Socialist Alarm Clock - Extended Version

A little message for Elmo... I'm aware of the existence of Mutualists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Left Libertarians (Libertarian Socialists), that there is Individualist anarchism, Social anarchism and Mutualism and all the associated sub-groups. I'm dealing with only one specific groups. I'm sooo sorry I didn't have this disclaimer up before so you wouldn't piss your pants over a video that's just a bit of FUN.

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION (modified):

Yes I know... This one's been around a lot, but hey, Libertarian Free-For-All Market Capitalist nut bars (is that specific enough for you Emo?) tried to make their own version which completely missed the point... So here's my updated version with their observations included.

Everyone else... Enjoy!

One more thing. The US Government is NOT analogous to prison, and only a lunatic would make such an analogy... Therefore we are NOT advocating the position that eating prison food is advocating the prison.

Libertarian Alarm Clock (the laughable retort that entirely misses the point)

[Cncrdance]

It's been interesting to watch your vids on this topic. It reminds me of the principle I try to espouse, which is: I care more about WHY you believe something than WHAT you believe.

I suspect that there are some very thoughtful, rational people with strong libertarian positions, but the Internet is largely filled with the OTHER kind. There's nothing inherently irrational in defending either position, it's the tactics employed in furtherance of that end that I have concerns about.

[Boreasos]

Good fun, and all perfectly true while being brilliantly tongue in cheek. Keep up yhe good work, and have no fear ignoring the offended individuals who don't see the humor in the video and the ignorance in their posts.

[SaviorOfLogic]

@FSAthe1st Yes. Merchants were not supported by the state, and there was no state which could tax in Ireland.

[Cncrdance]

@Nightmare060
I was briefly a Libertarian in college, and I met some very intelligent, sophisticated, thoughtful Libertarians. Some of the rhetoric, like taxation as theft, was a little flimsy, but there were also some very sophisticated arguments about the inherent conflict of politicizing our economic choices. Politicians make popular choices that tend to be very short sighted (one election cycle). Companies SHOULD be better at long-term goals, because they only answer to the bottom line.

[dhx]

@darris321
It could simply be the case that fireproof houses are not as profitable because of the extra cost of R&D or whatever. Just because a fireproof house might be a good idea doesn't mean there's necessarily a demand for it or that meeting the demand is always profitable.

Replace "fireproof house" with "widget" if you prefer.

Telecommunications and GPS are great inventions, but there was no incentive for private corporations to launch a space program because of the humongous entry cost.

[darris]

i think the fact that the insurer wants a more fireproof house would create an incentive to have a more fireproof house from the get-go.
a house which was less fireproof would obviously have a higher premium.
plus why does the government get to say that I can't have a house that isn't built out of what they say?
A previously homeless man can take the wheels off the car and live in it, if he wants without the building codes.
With the codes, it's illegal for him not to live in the expensive house

[chstoney]

Wondefull. This sums exactly why I am neither right nor left, neither liberal nor conservative.

Libertarians say I am centrist, because it is cool.

I say I am radical realist.

[anubis]

They can point out all the things capitalism does for them but they are unaware how much socialism does for them.

[dhx]

@FSAthe1st
Yes, that seems to be the general explanation.

[SaviorOfLogic]

@FSAthe1st Common law, in part, is about the rule of law, as it is 'common' to the entire nation, and 'exceptions' were only due to State law (eg. no one could tax land he did rightfully not own, except the King).
Merchant Law spanned all Europe and was only based on reputation, though in Ireland, where common law was dominant, judges would make decisions, and a separate group, named 'kings' would do the enforcement, but were not above the law.

[dhx]

@darris321
Also, I don't think it needs explaining that codes prevent obnoxious things like creating a building that is a massive fire hazard that will firestorm over an entire neighborhood of fire hazards. Or doing obnoxious things like impinging on public property like roads and water utilities. So I'm not clear on what your point is.

And is a slightly cheaper house really going to affect an average homeless guy's living conditions? He's got bigger problems than housing prices.

[Krygex]

And this is why I was not at all (and still am not) nervous about Obamacare. Socialism works people. Heck, Hospitals CAN'T refuse to treat someone who they recognize is in immediate peril, Hippocratic Oath and all that jazz. 
Now we just need to find a way to pay for it all...which is the hard part of any noble project. 

[SaviorOfLogic]

@FSAthe1st Because Ireland and Iceland are small islands compared to England and Norway. Religion helped justified their rule as states.

[SaviorOfLogic]

@SaviorOfLogic To clarify, I o not mean their present governments, but those they had a few centuries ago.

[SaviorOfLogic]

@FSAthe1st May I ask how you define 'rule of law'? I don't see how it could be a business (for or not for profit), as it's an idea. Anyway, common law was the law most people used for their lives during the middle ages (even in lands under a state, it was just that state law would override any common law decisions), it was the commonly held belief that everyone was bound by, whatever their beliefs were (so were typically sexist, but were cohesive and enforced).

[SaviorOfLogic]

@FSAthe1st No, it is by definition not under the rule of an objective legal monopoly. Just as fanatics agree that being gay is wrong, normal people agree murder is wrong, and it will be punished as such.
I understand the misunderstanding, I was not being dishonest.
I support the rule of law, just as I support secularism and liberalism, that does not mean such a feature will be present, that depends on culture.
And common law by definition is not a monopoly, which the state is.

[colourmegone]

Dogmatists always see things as black or white, there is never any nuance and never any co-operation. We are still pursuing a truly effective economic system but so far none of the systems we recognize seem to work in their "pure" form. Best to take the best of both.

[dangerouslytalented]

and this is why neither communism nor unregulated capitalism is nearly as fair, efficient or effective as regulated, public/private partnership, such as the American libertarians are trying to get rid of and replace with Randian unregulated capitalism.

[Otokogoroshi]

I should have made a drinking game off of this video, drink everything the variation of the word 'socialist/ism' shows up :P

Thanks for the video :)

[ProDCloud]

@FSAthe1st
"Good job missing the point there, Genius. At some point in your family lineage, they gave their implicit consent to the Constitution when the framers had it ratified by representatives across the union. If they had any objection to it at the time, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. It was voted in. You can't just cry about it now because you don't like where it's gotten you."
LOL: my parents agreed to it = My consent, GREAT logic there