably the result of attempts at economic planning. As for inequality, sure, there will be economic inequality. That is to be expected, yet the conditions of the relative poor still improve, with billions having been brought out of extreme poverty and the human lifespan being doubled over the past century. Things which would have been inconceivable luxuries for the wealthy are now commonplace even for those of modest means.
    1
  25. "feels like you are saying 'I need a gun because they have a gun.'" No. People without guns can victimize you just fine and guns work against people without guns just fine. Quoting statistics does nothing for the individual who was rendered helpless and subsequently victimized. Human rights are not subject to statistics and governments cannot exercise authority they do not justly have.
    1
  26.  @alexojideagu  That's totally irrelevant to what I said.
    1
  27.  @alexojideagu  My point is that it isn't. Governments have no just authority to impose gun control.
    1
  28.  @alexojideagu  The function of government is to secure the rights of the people and to that end governments only have powers delegated to them by the people. People cannot delegate powers that they do not have. You do not have the power to decide whether or not your neighbor has a firearm, therefore neither does the government. As far as car tests and licenses go, that only extends to the sense that roads are "government property" and thus governments are able to set requirements for their use. Notably, governments don't have the power to tell you whether or not you can actually buy a car or drive on private property. Licenses are for driving on "public property" only.
    1
  29.  @alexojideagu  That governments around the world have unjust laws does not somehow negate the truth that they are unjust. A commonly believed falsehood is still false and does not become fact. The second amendment really isn't all that vague if you understand the political philosophy of the ones who wrote it, but even if it were it wouldn't really matter. Human rights do not come from the government and governments do not have just authority to violate human rights. Any agent of the government which violates the rights which you have by your nature is in the wrong and people are justified in resisting such authoritarianism.
    1
  30. It's almost like our culture and founding principles are different or something. Also, there's no such thing as free healthcare.
    1
  31.  @ABC-re6dx  No it doesn't. There is no such thing as free healthcare. Doctors are being paid and supplies are being purchased. You are definitely paying for your healthcare.
    1
  32.  @ABC-re6dx  No, it's not free. It's being paid for through taxes.
    1
  33.  @ABC-re6dx  It's not free when people are paying. What's going on is that people are being forced to pay for the healthcare of others.
    1
  34.  @sharas3180  If you wish to donate to charity, that's your business. Forcing people to give to others is theft.
    1
  35.  @sharas3180  If I steal your car and use part of the proceeds to buy you some groceries, is it no longer theft?
    1
  36.  @sharas3180  Government doesn't magic value into existence, and theft is still theft. If it's really so great that everyone would want to agree to this arrangement, then make it optional.
    1
  37.  @sharas3180  Yes, optional would be that people willing to pay taxes for the universal healthcare system would and people who would rather have private healthcare could. If universal healthcare is really so great, then this shouldn't be a problem. Yes, I complain about theft. Theft is wrong, it's as simple as that, and there are very real downsides to universal healthcare systems.
    1
  38.  @sharas3180  Yes taxation is theft. That you acknowledge your system can only operate by forcing people into it says it all. Mutually consenting transactions aren't theft. It is true that healthcare prices in the US are absurd, but that's from government interference.
    1
  39. Capitalists don't steal anything from workers. Capitalists buy labor from workers who voluntarily sell that labor. The labor theory of value is over a century out of date.
    1
  40. It's more like you can learn about socialism in a liberal system because we believe in freedom of speech and the free marketplace of ideas.
    1
  41. And then look at what the Australian government did to the citizens over COVID.
    1
  42.  @kane3077  "Black Guns Matter" was created to educate Black Americans on their Second Amendment rights.
    1
  43.  @kane3077  Your sarcasm doesn't change what the group is for. There are similar other groups out there (there's a NAAGA chapter near me for example), but more rights advocacy is always good.
    1
  44.  @kane3077  You said that it's disrespectful.
    1
  45.  @kane3077  The name isn't disrespectful either.
    1
  46. Shall not be infringed. The government literally lacks the authority to enact gun control.
    1
  47. You probably shouldn't take a comedian seriously. Anyway, multiple attackers are definitely a thing that happens and even single attackers don't always stop with one shot. What I think is necessary or sufficient for my self defense is for me to decide, not anyone else.
    1
  48.  @Bob-sx7iv  Which is true whether it is at a gun show or the parking lot of a Walmart. There is nothing special about gun shows, hence why the gun show loophole is a lie
    1
  49.  @Bob-sx7iv  It can happen anywhere. Gun control lobbyists call it the "gun show loophole" to make it sound scary and mislead people.
    1
  50.  @Bob-sx7iv  I wouldn't say they are ubiquitous, but they observably occur. Violent criminals exist. They aren't make believe.
    1