Judging Ideologies by their Outcomes

Judging Ideologies by their Outcomes

everyone this is turd flinging monkey and today I'm going to do a follow-up on my video regarding anarcho-capitalism voluntary ISM and proper terian ISM a lot of isms so the main thing the main criticism I got was from people who believe in these systems like anarcho-capitalism voluntary ism or property Arianism who basically because they don't advocate for X and I'm telling them that it will result in X that I simply don't understand the system I'm being disingenuous I'm being stupid all kinds of stuff like that now I just want to point out if I went to a communist and told them I don't support communism because I don't want to live under a dictator their response would be exactly the same they would say idiot communism doesn't advocate for dictators communism is about a stateless moneyless with the equal society where everyone works and everyone contributes to the greater good there's no dictators in communism idiot those people like Stalin and Mao and Hugo Chavez they weren't really communist idiot they were socialist socialist idiot you don't understand what communism is real communism never been tried idiot now to their point they're right true communism has never been successfully implemented the attempt to implement it always ends in a dictatorship and if you simply follow the process you can see exactly why and why it will always end in a dictatorship let me just look at history look at all the times communism has been attempted and how it always ends in a dictatorship but if you point this out to a communist someone who believes in the philosophy they will deny it and they're not wrong to deny it communism doesn't advocate for dictators it simply results in a dictator and that was my criticism of anarcho-capitalism voluntary ISM and proper terian ISM it's not that it advocates for rule by judges it's that it will result in rule by judges or will simply collapse or be conquered because they don't have any form of government to protect them look up the Republic of Minerva if you all know how that works but let's define our terms because one of the criticisms I received was I didn't define my terms why do I believe anarcho-capitalism is utopian I'm going to let a youtuber name knowing better kind of explain this to you now in the video he refers to capitalism but he even defines it as laissez faire capitalism ie and narco capitalism and he compares it to communism but he means theoretical anarcho-communism not practical communism which is indistinguishable from any form of totalitarianism anyway let's watch the video together and then we'll discuss and hopefully you kind of see where I'm coming from in true capitalism or a true free market economy the government is completely hands-off economists like to call this lazy fair which is just French for left to do part of me wonders if economists just use these terms on purpose to overcomplicated make it too hard for the layperson to understand there are no government regulations on the market suppliers and consumers decide what goods and services will be available and how much they cost now you can spin this either way one way is by saying that the government has no place in regulating businesses or how much things cost or how much people earn which sounds pretty intuitive and even fair the other way is by saying that the government doesn't regulate what businesses do or how much things cost or how much or how little people are paid it wasn't just the tone that changed there without government regulations and oversight there being no environmental protections consumers we just tell companies or they're not they like them polluting rivers or clear-cutting forests by not supporting them and not buying their products there'd be no minimum wage either the market would decide the price of labour with no ceiling and no floor so potentially all the way down to zero now not that many people are willing to work for nothing so it's always suggested that the market would correct for this both because of a lack of willing workers and the unwillingness of consumers to buy from a company that uses slave labor prices would also be unregulated they'd be set at whatever the supply and demand graphs efficiency point predicts don't worry you do not have to know what that means other than it's the price point where every single product made is sold with no leftovers and no empty-handed consumers this literally never for common items there's always more supply than there is demand pink toilet paper for luxury items there's always more demand than there is supply like iPhones on release day in capitalism the supplier will set the price and they'll set it as high as people are willing to pay so take a life-saving medication for example the supplier can set it as high as they want when it comes to pay or die people are usually willing to pay whatever it costs again in true capitalism the government doesn't get involved in the market at all roads are privately constructed and maintained and services encounter like police fire water and sewage all privatized schools and hospitals are also private companies can't afford that life-saving surgery you die didn't pay your fire bill on time you watch your house burn down this is why true capitalism doesn't exist in the world today so that was capitalism in a nutshell now let's talk about the other end of the spectrum communism in communism the government does not regulate what businesses do how much goods and services cost or how much people are being paid hey wait a second didn't you just say that about capitalism yes yes I did in fact you're gonna find over the next minute or so that there's a lot of similarities between communism and capitalism that you probably didn't think of before and both of these systems the government is completely hands-off the market decides the value of goods and services and the value of one's labor those of you with keen ears probably noticed a difference than that one nothing really costs anything in communism currency is usually dismissed entirely as it's just a way for someone who accumulate more wealth than they actually need in communism everyone contributes to the system what they can and they take from the system only what they need this system as well as capitalism is based on the idea that everyone is a rational actor in capitalism people would only buy things at the efficiency cost not a penny more or less in communism everyone contributes to the best of their ability and they take only what they need nothing more whether your contribution is sweeping the streets or being a dentist as long as everyone is happy that you're contributing to the best of your ability you're still part of the system and now you probably guess why this system doesn't exist in the real world either human psychology just isn't wired to think this collectively people are inherently selfish envious and jealous say you're a doctor who decides to treat this person before that person because this person contributes a little bit more or you're a tomato farmer he decides to give more tomatoes to that person because you're friends with them if you even one person decides if you selfish or jealous then the entire system breaks down so now we understand something or at least hopefully you understand something you can disagree with a knowing betters analysis of true capitalism ie anarcho-capitalism and true communism ie anarcho-communism in my opinion and based on history and the knowledge of human nature both systems are utopian now some of the criticisms I received is that a man Arco capitalist acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism may not work but they don't know because it's never been tried the closest we probably came to a true anarcho-capitalist system was like the Articles of Confederation which is closer to anarcho-capitalism than probably has ever been tried in the past but it was still a government other examples that I here anarcho-capitalist present or like the Irish kings even though they were Kings apparently because again they were voluntary like if it's a voluntary King then it's it's not a government ok whatever the point is though that most anarcho-capitalist acknowledge that government is going to happen there's going to be some form of government they just like to think of it as well not as a government per se it's more of a corporation you know you go to work for a company if you don't like you can leave your right so it like I don't know like the the corporate towns in the Old West you know the so called robber barons now Milton Friedman talked about how the robber barons were largely a myth but you know you could say oh you could leave so it's voluntary you can renounce your citizenship and flee the country you have that freedom does that mean because you're voluntarily staying in that country that the government is voluntary No obviously now would anarcho-capitalism inevitably end in a cry tarkie not necessarily you basically have two options with anarcho-capitalism it will end in either a cry turkey or some form of government which should basically be indistinguishable from the types of government they're trying to differentiate them from or it will simply be so small so weak so Teufel is so unable to protect the rights of its citizens that it will simply be destroyed or break apart or collapse very quickly by the way and these are criticisms I've discussed with mr. dapper tin and I'll be willing discuss them now again so here are the three fatal flaws and anarcho-capitalism and why it will fail number one is the non-aggression principle itself if you talk to different and caps give them a scenario and tell them to apply the non-aggression principle you're going to get different answers and that should tell you something the non-aggression principle sounds good because it's very vague very general it sounds like we should help people is like the golden rule the golden rule is simple it's widely applicable and it's vague so most people support the golden rule however when you start applying the golden rule to specific instances you're going to find different people fall on one side or the other and this is where judges come in under anarcho-capitalism private disputes like the courts are private so if you have a problem if somebody violates your property violate your rights violates or whatever you basically sue them in the way that corporations to each other however there's no government the courts themselves are private so you'd essentially have private mediators now in the real world what you have is you have people trying to forum shop this is a legal term we try to find a court that's favorable to you so essentially what you'd have is you'd have private corporations having their own court system which would always side with them because they're being paid by the corporation so if you try to sue a corporation or sue an individual and they have their own judge in their pocket they're obviously going to side with a person paying them this is why you can't have private courts military and police because whoever owns them whoever's paying them is above the law now you could say well that's that's no different than the system we have now because obviously no system is perfect human corruption is basically part of human nature power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely the point is though is a private system is even more prone to corruption because all you have to do is own your own Court so let's say you try to sue someone and they say oh I have my own court system here's my own judge my own lawyers will go settle this in this court and you say no no no I don't that's your judge that's your thing I'm gonna sue you over in this court how do you resolve that he wants to sue you in this court with his judge that is going to side with him and then you want to sue him in this court with your judge is going to side with you there's no higher court for you to appeal to because there's no government so without a legal recourse to resolve disputes what are you left with violence and this is where the collapse of anarcho-capitalism comes in it would basically descend extremely quickly into actual like when you think of anarchy most people think of violence and lawlessness and people have to run around with machine guns protecting their property and there's a consequence for this when in that kind of anarchist system where you're constantly in fear of violence you simply can't go to work and be productive you have to constantly defend your property from people trying to steal it trying to kill you so you can't go out and do anything so these types of anarchic systems become very primitive very quickly you're not going to have the underwater city of Rapture you're going to have Somalia in fact I've seen a lot of an caps and voluntarios point to Somalia it's a positive example of how it's a functional system and while it may function like it's not like everyone's dead in Somalia they do have a they can eke out a survivable living it's certainly not an ideal system it's not a system that you'd want to live in otherwise why are you going to Somalia go go be free in fact people who criticize anarcho-capitalist and tell them why do you go live in Somalia everyone scoffs at them like oh that that's not true in our Co capitalism in exactly the same way that when you criticize communists and tell them to go live in Venezuela if they love communists with so much they scoff and say that's not true communism it's the same thing it's two sides of the same coin and it all comes down to how you personally feel about individual liberty versus the the greater good anok but again these are personal biases and simply inserting a third party doesn't change that saying that judges will hash all this out doesn't change the fact that human beings have personal biases they will either subjectively believe that freedom is more important than equality or equality is more important than freedom they will prioritize subjective values in their own head and according to their own morality there's nothing wrong with that but you can't point to that and be like well that system is objective its scientific no it isn't there is no scientific way to measure values they're inherently subjective and personal now what I prefer to do is measure outcomes I look at the outcomes of systems and if they fail I look at why they failed which is why I don't give a shit what communists say they believe I give a shit about how communism always ends when the implementation of communism ends in a dictatorship I don't think that's a good idea I don't care if on paper or what these philosophers said would happen I don't give a shit about their theories I give a shit about what actually happens in the real world and the problem with anarcho-capitalism involuntary ISM it would either end in a weak toothless state which would just collapse and be conquered again look up the Republic of Minerva the reason why the Republic of Minerva was conquered so easily because they had no ability to defend themselves you give everyone nukes do you give everyone heavy artillery well then the first time someone has a bad day and decides to kill themselves they're gonna start a thermonuclear war you know instead of sucks starting a shotgun or breathing in the exhaust from their car they're just gonna kill everyone some people are that crazy they just don't care they had a bad day they want to go out they want to take out as many people with them as possible you know this is true and if you give everyone heavy military weapons they're going to use those to just kill people indiscriminately because they're suicidal so clearly you can't do that you have to have some type of control over that level of destruction but then when you concentrate it in any body whether it's a corporation a whatever a military thing they're going to become the government and this is the second criticism have of anarcho-capitalism is let's say you empower some private military to defend your country well you have a massive free-rider problem let's say you have insurance like everyone has to pay their military insurance to ensure that the military defends their country well no one's going to pay it because they if they don't individually pay it they still benefit from the military protecting them so if I have a private military defending my country and I choose not to pay the the insurance I still get the benefits of the protection it's not like the the military can selectively choose which houses they let be invaded so there's a massive free-rider problem and no one will voluntarily pay their insurance because they don't suffer when they don't and there's no way according to the non-aggression principle for the private military to enforce this insurance they would have to force people to pay their insurance which makes them a government because they're extorting taxes you can call it insurance it's still a tax in fact they call Social Security insurance does that make it not a tax no it is a tax but just like Obamacare it's so stupid it's just semantics anyway so you either have this private military extorting taxes from you by force ergo you're no longer and our kids do you now have a government or the military can't collect taxes you have a massive free-rider problem and then the military either goes rogue and just conquers your dumb ass because they have a monopoly on all these heavy military weapons or they just leave defect to the enemy or just I don't know again this either ends in one of two ways either you basically have a government imposed on you or you simply collapse and then become whatever happens next and so that's why I criticize it and then people are saying that I don't understand anarcho-capitalism or voluntary ISM and it's not a cry turkey cry turkey is listed on the website they endorse cry turkey just like they endorse Somalia they don't believe that this cry turkey that they envision would be corrupted because they don't think about the consequences in the real world just like a communist doesn't think communism Lesa dictatorship but it does and these endcaps and these voluntary they don't think that there's system would leave to a cry Turkey where the judiciary the judges control everything but again you have to have rule of law or you can't have people doing any business so you have to have rule of law right can we agree that in order to have a society that's functional you have to have some kind of rule of law well that means that the courts have to determine what the law is because you don't have democracy you don't have voting you don't have government in air quotes so you have to go to the judges to hash out differences of opinion so when two end caps disagree about what the proper application of the non-aggression principle is they have to go to a judge to sort it out and the only way they can say the consistent body of laws through precedent therefore you're empowering the judge to create law and no one's going to just listen to a judge because they respect him like oh that judge I really appreciate his logic and reason I'm going to abide by his judgement no people would tell I don't give a shit what he said that judge was corrupt I want to go to this court with this judge that I bought and paid for and we're gonna get we're gonna go to another trial so they either sue you constantly until you run out of money and they win or whatever they just tell the judge I don't I don't agree with your judgment I'm gonna go to a different court there's no higher court to appeal to there's no overall government to basically put their foot down and say no this is our final judgment and you will abide because that would violate the non-aggression principle so again you either have a collapsing toothless state which would descend into violence extremely quickly or you're going to have to empower the judiciary the milk you would have a government you would have to have a government because they would have to establish the basic principles of governance and according to a voluntariness Amanda narco capitalism this would be inevitable so you either collapse probably within a year or you would have a government within a year one or the other and you can see this in history with the Articles of Confederation with the United States when the founding fathers got together they tried the Articles of Confederation where the states manage themselves were basically independent and the federal government was very weak and they hoped it would work surprised it didn't the states kind of tried to compete with each other and they they have their own systems of money they were constantly fucking up trade and it was bad for the country as a whole so the founding fathers got back together they threw out the Articles of Confederation and they created the Constitution now I've seen videos defending the Articles of Confederation and saying that they didn't fail and that the problem was the government was too big we need to make the government even smaller but that's like exactly like a communist looking at a failed communist state and saying oh that wasn't real communism Oh Venezuela note the u.s. did that yeah the US is the reason Venezuela is eating their pets so this post hoc rationalization and rewriting of history fine I don't give a shit what you what you believe I'm telling you what I believe I'm telling you where my thought processes you could disagree the if you want I'm just explaining my problems with anarcho-capitalism voluntary ISM and proper terian ISM so ok I think we've beaten the dead horse of anarcho-capitalism involuntary on ISM enough for proper terian ISM it's a similar but different kind of thing proper terian ISM is not pro-freedom proper terrorism is actually a extension or a manifestation of the absolutist right it's not like up you know that like the political trichotomy where you've got the communists left you have the individuals capitalist right and give the absolutist right so anarcho-capitalism involuntary ISM are up at the upper right with the individuals capitalist I consider myself an individuals capitalist and I agree with anarcho-capitalism morally but I just don't see it working in reality because of human nature with proper terian ISM it's a different story proper terian ism is anti freedom and it's Pro absolutist government so I'm going to demonstrate this with a exchange I had with Curt Doolittle who's the founder and Big Brain nipa of proper terian ISM so he says sorry man but proper terian ism is a methodology you can produce any kind of government with it that you want I talked about restoring fascism monarch or government multi house government as options for reforming our system I proposed a constitution for restoring the Constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort but Krait are key especially in the Jewish method legal interpretation of literary tradition where there is no means of common production the reason the Jews always failed is pretty much the opposite you could say instead that the ultimate government under this method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over European nation states and and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism anthropomorphism of the laws in nature in the natural law replaced parable and supernaturalism very tedious to defend against strong men so my response was I'm referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal and declaring intangibles property this would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judges to sort out however if proper terrorism could be anything in its merely methodology then so be it it appeared to be promoted as a system of government not merely a methodology to create any government you want now in Kurt Doolittle's response it's a pretty big response I'm not gonna read the whole thing but about halfway through his response he writes this particular law I we recommend suppresses commercial financial economic political and pedagogical speech in the Commons from using the method of false premise bartering into hazard Soph isms of justification and critique and environmental saturation with these deceits for example in this case I could claim damages because you published a piece of an assertive critique straw Manning rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance because there are legitimate criticisms of the work I know them and published them with frequency especially when the work is available for free the definition of it on the home page in bright colors in the overview of the invitations of an outline with links to relevant arguments as such you sought attention virtue signals and if you collect revenue you sought profits by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public the result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality and a near eradication of leftist discourse conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equality and libertarianism defense of private property and the Left offense of nothing more other than unmerited kradic consumption of children all right so you notice his language style he he tries to sound really smart he's basically admitting that he's anti free speech and he will sue you based on his own subjective biases so according to him I have under his system admittedly he would take me to court and sue me for damages for criticizing him we're talking china levels of suppression of free thought and who would enforce this china level suppression of free thought the judges obviously you would need the judges to sort out who's lying what the value is like what damages that I caused Curt Doolittle with my youtube video critiquing him that would be up for a judge to sort out and so you have to empower the judge to suppress free speech but you know you can do this in any system any system which has suppression of free speech of that you know this could work anywhere really you know you could have you could have fascism you could have got monarchs you know any system really any system is compatible with proper terian ism as long as you have suppression or free thought and critique in court by suing people into bankruptcy the idea of talking about goods like the nation and culture and faith intergeneration ality as a property right I think that's actually kind of a cool idea I don't have any problem with it in the abstract it's a language thing and and maybe there's something useful for that and I'm excited about this um but but between saying okay property and todo is now a thing that we're enforcing and and that we're we're now going to enforce legal protections or legal liabilities for people we're gonna say it's okay we're gonna say that the government's gonna take a case against you for for for false statements that in public or on media or we're going to allow private citizens to seek redress for damages um before there there's huge problems with us the first thing is what's the criteria for public publicly protected speech so here's a very very simple scenario okay so party a goes out to the public square in in Canada where I'm currently at or in the United States and in what so say they go to Pioneer Square downtown Seattle they set up a soapbox and they say a statement really loudly it's their right to rights public speech has always been productive okay party B thinks that statement is wrong and under proper terian law invokes the government either through either through the the institution of of a lawsuit or through criminal suit to bring that person to court who has the burden of proof ok guess here's the thing and-and-and does it matter what statement a is what what kind of statement is if the person because because most statements are not provable so if the burden of proof is on the person to prove what they said is demonstrable empirically or approvable rationally they'll fail that burden and so will anybody who has any kind of controversial statement they could say I mean two years ago could be I think that M brain theory is true ok you proof and bran theory through all known can the most brilliant physicists can't it's a legitimate scientific theory it's I think it's the reigning one right now firfer for unification the unified field theory but you can't prove it ok so I guess then you're a criminal or we sue you til you're broke you know who knows maybe I think that's caused me damages of course how do you prove that it cost you damages who knows right you can't prove damages owed you have to prove damages no because you can't prove damages on intangibles you can't testimony to damage this to come down the line from a false statement that's impossible to assess without property being tangible it's impossible to assess future damages though the burden of proof then is on the person who's bringing the suit and that immediately means that 99% of all statements are going to me immediately left up the hook and actually that actually makes a little bit of sense if the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit against the falsehood that the statement is is test and this is the thing too if they're saying okay if the judge says okay in order to prove this false you have to have a testimonial e in apparently them a demonstrable means that this statement is not true but if there's not a system that that is inter subjectively verifiable even in the axiomatic form and all we're saying is that we have no consistency and again again this is law right so we have to be able to express like can I go out and say crisis ready to risen in Pioneer Square in Seattle can I say that under proper tourism all right so that's enough of that yeah it's a pretty long rambley livestream but it's a livestream what are you gonna do but I wanted to highlight that one spot now later on in the common thread Curt Doolittle starts citing a bunch of sources quoting different people and I there was a response video from an aunt cap who did the same thing who quoted a bunch of like libertarian thinkers from like the 1700s 1800s look that era that early era there was a lot of speculative okay this is like that was the era of the post monarchy the founding fathers leaned on a lot of philosophers and thinkers in order to conceptualize United States she had the American Revolution the French Revolution you had all these different revolutions monarchs healing overthrown replaced with the Republic's or democracies and they all kind of tried different things and there was a lot of different thinkers at that time speculating about what could work you had people advocating for a libertarian government people advocating for a socialist government a communist government everything was new everything was up in the air everything was you know open for discussion and that's great but now in 2019 we can't keep going back to philosophers from 200 years ago as if because they made a book it was really popular and a lot of people were influenced by it that their system isn't above criticism because look I don't blame the people in the early 1900s for trying communism because hey it's never been tried before it could totally work we don't know what will happen well now in 2019 we know exactly what will happen and we actually know why it happens so with the benefit of hindsight we can actually evaluate systems which are ultimately subjective by their objective outcomes and that's what I'm talking about I don't judge communism morally the problem with communism is doesn't work because it ignores human nature I agree with anarcho-capitalism morally but it doesn't work because of human nature the problem with proper terian ism is it's not even a system at all it's just a methodology people and you can have any government you want fascism monarchy any kind of totalitarian government which suppresses free speech you know pick your poison so that's my problem with proper terian ism anarcho-capitalism and all these systems which are effectively utopian and I get it I get that that's not what these systems actually advocate and I'm stupid and they don't understand what I'm talking about and I need to read more books and I need to go back and read these philosophers from the 1700s to understand the philosophy but I don't because I can look at their outcomes I could look at when the attempt was made to implement them and it failed in the case of communism became a dictatorship in the case of anarcho-capitalism or voluntary Anisa it became Somalia or it became the Republic of Minerva I can look at the outcomes that I could ask myself based on the outcomes that these systems inevitably come to is this a good idea not is it morally correct is it a good idea to implement the system or even attempt to implement the system and for me the answer is no and the reason why particularly with proper Terran ISM and volunteerism is because you have a cry turkey by necessity or you basically just have a collapsed economy neither of them are good in my opinion and my original video was simply talking about the problem with cry turkey in fact that was the title of the video these are my thoughts and Kirk Doolittle if your system is ever implemented and you want to sue me for critiquing you go for it buddy I won't even be here because if proper tarian ism ever comes united states i will leave because you're talking about a chinese level suppression of free speech and the implementation of fascism or monarchy or some type of totalitarian system and I want nothing to do with that so I won't even be here to sue anyway this is turd flinging monkey thank you for watching and I will see you next time

You got propertarianism wrong once, now twice… how long can you keep strawmanning a thing before honestly trying to understand it? You're only looking to critique at all costs. That's what's "criminal". Make an argument or ask questions. Learn and have an argument or alternative before you critique. This is the basic of truthful discourse ffs.

Free speech isn't free, you advocate for some criteria or limits yourself (don't yell fire in a closed room), subverted countries for others (don't misgender), and we have others (don't lie). That you feel like you either 1- haven't lied (what is the definition of lying, or lack of due diligence in speech?), or 2- shouldn't be arrested for lying (you want license to lie, for yourself and/or a larger group and/or everyone, for some reason), or 3- your lies weren't damaging enough to warrant prosecution. These are all different but more honest questions, none of which you made, yo just went for "muh free speech" and "he's evil because he's trying to stop me wah wah". Non-arguments. You've not addressed the point and you've not argued by consequence to the system, you've only made a personal argument against it because you yourself might be in trouble in such a system.

Yes, you would and should be punished, to what extent, probably not much at all (your audience is small and there's much much higher priority infractions out there to prosecute). You can understand this, or you can take it personally and disregard the whole thing because you won't admit your contribution towards the pollution of the informational commons. Do whatever you like. It's not a crime today, after all. That's how we got to the disinformation age we're in. Led by subversives without any due diligence, and with an excess of critiques of the same kind of grammar you employed here. That's the consequence of """free speech"""".

Also it's not just "the judges" trial by jury is required for bigger sentences. Lefties excluded, the whole population does have a disdain for lying. With more damaging cases, it'd be easy to get convictions on libel, treason, fraud, etc. for mass propagandists.

I found it funny that those anCaps saying Somalia is great and it proves anCap works, and yet they themselves don't go to this anCap "dream land"

These videos answer your criticisms:
Also, your idea that Ireland had a king is misguided, it's true that some literature use the word "king" but it is as good as a mistranslation as that particular "king" had no authority over the law, they could not decree or administer justice or declare war.

Other systems that a person has never lived in sound better when the current system they live in is not being fair to them in their eyes.

Most people do not speak the way TFM does because it's difficult to only remember why your system is great but why all the other are bad. Thank you for simplifying the bad by looking at their outcomes

TFM stick to MGTOW, you don't really know anything else if this video is a representation of your knowledge.

So your entire premise for this video is based on a tiny colony that attempted to occupy an island amid much larger, well-established countries and a country which was created by people who didn't even know anarcho-capitalism existed?

Funny how you don't actually cite any ancaps claiming that. At most, I've seen ancaps claiming that Somalia improved after its government collapsed, which is a fair point, because it did. (Just watch Shane Killian's video on Somalia). That said, they are not anarchist in the purest sense of the word because Somalians don't want anarchy, and are comprised of different sects all trying to install their own government and failing. Somalia is thus more of a failed state than an anarchist territory. And no, this is not just an inevitable result of anarcho-capitalism, considering that nobody in Somalia ever had intentions of pursuing an anarcho-capitalist society. You wouldn't say America was communist if it got nuked just because there was no money and no government. It's obviously just a coincidence at that point.

There is a higher court for you to appeal to because your biased courts are inherently low in quality, so the only way you're going to clear your name is if you go to an unbiased court.

Step 1: Own your own court
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.

Long story short, I don't think a major corporation is going to pay you personally to say "corporation x is not guilty" just for the hell of it. And I certainly don't think people are going to trust you when you clear your own name because "I have my own court dammit!". Law isn't magic.

But who has the guns? Hint: It's not just the courts. So if a court were to convict someone of a crime, would anyone actually be inclined to trust the verdict if that court was known for doing shady business with big companies? (Corporations wouldn't really be too common in an anarchist society, or they would be so common that the distinction between a normal business and a corporation wouldn't be nearly what it is today depending on how popular liability-limiting organizations are). Furthermore, there would be no bailouts or barriers to entry, so businesses would have to rely much more on their consumers for support than they do today.

Basically, it's honesty that's most profitable in the market for justice.

The difference between us is that communists openly pursue dictatorial means to achieve their ends. Most ancaps reject the same kind of utilitarianism that both you and communists support. We say that if a voluntary society is not achieved through voluntary means, it is not a voluntary society at all, and we have failed.

School shootings, military murdering people??? DAMN anarcho-capitalism sounds awful, good thing we live with the big daddy State protecting us all and these things never occur, right?

Under communism people get only what they need…
So who is going to decide how much diamonds my wife needs?

My single biggest issue with propertarianism at the moment is lack of definition of what constitutes due diligence and a public statement. I do however still believe there are some valid ideas there and there is some merit to the argument, but there are still too many vague points and unsolved issues. I do however think most of this is fixable from what I have seen so far as vague points can be clarified.

"Just completely ignore the fact that I don't respond to any of their videos, even though and I don't think they're legitimate or anything"

"Also it's literally feudalism,even tho feudalism was ruled by kings"

Naturally i would assume you do the same thing the Communists do and simply create your own definitions independent from what we advocate for,to paint a picture to fear monger you views.

You're nothing special there are plenty of people like you who just dishonestly try to say that we believe something and support something, when you never even show our own beliefs it's really not that hard to disprove and fact a majority of the audience that actually thinks of themselves will go over to the videos you try to criticize.

So is this simply an attempted to try to milk the ancap Community dry, after you dried up on the sjw shit?

https://youtu.be/LCMc53gUjr0 and yet another debunk.

Also if we have no legitimate criticisms against your argumentation why don't you respond to the two videos that I have posted in your comment sections(this one and the video were you were claiming we support rule by judges.) you sack of shit.

What makes any system "Utopian" is its need for people to behave in a way that is not currently natural. This is why they never work. They require people to become something else through indoctrination rather than dealing with people as they are. This is why I support some version of ethnic nationalism because it is the closest emulation of how humans naturally function and organize themselves. We need to stop trying to swim up river.

The people in government are crazy. Im surprised they dont nuke everyone.

TFM may have a right of return escape plan to an ethno state in the Middle East that actually defends its borders.

Superb explanation of the logical flaws in Anarcho-Communist/Capitalist reasoning.
I will bookmark this video, and spread the word.

Mikhail Gorbachev became president of the USSR and started reforming the system. So the British government sent their best spy, James Bond, to Moscow to check out how it is going. James walked past a bakery, and noticed no bread. So he wrote "no bread" in his little notebook. He walked past a shoe store and saw no shoes there. So he wrote "no shoes". Then somebody tapped him on the back, and James turned around. A man says to him "I'm with the KGB and a few years ago we would have shot you for this". So James writes in his little notebook: "no bullets".

Communism leads to poverty on paper too – if you get rid of profit for everyone, which is gaining more than you lose, then everyone starts losing more than they gain. That leads to poverty for everyone. It's not difficult.

Your Hanumanly Great video + Black Pilled “Truth or winning?” one have plunged me into an aware depression but philosophic happiness nonetheless. What remains? Benevolent patriarchy?

We’re all just balls of energy. Hardware always short circuits. No program runs smoothly without maintenance. All these ideologies are just different platforms with different specs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Dark Souls 3: Tryhard Plaza
Dark Souls 3: Tryhard Plaza

[Music] Krombobulous Micheal: Oh boy, here I go killing again! [Music] Person: YUNG MAESTRO? MORE LIKE…DUNG MAESTRO! (Screams in agony) [Music continues] Text to speech dude: B a n a n [Music] Announcer: Wow! INCREDIBLE! A NEW RECORD! (Claps) (Different music) (Music gets intense) New dude: Startin’ to think we …

My SOUL Is From Elsewhere|Rumi Poetry
My SOUL Is From Elsewhere|Rumi Poetry

All day I think about it, then at night I say it. Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing? I have no idea. My soul is from elsewhere, and I’m sure of that. And I intend to end up there. This drunkenness began in …

7 Reasons AC Odyssey Fate Of Atlantis Is The Best Odyssey DLC Yet
7 Reasons AC Odyssey Fate Of Atlantis Is The Best Odyssey DLC Yet

Hello, this is Alice of the Rock Paper Shotgun video department. And if I sound chirpy today that’s probably the sound of relief in my voice. You see, I was kinda dreading reviewing The Fields of Elysium. We did videos on Assassin’s Creed Odyssey’s Legacy of the First Blade add-on …