NSFW for naughty language.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 20th, 2014 3:51pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Gov't is demonstrably false? Last I checked, there are a lot of independently verified gov'ts out there. LOL!

You know what is demonstrably false? Anarchists independent from the gov't they claim to hate. Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise.

You want to impress me? Go find an island somewhere and show us how awesome non-statism is.

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

Wow. I actually did make it through the whole thing The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

And that ignoring the standard problem with the Libertarian\Anarchist viewpoint where they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

And this idiot's answer to the education system is to just point everyone to Google?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

OK, my reactionary, defensive, closed minded take on this is that this guy doesn't deserve 5 minutes of my viewing time (but he got it), much less 22:29 of it.

I'm totally right there with @VoodooV on this one. He's just plain idiotic. I'll bet many of his "points" come straight from Faux News...I'm pretty sure I've heard some of this insanity before.

I always wonder how these people ignore the fact that, if their theory about 'self regulating business' was true, it would work that way now. It's because industries repeatedly and consistently DIDN'T regulate themselves and thrived on the public ignorance of their actions that regulations were enacted in the first place. DUH.

@blankfist
@VoodooV

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/regions/united-states/

Some can be had pretty cheap:
http://www.privateislandsonline.com/islands/spuhn-island-lots

So yeah, why don't you go up to the mountains and stop bothering the statists?

Can't stand CultOfDusty.

So we have one asshole screaming at another asshole. I watched about 36 seconds and remembered I have better things to do with my life.

If you're going to make an argument, don't start out from the premise that everyone already agrees with you.

edit: Ordinarily I'd downvote this utter bollocks, but if I was going to do that, I'd have to give it the courtesy of watching the whole thing first and this has done nothing to convince me it's worth my time.

Dear libertarians,

Please stop using the internet, it is a government conspiracy to make you think that mass telecommunication is only made possible using infrastructure provided by the state.

Thanks.

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

@newtboy: He's just plain idiotic. I'll bet many of his "points" come straight from Faux News...I'm pretty sure I've heard some of this insanity before.

Fox News? Really? You don't understand libertarianism at all, do you? Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments.

I always wonder how these people ignore the fact that, if their theory about 'self regulating business' was true, it would work that way now. It's because industries repeatedly and consistently DIDN'T regulate themselves and thrived on the public ignorance of their actions that regulations were enacted in the first place. DUH.

Again, more appeals to emotion. That aside, I've heard this argument often from statists. The truth is they tend to forget things like regulatory capture and the sheer number of regulations on the books that create barriers to industry for those without significant capital to compete. These are all unfair advantages the government gives the rich and connected.

Also, I'm not sure if the two of you were asleep when he mentioned that corporations are fictitious entities given legitimacy by the government, and shields the rich from liability? That didn't happen because of unregulated markets.

You don't think the roads we have now aren't toll roads? Every gallon of gas you buy has an excise tax on it that pays into the highway trust fund.

Also, the reason why we don't have roads without government is because it's illegal.

And is it leaching off YOU if I'm forced to pay for those services. Hmmm. That's not very sound logic.

Also, mail is a government monopoly. One of many, like roads. It's illegal to offer privately delivered first class mail in the States. Man, statists just keep setting them up and I keep knocking them down. Tell me more about these wonderful perks in statist land.

Yes, I do. I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government.

The truth is you completely ignored my point to make another point. how about address my point first, then I'll show you the folly of your next points.

Oh no, I head him, but like most of what he had to say, I found it was ridiculous drivel.
The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists. You seem to think that, without the legal shield owners are 'granted' by the law (and without law/government interfering) corporations wouldn't exist, or at least couldn't break the law with impunity...but you forget that to get there you removed the law/regulation/government, so who exactly is going to enforce this non existent law/regulation against the, now legally culpable, owners of corporations?

@blankfist

"Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments. "

I'm not the one who just posted a video about a guy who was unable to demonstrate his point rationally and had more than a couple meltdowns where he attacked the other guy with an ever raising voice and emotionally charged insults. Which is funny because he's responding to another video. It's not like the guy was there, yet he got so unhinged.

so you're nitpicking that I didn't detail each specific logical fallacy? the summary wasn't enough? If you honestly want to know, say so and I'll review the video again and point them out. But I don't think you really care. Once again, you're criticizing the existing system when you SHOULD be demonstrating how a non-statist system (or lack of a system as it were) would be better...but you arent...so it just leads me to believe that you latched on my lack of details on the fallacies as a distraction mechanism. so really who's being emotional here hrm?

but wait, you criticize my lack of detail, but when asked to demonstrate an anarchist worldview in action and how it's better than a statist one...suddenly you can't provide details...interesting the hypocrisy there

try again though.

"This drug that stops us from dying of a pretty horrific disease has some pretty awful side effects, some of which include lowering our immune system which actually makes us more susceptible to the disease."

Sane person: wow, that's pretty crap. We need to fix that drug so that it no longer encourages the disease.

Libertarian: We need more disease!

@newtboy: "I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government."

Hmmmmmm. Seems specious. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? Or the Republican Party, which is where the Tea Party's political affiliations are aligned? Because you do realize there's a different between small "l" libertarians, which is the political philosophy, and big "L" Libertarians, which is the party... and Tea Partiers, which are Republicans.


"The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists."

Some legal shielding? Which of these corporate protections offered and legitimized by the government is "some" of the shielding? Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?

Because that seems more than just "some legal shielding."

@VoodooV: "where he attacked the other guy"

Wasn't like the other guy wasn't on the attack. That being said, I don't personally agree with how he handled this, but I did find it amusing. Also, it's not like he was wrong in any of his points. Attack the substance of his argument.

@ChaosEngine. You're from a monarchy. You live inside the disease.

Congratulations on posting something both irrelevant and wrong (that could be the libertarian motto!)

First, although I live in NZ, I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, not a subject of Liz Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Second, while I oppose the monarchy on principle, it has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever, other than to prove that you can't really backup your ideology with anything other than strawmen and hand-waving.

Whoa. Whooooa. You're Irish? Like, real Irish, not black-and-tan-and-protestant-whiskey-drinking Northern Irish? And you're a dyed-in-the-wool pro-government statist at the same time?

I feel as if I just learned so much about you, but at the same time, so very little.

But you do live in the disease. And willing so.

I am from the Republic of Ireland if that's what you mean, although I'll happily drink protestant whiskey (or hindu whiskey or buddhist whiskey or even muslim whiskey if such things existed and tasted good).

And when you grow up learning about your nations struggle to free itself of a foreign monarch, you tend to appreciate the ability to self-govern rather than hand it over to a bunch of corporations.

That said... I am not a "dyed-in-the-wool pro-government statist". I have many issues with many governments. Some are better than others. In some ways, I understand the prevalence of libertarianism in the US, given how particularly messed up your own government is.

So not so much "pro-government" as "anti-libertarian"

The same man who tells you that he does not want to see the government interfere in business-and he means it, and has plenty of good reasons for saying so-is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product. When things get just bad enough-as they did two years ago-he will go with equal speed to the United States government and ask for a loan; and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is the outcome of it. Each group has sought protection from the government for its own special interest, without realizing that the function of government must be to favor no small group at the expense of its duty to protect the rights of personal freedom and of private property of all its citizens. - FDR

The original video attacked the ideology. this guy attacked the person and made it personal. Big diff.

again we're seeing more tearing down of the existing system and no building up of your system. It's a huge strawman. No one says gov't is perfect. We just went through a large wave of criticizing problems with the police. we are quite aware of the many flaws.

Even Lantern's obsessive defense of the cops is far more rational and understandable than advocating complete removal of the police force and disbanding gov't

As for the Ayn Rand thing, another strawman. I never brought up Objectivism. Ayn Rand hates gov't. non-statists hate gov't. it's pretty easy to see how they're linked. taking benefits from something you despise isn't very cool. If she were so principled, she would have left gov't altogether and never paid into it. She also tried to hide taking the benefits by doing so under her husband's name if I recall correctly.

The Teabaggers (I won't let them hide from the shameful name THEY chose when they started, thinking they were being clever before realizing what it meant) infected BOTH the Republican party and the Libertarian party, which represented the libertarian philosophy...at one time rationally, now anarchisticly.
There are instances where owners/CEO's have gone to jail for what their companies did at their direction. I'm not a case lawyer, so I can't site which one's exactly, and they are far too few, but it is why we have 'club fed'. True enough, there's far too little liability for the people in charge, but that's a different point, and the complete opposite point of view from 'we need no regulation'. That seems now like you're saying 'we need stronger regulations that hold people criminally accountable for companies actions.' I hope you can see that's NOT libertarian (big or little L) and not what you've been saying...at least not as I've heard it.
You seem to simply be advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater because they both still smell. I suggest washing filthy children in showers.

"We must put all dem Japanese in dem interment camps." - FDR

You're really just trolling now. No-one here believes that all the actions of government are good or even justified.

FFS, @VoodooV just spent 3 paragraphs explaining that very point.

This video has the score it deserves.

@newtboy"The Teabaggers... infected BOTH the Republican party and the Libertarian party"

Nope. Never affiliated with the Libertarian Party.

"That seems now like you're saying 'we need stronger regulations that hold people criminally accountable for companies actions"

Of course it doesn't. Did I not say corporations are fictitious entities created by the state? Scroll up and reread, I'll wait...

...

...So apply them critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. Do you honestly still think I was saying, "We need moar government to curb corporate power given to them in the first place by government!!11!" Or maybe, if government is the apparatus that gives corporations their unfair advantages, welfare, powers and privileges, then maybe it's government's role in that that needs to be reduced. That has nothing to do with moar regulashuns!

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Is English a second language, or are you just being disingenuous? Me thinks the latter. No...publicly owned roads are NOT toll roads because they are paid for with taxes. Taxes and tolls are different things, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. I live on a private road..so I'm certain they must exist.
It is absolutely NOT illegal to create a private toll road on private property with private funds. That's just asinine. It is nearly impossible to build one without using public services, such as the public roads and ports needed to deliver materials, but certainly not illegal.

It's leaching off me if you don't pay your fair share, and you have made it clear you don't think you should have to pay any, so I must assume you do all you can to minimize what you put into the pot...so yes, I would make an educated guess that you are leaching off me. I don't even itemize deductions, because I feel grateful to live in what I feel is a great country, and feel it's unpatriotic to try to shirk my duty to pay for my portion of government, even if I disagree with how they spend most of it. That's the cost of living in a 'representative democracy'.

As to mail, yes, you may not use mail boxes set up for/by the USPS for a private mail service...so you can't do 'first class mail'. You can, however, deliver letters for a fee to your OWN style of 'letter box', so your claim they have a 'monopoly' is ridiculous, they would be so happy to have it taken over, it's a big money loser and a huge pain in the ass to keep going. I'm personally grateful mail hasn't yet been privatized, as I know full well the service would suffer badly to make it profitable, for me especially since I live in the boonies and would never be profitable as a customer. To deliver my letters by FedEx would cost 10 times what USPS charges. (by the way, FedEx and UPS are proof that you already CAN deliver 'mail' privately, just not into a USPS 'mail box')
EDIT: What you said was akin to me saying 'Instead of just complaining about the quality of available burgers, you could open your own hamburger stand' and you answering 'I can't...it's illegal for me to sell "Big Mac's" because...government'.

AND, I would add, you have still never addressed my original point, that if business could/would 'self regulate', they would be doing so now. Self regulation is total fantasy, it simply doesn't happen. How exactly, I wonder, are 'the people' supposed to gain the knowledge about a companie's violations of public trust and health if there's no regulatory agency inspecting and reporting on what the company is actually doing, and they can do all their evil in secret?

*promote the master!
welcome back @blankfist
ya'all need to start taking notes.

this guy was super entertaining,i thought he was gonna have an embolism at the halfway mark.

hiiiiilarious!!!

look,no matter which direction you approach this situation the REAL dynamic is simply:power vs powerlessness.

we also should establish which form of libertarianism we are speaking.cultofdusty criticizes the bastardized american version and this dude come from a more classic libertarian (sans the unbridled capitalism).so there should be no surprise they are at odds in their opinion.this man is defending a libertarianism that cultofdusty may not even be aware of at all.

libertarianism has little or nothing in common with the republican party.

so when this dude posits that the corporation is the fault of government,while not entirely accurate,it is also not entirely wrong.corporations in the distant past were temporary alliances of companies,with the blessing of the people (government) to achieve a specific job or project and once that project was complete,the corporation was dissolved.

it was a cadre of clever lawyers,representing powerful interests who convinced the supreme court that corporations were people and hence began the long road leading us to where we are now.

so it was partly the government that fascillitated the birth of the corporation.

i do take issue with this mans assessment of public education.his commentary is the height of ignorance.while i would agree that what we have now can hardly be called 'education".his blanket and broad statements in regards to public education TOTALLY ignores the incredible benefits that come from an educated public.he ignores the history of public education,as if this system has been unchanging for 100 years.

that is just flat out...stupid..or more likely just lazy,regurgitating the maniacal rants of his heroes without ever once giving that 100 years some critical study.

so let me point to the the late 50's and 60's here in the USA where our public education was bar-none the best in the world.what were the consequences of this stellar public education?
well,...civil rights marches,anti-war movement,womens rights movement and a whole generation that not only questioned authority and the entrenched power structures but openly DEFIED those structures.

this absolutely petrified the powered elite.
during the height of the anti-war movement nixon was forced to baricade the white house with school buses and was quoted as saying to kissinger " henry,they are coming for me".

again,the fundamental premise is,and has always been -power vs powerlessness.

so over the nest few decades public education was manipulated and transformed into a subtle indoctrination to teach young minds to tacitly submit to authority.

which this man addresses and i agree,i just disagree with his overly generalized non-historically accurate puke-vomit.

my final point,and its always the point where libertarians lose their shit on me like an offended westboro baptist acolyte (its actually two points) is this:
1.if we can blame the government for much of the problems in regards to concentrated power and the abuse that goes with that power,then we MUST also address the abusive (and corrosive) power of the corporation.many libertarians i discuss with seem to be under the impression that if we take away the symbiotic relationship between corporations and government that somehow..miraculously..the corporation will all of a sudden become the benign and productive member of society.

this is utter fiction.
this is magical thinking.
many corporations have a larger GDP than many nation states.this is about POWER and there is ZERO evidence any corporation will be willing to relinquish that power just because there is no government to influence,manipulate or corrupt.

which brings me to point number 2:
my libertarian friends.
you live in a thing called a society.
a community where other people also live.
so please stop with this rabid individualism as somehow being the pinnacle of human endeavour.im all for personal responsibility but nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody rides this train alone.the world does not revolve around YOU.

but i do understand,and agree,that the heart of the libertarian argument is more power to the people.i also understand their arguments against governments,which directly and oftimes indirectly disempowers people.

i get that.its a good argument..
BUT...for fucks sake please admit that the corporation in its current state has GOT TO FUCKING GO!

because if you dont then ultimately you are trading one tyrant for another and in my humble opinion,ill stick with the one i can at least vote on or protest.

there aint nothing democratic about a multi-national corporation.they are,by design,dictatorships.

so i will agree to wittle the government down and restrict its powers to defense (NOT war),law and fraud police,if you agree to dismantle and restructure the seven headed leviathan that is todays corporation.

deal?

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 20th, 2014 3:51pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

In america anyway, the government provides clean water,sewers, police, fire depts, schools, safe roads. etc. Corps cant do business without highways,,or healthy consumers and workers. This guy is just a complete moron..the idea that bankers and corporations will self police or that markets self adjust has been proven wrong by history over and over. Who will plow the roads? who will build the damn roads? Who would build hoover dam? who would build sewers? Who would provide disaster relief? The lunacy of this idiots arguements are self evident.

Wow. Just not enough time to read all this.
Let me summarize.
Just because someone is an Atheist, doesn't mean they aren't a dumb as shit brainwashed Libertarian.

Because you didn't take the time to read, allow me to inform you, the video and following discussion had absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

...Eats pop corn...
Im'a gonna sit this one out..., I'll be right over here, munching on my popped corn smothered in butter flavoured topping!

It's like a statist circlejerk in here.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.