Published By
Created On
27 Dec 2020 00:09:10 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
A Future Beyond Capitalism: Debunking Second Thought Part 4
Much of what Second Thought argues in his video on A Future Beyond Capitalism is pretty much utopian. I didn't go into too much detail, but the idea that scarcity is just artificial and that everyone's needs and wants can be met is simply utopian. He doesn't even stop to think about the variety of different kinds of food, just like housing. He thinks that it is all one.
This is the fundamental fault of the socialist mentality, he doesn't question how much needs to be produced of each and every single option, rather, food is simply viewed as one thing, like as if it's just a case that you can take whatever food it is and mass produce it without consequence. The ignorance to talk about the waste created by companies, yet he concedes that they are being made to shows his failure to acknowledge that government is the problem, not the fault of companies.
As I've argued before, if resources were infinite, there would be no requirement for the study of economics as there would be no need for economising such resources. The whole reason for why we need to 'economise' is because resources are not infinite and there are alternative uses for such resources, it's why we need to work out how much of it we use and where we allocate it.
Another problem I didn't go into as I've done so before, even if you produce, he thinks people are just one group, he doesn't stop to think about individual preference, like as if we all like the same stuff and production should just be made for the collective.
Again, his utopian worldview that socialism will bring about this fantasy world of prodiving employment for everyone, that healthcare, education, etc will all be free and costs of living would be more affordable is simply laughable, he doesn't stop to think about how all of that is paid for.
This is exactly what we mean about the unintended consequences of socialists with their "good intentions." He doesn't comprehend the fact that his intentions are meaningless in the face of socialism put into practice. Therefore, he can't complain about the costs of goods and services meanwhile wanting to pay out wages as his own idea requires running the printing press in the absence of the private sector. The sad thing is, the reflection of how many likes his original video got is a sad reflection of society today; most people just do not get economics.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKohnuvyWBA
This is the fundamental fault of the socialist mentality, he doesn't question how much needs to be produced of each and every single option, rather, food is simply viewed as one thing, like as if it's just a case that you can take whatever food it is and mass produce it without consequence. The ignorance to talk about the waste created by companies, yet he concedes that they are being made to shows his failure to acknowledge that government is the problem, not the fault of companies.
As I've argued before, if resources were infinite, there would be no requirement for the study of economics as there would be no need for economising such resources. The whole reason for why we need to 'economise' is because resources are not infinite and there are alternative uses for such resources, it's why we need to work out how much of it we use and where we allocate it.
Another problem I didn't go into as I've done so before, even if you produce, he thinks people are just one group, he doesn't stop to think about individual preference, like as if we all like the same stuff and production should just be made for the collective.
Again, his utopian worldview that socialism will bring about this fantasy world of prodiving employment for everyone, that healthcare, education, etc will all be free and costs of living would be more affordable is simply laughable, he doesn't stop to think about how all of that is paid for.
This is exactly what we mean about the unintended consequences of socialists with their "good intentions." He doesn't comprehend the fact that his intentions are meaningless in the face of socialism put into practice. Therefore, he can't complain about the costs of goods and services meanwhile wanting to pay out wages as his own idea requires running the printing press in the absence of the private sector. The sad thing is, the reflection of how many likes his original video got is a sad reflection of society today; most people just do not get economics.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKohnuvyWBA
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
More from the publisher
Controlling
VIDEO
VOTE
vote-leave
This is my take on the vote to leave the European Union and my opinion of the European Union itself. I was requested to express my view on this issue as I understand the great importance with the referendum just ahead of us. I cannot fathom people who support the European Union and are against vote leave despite the clear evidence of how anti-Democratic the European Union is.
If you have anything you would like to add feel free to comment below.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbYbNC3JphQ
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
DEBUN
debunking-second-thought-why-capitalism
Debunking Second Thought yet again, this time on why capitalism is efficient. Second Thought, as I have pointed out numerous times, fails to comprehend what a capitalist system is. It is disingenuous to pass off a mixed economy as being a capitalist system.
In this particular video, Second Thought illustrates his ignorance not only on profits and losses and on the argument of efficiency, he uses the usual claims against capitalism without anything to back up such baseless claims, such as about exploitation, etc, but again, he also illustrates his ignorance claiming that since companies today are destroying products that could go to people charitably, he is completely oblivious as for the reasons for why this is.
This is why you end up with so many anti-capitalists because it's easy to throw around baseless claims without understanding the actual cause of problems. Yet again, as per usual, they create problems through all of the government intervention in the economy and then they point the blame at capitalism.
Second Thought did exactly this in his argument on monopolies, claiming that capitalism caused the boom and bust cycle, but admits they were fixing interest rates below market value. This shows how dishonest he is. Even his argument on the Texas blackout problem falls apart, and you can watch my video I did on this argument that refutes him, below.
You can also check out my argument on the Economic Calculation Problem that helps illustrate why it is impossible to achieve economic efficiency in the absence of profits and losses, which I will provide several sources below. The main point, however, is that what Second Thought proposes is destined for extreme levels of economic inefficiency as he clearly doesn't understand the first thing about prices and how important prices play in the operation of your economy.
I've explained before on government subsidies and how destructive they are to the economy, why it encourages waste, again, that is something else I will source. All in all, his explanation of capitalism is deeply flawed and even attempts differentiating capitalism from the market, which is irrational.
(0:00) - Introduction
(0:11) - Not Capitalism
(1:32) - Subsidies
(2:01) - Defining Efficiency
(2:31) - Profits and Losses Explained
(5:10) - Capitalism Defined
(12:06) - Projectionism
(12:26) - Exploitation Claim
(14:04) - Freedom to Choose
(15:31) - Ownership of Goods
(17:31) - Wealth Concentration
(18:42) - Who Dictates Production
(20:07) - Who Determines Price
(21:16) - Refuting His "Waste" Argument
(26:04) - Restricting Productivity
(27:20) - Role of Profits
(28:05) - Corporatist Nations
(28:23) - Contradiction (ECP Explained)
(29:57) - Texas Blackouts
(31:22) - Building Collapse
(31:51) - Another Contradiction
(32:37) - "Human
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrBCxfGsGOw
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
WHY A
why-american-healthcare-costs-so-much
As many people question why American healthcare costs so much, the answer I provide in detail explains the government created monopoly. Countless people who support the NHS will turn to the United States main healthcare market and say:
_"look at their healthcare costs, go live there if you wish to experience private healthcare."_
This is a gross misunderstanding for why American healthcare costs are expensive, it doesn't look at the bigger picture, they merely state that it's a _"for-profit"_ system and then claim it's because there is a private sector. It's disingenuous and a clear misunderstanding of economics and prices. The reason costs drive up is due to restricting the market via government intervention.
As I explain in this video on why American healthcare costs so much, I explain the AMA monopoly, over-regulation of the private sector, and the third party-payer system. I will also be covering a video separately addressing the solution on Direct Primary Care, the free market model of healthcare.
The point of this argument is to make it clear for not only why American healthcare costs are expensive, but also to address the point that the main healthcare market in the United States is NOT free market. I've lost count of how many people attempt to point to American healthcare costs and erroneously claim this is somehow some sort of example of capitalism in healthcare, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The main American healthcare market is anti-competitive, it destroyed competition, monopolised the healthcare market through a government created monopoly that was engineered to shaft the consumer and create an age of dependency.
This argument also makes clear the point that the solution is NOT universal healthcare, therefore, it isn't about crying out for more government, the solution is getting rid of government from healthcare.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHR7FlRrhAU
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
WHY F
why-freedom-of-speech-is-so-important
Why freedom of speech is so important is because it could lead down a very dark road that leads to dire consequences in the absence of free speech. This is something that Jason Unruhe doesn't understand in this free speech debate. Jason Unruhe assumes it is as simplistic as giving the regulators in government the power to merely regulate what hate speech is.
As I have argued, giving the state such power to regulate free speech opens up a can of worms as the state has the power to define what hate speech is. As we know, offending people through speech can so easily be done, therefore, how does one determine what hate speech is and what is not. Just like how leftists throw around the terms 'racist' or 'xenophobe' etc, or Nazi and Fascist, even if those words they use illegitimately, it could leave innocent people in a spot of bother.
As argued, overusing words illegitimately takes away the credibility of such words from genuine cases, such as those who are genuinely racist or whatnot.
Why freedom of speech is so important is to prevent us from leading down the road of dire consequences, ideas must be challenged and freedom of speech should not just be important to those we agree with, but also for our opposition. Instead of silencing our opponents, we should look to debate issues and arguments should be won based on sound moral reasoning, rather than simply silencing our opponents simply because we disagree with them.
It is very easy to offend people and explains the reason why it opens a can of worms giving the government the power to regulate hate speech, we have seen from the political correctness and identity politics being played by the left that anything could be misconstrued as being offensive and one must ask: who will regulate the regulators?
Discord Libertarian Views Scotty M Server:
https://discord.gg/KHYx7yf
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTBmBBM2OrU
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
LIBER
libertarian-socialist-rants-debate-3
In this video, Libertarian Socialist Rants shows his hypocrisy telling Julie Borowski how her tone of voice is very childish. He then attempts to use the so-called "Anarchist" revolution in Catalonia as an example of socialist success, which it was far from anything successful; his next argument he tries to claim that socialism does not entail central planning, which is completely flawed given the fact it's a big part of what defines socialism.
He also tries to claim there is oppression under capitalism, as I correct him that choosing to work for business is not oppression. His idea of Anarchism under socialism I point out why it is deeply flawed with socialism's goals which contradict his entire belief. Libertarian Socialist Rants still cannot provide an answer as to how you can take away an individuals liberty and keep private ownership out of sight without dictatorship.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUu0cIs08A
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
BLM P
blm-protests-slavery-reparations-part-6
Arguably the most stupid argument that has come out of the BLM protests is the argument for reparations. Not only did Britain pay its reparations as taxpayers in Britain had been paying for the end of slavery between 1833 to 2014, but the argument in of itself is ludicrous, it's opening a can of worms.
If seeking slavery reparations, where does it end and if pulling down statues because you deem it offensive, then you cannot leave out some whilst going after others. The SNP seem to think they can go after our history by pulling down slave trader statues in Scotland, as I have argued to show the hypocrisy, Robert Burns whom the nation rightly admires once managed a slave plantation in the West Indies.
As always, socialists dive two feet into everything without thinking things through first. If you pull down those statues, where do you draw the line? The Roman Colosseum has bloodier history than all those slave traders put together, slaves were made to fight to the death for entertainment in the Roman Colosseum, the Colosseum itself was built by slaves as well as countless other things you seen across the Roman Empire. On top of that, the Romans pillaged nations around them like Ancient Egypt.
One could even argue that the pyramids were even built by slaves and when speaking about slavery reparations it really is the most stupid argument someone could ever have come up with. Anyone who knows history knows it is never ending. Does it mean Scotland should seek reparations from all our invaders throughout history such as the Romans and Vikings? What about reparations for all the other countries who fought bloody wars and lost many lives?
The truth is, history isn't black and white and not everything in history paints the perfect picture. History is there to learn from so that we can learn from our past, those who seek to erase and ignore the past deem to repeat history and history has a terrible habit of repeating itself.
As I've pointed out before, the real agenda behind Black Lives Matter is blatantly obvious, the riots breaking into private businesses stealing goods and pulling down statues was never about an attack on slavery, but their agenda to destroy the system to usher in Marxism. Whilst it is true to state that they are clueless in how they go about such things, this was clearly the real agenda behind defunding the police in the United States.
Rather humorous that they seek reparations for slavery, yet support the very Marxism that has never once in recorded history ever avoided totalitarianism which was the very essence of slavery. In fact, even this plays into the argument where one could question if we should seek reparations for the reign of terror these socialist regimes caused having killed and terrorised millions of people's lives
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=virmYRE-el0
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
LABOU
labour-theory-of-value-explained
The Labour Theory of Value explained in plain English. I hope I have covered enough for you to understand in this video to help you understand the difference between Adam Smith's Labour Theory of Value to that of Karl Marx. I also show the difference between the objective vs subjective, which the subjective theory would soon supersede the view of objective theory relative to the Labour Theory of Value.
As I was requested to do a response video on Jack Angstreich, I just so happened to come across one of his debates he had on the Labour Theory of Value in which you can tell he struggles to answer in the original source. Bearing in mind, the audio in my own video is heavily edited.
You can find his original argument in the debate here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQ02sTO6PM&t=177s
Jack Angstreich fails to comprehend what Adam Smith's Labour Theory of Value was about, it most certainly wasn't to do with the quantity of labour, as I explained in this video.
The critique I have for the Labour Theory of Value is that it viewed value as objective and I reiterate the point that Karl Marx did not accept the laws of supply and demand, he rejected prices being able to fluctuate freely in the market. Also, Karl Marx most certainly did not view value as subjective, but as objective.
Value, as I have argued, can only be determined down to people's subjective opinion, not everyone holds the same value in things and in relation to price, what people are willing to pay for goods, as well as in relation to supply and demand.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl2YlkLUVpM
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
USSR
ussr-failure-central-planning-vs-free
The USSR failure was crystal clear for everyone to see, however despite such clear evidence Comrade Hakim argues that central planning vs free market was more efficient and proved successful. I don't know where he gets such fallacious claims from, as that is what they are, claims. One would need to be extremely ignorant of the history of the Soviet Union to deny the vast surplus waste and shortage problems central planning created.
Another argument by Comrade Hakim debunked is that capitalism is wasteful. Maybe if he's talking about corporatism, but that's not capitalism, there seems this religious attempt to try and conflate the free market with that of corporatism which are two completely opposite systems from one another. Capitalism has proved to be not only efficient but successful and as I point out, there is no incentive for business in a free market to be inefficient as not only does it cost businesses more to use more resources, by being inefficient they make losses, not profits. He concedes that capitalists main goal is to make a profit and in order to maximise your profits, you need to minimise your costs.
Comrade Hakim also uses the argument that capitalism is exploitative and enslaves the people, if anything, with wages continuously improving throughout the 19th century and working hours dramatically decreasing, this is the opposite of exploitation and slavery is not people having the free choice to apply for jobs to go through a job interview process, nor is slavery having the freedom to choose to leave a job whenever you please. This proves the state education system has sadly failed people when they confuse this with slavery.
At least Comrade Hakim concedes that the Soviet Union was socialist, but a rather strange claim to pass it off as anything successful. The Libertarian Socialists have one thing right and that is the fact central planning of the economy does not work, but there lies the problem; central planning is a big part of what defines socialism, therefore, it is a concession to say that socialism doesn't work.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWaApbgJiBU
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
CHRIS
christianity-and-socialism-why
Christianity and socialism is something you are going to hear about quite often. I was recently recommended to check out this particular video response on why he is not right-wing. In his argument he critiques Christian conservatives.
Here I explain why Christians are right about socialism and cover the foundation argument for not only why socialism results in totalitarianism but the reason for why Christians are right. Whilst I am not clued up on the history of Christianity and religion in general, I have a basic enough understanding to explain that the reason for why Christianity protects from the dangers of socialism is because of its conservative beliefs. I may not be a conservative myself, but I have respect for those who are true conservatives.
As usual, socialists fail to comprehend the difference between their patronising ignorant worldview of socialism in theory to that of what is put into practice. Ben Shapiro was absolutely spot on about socialism, as was Alley Stuckey regarding taxation being theft. This guy clearly does not understand the meaning of consent. People do not participate in this mixed economy under collectivisation where their rights have been subordinated to the group by choice, it's coercive, therefore, there is no consent to taxation.
As per usual, it's classic socialist mentality to act superior and act the moral high ground by calling others evil when there has been no greater evil to ever exist on this planet than socialism.
*Follow Me on Social Media:*
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM
• Parler: https://parler.com/profile/LibertarianViewsScottyM/posts — @LibertarianViewsScottyM
• Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot
• Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/
• MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie
• WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/
• LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6
• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494
• BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/
*You can also support me here on Patreon:*
https://www.patreon.com/creator-home
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SONMu1sGfBI
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English