In this argument on diversity and inclusion by a socialist, he claims that disabled people are left discriminated and made to feel lower class. Whilst I can understand that the education system isn't perfect and I don't entirely agree with the state education system, what this boy ignores is the fact that this isn't to blame on capitalism as the education system itself is run by the state, but to blame on the government itself. I do point out, however, that things aren't necessarily as bad as he is making them out to be, there are many facilities put into place to provide for disabled people, but complaining about the separation, this is an issue to take up with the government, not business people as business people do not operate the schools or education system. Helping the disabled people as much as possible in the name of diversity and inclusion I strongly agree with, it depends on the context and how you go around achieving this. I do not support trying to force everyone to be equally the same and earn equally the same as I stand by meritocracy and to blame capitalists is erroneous, had it not been for profits you wouldn't have businesses and if it weren't for capitalists, much of the facilities available to disabled people would not have been possible. Original Sourced Video I responded to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPfsDx3bQwA&app=desktop ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bup07e6531s

In this first part video I explain some of the main reasons why the yes campaign Scotland voted for Scottish independence. One of the main reasons as I mentioned was because of the self-serving government of Westminster, the yes campaign Scotland don't realise that the reason the British government became so self-serving was because of putting the economy into the hands of the state, making people dependent upon the state, therefore, calling out for Scotland to separate and voting for more of the same thing is not the answer. Another reason I touched upon were the strong differing views of the yes campaign Scotland to that of the views of the average voter down south in England. I respect their argument on that, however, the problem is a lot of them support more socialism, which is one of the main reasons I had voted no against Scottish independence. Another reason and a more recent argument people favour Scottish independence is the support for Scotland to remain a part of the European Union, that for me is something I would never support. We also see the arguments in favour of the big welfare state, higher tax rates and all of the 'free stuff' like; free healthcare, free education, free prescriptions, free tuition fees, all of which is problematic because it never is free, but more costly on the economy as a whole. Music: Talky Beat by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Source: http://www.twinmusicom.org/song/265/talky-beat Artist: http://www.twinmusicom.org ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4CDAMobhxs

In this 2nd part debunking Dr. Richard Wolff on capitalism vs socialism, Dr. Richard Wolff explains from his view, the development of capitalism, as I mentioned, he fails to mention capitalism was based off meritocracy, not off of collectivism throughout history. The most important point was his claim on how capitalism is killing itself because of exploitation and underpaying workers, or paying people off, as if to blame the capitalist system for the faults of this current day corporatist system. In this argument I make on capitalism vs socialism, I point out that it's the fault of corporatism, not capitalism and make the clear distinctions. I also explain about business reputation and why in a free market economy businesses would be limited due to strong consumer choice, fierce business competition giving workers a vast array of options to find better jobs, better pay, etc. The problem with Dr. Richard Wolff's argument is that it's purely based off this idea that capitalism is what we are living under today and this most certainly is not the case. Instead, capitalism is being strangled half to death by the socialist government interventionism that has restricted competition making it difficult for people to find work as employment is harder to come by. Again, claiming that socialism is the solution to the problem is nothing short of delusional given the recorded history has been so crystal clear of socialism's failure and Venezuela really is the perfect example of that. Prelude No. 5 by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Source: http://chriszabriskie.com/preludes/ Artist: http://chriszabriskie.com/ Mesmerize by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1500005 Artist: http://incompetech.com/ ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eWrTZHtm0g

In this video on the truth about capitalism: Non Compete Debunked, I covered his argument on the competition in the workplace. As I previously mentioned in part 4 we do not live under a free market economy, therefore, what is to blame for the lack of employment opportunity in ratio to demand for employment is to blame on governments interference in the economy. Again, Non Compete uses the argument about automation, but as previously mentioned in part 4, it is a myth to state that automation resulted in a reduction in employment. As Henry Hazlitt points out: _"New stocking frames as they were introduced were destroyed by the handicraft workmen (over 1,000 in a single riot), houses were burned, the inventors were threatened and obliged to fly for their lives, and order was not finally restored until the military had been called out and the leading rioters had been either transported or hanged._ _"Now it is important to bear in mind that insofar as the rioters were thinking of their own immediate or even longer futures their opposition to the machine was rational. For William Felkin, in his History of the Machine-Wrought Hosiery Manufactures (1867), tells us that the larger part of the 50,000 English stocking knitters and their families did not fully emerge from the hunger and misery entailed by the introduction of the machine for the next forty years. But insofar as the rioters believed, as most of them undoubtedly did, that the machine was permanently displacing men, they were mistaken, for before the end of the nineteenth century the stocking industry was employing at least a hundred men for every man it employed at the beginning of the century."_ No different to the myth that as productivity increased and profits for the capitalist increased, he erroneously claims that workers wages decreased, which is the complete opposite to that of the truth. It may seem reasonable to speak about the competition in the workplace being a problem, but competition is what strives businesses to improve, most importantly, conflict in the workplace in today's market is to blame on corporatism, not capitalism. Something I forgot to mention in this video and important to note; it is NOT the capitalist that determines what gets produced, it is the consumer through consumer demand. As mentioned, the capitalist may give orders of what he wants done with his own business regarding production, more often than not the employees are left freely to their own creativity. The capitalist would not have hired the highly-skilled individual for such things otherwise. The thing that contradicts Non Compete debunked on his argument is that the very slave labour system he complains about is the natural state of where socialism will always lead and always has led. As I've mention ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKm-DgKjAI