Libertarian Socialist Rants: Stupidity and Ignorance

Libertarian Socialist Rants for those of you who don’t know is a young boy from Scotland on YouTube, arguably one of the most foul mouthed, ignorant fools I have had the misfortune to deal with. His YouTube Channel that used to be under the username ‘CammehYaBams’ (surprise, surprise), later to something else and finally having changed it to the biggest oxymoron ideology anyone can think of, Libertarian Socialist Rants.

Two years ago I was requested to do a video response to this boy as it was the first time I came across him. His patronising, ignorant, foul mouthed attitude was enough to merit a response as his video was on the ‘Top 5 UKIP Myths Debunked’, the video response I made was over an hour long called ‘UKIP Myths Debunked’ which I completely humiliated the boy on Corporatism as that was my main argument. I cannot think of a more annoying, ignorant claim than to have someone on the left claim UKIP are Fascist. After having done the video response to ‘CammehYaBams’ his video response back to me was nothing but foul mouthed abusive nonsense where he completely swerved around the argument claiming UKIP were Fascist as he knew I would have walked all over the top of him on this very issue. I decided after that to do a video response and broke each section into seven video parts and came of no surprise that I got no response back from himself, at least until two years later.

I had recently deleted all of my older videos and felt my channel was in need of a revamp, when getting around to making new videos I done a video on the ‘Top 10 Reasons Why Nazi Germany Was Socialist’, surprise, surprise after two years he returns with yet again another aggressive, abusive response where he rants off that I’m a ‘right-wing’ this and a ‘right-wing’ that and incase you didn’t know, after he debated me two years ago it wasn’t long after that he changed his name to Libertarian Socialist Rants, which tells you something; that’s because I absolutely destroyed the boy on issues such as the Industrial Revolution, regulations etc.

Here is the video response that Libertarian Socialist Rants decided to do:

The video speaks volumes for itself, the video I had made I forgot to mention that the Nazi’s marched under red banners and flags on May Day, but I had touched upon this issue in a blog post which I attached to the video and the blog itself goes more into depth about why the Nazi’s were Socialists, because I had already touched upon that information and due to ignoring the importance of the dictionary I decided to mock him on the fact that he’s now supporting an oxymoron, the idea that Socialism can be Libertarian, of course he will never admit it but having walked all over him two years prior to this he pushed towards that ludicrous ideology.

For those of you who do not understand what this means, it means having Socialism without a government, Anarchy basically. The problem with this idea is that Socialism itself seeks to abolish all means of private ownership, whether land or business, in other words it means it seeks to ‘prevent’ individuals from owning their own business or land. If you seek to prevent something this is the very antithesis of liberty, how can one claim to be libertarian but seek to ‘prevent’ individuals from owning their own private business or land? The fact is, you can’t. Of course, having a basic understanding of the English language would tell us this, but the English language doesn’t seem to be of importance to himself, this comes of no surprise as he mentioned in his response that I appeal to the dictionary, maybe that’s because I am a rational minded person.

Furthermore with his little rant he mentions that Collectivisation and Nationalisation are not the same thing, in his argument he states that Nationalisation is state ownership of the means of production, whereas Collectivisation being community ownership of the means of production. Immediately there is a problem here, not only is he telling you the dictionary is not important, but his definitions are so simplistic and wide off the mark that the dictionary itself contradicts him. Here is a working definition of the word Collectivism in relation to this:

Collectivism:
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the principle of ownership of the means of production, by the state or the people

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collectivism

I don’t think the definition could be clearer itself clearly stating ‘by the state or the people’. As I explained in my own video response to Libertarian Socialist Rants there is a big difference between theory and practice, this is something obviously he finds too difficult to comprehend. Just because you have something on paper, doesn’t mean it is going to turn out the same when put into practice and the same thing applies to Socialism. I have stated this umpteen times that Socialism theoretically by definition may state that it’s ownership of the means of production by the people collectively, but what we have seen in the real world, in practice, it has been a very different story. So it’s not just important to look at the dictionary definitions, it is also vitally important to look at how it turned out in practice in the real world. Everywhere Socialism has been has failed miserably, including the so-called ‘Social Democracy’ we often hear boasted about and if there’s any definition more accurate of the definition of Socialism, it’s this:

Socialism:
‘a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state’

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

So we can see why he does not like the real world or the definitions in the dictionary, if the dictionary held no importance then I suppose we could scrap the entire dictionary and no word in the English dictionary would have any meaning, but that’s the problem, words do have meaning and the word ‘prevent’ is a contradiction to the word liberty. If there is one thing I have come to notice on YouTube especially with his fan base, the vast majority of them are little teenagers who thrive on petty arguments, they crave the video makers to attack other people viciously and as an example from my own video no matter how nice I was, I was abused by these people and surprise, surprise they started disliking my other videos without even watching them simply because I oppose their illogical fantasies. This ladies and gentlemen is what you call childish; the very type of people who sit and cry if things don’t go their way thus the toys get thrown out the pram and as if to justify their argument, click the dislike button.

For me YouTube’s pointless rating system is irrational, not only does it serve less purpose today, it has become nothing other than a game children use. Sad thing is one adult went as far as to claim that apparently I was debunked because my video has more dislikes than likes, work that logic out. So if a whole group of people line up at a cliff and walk off it, does that then mean if I choose not to, I’m wrong? The big difference is between the viewers I tend to attract and his own is the level of maturity, saying that I find it quite humorous that the average subscriber and viewer I get is around my age or older into their 40s or 50s, whereas Libertarian Socialist Rants subscribers have avatar pictures of things like my little pony, I think that just about says it all.

So What Exactly Is the Problem With Libertarian Socialism?
The problem is, not just that Socialism seeks to abolish the means of private ownership of property, whether that being a business or land, their fallacious ideology is predicated on the idea that the workers keep the produce that they make, they clearly haven’t thought this one through because if you keep the produce you make, you’re essentially putting the worker before the consumer. If all produce is kept by workers you’re going to need permission from other owners to get what you want, even then this alone destroys the idea of their egalitarian utopia. If that weren’t enough however you then have the biggest problem and this is the price problem. Because their ideology is based on the idea that it is a moneyless society there is no price mechanism and if you have no information of prices, then you cannot allocate scarce resources efficiently. Resources are not infinite, they are finite and often peoples needs and wants exceed what is available to them, thus we require prices which are signals in the market to tell us what consumers want and what they don’t want; as soon as you destroy all information of prices, you no longer have the available information of profits and losses. You can revert to my blog on prices here to learn more about the importance of pricing.

The major problem with their fallacious ideology of Libertarian Socialism is that in the real world, individuals needs and wants are all different from one another, we’re not robots, we all have different desires, tastes, needs therefore in order to meet everyones desires as best as possible, only the market can efficiently achieve this through the price mechanism via supply and demand. The beauty about the free market is, ‘choice’, the consumer is the primary element and driver of a free market economy; the same cannot be said however for this ludicrous ideology that seeks to place the worker before the consumer where there’s no money, and due to everyones needs and wants all being different from one another there is no efficient way without prices to allocate scarce resources efficiently providing for the market.

As stated, you cannot seek to prevent individuals from owning their own private business or land, by doing so you are going against the very meaning of the word liberty. You can watch my video response I made to Libertarian Socialist Rants below, either way ladies and gentlemen, the difference in maturity is rather quite obvious.

Make sure you like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and subscribe us on YouTube to get the latest update.

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. You are one of the thickest most uninformed individuals I have ever come across. You can’t even be bothered to do a google search or listen to a single one of the videos he made. Languages evolve and dictionaries are updated to reflect those changes not the other way around. Picking a defintion that obfuscates the point being made doesn’t make you smart it makes you an idiot.

    The collectivism he refers to is workplace democracy. Where the workers collectively own the enterprise. No single individual is allowed to own a place of business and utilize the concentration of wealth and power to employ others as they see fit. Instead the operation is decided democratically with management appointed by he workers themselves rather than a bunch stock holders who don’t know jack shit about how the business runs and frequently don’t care. Your effort to define away his position illuminates nothing and you should be embarrassed for posting this garbage.

    • Oh I’m afraid not, you only have to ask a Socialist one simple question to prove their lack of intelligence and what is that question? Ask them, ‘What is the Economic Calculation Problem?’ The fact is you’ll never get an answer from them, in fact they’re that ignorant and stupid they think they can either have fixed prices which destroys the price mechanism and ends up causing serious problems, or they’re daft enough to think they can have a moneyless based economy. In translation they do not understand fundamental basic economics and have never studied the importance or role of prices in their entire cream puff.

      As for the videos he made, you wouldn’t need to, it takes a dangerous level of stupidity to think you can differentiate Socialism from Centralisation, which by definition is against all meaning of Individualism and Individual ownership, that’s not an opinion, it is a simple fact. However that’s not the only reason you wouldn’t need to, who in the right mind thinks they can prevent individuals of their own liberty and then attempt to call that Libertarian? That is the definition of stupidity. As if that’s not bad enough you then hit out with that languages evolve and dictionaries are updated, the desperate attempt to manipulate and change the English language. I’m sorry words in the English dictionary do not change, they serve a purpose, just like the word open serves a purpose, you can’t change its definition, it’s a bit like someone trying to manipulate the word open to mean close. What about the word strong, are you going to completely change its definition so that it no longer means what it is supposed to mean?

      The typical ignorant response, the desperation to completely ignore the dictionary by all means as well as to completely ignore recorded history. You can tell you’re a childish little millenial. As for calling me an idiot? I’m sorry, anyone who thinks they can begin price fixing or even have an economy without prices are idiots, why? You clearly don’t know what prices are, that’s the evidence you’ve never studied basic economics, it’s the evidence not a single Socialist ever has done so.

      Yes, the Collectivism he refers to, but ignore the fact it requires the abolishment of all means of private individual ownership which alone requires the use of force and violence, even then it requires a group, an entity to ensure that individual private ownership never returns, that by definition is governance. You said it yourself “no single individual is allowed to…” stop there, preventing an individual of their own liberty, doesn’t matter how you try to paint that, that by definition is anti-Libertarian.

      You don’t understand the importance of stock holders, it was because of stock holders that largely made things possible, however what makes me cringe is the fact you think again that you can run this style of economy efficiently without the information of prices, that is why I sit and laugh at you. And by the way, investors (stock holders) do know what goes into business, investors would not invest otherwise, they wouldn’t take the risk with their money if they didn’t see fit purpose for doing so. Are you that stupid you think an investor just throws his or her money at anything and hopes for the best? You really have no idea of the world of investment, what a stupid silly ignorant little child.

      Embarrassed?

      1. you don’t understand the economic calculation problem.
      2. you don’t understand the role of prices.
      3. you call this; “No single individual is allowed to own a place of business” Libertarian which is laughable.
      4. you don’t understand the role of investors or how investors operate.

      The fact you think investors just throw money at anything and hope for the best proves your lack of intelligence right off the bat, that proves you’re a Socialist.

      • You need to pick up a book about the real economy. Your description of what you think I believe gives every indication you haven’t the slightest clue what I think.

        The entire neoclassical economist venture is predicated on false assumptions. You can construct a gently down sloping aggregate demand curve without assuming every consumer is identical in every way (bill gatew has to spend the same percentage on pizza as you do) most companies do not have u shaped marginal demand curves but in fact flat or downward sloping was as businessmen aren’t morons and tend to keep excess capacity open (unlike neoclassical economists who assume full resource employment which we know to be false). For that reason you literally cannot construct a supply curve. The entire model rests on the assumption consumers are omniscient gods who immediately know everything about a market and that goods in a market are homogenous. Literally all of these assumptions are false. The whole point of the advertising industry (the principle method by which firms compete) is to make uninformed consumers make irrational choices (sex appeal, patriotism Etc) yet all of this is pretended away so we can pretend markets maximize efficiency. Competition can just as easily push companies towards deceit, exploitation and externalizing costs as it can to inc efficiency, once again this is just assumed away.

        Stock markets CAN be good tools to raise the necessary capital to fund a business and we should be passing laws and restructuring our taxes in such a way to ensure this happens but it is not what is happening now. Right now stocks are rapidly turned over and most investors simply follow prices “buy low, sell high” a ever decreasing number actually pay attention and this behavior should be encouraged. The explosion of the finance industry has led to most credit being lent out against already existing assets NOT to fund new ones. 70 to 80% of loans go to mortgages. Banks adjust the interest rate and length of payback to the customer meaning the the price of housing is determined by the amount a bank is willing to lend against it not by the market. A similar phenomenon is happening with stocks, people are buying them up on cheap credit inflating it but the reselling of stocks is not an IPO it doesn’t get back to the corporation, in fact much of this purchasing of stocks is hostile, they take over the company with high interest loans which they then place on the corporation and then they pay it back force it to take out debt and pay out the loan to stockholders to inflate the price and then they dump the stock, leaving a corporation with a hallowed out infrastructure and a huge pile of debt.

        You have to pay some attention to the real world here not just look at fanciful Econ 101 diagrams that have as much a bearing on the real world as the frictionless planes in an intro to physics course (much less in fact, as all the assumptions made to draw those diagrams are in fact false).

        The term libertarian socialist predates the use of the term libertarian in the way you use it. This means the way you are using it is the changed version, and that’s fine as yes languages evolve, unless you think we have all been speaking English since the dawn of time. Arbitrarily changing “open” to mean close would be stupid, the evolution I am talking about is like what happened with libertarian originally meaning Liberty from all for,s of hierarchy. Gradually it came to be used in free market circles where it came to mean opposition to state power alone and a complete embrace of private and corporate power whatever the human cost. As that word became more used in this context the relevant defintion was added to the dictionary. If this guy had arbitrarily changed the definition you would be right but he didn’t he utilized a predicting one, one that in fact predates the one you seem to think is sacrosanct. Accusing him of the former when he is in fact doing the latter demonstrates nothing but your own ignorance, but that’s Ok, I was unfamiliar with the anti-state strains of socialism until recently. Like you I only knew the far right propaganda version.

        He is not advocating for no individual ownership. You would still own you toothbrush, bed, car, videos games house, what would change is no SINGLE individual could own a place of business or in socialist parlance “means of production” which would instead be run democratically by workers who voted in management. Some believe in market socialism where workers run the businesses but the businesses still compete. Others, like this rants guy, are also against the market. If your curious about how it might work there is some good work out there like paraecon and you could also read about e Spanish revolution which operated such an economy successfully despite being under assualt by he capitalist republic AND Franco’s fascist forces.

  2. Telling me I need to pick up a book about the ‘REAL’ economy is irrational due to the fact I’ve been reading books, more than enough to comprehend the disastrous failure of Socialism even to that of recorded history. If you are a person who values either Socialism or the mixed economy, you’re not a person who understands economics because the whole purpose of the study of economics is to find the most efficient economic system possible that enables us to allocate scarce resources efficiently and effectively to the market without causing waste. Neither Socialism or the mixed economy could achieve this, both are faced with the economic calculation problem.

    As for this foolish statement that Neoclassical Economics being predicated on false assumptions, no it’s not, it’s not based off assumptions at all, in fact it’s based on the real world, so what you basically did there was twist something, made it up and tried to convince yourself this was what Neoclassical Economics was predicated off of, absolute nonsense. If anything it’s based off real world examples. If you’re referring to something 100% true Laissez-Faire, then sure, but does it hide the very success of free market Capitalism? No.

    First off, you can’t argue with the laws of supply and demand, whilst consumers are all different from one another one thing doesn’t change and that’s the fact that when the price goes up, consumer demand falls. The only people you see spending despite higher costs depends on their reason, if a spend thrift they’re incompetent. What you’re desperately trying to do here is argue that when price goes up you think you can ignore this thus you’ll try and state that demand stays the same, show me in this world where that has ever been the case? It hasn’t and never will be the case either.

    Bill Gates spending the same percentage on Pizza as anyone else is natural, that’s the price of it, why should that change just because he’s rich? What business is it to you or anyone for that matter how much money he has or what he does with it? Secondly, who said anything about a ‘U’ shaped demand curve? I certainly never. Okay, so that is what you base your statement upon about false assumptions, I think you forget times change.

    Okay, I see where you’re going with this argument, which again is irrational, why? The alternative to the consumer deciding for themselves is the idiotic belief that a small set group of people sitting in a government some how know what’s best for people over the people do. The second point here is your flawed argument because if a consumer isn’t well informed about a product that’s their own fault, if they go out and spend and waste money without informing themselves first, their fault, it’s none of the government’s business what they do, if they wish to continue on being incompetent they deserve to be homeless. Don’t like that fact, tough! Why should the competent be forced to pay for the incompetent? The fact is consumers do know what they want and even if they’re provided something they’re not happy with they’ll adapt and change.

    Markets do maximise efficiency, that’s why Hong Kong greatly improved the living standards of the masses between 1950 to 2016 with practically no natural resources, for anyone to sit there and deny this proves they need mental health checks. Get this laugh:

    “Competition can just as easily push companies towards deceit, exploitation and externalizing costs as it can to inc efficiency, once again this is just assumed away.”

    Tell me, what’s the alternative to a competitive market driven by consumer demand? That’s right, your nightmare of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Cambodia. If you were to compare economic efficiency of Hong Kong to any example of Socialism you could throw at me you’ll find Capitalism wins hands down.

    The rest of what you said from this point on is pointless. Only an idiot could call Socialism Libertarian after taking an individuals liberty away from them.

    The ENGLISH language predates your ideology, your little fairy tale and the ENGLISH word PREVENT predates any of that. To think you can PREVENT an individual of his or her liberty and then call that Libertarian, you’re a psychopath.

    • I did not make any statement on how much bill gates should or should not pay for pizza. I pointed the construction of a gently upsloping marginal demand curve is only possible based on e assumption that everyone utilizes their dollars in the same way, meaning it’s assumed that bill gates will spend the same PERCENTAGE of his income on pizza as you or I. This is patently ridiculous people’s proportional demand for goods changes radically as they make more or less and when discarded it means that while we have good reason to think that demand in general falls with price it isn’t going to be a gentle slope but just as easily have a sine wave shape which means there could be multiple points of equilibrium. There are exceptions to this rule which neoclassical economics doesn’t even pretend to deal with like when a price increase is taken as a signal about future price increases. For example in stocks a rising stock can lead to an increase in that stocks demand.

      Products are not homogenous, consumers are not fully informed supercomputers with infinite processing power, the advantages of economies of scale makes the libertarian fantasy of industries with numerous small firms a pure fantasy. This is why you need to pay attention to the real world, the neoclassical model has no relation to it and making policy prescriptions based off assuming it is has predictably disasterous consequences, as the most of the third world who had the libertarian fantasy shoved down their throat could tell you. I could make policy prescriptions based on my understanding of the Westerosi economy but it has no real world applications, the neoclassical model is not possible and bears no relation to the real world.

      I misspoke about the u shape. I meant to refer to the marginal cost curve which is assumed to u shaped. This claim is false and most companies report a down sloping one because business men are not idiots and leave excess capacity open in case of changes in demand. This means that the supply curve can be flat or even have the same downward slope of the demand curve.

      I am not advocating the totalitarian nature of the Soviet state which gave workers no rights and no say and hence was just as socialist as North Korea is democratic. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state with a minimal welfare state that libertarian economists eagerly destroyed after the fall of the Soviet Union leading to millions of excess deaths (as if living in the fucking Soviet Union wasn’t enough of a punishment). Just because a country or ideology throws socialism or democracy into its title doesn’t mean they actually reflect those features, the very first thing Lenin did when he seized power was use the army to crush spontaneous examples of workers control in the same way capitalist countries have for centuries.

      As for the rest of your mad rantings yes you equate Liberty with the right to control the lives of others the right to leave communities with zero input into how the run their affairs and to limit human freedom to the individuals role as a consumer when you know full well billions of dollars are spent every year to keep them ignorant of their choices and to manipulate their purchasing patterns with irrational appeals to sex, patriotism and popularity.

      Libertarian socialist is about removing all limits on an individual’s autonomy not the libertarian ideology of freedom to do as one wants for the rich and the demand for abject obedience and submission for everyone else. It does not abolish all ownership it gives ownership of places of business to the workers running them leaving all other private property in place. You aren’t even listening

      Hong Kong also has massive poverty and it only developed by being an administrative center for the British empire which was basically the polar opposite of a free market. Moreover the government in Hong Kong does literally regulate and own most of the land because of the markets failure to provide decent housing for its inhabitants.

      You don’t have to trust the government to do something, in fact the libertarian socialist position would reject this completely as it is anti-state ( the fact that you still can’t grasp this fundamental feature is astounding). The government is profoundly imperfect but the reason libertarian ideology focuses on it is because of the threat it poses to the corporate and business world. Government is potentially democratic, corporations and businesses are outright totalitarian regimes. So if your goal is to break the will of a major input of production (labor) you have to convince them the one institution they can have any effect in is responsible for all the world’s ills not the guys literally running the economy and (thanks to libertarians encouraging people to avoid advocating for any government involvment) have an ever increasing stranglehold on government policy. I think the state is ultimately illegitimate but when dealing with reality it’s the only institution the broader public can have any effect on so until we abolish the tyranny of private power you need the government to step in to prevent the drive towards profits from destroying the society (which it has in much of the developing world where the libertarian dream was fulfilled).

      You don’t even try to engage with th obvious point that competition can just as easily lead companies to deception externalizing cost, and exploitation you just appeal to a false dichotomy avoiding how this observation undermines your earlier assertion that markets are efficient. Read about the Spanish revolution if you are actually interested in the facts. If you honestly think the only options we have are Stalinist Russia or a society built on obedience and submission to concentrated private rather than state power I once again recommend looking at the real world. America has far more government programs than Venezuela, the same goes for Europe. You just throw out “socialism” as some kind of buzz scare word without defining it. Venezuela’s ills have to do with its idiotic 3 way exchange rate not this ill defined “socialism” of which you speak and just seems to mean anything that’s not your particular brand of free market capitalism.

      The libertarian definition the rants guy uses predates your own, the one your using is newer but still valid because languages evolve, I cannot detect anything resembling an argument in your final statement though.

      • The reason that why libertarianism and socialism can’t merger under the same philosophy is because all the collectivism , which socialism is one type of them, are required to have a central planner, in order words the the power away from the government, so that’s why it is logical inconsistent to put these two things together.

        Secondly, about the situation Hong Kong, it is a free market indeed, as there are nearly no regulations, and even no medicine practitioners in certain aspect of medicine, and strong economic business freedom.

        The land issue is also an interesting thing, if Hong Kong is not able to produce good housing, why the illegal immigrants from mainland China keep going to Hong Kong while other options are available like Macau and Taiwn ?That already implies Hong Kong’s situation is not that bad as you describe.

        I would like to also point out between 1961 to 1997 , it closed the wealth gap between the rich and poor proven by the gini coefficient.

        I am not coming to argue a prefect system, but throughout the history, the free market capitalism is proven the least imperfect system to reduce poor and enhance the quality of life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s