Socialism Is A Cult And A Pyramid Scheme Being Surreptitiously Pushed On Millions Of Uninformed Americans

It was still possible for common citizens to work hard and get ahead in Fascist/Nazi Germany---not so in USSR.

If we had to choose something other than a free-market Constitutional Republic, fascism would be a much better choice than socialism/communism. The Zio-communists started Antifa organization in Germany before the war.

Last Edited by MarPep on 02/25/2020 10:48 PM

The solution is both very easy and very hard.

Withdraw your consent.

#GoingGalt

The Internaional Banksters have gotten stronger and have developed even better indoctrination systems since Ayn Rand's day. Nothing short of a Global disaster of Biblical proportions would get them out of control of this Earth.

Last Edited by MarPep on 02/25/2020 10:55 PM

[link to youtu.be (secure)]

the bums on welfare are still living better than the average slob in Cuba or Former Soviet Russia....in fact they are probably better off than any one of their ancestors.

8:21 inaccurate. He says competitive capitalists wouldn't want government involved for anything other than to ensure that contracts are honored, when the bigger task of government for competitive capitalists is to prevent monopolies from happening.

Another thing to point out is that even though monopoly capitalists may try to influence regulation to their favor, there is another kind of monopoly that arises naturally, simply because the corporation dominating that niche is so superior to anything else that's available.

Some side notes:

- Competition doesn't always drive down price, but it can. More often, competition introduces waste and prevents startups from gaining momentum. It is possible to use competitive capitalist tactics to stifle the producers of better goods and services. This is the exact purpose of a government protecting the public interest by preventing this kind of exploitation of the well-intentioned "competition modality".

- The fact that some companies can influence policy in their own favor is troublesome, unless you are them. From the individualist perspective, the individual has a right to influence policy in their favor. It's "fair game, y'all". The problem point is that we allow unscrupulous individuals (who also work to serve their own interest) to hold positions in public office.

- Unless you're an anarchist, you're still going to want some form of government. The individuals who step into those positions of government should be willing to serve the collective. It's that simple. In fact, these (collectivist types) are the ones most likely to actively pursue such a position in life. Hence, the "collectivist outcomes". If you want individualists in government, be prepared for low moral character and widespread bribery.

- Where do you draw the line where individual interests should give way to collective interests? If you say there is no such line that should be drawn, keep in mind that puts you right in the monopolist capitalist camp (as described by the man in the video) that bribes government officials (even though the legalese doesn't call it a bribe, it's still a bribe in function and effect).

-If there is no line where the individual gives way to the collective (just as the collective should never infringe upon the rights and wellbeing of the individual) then there is no argument to be made for telling individuals to "act right" and "don't sell your integrity for money" and "don't poison my river with your corporation's garbage byproducts".

[link to youtu.be (secure)]