Debate a Libertarian: Comedian Dave Smith Vs. Ben Burgis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Dave Smith ( / comicdavesmith , comedian and host of the podcast ”Part of the Problem,” (gasdigitalnetw...) joins Ben Burgis and they have a debate about the fundamentals behind both of their preferred ideologies.
Journalist, science writer, and author of "Austerity Ecology: A Left Defence of Growth," (www.johnhuntpu...) Leigh Phillips ( / leigh_phillips ) joins the show during the debate.
Independent creators rely on your support to create the content you want!
Support Give Them An Argument on Patreon: / benburgis . Patrons get early access to every episode as well as a weekly bonus episode and regularly scheduled "Discord Office Hours" group voice chats.
Follow Ben on Twitter: / benburgis
Like, subscribe, and get notifications on Ben’s channel: / benburgisgtaa
Visit benburgis.com 
Развлечения
You know both these guys are serious because they are sitting in front of their book shelves.
men of culture
it matters what books are on those shelves
Battle of The Shelving Units
It's often one of the places with best acoustics for recordings with microphones at home without doing any special room treatment. Bookshelves filled with books both absorb and diffuse unwanted room sounds.
spoiler: dave smith can't read
“I don’t want anything to be run like a dictatorship”
… except businesses
Oh, so dictatorships run on voluntary mutual exchange? Who knew.
whats up with the random dude at the bottom lmao
the next guest joined in early to be ready on time
Right ? Some guy just lounching in the background, picking his nose while not realizing he's 'in the picture'.LOL,
yeah ben should have cropped it and put black bars lol
Lol his weird ass pre-video image
That was a soyface.
Dave Smith won this hands down . But it was a nice respectful conversation
Great conversation, we need more of this kind of stuff.
With libertarians? Lol no thanks. Discuss your delusions elsewhere
@@brentoncarter4275 you realize that this kind of attitude makes left look both weak and arogant? Also this is precisely what Ben Burgis does, so it is you, not me that should go somewhere else. Lastly hillarious that you immidietly assumed i must be libertarian xD
@@brentoncarter4275 Having these sorts of conversations is how to change minds. If you are against that, then maybe you should go somewhere else.
@@andrewforte2018 I can stay right here. Cry about it. You're not changing any libertarians minds.
@@brentoncarter4275 I used to be a libertarian. I'm now a socialist. I have friends with similar stories. You're wrong. Also, having these conversations will help those just looking around for perspectives. There are a lot of good faith people out there who just want to hear conversations like this. If libertarians are the only ones willing to have good faith discussions, then they will start convincing a lot of people to become libertarians.
Love seeing a civil, well-meaning debate between two opposing people.
What is the jazz song? It rocks my socks.
Shazam showed no result.
its made for the show
Was not expecting a LOS/breadtube crossover lmao nice. Also good to see a debate with a libertarian that is genuinely good faith. I like the fun debates of course, but it’s good to have actual convos with people
Good faith? Lol nope. Taxation is not theft. They're morons.
Brenton Carter excellent argument. Truly, your brain must be the size of Texas!
@@brentoncarter4275 Ok but they were both respectful of one another and their arguments. There's only so much you could do in 20 min. Besides, if you wanna create a mass coalition of people that will stand up to capital, you're gonna have to talk to these people
@@dudehighmrksup I'd say that pretty fair but do you seriously think libertarians are going to do that? I don't.
@@brentoncarter4275 Doesn't matter what I think. It's gotta be done. If you send out a well developed message to 100 people and only a few are receptive, that's fine. You just keep sending that message over and over until it becomes more mainstream.
Besides, most people aren't politically coherent outside of having somewhat liberal social policy instincts and neoliberal economic instincts. If you have enough arguments, narratives, studies, and people willing to talk to them, you'll get them to whatever side you're on, no matter the subject matter.
Love your work Ben!
So happy you made your own RUclips channel.
xo
Ben should have Tom Woods on next
Yes please!!
Have you ever farted before
I'm a proud libertarian, I believe that taxation is theft, cows are butterflies, speedos are cool, and other incoherent things that appeal to undeveloped 4th grade brains.
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 cry harder
Bro you have a channel! Subbed up. Your last book was great. Keep the faith, Ben. Be kind and charitable, always.
The libertarian guy thinks that there was no war before the rise of the modern state. Tribal life, the era of godkings must have been peaceful in his mind.
The libertarian guy doesn’t know how private property… started.
This is a great nuanced, balanced and respectful debate.
Art work and music is dope
@TheEsotericZebra jazz rules
@TheEsotericZebra Everyone uses generic music on youtube unless they have a lot of money to license music.
spaghettidigit or friends who make original music that they let you use 👍
@@BodhiFitness Well that settles it :D
Drink every time Ben says “right” RIP
I remember this guy debating Sam Seder. He was pretty okay compared to most of the off the wall libertarians he’s debated.
Sargon’s Black Grandfather check out Tom Woods
Lol not really. Same utter fantasy
Dave Smith is truly one of the best communicators. And he’s improved and grown a lot over the last five years (that’s how long ago the Sam debate was). For what it’s worth, I was a die hard conservative Republican. Dave pulled me to full anarcho capitalism. Which means I now agree with more progressives (such as yourself?) about the problem of wealth distribution, wars, and the war on drugs. Hope you give Dave a chance to give ya some new perspective!
This whole debate Ben says yeah I get it I agree. After 20 times of him saying this I hope he agrees if he lost this debate.
Ron Jeremy has lost a lot of weight, he looks good.
lol
@@Dan16673 mmmmm borger king
Well...the former is true at least..
I love your podcast, and I love your videos. We need more people like you!
There are things you said when I listened to you debate dave Smith and it made me start listening to you. I can never seem to point out what it is but I still like to listen to you debate.
I vote Dave smith for press
I vote low IQ dave smith for 4th grade class president
I'm not sure we really learned anything new here but at least the debate was civil.
Why is Dave Smith given any air time in regard to his stupid childish Libertarian views.
I mean off the bat he talks about a government being a good or bad vessel, but the same could be said of an authoritarian government.
And he fails to distinguish that obviously a democratically elected government is responsible and accountable to the people, where as an authoritarian government is by its own definition, going to be bad, because of no checks and balances.
I’m still perplexed how we pay for “fixing”roads and “clean” drinking water?
Voluntarily?
Nice little convo!
Hey I love jazz and was just wondering what the intro piece is? Sounds like the kinda stuff I like.
right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right? right?
Dave, thinks a democratic state is horrible, and doesn't understand a stateless nation, country would be even worse.
Great convo
Libertarian are so close to getting the point but they don’t seem to understand the relationship between government and business. It’s not that government are giving corporations special privileges, it’s that they are letting them run free. And getting rid of the government isn’t going to fix it, it will remove all the shackles! The government does put some of the strict regulations on small businesses but allowing small companies to compete by poisoning the food isn’t true competition!
They do give them special privilege through bailouts, regulatory capture, tax breaks, etc.
''''''You’re conflating libertarianism with anarchism''''
@@bobwilliams8940 i used your other message
@@bobwilliams8940 true, not because there is a special relationship between government and corporations but rather the class of people running the government and the ones running the business of the same ilk and look out for each other. It wouldn’t be so profound if we a president not of the business world such as Bernie.
@@robinsss I’m pretty sure in anarchy there are no private businesses.
I really like Dave Smith and Ben Burgis. I miss Michael Brooks a lot
Interesting, he doesn’t come across as a particularly right wing libertarian.
Boogaloo boy in a hawiian shirt
If someone calling themselves a libertarian seems like they're part of one wing or another then they probably aren't much of a libertarian.
He’s a Christian conservative
@@artemiasalina1860 You don't know shit about the history of libertarianism or libertarianism, do you?
@@artemiasalina1860 the truth is that libertarianism was originally part of the left wing and there was no good reason to move it from that position
I don’t think Dave understands why a state does all the bad things he stated. A state does want the people who influence them tell them to do. Who influences our government?
I think it is opposite the state influences the people
As a libertarian it feels like people on the left follow all of our ideas very well but then right at the very end say: "Yeah I know property rights and individual freedoms are very important. But I also would really like to have that free healthcare now, soooo... People dying in the streets, you know".
I really think we should stop making the argument about corrupt bankers. Everybody already agrees with us on that and nothing gets done politcally anyways. What we should rather do is really get to the deep point of why property rights should be untouchable. It is the very basis of our argument and soo easy to destroy for empathic people. When put agains human suffering nobody agrees with it.
I will start here: The only long term antidote to human suffering is progressional production of wealth by a free market. Wealth is not found nor limited, it is created by people getting up in the morning. This system of production depends on property rights. Any infringement of those rights leads to less wealth production. That is an observable fact demonstrated by every social democrat/socialist/communist experiment in history.
Now I know you don't like inequality and want to forcefully redestribute some property. Apart from the theft beeing morally objectionable, you can do that but you will invariably decrease the total amount of wealth produced. The mechanism for this are (perverse) incentives.
Can you say for sure that the redistribution is morally more valuable that the wealth you destroyed? It could be demonstrated but you have to do the legwork of verifying first and noone on the left ever does this, it seems obviously justified to them, so strongly that it becomes a moral imperative. Stealing is not helping. By all means we should all give so much more to cheritable causes, we could give all our taxes at least. If you live in a caring society then people will give. If they don't give you didn't have a caring society to begin with and you should start looking for one. What you find might not be the USA or your state but it will be a place you belong, because you chose it freely.
There's no freedom in being poor- libertarians worship power, they want to entrench absolute, completely unaccountable power. It would be absolutely legal to starve people by buying property around them and threatening to mow them down in a 'only property rights matter' society. Property rights are unaccountable, undemocratic, elitist power, especially when advocated to being absolutely unlimited as libertarians do.
There was society before the state and even then some individuals exerted power over other individuals.
Love the dramatic jazz intro
Love that davey smith
guys taxation is theft /uploads youtube video but doesn't pay for the server space
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 if tech product is free, you (the user) are part of the product.. if your eyeballs and clicks don't pay the bills, youtube would have a paid version, eh.. what tax are you most proud to pay your local, state, or federally? peace doc
@@YanraOnesja sure of course, which still doesn't excuse the fact that dave is using server space for free AKA stealing it and not complaining about that. My comment was a horribly dumb flimsy not serious joke (that for some weird reason you took seriously and challenged) that was about as hollow and limp-wristed as Dave's lame failed complaining about taxes that for some reason you have no problem with haha, cringe.
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 lol ok
I agree really was a easy win for Dave . Ben says I agree I agree but next time the state will do it right.
you didnt really get into anything here. was really boring to just hear him say the same old crap and then you run out of time at the end and say look at this article
As an anarchist who regularly speaks to libertarians, this one was better at dialoguing than most. Still, why are there always the problematic analogies?
You mean a left-anarchist or what?
I’ve watched a lot of socialists debate libertarians and the comedian has, by far, made the best argument for it. I still disagree with his point but it’s a lot better made than usual
@@AveCaesar2112 what is foolish? I am very sure you have poor understanding of philosophy and ethics and have false conception of your own right
@@AveCaesar2112 I don't like Dave smith fan boy of what exactly
4:11 and earlier are EPIC
in case there was any confusion ben, the winner are the ONLY ones who get to drink from the cup. where is that written you ask? its the fucking Stanley cup
Power does corrupt but these days I'm starting to wonder if corruption empowers, as well.
Corruption empowers if the rules/consequences allow it. Why does power cheroot necessarily though? Seems like a catchy thing we say, but how does it necessarily corrupt?
@@zombiedeathrays8862 right? It's like power is only attractive to those with selfish or violent ends, anyway. But how much power is too much?
@@bgiv2010 Not all powerful people are corrupt. But you can gain power by being corrupt is what I was trying to say. But you can also gain power by being an effective leader or a good public servant.
@@zombiedeathrays8862 sure. I'm just saying that, after a certain point, power for its own sake becomes oppressive. I'm not talking about community leaders. I'm talking about regional or industrial tyrants.
@@bgiv2010 I don’t know what you mean power for it’s own sake becomes oppressive. That just sounds like you are rephrasing power corrupts, which I don’t agree with. I did a bit of reading because I didn’t think this was a premise that I had heard any evidence to support. What I heard was based on research power lowers inhibitions and increases your sense of agency. So power tends to amplify what is already there. If your ambition is to help people then power will make you feel more able to do so. If your ambition is greed then power will make you greedier. So the solution isn’t less power, it is building structures that make people who can attain power’s self interests align with more benevolent actions vs selfish ones. This aligns with more of a socialist approach vs a libertarian. Power is inevitable. So we better have the structures in place that make power beneficial to the most people. The alternatives are less attractive, as we are experiencing today.
12:53 Sweden had one of the highest death rates due to their relaxed Covid guidelines. Even the king of Sweden regretted the inaction they took
The effects from the covid restrictions, among other things will be a lot greater than that death toll. You can see it happening now
@@ExtremelyRightWing that’s subjective. I believe the millions of people that have died from Covid and the millions of people that survived Covid and have long Covid effects (scarred lung tissue, brains fog, loss of taste and smell senses, etc.) are greater than the negative externalities of the Covid restrictions.
Side note - and of the negative externalities caused by the Covid restrictions, I believe the government should step in to provide relief to its citizens, something that every developed nation was able to do except for America.
You are simply wrong. Just look up the mortality rates. Swedens rate is lower that so many other first world countries that locked down hard and used strict vaccine passports. They also did not suffer economically nearly as much, as they did not cripple their businesses and on top of all that, they spared their population the mental health crisis that plagues all the countries who went super hard on lockdowns.
Actually it had the lowest excess death rate in Europe.
@@Hosebrain BS.
Sweden had 2,584 deaths per Million.
Australia ( which had some of the hardest lock down rules) 959 per Million.
Dave... So fuckin balanced and cool with anyone... The most consistent Mofo you know
See this is why you can't be nice and argue this stuff. No one wins. Ben doesn't feel he's wrong but Dave just answered the hard questions with ease. So what's the point. We all come and leave the same. No being called to account for double standards or internal inconsistencies.
14:05 if you hate the big banks so much, why do you want to de-regulate them and give them more power to do whatever they want. There should be stricter laws and regulations on them
The govt is the reason the banks are as big as they are.
@@ExtremelyRightWing yes, do you know what that reason is?because the government loosened up the regulations and repealed glass-steagal, which gave the banks more power and allowed them to grow to the size that they are
Yooo I'ma huge LOS fan and also a socialist so this is a dope crossover episode lmao
Guys taxation is theft /gets mail but doesn't pay for it /drives on roads but doesn't pay for it /went to public school but didn't pay for it
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 all of that stuff was available before taxation 🤡
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 imagine using roads as a justification to spend 4.6 trillion dollars
You ever end up getting a job kid? 😂. usually all the "socialists" come to the realization that they can't afford their weed without a job 😂
Why not post the full debate?
I understand keeping it congenial but I feel like you could unleash a little more Ben. Your arguments were good tho!
If you check out Dave's podcast, you'll see that him and Ben have had much more in depth and long-form debates before. Dave even moderated a debate between Ben and Gene Epstein.
Ben glad you've got a channel and all that but I can't keep doing this if you keep saying "right" every fifth word. I know its an academic philosophy tic but you gotta reign it in man
Right?
@@scotts3335 lol. I'm sympathetic I know I do it too in some contexts but it really translates badly in the youtube format.
It’s a filler that is loaded with content. It is meant to signal membership and acceptance in a certain class. I hate that beta male effeminate pseudo intellectual communication style.
If you just sprinkle “right” over every assertion you make you subtlety hoodwink your listener into assuming your premises without proving them. It’s meant to signal consensus or that the claim is not in dispute by serious people.
@@cameronwitmer I'm very familiar with the tactic haha I spent some time in academic philosophy
I would try to push Dave a lot harder with a "if there's no government, what else is going to fill that hole?" kind of argument. Like, people aren't just going to sit there. SOMEONE is going to take power in some form. SOMEONE is going to build a security team or army with drones and tanks and WMD. How is that stuff all doled out in the libertarian utopia? Who makes sure that everyone follows the libertarian rules? Isn't any kind of general agreement amongst people in a society to respect property rights a kind of government?
Of course, the libertarian argues it's not that there's NO government. It's just a very small one. Basically all it does is protect property rights. But what's to stop anyone from overthrowing it? Does this libertarian society have a constitution? Does it have a thousand different constitutions all conflicting with each other? Could it be that in one part of this free, libertarian world a group of people decided to get together and create a set of rules where general things like infrastructure and security were handled by a central government that everyone voted on and funded with taxes?
Indeed. This is basically Hobbes' argument in Leviathan which is a pretty foundational pillar of social contract theory, basically everything you're saying. Pinochet's regime in Chile offers some unsurprising insight into how such an embrace of "free markets" generally plays out.
Here's a 100% accurate depiction of the libertarian utopia:
ruclips.net/video/pZk6ia1vFAc/видео.html
@@Bisquick Dave seems to think that in the "power corrupting government" dynamic the problem is the government part and not the power part. Like, as if removing government leaves power nowhere else to go, without regulation, without an army, without the institutional "threat of force". As though power weren't perfectly capable of building tanks and aircraft carriers all by itself.
I know libertarians often talk like utopianists because they are very occupied with the moral foundations of their believes. In practice I don't think any of us are. You have to work within the existing system by lifting opressive laws until you reach a high point of prosperity.
And yes there are some that believe this point comes after the abolishment of all government monopoly on force. I agree with you that this is very hard to imagine given our current society and would lead to a disaster if instituted tomorrow. But if you think about it a little longer you will notice that the current global situation of rivalling nation states is not very different from global security firms battling it out. The only difference beeing that you cannot change your nationality easily and most nation states don't give a s**t about what their citizens actually need but are beholden to bankers how bought and payed for them.
@@Bisquick Please at least get your facts right:
"It is often said and widely believed that Pinochet’s economic reforms eliminated any significant role of the state in the economy. The claim is that he introduced a neoliberal model, that is, raw, savage capitalism of the kind attributed to Chile in the nineteenth century. The facts are otherwise. Chile’s largest industry and biggest foreign-exchange earner by far is copper, which was nationalized in the late 1960s and early 1970s and has remained so ever since. Domestic banks were deregulated in the late 1970s but reregulated with vigor in the early 1980s. Poverty had increased enormously during and in the wake of the UP’s disastrous economic policies, and it decreased only as a result of the state-led stabilization policies, structural reforms, and targeted social programs of the Pinochet period. Major state expenditures for direct action social programs targeted to the poorest of the poor were initiated in the middle 1980s, not after 1990. Poverty levels, as high as 50 percent in 1984, were reduced to 34 percent by 1989. They continued to fall after 1990 to 15 percent in 2005. The Concertación, the alliance of political parties of the center and left that has won the past four presidential elections, deserves some credit for the post-1990 years, but so does the Pinochet government. It created the underlying economic policies and structures in the 1970s and 1980s that the Concertación maintained and that produced jobs for the poor and an economic surplus to enable targeted state antipoverty programs."
from www.hoover.org/research/what-pinochet-did-chile
Rule of thumb: Dictators and free markets don't mix well. The masses want jobs and free stuff. Dictators and socialism on the other hand...
You lost me at “doled out”
The only time Ben isnt irrational is when he is talking to dave.
As much as I like Ben, I can't help but concluding that every socialist is either evil, dishonest or stupid. Usually a combination.
Dam Ben! You got destroyed
How ?
dave won
Right Like Right Like Right Like Right like. FFS
Taxes don't fund federal programs...
^^^ This ^^^
False.
@@HarryS77 All federal programs are "already funded", taxes do go back into the caffers for accountability and inflation reasons. Taxes at the federal level do not fund programs for them to THEN be operated.
@@TheEverydayProgressiveShow False.
@@HarryS77 just saying "false" does not make it so...explain-
yo those bookshelf's mean they're smart. dave smith all day.
Dave: history backs me up (citing zero historical examples)
Libertarians are fucking morons
Name 1 working socialist Country that didn't end in gross dictatorship, starvation, and authoritarianism. 1
Smith doesn't want state control. If he gets tired of Lord Bezos and Bezos bucks, he can move to Microsoftland and use Gates bucks.
I bet you that you use Amazon
Bezos and Gates wouldnt be so rich without state contracts or a nationwide lockdown.
Don't just give them an argument. Give them an entertaining argument. This ain't it.
Go back to your video games.
Ahh yes The UK 🇬🇧 one of those much vaunted European “social democracies” with an unarmed police 🤦
Dave wins hands down. Burgis' argument for state power (taxation) is premised on his belief that governments act in the interest of their constituents (ideally the poorest), but they clearly do not!
Libertarians will never get their perfect society and neither will socialist! The average person does not give a fuck about ideologies they just want something that works and is fair...Karl Marx, Ayn Rand are all wrong.
imagine wanting to abolish the state but not abolish capitalism lmao
The incoherence at the heart of libertarianism is the unwillingness to theorize the foundational role of the state in capital accumulation and reproduction and the ongoing symbiotic relationship between the state and capital. As the economist Frederic List noted, capitalism "on a really large scale can only be attained by means of the interposition of the power of the state."
How do you determine value of goods?
Capitalism = freedom of people to keep what they create and earn.
The State = A "legal" monopoly on taking/ regulating what you create and earn.
Imagine people thinking the State has any legitimate capitalist function...
@@SameBasicRiff Who prints the money?
@@HarryS77 currency is what ever people agree has value.. it doesn't necessarily have to be government fiat.
"This is going off into a place I didn't mean it to..." telling. No, rape does not have the same outcome as a consensual act. Coercion and consensus are totally different ways to achieve an outcome. There is a definitive tendency among so-called 'libertarians'* to present arguments that haven't really been thought through, in the form of truisms that seem reasonable enough until they are subjected to even cursory examination.
*Where I come from, libertarian would be 'Mutual Aid' and "Property is theft!" Not this perversion.
Ben Burgis: arguments tight as his figure, logic clear as his sinuses.
Libertarian: ''get rid of the government. The country will implode. I will become a warlord. I won't be a nobody any more. Happy ending for everyone(me)''
Lovely strawman fallacy you got -- but it wouldn't pass muster with non-comedians. Try that shit with libertarian nationalist minarchist neuroscientist Dr. JF Gariepy.
You should be ashamed for posting this BS when two of them are having an intellectual debate
@@donotshowmyname9547 There is nothing intellectual about Libertarians
@@citycrusher9308 Nor leftards.
... said nobody ever..
His worst plunder was to call the FED a state actor. It is privately owned by the biggest banks of the world and therefore not a state actor. The FED is a product of his world view and that is why for example Alain Greenspan was a big Ayn Rand fan.
The Fed is sanctioned and appointed by the state which is enough to make them of the state.
@@llamasarus1 There is no "state" expertise in the FED. It is all from the bankers, who are in the board. They rule there and the billionaires. Have you ever heard of programs from the FED for poor people? No, the Dollars only go to rich people, who are shareholders in banks and big corporations. It is also a constant fallacy by Libertarians, that they are not able to see, when some institution is called state, but run or corrupted by private lobbyists. A real state treasure bank would not be run by PRIVATE banks. It would be run by representatives, who were elected by people. Infact a real state treasure bank would make many private banks useless. Most banks are just price-gouging middle men anyway. They are parasites like billionaires. Libertarians are the toadies of the rich and powerful as already Rousseau said before Libertarians even existed.
@@bartbertold1939 The Fed operates independently enough were they are technically private. But they are de facto of the state since the president appoints the chair and they are given monopoly privileges by the state and do their bidding to finance their wars and deficit spending.
@@bartbertold1939 Yes, "private" doesn't mean "all things good", though there are governmental forces that restrict how things are in place with money and banking where banks, no matter what level their "private-ness", aren't as likely to operate as optimally and ethically as would be the case if those governmental forces were gotten rid of, which I'd imagine libertarians would advocate.
even if you start all over in a libertarian society, wihin a few weeks people will come together to create some mutual funds for roads, schools, etc.etc..That's called tax.
Is it voluntary?
@@deedub87 That's how it starts..It ends with being a law. within a few generations. because every piece of land is owned by someone, If you get born into a family that needs acces to these facilities you get born into that 'funds;
If it starts with volunteerism, it's moral. If it ends in force and coercion, it's not. Try to keep up here. Just because most dates with a date rapist end up in rape does not mean it wouldn't be preferable and more honorable to the guy keeping his paws to himself until he's given consent.
@@swingset1969 I find the rape example rather weird, But anyway, it's not so simple. what happens in a society when a group of people doesn't pay for the collective resources & infrastruture but still use it ? You end up with force no matter what.force To many humans are anti-social. A minority yes, but a dangerous minority, Who is going to stop someone from geting richer then his neighbors because he is using the roads & water provision, fire brigade etc, but doesn't pay for the 'volentary 'funding ? .If you don't 'force'them to pay up, or force them to leave. his neigbors won't bother paying up & prety soom everything collatpses, & then your back to zero again.
If it isn’t done by force, it isn’t a tax.
I always start any argument with libertarians by saying, roads. They have no answer to the question of roads so they get mad that I brought it up and leave. The only good argument with a libertarian is one that doesn't happen.
You always start with the most laughably simplistic, tired, easily argued debate tactic? That's nice, kid.
Thx Dave, you're fucking wrong but that was super fucking cool of you to shout wunna da GOAT out. Look forward to next episode featuring Dave.
What was Dave wrong about?
Dave: I do t like the state, they can rob you, imprison you.
Rob/all BreadTubers : I don’t think it’s fair that their are rich people.
Expecting the police to do their job unarmed is pretty silly IMO. There are plenty of normal people that don't even go to the grocery store unarmed, and they aren't even expecting to be put in dangerous situations. It might work in communities with a very high level of social cohesion and homogeneity -- and this certainly doesn't exist in the US. Not to mention it is borderline illegal.
The U.K. did it for ages
@@Nerdcoresteve1 what ages? Back when there was a high level of cohesion and homogeneity?
@@jessemiller6178 In case anyone missed it, that was a dog whistle for "white ethno state." This racist moron, Jesse Miller, isn't aware UK cops on patrol still don't carry guns.
@@HarryS77 I can't imagine being so pathetic that I am worried about "dog whistles" rather than actually addressing what was said.
So you would say the UK police are a pretty good example of an effective police force?
@@jessemiller6178 No, you're only pathetic enough to handwring over "homogeneity." That's what's pathetic.
Why do libertarians make the worse straw men arguments.....
It's all they got
LOL what a steel man argument you've just presented smh...
@@SameBasicRifflol found the libertarian.
@@ninjabum817 Not an argument.
@@SameBasicRiff lol dont hurt yourself. Never said it was.