Venezuelan Oil was stolen by it's government, I mean, nationalized, in the late 1970's. This fascist relationship strengthened in the late 1990's when Chavez straight up made oil government property, literal communism. Since 1999, the Venezuelan "owned" oil industry was unable to create new oil fields. The oil sector had a large export for nearly 60 years under mostly private ownership, and overtly declined once it was nationalized. The point about Socialism versus Capitalism is that once you steal from the mentally productive individuals who ran those oil fields and transfer the property to a cousin of some janitor in the government, there is literally no one capable of future planning expansion and growth for the oil companies. Capitalism allows individuals to think and flourish, ie grow their property and profit, while socialism explicitly forbids this. I don't know much about money inflation in Venezuela, but if Dishonest Infidel say is partially true, what he is saying is that "Socialism ruined ownership in Venezuela, plunging it's oil industry into the dark ages, so the fix was more Socialism to correct past Socialism by plunging the economy into the dark ages" Also, Government owns money printing in socialistic economies. "Venezuela's collapse had nothing to do with stealing property form individuals for decades to the point they can only bake two kinds of bread and must eat zoo animals and garbage to survive" - Dishonest Infidel. Mouthy has a moral agenda to seek "Real socialism hasn't been tried yet, and I can show you HOW to enslave people properly" which is what every ignorant, young ivory tower immoral collectivist holds.
It is almost like a religion, especially a Christian religion. If you are able ( mentally productive ) in any way, that is the mark of Original Sin and you are guilty until you atone for your ability by serving "society". One guy whom the young collectivists admire is Richard Wolff. When I hear him speak, I am reminded of televangelists.
@@Paul...Ego_sum_ergo_aedifico Mysticism is how these people evade HOW the knowledge they gain. They gain through reality, that socialism kills, but they evade, based on their feelings, that altruism is good. So they compartmentalize their feelings ( that sacrifice is good ) from the practical implementations of altruistic politics (billions prematurely dead due to socialistic policies). Richard Wolff is the embodiment of this, as he said you don't measure a State's worth by the millions of bodies it produces.
@@DeeperWithDiego Thank you. I am all too ( painfully ) familiar with compartmentalization, in my case with people who are very efficacious in some realms of life such as engineering, yet who also hold strong religious beliefs. To give them my benefit of the doubt, I have long felt that for many of them, their religion arises from their benevolent sense of life. In other words, they are good people with some of the wrong ideas. May Mouthy be one of these and eventually open himself to better ideas. In Wolff, however, I see an angry old man - angry toward anyone of ability - anger toward the very idea of ability - and by extension anger toward reality. So his compartmentalization is extreme.
This discussion is a prime example of why talking to socialists is always going to be unclear. Everyone has their own flavor of socialism to the point where the word just boils down to "How I want the economy and world to be". There is no shared definition amongst all socialists about that word.
For a definition of socialism, I use "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." This is from Ayn Rand, in her book "For the New Intellectual".
I think that this debate was both enjoyable and educational. I will be suggesting it to Objectivist friends. It would be interesting to hear anything Mouthy would care to say regarding Ayn Rand's definition of Capitalism "... a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force." This would be a good topic for another debate, in my opinion, but I already anticipate the rebuttal, which is that property rights merely mean that we are now using coercion against those who see my property and want it without my consent. This would open up a philosophical discussion, which would, I think, invariably lead to the issue of free will, something that I expect Mouthy would challenge based on what I have heard him say in other videos. Mouthy, please correct me if I am wrong. I share your opposition to the "50%" argument. My anectote is that I live in an outer suburban town in the US, and whenever I pay my house property taxes, I think of the luxurious high school campus that much of that money goes to. I call it income that the kids are getting straight from us taxpayers. If Mouthy ends up going to either Michigan State of the University of Michigan, I want him to send me a thank-you note every semester for helping him with his tuition.
This opening is so funny, he was clearing hoping that by "calling you out" for making a video on him that you would bend the knee and profusely apologize, hence why he "calls you out" for making a video and then opens the floor to you to say something, meaning he was expecting you to apologize. In you being confused as to why he would feel the need to "call you out" for making the video and why he would want to chat with you about it (most likely, as you said that he was confronted by the truth, and therefore had a grudge or bone to pick.) Very entertaining start in that regard lol
When he says large states correlate to less corruption, I assume he speaks of european countries who alongside having large gvnts also have robust justice systems, maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law. Objectivists don't even advocate a small gvnt, but one that is proper(justice, police, military, etc), regardless of size per se. So of course a country with an organized gvnt will be less corrupt when compared to a country with a small inadequate gvnt... But gvt size does not predict corruption, unless it's a country where the rule of law is properly applied (e.g. China has a massive gvnt, and is really corrupt, whereas Switzerland has a much smaller gvt, and not nearly as corrupt)
Yeah, I agree completely. There isn't a connection between large spending and large governments. North Korea has a very large government, but not much spending. The best predictor of corruption as well as socialism is low property rights index and low human rights and rule of law index.
A larger state is in effect more corrupt because it's stealing more. The idea that the violations of the law done a group of criminals is different than by another group of criminals who call themselves a state.
I don't recall ever hearing one of the leftists complain about the Fed's policy of quantitive easing. It is welfare for the bankers and those who are selling stocks at today's inflated prices. Listen to "Inflation: It's Everywhere We Look" by "Hardmoney" Jim Brown at Ayn Rand Centre UK. Talk about corruption....
I forgot to mention in my earlier comment my thoughts on Mouthy's remark that when a government has a greater control over people's money, the people will have a greater incentive to hold their government accountable. This brings to mind the Vietnam War, which was fought by the US using a military draft. I don't think that too many American young people would have volunteered to fight in that war. They were forced to go under threat of imprisonment! Sure, Mouthy could likely claim to be correct in that many Americans at the time were "incentivized" to protest and resist that war in other ways, ultimately leading to the US withdrawal. But 50000 guys died and countless more were maimed in the meantime!
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
Venezuelan Oil was stolen by it's government, I mean, nationalized, in the late 1970's. This fascist relationship strengthened in the late 1990's when Chavez straight up made oil government property, literal communism. Since 1999, the Venezuelan "owned" oil industry was unable to create new oil fields.
The oil sector had a large export for nearly 60 years under mostly private ownership, and overtly declined once it was nationalized.
The point about Socialism versus Capitalism is that once you steal from the mentally productive individuals who ran those oil fields and transfer the property to a cousin of some janitor in the government, there is literally no one capable of future planning expansion and growth for the oil companies. Capitalism allows individuals to think and flourish, ie grow their property and profit, while socialism explicitly forbids this.
I don't know much about money inflation in Venezuela, but if Dishonest Infidel say is partially true, what he is saying is that "Socialism ruined ownership in Venezuela, plunging it's oil industry into the dark ages, so the fix was more Socialism to correct past Socialism by plunging the economy into the dark ages"
Also, Government owns money printing in socialistic economies.
"Venezuela's collapse had nothing to do with stealing property form individuals for decades to the point they can only bake two kinds of bread and must eat zoo animals and garbage to survive" - Dishonest Infidel.
Mouthy has a moral agenda to seek "Real socialism hasn't been tried yet, and I can show you HOW to enslave people properly" which is what every ignorant, young ivory tower immoral collectivist holds.
It is almost like a religion, especially a Christian religion. If you are able ( mentally productive ) in any way, that is the mark of Original Sin and you are guilty until you atone for your ability by serving "society". One guy whom the young collectivists admire is Richard Wolff. When I hear him speak, I am reminded of televangelists.
@@Paul...Ego_sum_ergo_aedifico Mysticism is how these people evade HOW the knowledge they gain.
They gain through reality, that socialism kills, but they evade, based on their feelings, that altruism is good. So they compartmentalize their feelings ( that sacrifice is good ) from the practical implementations of altruistic politics (billions prematurely dead due to socialistic policies).
Richard Wolff is the embodiment of this, as he said you don't measure a State's worth by the millions of bodies it produces.
@@DeeperWithDiego Thank you. I am all too ( painfully ) familiar with compartmentalization, in my case with people who are very efficacious in some realms of life such as engineering, yet who also hold strong religious beliefs. To give them my benefit of the doubt, I have long felt that for many of them, their religion arises from their benevolent sense of life. In other words, they are good people with some of the wrong ideas. May Mouthy be one of these and eventually open himself to better ideas.
In Wolff, however, I see an angry old man - angry toward anyone of ability - anger toward the very idea of ability - and by extension anger toward reality. So his compartmentalization is extreme.
This discussion is a prime example of why talking to socialists is always going to be unclear. Everyone has their own flavor of socialism to the point where the word just boils down to "How I want the economy and world to be". There is no shared definition amongst all socialists about that word.
Ask 3 socialists for their definition of socialism and they'll give you 4 different ones.
For a definition of socialism, I use "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." This is from Ayn Rand, in her book "For the New Intellectual".
2 hours of "It wasn't real socialism"
I think that this debate was both enjoyable and educational. I will be suggesting it to Objectivist friends.
It would be interesting to hear anything Mouthy would care to say regarding Ayn Rand's definition of Capitalism "... a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force."
This would be a good topic for another debate, in my opinion, but I already anticipate the rebuttal, which is that property rights merely mean that we are now using coercion against those who see my property and want it without my consent. This would open up a philosophical discussion, which would, I think, invariably lead to the issue of free will, something that I expect Mouthy would challenge based on what I have heard him say in other videos. Mouthy, please correct me if I am wrong.
I share your opposition to the "50%" argument. My anectote is that I live in an outer suburban town in the US, and whenever I pay my house property taxes, I think of the luxurious high school campus that much of that money goes to. I call it income that the kids are getting straight from us taxpayers. If Mouthy ends up going to either Michigan State of the University of Michigan, I want him to send me a thank-you note every semester for helping him with his tuition.
This opening is so funny, he was clearing hoping that by "calling you out" for making a video on him that you would bend the knee and profusely apologize, hence why he "calls you out" for making a video and then opens the floor to you to say something, meaning he was expecting you to apologize. In you being confused as to why he would feel the need to "call you out" for making the video and why he would want to chat with you about it (most likely, as you said that he was confronted by the truth, and therefore had a grudge or bone to pick.)
Very entertaining start in that regard lol
When he says large states correlate to less corruption, I assume he speaks of european countries who alongside having large gvnts also have robust justice systems, maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law. Objectivists don't even advocate a small gvnt, but one that is proper(justice, police, military, etc), regardless of size per se.
So of course a country with an organized gvnt will be less corrupt when compared to a country with a small inadequate gvnt... But gvt size does not predict corruption, unless it's a country where the rule of law is properly applied (e.g. China has a massive gvnt, and is really corrupt, whereas Switzerland has a much smaller gvt, and not nearly as corrupt)
Yeah, I agree completely. There isn't a connection between large spending and large governments. North Korea has a very large government, but not much spending.
The best predictor of corruption as well as socialism is low property rights index and low human rights and rule of law index.
A larger state is in effect more corrupt because it's stealing more. The idea that the violations of the law done a group of criminals is different than by another group of criminals who call themselves a state.
I don't recall ever hearing one of the leftists complain about the Fed's policy of quantitive easing. It is welfare for the bankers and those who are selling stocks at today's inflated prices. Listen to "Inflation: It's Everywhere We Look" by "Hardmoney" Jim Brown at Ayn Rand Centre UK. Talk about corruption....
I forgot to mention in my earlier comment my thoughts on Mouthy's remark that when a government has a greater control over people's money, the people will have a greater incentive to hold their government accountable.
This brings to mind the Vietnam War, which was fought by the US using a military draft. I don't think that too many American young people would have volunteered to fight in that war. They were forced to go under threat of imprisonment!
Sure, Mouthy could likely claim to be correct in that many Americans at the time were "incentivized" to protest and resist that war in other ways, ultimately leading to the US withdrawal. But 50000 guys died and countless more were maimed in the meantime!