25 Jan 23
@wajoma saidI listened to about the first minute or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9yCCjsVn4
The limit of goobermints power is the limit of your obedience. You're going to need to define that line.
All the famous quotes were good.
I decided to drop off when he listed his idea of who the tyrants were.
No mention of Putin, Kim Jong UN, Taliban, and other authoritarian despots.
Nor the wannabees like Trump and Bolsonaro who don't respect democratic institutions which negate the authoritarians.
And what about the mention of Davos. All the conservatives are railing against the elite.
Through most of my adult life, it has been the conservatives who had always been in bed with the elites.
GOP in bed with the Wall Street elites.
Conservative party in Canada in bed with the Bay Street elites.
What happened ?? Have the elites become too liberal for you guys ?
Now the Conservatives court the working class, which was the go-to voting block for the Socialists.
What happened ?
@mghrn55 saidI read as far as you said you listened to the first minute.
I listened to about the first minute or so.
All the famous quotes were good.
I decided to drop off when he listed his idea of who the tyrants were.
No mention of Putin, Kim Jong UN, Taliban, and other authoritarian despots.
Nor the wannabees like Trump and Bolsonaro who don't respect democratic institutions which negate the authoritarians.
And what about the mention of D ...[text shortened]... tives court the working class, which was the go-to voting block for the Socialists.
What happened ?
25 Jan 23
@mghrn55 saidToo bad you have the attention span of a garden slug, because you've missed the point entirely. This isn't Labour versus National (NZ), Dims versus Republicans (US), Liberal versus ALP (Aus), Tories versus Labour (UK) because in all thos cases you're going to find one is as bad as the other, or for the sake of the party fanboys let's say one is slightly less bad than the other. This is about goobermint as a whole which undeniably is growing everywhere in scope and power.
I listened to about the first minute or so.
All the famous quotes were good.
I decided to drop off when he listed his idea of who the tyrants were.
No mention of Putin, Kim Jong UN, Taliban, and other authoritarian despots.
Nor the wannabees like Trump and Bolsonaro who don't respect democratic institutions which negate the authoritarians.
And what about the mention of D ...[text shortened]... tives court the working class, which was the go-to voting block for the Socialists.
What happened ?
BTW you didn't mention Pol Pot or Hitler, but this isn't about listing every tyrant and personality, because that's going to be a long list and just devolve into the old Trump said this, Obummer said that distraction.
You're missing the point.
25 Jan 23
1 edit
@kewpie saidBy flaws you must mean:
Libertarianism.
Anarchy.
My gun's bigger than your gun.
Survival of the fittest.
Might makes right.
Government may have horrendous flaws, but it's still way better than the alternative.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State?
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing?
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
Read it and weep kewpie, literally fukn weep, humans doing to other humans in the name of the state.
And you know what, prior to every one of those there were people saying just what you said.
25 Jan 23
@kewpie saidI'm going to have to agree.
Libertarianism.
Anarchy.
My gun's bigger than your gun.
Survival of the fittest.
Might makes right.
Government may have horrendous flaws, but it's still way better than the alternative.
As history has shown, some governments have become horrendous but right now anyone living in a first world country can't complain too much.
25 Jan 23
1 edit
@booger saidNZ, Aus and Canada have had a little wake up call these last few years, you just need a bit more stomping on to wake up, no worries, it's coming.
I'm going to have to agree.
As history has shown, some governments have become horrendous but right now anyone living in a first world country can't complain too much.
BTW Libertarianism is none of those things kewpie thinks.
25 Jan 23
@wajoma saidI am always saying for people to leave other people the hell alone. Just about every point he makes is based on the concept of controlling people. Our Constitution limits the power of the government which this fellow is talking about. All of the countries and despots he speaks of could do well to simply adopt our Constitution. Likewise, people and leaders in this county need to abide by our Constitution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9yCCjsVn4
The limit of goobermints power is the limit of your obedience. You're going to need to define that line.
So says Average Joe!f
25 Jan 23
@kewpie saidHe’s not an anarchist. Wajoma expects the gummint to protect private property. It’s not about whose gun is bigger for these people it’s about who is richer.
Libertarianism.
Anarchy.
My gun's bigger than your gun.
Survival of the fittest.
Might makes right.
Government may have horrendous flaws, but it's still way better than the alternative.
25 Jan 23
@athousandyoung saidAnarcho-Capitalists generally come up with "private" institutions to safeguard capitalist property but they all eventually rely on hired guns keeping the peasants in line.
He’s not an anarchist. Wajoma expects the gummint to protect private property. It’s not about whose gun is bigger for these people it’s about who is richer.
25 Jan 23
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThat is FAR more expensive than taxpayer funded police, courts and prisons. It’s far more economical (for the rich) to make the poor pay for the justice system that keeps them in line via non progressive tax systems. It also makes the capitalists vulnerable to both their own security forces as well as those of other capitalists. You are describing warlords not capitalists. Right libertarian capitalists need the government in order to exist.
Anarcho-Capitalists generally come up with "private" institutions to safeguard capitalist property but they all eventually rely on hired guns keeping the peasants in line.
25 Jan 23
@athousandyoung saidNot really. Rothbard for one would abolish all public property; rich guys would literally own everywhere. They then could recoup any costs with monopoly profits or land access fees.
That is FAR more expensive than taxpayer funded police, courts and prisons. It’s far more economical (for the rich) to make the poor pay for the justice system that keeps them in line via non progressive tax systems. It also makes the capitalists vulnerable to both their own security forces as well as those of other capitalists. You are describing warlords not capitalists. Right libertarian capitalists need the government in order to exist.
Anarcho-Capitalists don't want a government esp. a representative one because it is always potentially vulnerable to enlightened public opinion. Wajoma did float an idea of votes being weighed by the amount of property an individual voter had, a plausible undemocratic solution but one of dubious political viability.
25 Jan 23
2 edits
@no1marauder saidHow would the rich guys handle disputes between each other?
Not really. Rothbard for one would abolish all public property; rich guys would literally own everywhere. They then could recoup any costs with monopoly profits or land access fees.
Anarcho-Capitalists don't want a government esp. a representative one because it is always potentially vulnerable to enlightened public opinion. Wajoma did float an idea of votes being weig ...[text shortened]... y an individual voter had, a plausible undemocratic solution but one of dubious political viability.
If Howard Roark blows up “his” property (which is owned by someone else) who gets to decide who the “real” owner is?
Who decides who owns land in Palestine? Both sides can show land deeds for the same property.
25 Jan 23
@athousandyoung saidRothbard says contractually agreed arbitration. He suggests that such rulings would be honored by the parties because otherwise they would be ostracized and other parties would refuse to do business with them.
How would the rich guys handle disputes between each other?
If Howard Roark blows up “his” property (which is owned by someone else) who gets to decide who the “real” owner is?
Who decides who owns land in Palestine? Both sides can show land deeds for the same property.
If that doesn't sound very realistic, not much laissez Faire "libertarianism" does.