Community | July 25, 2011 | 30 comments

If You Were King...

shanklinmike
Wouldn't it be great if YOU were in charge of everything? You could fix the world! Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Economy War World Government 35 more
  3.     
    |

30 comments // If You Were King... // Video

  • Elisabeth_Larsen
  • mybologna
    • -1
      mybologna  
    • Government at its best is communities comming together for the betterment of the community. This narrator is just pissed off he has to share for the common good. Consumer society encourages this though because corporations want to replace community with consumer goods. Pitiful.

    • 10 months ago
  • shanklinmike
    • +2
      shanklinmike  
    • mybologna:

      You do realize that corporations are only possible in statism right?!? That is you support forced collectivism, you are responsible for the corporations it creates....

      How about we allow people to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on others?!? You think I need you central planning my life? What the narrator is pissed about is the fact that you steal from us to give to a system that bombs hundreds of thousands of innocent 3 year olds, to fund things we do not agree with and that are harmful, because you blindly support corporatism and don't understand how....

      The problem here is those who would use violence on peaceful people who simply disagree.... that is all statism is.

      The narrator has a right not to be your slave.

    • 10 months ago
  • kjschultz99
  • CreditFigaro
  • nashkildare
  • CreditFigaro
  • CreditFigaro
    • -1
      CreditFigaro  
    • ahh, another ridiculous oversimplification.

      Big error: Taking from "the peasantry" and then giving back to "the peasantry" is a big fail.

      Two things:

      1) If you noticed the big pile of cash at the kings feet, you were observing a misrepresentation. Government spends the money that it takes in. All of it and then some.

      2) The government takes from all the peasantry to accomplish things that the majority of the peasantry agrees with. It accomplishes things that can't be done otherwise which benefit all.

      All of the infrastructure projects that the king "stole" to fund resulted in a huge societal benefit. Typically they do. The only thing the government spends money on that doesn't have a net positive effect on the economy is tax cuts and subsidies (upward redistribution). That's a logically provable fact.

      The enforcement is important: as it isn't a monolithic peasantry, and it is the NON peasants that are the ones bitching about having to pay more.

      The king is the only one standing between the have mores and the have nots. It isn't exactly unfair either since infrastructure investment (the most ridiculous thing on the planet to be against) benefits EVERYONE even the rich, they are just selfish about writing the damned check every year.

      Big Error:

      No one wants to force people to work out and eat right. However, there is a difference between a scientifically toxic diet that is disguised as health food and a system where people are empowered to make healthy decisions WITHOUT the person profiting off of the behavior controlling the system.

      At the end of the day, this King is ridiculous. No one who disagrees with this video would actually behave the way this king is portrayed as behaving.

      And yes, you have to hurt people to protect people, because there are predatory individuals who live to keep societies functionless and corrupt.

      Examples: authoritarian companies that screw their workers who don't have other options, corrupt governments and "freedom fighters" in 3rd world countries that live on the fear and abuse and death of others,

      Pretty much anyone who doesn't give a fuck about their neighbor, which libertarians are... almost by definition.

      Yawn, more BS, but thanks for the listen anyway.

    • 10 months ago
  • kjschultz99
    • +1
      kjschultz99  
    • CreditFigaro:

      "The only thing the government spends money on that doesn't have a net positive effect on the economy is tax cuts and subsidies (upward redistribution). That's a logically provable fact."

      Really? please lay that out.

    • 10 months ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • kjschultz99:

      Gladly.

      I appreciate you calling me out, because I'm going to have to qualify my statement a bit.

      I forgot about spending on warfare. That's a pretty sticky issue though, because the benefits are difficult to quantify. Hell, if the difference between a $400 bil/year pentagon and a $800 bil/year pentagon truly meant the difference between us maintaining sovereignty and being overtaken by outside powers, it's a justifiable expenditure... but I don't see that. It looks like we are blowing up a lot of brown people to accomplish little to nothing. Looks more like a military industrial complex subsidy than an "infrastructure investment" in my eyes.

      When it comes to military it's all about how much.

      I dunno, man, pick an expenditure and I'll run it by the statement I made to see if it holds water.

    • 10 months ago
  • warman1138
  • shanklinmike
  • RevKen
  • meesh76
  • Omle_Du_Fromage
  • Swisher
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • Swisher
  • Omle_Du_Fromage
  • Vic_Romano
  • Almibry
  • OOKS
  • shanklinmike
  • mizlydia
  • shanklinmike
  • Polochick09
  • shanklinmike
  • EmileZ
  • shanklinmike
more from Community:

top videos