The reason why socialism fails every time is that the ideology of socialism reaches so far outside the bounds of human nature and economic reality. In this video, in response to a question I got from a commenter, I cover some of the basic economic reasons for why socialism fails every time as well as in relation to human nature. It is important to note that socialists will try to twist socialism to suit their own agenda, and how they define socialism is completely warped. Socialists want you to see socialism from how they imagine socialism to be, rather than the practical reality of socialism in the real world. The examples I give show the consequences of their actions that explain the basis for why socialism cannot avoid such a catastrophic economic mess. I must also add that socialism does destroy the incentives for people to work hard, but this correlates to the argument I made against communal ownership of property. It takes away the rights and liberty of the individual to own the fruits of their own labour and without that the people lose the will to live. Socialists might feel they're doing good by working for the collective, but that's all it is, good intentions, they don't understand the dire consequences of their actions. It's all well socialists speaking about the theoretical nonsense of socialism, but what really matters is what is put into practice. My explanation touches the surface of socialism and covers the basis for why it's such a disastrous failure. I could have went more into depth on the destruction of incentives, but what I've covered are the main reasons for why socialism fails every time and explains socialism in a nutshell. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1P1HgLrnXc

In this argument on common myths about capitalism refuting Hakim, I respond to his arguments that you will commonly hear about capitalism. Socialists will always use the same old arguments about the boom and bust cycle, exploitation of labour or something else regarding special-interest favours, but as I have pointed out numerous times before, capitalism is not corporatism nor is capitalism the early stages of corporatism. In correlation to my video, the definition of capitalism is as follows: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." Another definition of capitalism: "Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets." This important point Hakim completely ignores, instead, in his argument he references points from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and even on today's economy whereby opportunity is few and far between. As I have explained time and time again, you can't restrict the market by use of government and then blame capitalism for the cause of the problems we have today. We live under a mixed economy and not a capitalist system. Whilst there may be elements of capitalism present today in a mixed economy, capitalism is being strangled half to death via all the socialist government interventionism. Hakim laughably addresses in one of his audacious claims that capitalism results in the common myth of using up the world resources through over production, again, you can find my arguments on the economic calculation problem which address the argument for why only capitalism can allocate resources efficiently. The history of Hong Kong and Singapore are there for all to see such evidence that the most efficient economies are those which are strongly capitalist, not socialist. *Economic Calculation Problem:* • profits and losses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • variety of options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc • fuller explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 There were some other arguments he made, but I cut out much of that due to the length of the argument and covered the basis of his erroneous arguments. One such point I cut out was on 'class antogonism' which I could upload separately if requested. It's based on a silly argument to claim what the capitalist wants, but economic reality doesn't permit it and competition and the choice from workers enables them the opportunity to work elsewhe ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1SiYFqfBA

The tragedy of the commons argument Mexie has more recently made is deeply flawed and in this video, I give my explanation why. The two main reasons I have provided argue in favour of private ownership with the land value argument, as well as on the profit argument. The example of Standard Oil is the perfect historical example as it completely contradicts her argument, not only was Standard Oil a company famous for its stature but was wrongly accused of holding a monopoly and for unfair practices, most importantly, however, what John Davison Rockefeller proved was the main reason he became so wealthy and successful was his economic efficiency. Important to note that the companies which were wasteful went into decline, many either bought over or they went under simply because they could not compete with John Davison Rockefeller given his success. The rebates with the railroad industry did not take place until the 1870s, therefore, the success of John Davison Rockefeller was through fair economic business practice. The examples of his efficiency and on the monopoly myth you can learn all about the history of the following 5 parts which I highly recommend watching: *Standard Oil Monopoly Myth:* *Part 1* • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hld6i1gDFhc *Part 2* • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGaXzaSMqYI *Part 3* • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXaEza47Z88&t=178s *Part 4* • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSmeCBgezHc *Part 5* • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGaXzaSMqYI ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxvfPJ1rVk0

In this video I provide on the immigration debate for why open borders are bad, I provide 3 main reasons for immigration control and explain why the argument provided by a speaker for Reason TV is wrong to compare the free flow of immigration today with the immigration crisis to that of the immigration we saw flooding to what would become the United States of America. I have provided a bit of historical background on North America to the United States region to provide a strong argument for my case for the difference as to why the immigration was different then to what we are seeing now. It is important to note that the reasons for immigration control that I have provided does not mean to say I am anti-immigrant, rather, I support immigration and believe it is good for a country but I'm aware of various problems which exist today. Why open borders are bad today is namely due to government's war interference that has led to more terrorism as I don't believe war solves problems but only enhances problems making things worse; also, from an economic standpoint of view the argument on the laws of supply and demand relative to issues such as housing costs etc and many of those you may let in are not strongly in favour or support individual liberty. As I have mentioned, immigration without assimilation will only cause subversion and division in society and does not work. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgotp3MQRGM