Very good read.
The guy behind the Demos podium just doesn’t get it. Instead of saying that one person might in fact might be right, we have to vote to see who is right.
Like we need to vote to see if Newton’s calculus was correct. God forbid.
This is the same irrational argument that people accuse against “Paulites.”
Let’s let the fools of society make all of the decisions because life has cheated them out of intelligence.
Let’s leave EVERYTHING up to a vote, and hope that the majority has more intelligence than stupidity.
Over and over again, I see that liberty should be our most important goal as a society. It is one principle that can be consistent and across the board. Perfect equality in every aspect can’t be. Should talented basketball players have the right to make money at basketball? Should they not be able to because some people are in a wheelchair? Should a person that creates things that people are willing to buy not be able to keep all of the profits that he receives because someone else has not done something worth payment?
I think the flaw of modern liberalism is that it simultaneously believes that everyone should be wealthy and that no one should be wealthy. They say that the poor need more money, but they are taking away money from the wealthy. In other words, they are trying to make people wealthy by taking money away. Instead of the free market, where wealth is earned by giving back, to the liberal, wealth is earned by taking from someone who has given nothing. They think this is what capitalists do, but this is exactly what they do to the capitalist. They do not consider that not everyone cares about wealth. They assume that all poor people have been cheated. Can this be the case? Was the man that threw away a basketball scholarship and is now poor cheated? Was the child that ignored his mother’s teaching to pay attention in school who is now living under a bridge cheated? What more could have been done? Sure, these people could steal other people’s money. But how are we going to determine when theft is necessary? Are we going to say that if you are under a certain dollar amount that you can steal from those with a larger dollar amount? This seems like a perverse incentive. It hinders hard work. Another fundamental flaw with modern liberalism is that it does not understand what wealth is or where it comes from. They assume that all wealth is theft. By that logic, if a charity receives a large amount of money, it is theft, simply because of the large amount of money. If you talk to a modern liberal, this is what they get at. “Some are rich while many are poor, so something is wrong.” Well certainly the charity that has received this money is richer than someone else that does not have this money. Is something wrong with that scenario? Is it wrong for a cancer patient to receive charity while a drunken bum under the street receives none? Are we to split up everything equally among us? If we do that, there is no way for financial transactions to occur, because as soon as one does, one will have more than the other. So what is the modern liberal solution to this? It seems like they want to place certain numerical limits on the amount of money that everyone should have. But this fails to consider two points: one about the rich, and one about the poor. The first about the rich. This goes back to the questions of what is wealth and where does it come from. To the modern liberal, wealth is theft, and it comes from stealing. Wealth is earned at the expense of the poor. But if that is the case, why do the poor not always steal from the rich? Another misconception about wealth from the modern liberal is that the rich have always been rich, and the poor have always been poor. To suggest that a man started out with nothing, worked hard, and achieved wealth is impossible to the modern liberal mind. How is it that a man can go from poor to wealthy if the wealthy were preventing him to be poor? This destroys the liberal argument: if a poor man can become rich, then the rich are not preventing the poor from obtaining wealth. They suggest it as if it is some kind of universal law. I would be interested in hearing from them how it is that a man can go from poor to wealthy. Why didn’t the other people keep him in poverty and prevent him from being wealthy? To be a modern liberal is to believe in slavery: you obtain based on other people’s work. Opponents of liberalism say that you earn your own money. Liberals believe instead that people that earn their money earn it at the expense of others, and therefore they themselves can obtain money at the expense of others. Listen to this illogical argument of the liberals: because you earn money at the expense of me, I can earn money at the expense of you. This appears to be a zero-sum game: the very thing that they are arguing against. What is the ultimate goal of the liberal? They say they want to eliminate poverty. They say they want more income equality. But this is torn apart if we were to give everyone the same amount of money. If they don’t understand this, there is no hope for any rational conversation with them. Even if we all started out with the exact same amount of money, over time, this is not going to be the case. Listen to this: even if we all started out with the same amount of money, we will not end up there. Is there something inherently unfair about this? Is it unfair that some people will spend all of their money on drugs while others invest their money in things that give them a profit? How is this “unfair”? Is the man that wisely invested his money now to prop up the constant drug addict? This is what is unfair. To the liberal, even if the drug addict does not want to better his situation, the person that wisely invested his money must take care of the drug addict. Income equality is impossible simply because if it were possible, there would be no transactions to take place. What would be the point of trading if we did not improve ourselves?
One more argument about liberals: one common example that they give is that people do not choose to be born into poverty. But by that same token, people do not choose to be born into a wealthy family, either. So if we are to say that the argument that people do not get to choose their family is an argument for them to obtain money, do the wealthy kids not also deserve their money?
But, to be simply put, concise, and repetitive, to the liberal, it is all about income equality. Common sense transactions will tell you that this is impossible because exchanges take place. Actions have to be rewarded and punished. If you do drugs, no one is going to pay you for that. If you cure cancer, they certainly might. So is it the fault of the cancer-curer that the drug addict is killing himself with drugs? How so?
Demos is a liar. All of the time people are wanting to privatize everything. His “social contract” argument is invalid. “When it comes to healthcare and taxes, no thank you. But when it comes to police, firefighters, roads, and national defense, you’re all for the social contract.” No, plenty of libertarians want to privatize the roads, police, firefighters, etc. And there is a large difference between a government making a law that they will be the only healthcare available and that you must buy it instead of saying that they will provide a military for national defense. If you can’t understand that, then perhaps you just have a too optimistic view of government. How you can’t see how authoritarians and communists have turned out throughout history is beyond me.
You have to have black and white principles. You can’t pick and choose different principles that are opposed to one another.
If presidential debates were like this, we’d all be much better off.
The guy behind the Demos podium seems to suggest democracy, but when it comes to the other man talking about people making their own decisions and cooperating, he forgets all sense of his democracy and believes that we can force people to pick and choose which principles to support instead of having black and white principles across the board.
The guy behind the Demos podium has just lost all credibility because of his moral arguments. I’ve gone to enough churches to know morality-based guilt trips when I see them, and I’ve had enough of those for one lifetime.
If you’ve watched the whole video, pay attention to what the guy behind the Demos podium says at about the 1 hour 14 minute mark about “well I like this part, but I don’t like this part so I don’t want it” and remember what the other guy said about Social Security.
The guy behind the Demos podium is just talking in vague expressions, like most liberals do, while the libertarian is giving very sound, principled arguments, as most do. He also still does not understand mob rule. Let’s just take a look at Nazi Germany for an example: Hitler was elected by democratic means, if I’m not mistaken. How could something so awful have happened if their intentions were good?
Pay special attention to the 1 hour 15 minute mark, then listen to the libertarian talk about how he would be put in jail. That is an amazing point. Listen to the liberal at 1:15:30. “Law is right!” That’s a horrendously scary sentiment. Listen to the liberal not understand that law is force from 1:15:35 to 1:15:50. He definitely lost the argument at this point, even if you think that he didn’t lose it earlier.
Here is my response to 1:15:54 to 1:16:20: If working for a capitalist is so hard, and being a capitalist is so easy, then why in the fuck don’t you become a capitalist instead of taking away the right of the capitalist to pursue his own profit (as YOU are doing) and maintain his own property (as you are doing as well)?
Also pay attention to 1:17:00 to 1:17:40.
The guy behind the Demos desk just wants government to rape us in every area of our lives, if you really pay attention to what he is saying.
Until we understand capitalism, we will understand nothing.
The guy behind the Demos podium: if it is for ourselves, it is bad. If it is for others, it is good.
Needless to say that God saves individual people, not solely a homogeneous blob known as “Christians.” Not all Christians are exactly the same. We are all individuals. So if something for ourselves is bad, then by the religious conservatives point of view and the political liberals point of view, salvation for OURSELVES is bad. We either have to be saved solely for God or solely for others. Pardon me, but damn that argument. When I eat, I’m not eating for others. I’m eating for myself. I’m partaking in God’s enjoyment as well. But I’ll be damned if someone is going to tell me that my own self-interest is bad. When I’m hungry, I eat. The concept of the individual is not evil. God did not simultaneously create every single human being that he would ever create. He started with one individual, and he became two.
Here’s the scary similarity between a political liberal and a religious conservative: if it is for ourselves, it is bad. If it is for others, it is good.
Liberals: how can we help out others?
By killing ourselves, because we have no rights to live as greedy individuals: only moralistic collectives.
Pay attention to 1:28:50 to 1:29:25. You hear all those people complaining? They would be the first ones in the gas chambers. Why? Because they don’t understand why, and they don’t believe it could happen to them. Pay attention to the guy behind the Demos podium right after this. “They are dogmatists, they think that they are right and everyone else is wrong.” It sounds exactly like himself, doesn’t it? “They talk about them and the others, and the others are to be destroyed.” Really? Like your argument about workers and capitalists? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The guy behind the Demos podium just doesn’t get it. As neither do the socialists, as neither do the victims of dictators. It’s a sad reality when the answer is right in front of them. But what do you do. His answer was so empty. The other guy answers him beautifully.
Pay attention to 1:33:10 to 1:34:40. Another great one.
“The strong don’t need their rights protected, because we will use the state to weaken them and take away their rights.” The guy behind the Demos podium’s argument, as well as most modern liberals. It’s a shame.
Pay attention to the libertarian talking about strength. That was genius.
The liberal continually ignores the libertarians argument about government being used to punish fraud.
The libertarian makes a great point about how Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others didn’t make their wealth by ripping off old ladies with fine print. Great, GREAT point. Totally destroys the often-used liberal argument of the rich ripping off the poor.
How is creating an iPhone defrauding someone? The liberal just loses this argument over and over again.
End of commercial breaks:
I especially love the guy with the fucking bar
The sexual harassment suit is a great portion, too. Now, the company has the right to terminate whomever they want for any reason that they want. But don’t get the law involved.
Feminism is evil.
These laws are excuses for people to make immoral money by suing people. It’s no wonder chivalry is dead: sexual harassment suits in the workplace killed it.
Fucking pussy ass teachers talking about the “satanists.”
Those teachers can suck my goddamn dick.
This is how moralism goes too far.
Tyranny of the majority.
Stossel is amazing Liberals are fucking retarded.
The bomb book writer is amazing
Pay attention to 51:32-51:52. About the GOVERNMENT handbook that teaches people to make weapons. That should not be illegal, but it proves how simple government hypocrisy is, and how retarded people are that ask for so much government intervention, defended with a gun.
You are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. Let’s just make EVERYTHING illegal. That should give us a PERFECT world, right? It will until YOU start to be oppressed, as I sort of wish you were, so you would understand how important free speech is.
Also pay attention to 56:20, and see what was made illegal in history, and see how stupid you are.
The guy in the flannel with the spiked hair from 58:02 to 58:05 looks like Reese from Malcolm in the Middle.
Modern sociology is essentially based on the teachings of Karl Marx. Few people mention the man with such reverence as a professor teaching how societies interact, evolve, and function. In a typical sociology classroom, the students and professor will learn about class warfare, economics, the survival of the fittest, as well as plenty of examples where the rich are “exploiting” the poor.
Karl Marx is considered the intellectual godfather of hundreds of thousands of professors, intellectuals, elitists, and anti-capitalists. He invented what’s known as the “Conflict Theory”, the notion that change occurs because of conflict between two groups of people. He was right about that, but he was hideously, deadly wrong about how he applied it.
Marx saw political conflict — people using resources and force to enslave other people — and he concluded that it wasn’t the use of force that was wrong, but the existence of capital. It’s a completely incoherent logical leap, and it had grave consequences for the rest of humanity.
Missing the Point With The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx’s infamous “The Communist Manifesto” is the most important document he wrote, because it was the intellectual rallying cry of anti-capitalists everywhere.
It was the justification for confiscating trillions of dollars worth of property and then mismanaging it in the most incompetent economic planning the world has ever seen.
It was the justification for public executions of capitalists — people like myself, who own and use capital to produce even more.
Hundreds of millions of capitalists were murdered because of Marx’s philosophy. Families were wiped out, husbands were hanged, children made orphans, economies destroyed, and during the Cold War, the world itself almost met its fiery end due to the insane delusions of equality by the power-greedy communists.
In this document, Marx wrote the following:
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”
What laughable insanity. This man of a giant beard and a small mind referenced power as the reason the poor were “victims”, and yet his response wasn’t the downfall of the ruling classes — it was taking political inequality and unleashing it in a manner the world had never seen before.
Consolidating power to the state doesn’t end inequality — consolidating power fosters inequality. Not all men are free to rule their neighbors, because that is outlawed under socialist dogma. Under socialism, a handful of men determine the rules, the economic planning, and the rations that the rest of the “workers” will receive.
The end-goal, socialists argue, is a society where power isn’t necessary. But to get there, they explain, we need to consolidate power in a socialist economy. A handful of men need to be given the power to decide what to do with everyone’s property, what ideas can be discussed, what lives can be ended, and what freedoms must be deleted for the sake of the eventual “common good”.
Learn the Lessons of History
Anyone who understands human nature sees the flaw here. Men abuse; absolute power tends to the abuse of power. But instead of people trying to manipulate others with money and resources through marketing, they created a society where negotiation began and ended with force — violence, prisons, executions, starvation.
The greatest source of inequality in the 20th century was socialism itself.
The greatest cause of poverty in the 20th century was socialism itself.
The greatest catalyst for exploitation in the 20th century was socialism itself.
They realized that the “ruling class” was wrecking havoc on society, and then concluded that it wasn’t the power — it was the money itself. The irony of such a misplaced philosophy and a self-defeating movement would be humorous if it hadn’t wrecked havoc with an evil the world had never seen before.
Let the ruling classes tremble? They tremble in excitement because they will be the ones who control your socialist empire.
Nothing to lose but your chains? Communism enslaves billions. Nothing to lose? Except your families to starvation, your friends to execution, your material well-being through rationing, and your freedom itself.
Working men of all countries? We have no time for angry and violent riots — we are carrying your world on our shoulders.
The Real Conflict is: Liberty Vs. Slavery
Marx was right about one thing: social movement occurs from perceived class conflict. The poor are progressively becoming more and more socialistic in America, not because the rich are harming them, but because they perceive the world as being owned, controlled, and regulated by a handful of the super rich — even though this is economically, historically, and politically inaccurate.
No one will ever argue that some of the rich do not abuse their wealth with regulations, bailouts, and subsidies — but the problem isn’t the existence of capital; the problem is political force itself.
For example, I am a capitalist. I take my wealth and multiply it through leverage, business projects, and other endeavors. I will not, however, use my money to manipulate the system in order to destroy other businesses. I will not take my money to manipulate the economy so I get an advantage over others.
Other companies, like Wal-Mart and Microsoft, almost always utilize their wealth to buy politicians in order to take down their competitors. This is not a flaw of capitalism — this is a flaw of corruption. It is not a flaw of freedom when someone abandons it — that is a definitional impossibility and a self-defeating concept.
The root of all social evil is unwarranted force — the violation of the rights of others. Murder, theft, rape, war — these are the things of evil. The free market doesn’t include any of these concepts. Once we understand this, all else follows, and we’ll soon come to realize that capitalism is the only moral economic system that protects and respects the rights of all men — regardless of their class.