and his brother

who batista? ya thankfully the cuban revolution ousted him. Probably one of the safest places in latin america is cuba right now would much rather live there than a good portion of other L. american countries. I don't care if they don't have fancy skyscrapers and tech at least people have homes and healthcare

and thats every Utopia really, you can create a Utopia for yourself but the moment you introduce another person he is going to disagree with you on at least one issue and when that happens: a problem was created and your Utopia is no longer a Utopia, it is a flawed system

I have to say, Cuba being backward and old does give the place a charm not easily found elsewhere. Of all the things the embargo and state control had done, making Cuba relying on reusing old stuffs weren't too bad. Tourism will expand there eventually, given how quaint it looks. It is certainly terrible majority of the people, however.

@@lc9245 That speaks for the Cuban work ethic. Very strong people

incel bot?

@@sonafabix Do you WANT unreported child deaths? Who cares if it’s a bot????

@@sonafabix Oh no, is the little pink trooper upset by facts? 🥺

@@sonafabix hurry or you'll be late for your bread line.

@@sonafabix "facts hurt my feelings"

ameneth

Communist when you point at them something that's wrong, like famines, concentration camps, etc: "Yes? Well, in US people die because [insert whataboutism here]" They truly believe a bad action is justified because someone else did it. It is the equivalent of justifying yourself being a r*p1st because you got r*p3d

Now that is good!

she simply knows how much is in the line

Were all fighting a uphill battle, and it's time to fight harder. (with ideas.)

@@justachu5521 Indeed. If the people she debates get their way, she better think about moving to America. Otherwise, she'll be first on the chopping block.

I would love for this lady to debate AOC and bring her down.

I've personally asked many statists if they would agree with me to put in place a program which over time replaces compulsory taxation with interest returns on publicly held trusts for essential services. I've explained the math, and how to get there. I've given examples of the American Amish sucessfully using this method of uniting to solve problems in their communities for centuries. Alas - I found that statists don't actually want a peaceful resolution. They just want to control everything. We can't reason with sociopaths, but I applaud every effort. Ultimately they must be deported or eliminated from society like a cancer.

@@briantait5568 lol okey. now go read some unclassified documents from a 3 letter agency that starts with C and ends with A and come back to talk about how there's a "victim ideology". Thats just to talk about the last 50 years of history, btw.

The adoption of Universal Suffrage (1930's to late 1940's) by South American countries, opened the way for Socialists and arrested the development of what had been economically prosperous developing countries.

@@chancetempleton3829 really? Why did Brazil's GDP growth jump from 1% 1890-1929 to 3.5% the decade following?

@@briantait5568 Nah, I doubt it. We have a lot of morons, yes, but we also have a lot of people who are waking the f* up and doing something about it, just like the lady on the video. Latin America is on a pretty interesting time when it comes to political though. We're having this rebirth of the right wing. It's messy, but it's something

@@briantait5568 so your worldview is that there isn't contemporary interference of foreign powers in Latin America? 🤣🤣🤣 If there was - supposedly - Russian interference in the USA elections can you for a second imagine what the situation is like in Latin America?

I prefer the quote that goes something like: Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed regularly.

@@iansneddon2956 I partially agree, not regularly, but every hour. Hour means when the minute they starts talking shiets

"If he dies, he dies" Ivan Drago.- Rocky IV

"If they survive, try something else." - bigly genius on the internet

What does that have to do with what the video is talking about? But to bring the two of them togheter, here in Argentina politicians were stealing vaccines for themselves, their buddies and their servants.

How many victims did America kill in Iraq?

@@girl-1979 Was it 100 million?

@@ilvean3122 What do we understand from your dirty answer? Is killing Arabs a normal thing? You have killed a million people and displaced millions abroad some of whom are tormented in prisons and it has occupied and destroyed the country What do you want next? But I do not blame you for you are its children pretending to love peace mercy and freedom, but at the same time you are killing peoples and destroying their countries You are a hypocritical country that will not come in history like you Much love, respect and appreciation to you my brother

@@girl-1979 Ok but Who asked? How do you even go to such a tangent to inject a commentary about Iraq and the US on a video regarding LATINOAMERICAN POLITICS!? HELLO!? Talk about this shit on a video that relates to your comment instead!?

@@malphasdarkaxe8135 This is my country I am talking about those who worked to destroy it without mercy or humanity Wherever I like it, and with my comfort nonsense is present in you O country of homosexuals killing millions you call nonsense? If your history is a killer, what do you call it? What mentality and psychology do you possess are you not ashamed of your defense of the crimes of politicians in your country? And then for Latin America don't forget the attack pressure and brutality of your country's regime and imposing a siege on them Don't forget it's all about your nonsense

It's not about Debate skill really. Handling your opponents is easy when you're telling the truth, and your opponents are promoting false ideologies.

No she is not

@@stantory1822 agreed. She just shouts talking points at them angrily instead of trying to convince them and accomplishes nothing.

@@PallahDaOracle the goal of debates isn’t really to convince the other person but the audience in the middle

@@PallahDaOracle Are you watching the same video as me? She tries to make points, and they constantly try to talk over her. She responds to what they are saying and demolishes their fantasy land. Listen to the first guy, trying to say that Cuba was a "Utopia", and she correctly pointed out that doctors were driving taxis.

Doctors in Cuba undergo less education than nurses do in the US. And that just scratches the surface.

The far right killed Cuba

The cartel in that country will not have it by unaliving political figures.

the right didn't do better.

The Right has ruled Colombia for so long and ran it to the ground, i went to Bogota to see familia and even they say that Duque made things worse, im suspicious bout Petro but we gotta try something new instead of the same ideología that fucked up our land

True, and people with strong belief and willpower need liberty.

Don’t worry, you’ll get use to us.

@@jbonics7022 No, I wont. Tell your friends.

cute story now reflect on the impact of the USA imposed Embargo

@@gcm4312 That's answered. Nobody's paragliding in Cuba, trustafarian.

@@montycantsin8861 no it isn't. it's mentioned but clearly there's no "reflection" about the topic because saying "you have trade with other countries" implying the embargo has no devastating effect shows lack of understanding of how it works. ps: thanks for checking out my channel 😘

@@montycantsin8861 oh btw.. i had to research what 'trustafarian' meant. I'm white, sure. But above that I'm a latin american, who knows a bit about the history of my region and have also witnessed contemporary interventions of foreign powers in my country during my lifetime. So I'm sympathetic to another American country suffering intervention.

@@gcm4312 First, you're latin-ness doesn't buy sociopolitical expertise above anybody American. I've travelled enough to see ignorance everywhere. Second, it was at the end of the Clinton administration, so for 8 years, Cuba had the relaxed version of the Embargo. Their poverty had a lot more to do with the planned economy, which has little or nothing to do with real economics. Also, insane restrictions on individual liberties, the part of my "cute story" you so expertly avoided. Look dude, I'm really trying to avoid thinking you're a socialist, making an autistic, Debate-bro attack on the Embargo, to expand an argument on the morality of socialism, or something like it. I told a cute story, as you put it. You want to lay all of Cuba's ills on the Embargo, go ahead and boil it down to that. While you're at it, reflect on your paragliding, and reflect on how many Central and South American people in socialist countries have such leisure and luxury.

Does not matter since they still have a decent chance of winning (assuming it is not rigged in their favour already). They can be that bad and still get the votes of those indoctrinated or otherwise manipulated. This reminds me of a Latin American meme that is basically some dead character (or actual person) with the caption reading "another one that tried to improve Latin America"

Bernie Sanders literally did the same thing in a debate I think it was Bloomberg who called him out for praising murderous dictators and he went off about their education system

@@sebastiansirvas1530 What this guy says is true. If elections aren't rigged in the first place, people is indoctrinated enough that they will still vote for said politicians, even if they defend murdering dissidents in contrast with "quality education".

​@@mandi4820If Sanders and Bloomberg had debated in 2020 the US Democrat Party might have found its identity and kept its soul. Maybe that's the reason they didn't - total disparity of thinking. Now it is going to die a violent ugly death in the next 8 years. I'm praying fervently that it doesn't take all of America with it.

I suspect that capitalism is incompatible with Christianity, and particularly with Catholicism. Capitalism is essentially selfish and individualist. Christianity is based on sacrifice and collectivism (like socialism). Therefore, I have much higher hopes for Africa than South America as far as the future of economic freedom.

@@phamnuwen9442 Simply put no - because there is nothing more selfish than the robbery that is socialism. Capitalism requires each person to choose their own happiness and pursue their own interests, and the free exchange of ideas, goods, and services agreed by two free independent parties requires no such theft. Socialism on the other hand always requires theft, it always requires that someone who refuses to work is allowed to steal from someone who does, it requires burdens on some for the benefit of the lazy others. Christianity preaches altruism, it does not however preach theft and envy (envy in fact being a deadly sin). Me performing an altruistic act like donating time, money, or services to my church or charity is the epitome of capitalism because I am acting in my self interest and individualism to feed my desire for a better community or country. Socialism rejects the idea of individualism and the right of each person to be free to pursue their own happiness as they so wish, just like Christianity teaches a belief in the personal god and personal Jesus and the requirement you know god on the individual level (especially Protestantism). The individualism in capitalism requires a respect for the idea of human rights, socialism rejects such ideas of human rights because individuals are subservient to the community or state. Individualism requires the acceptance that if I am free to pursue my own interests to seek happiness as I define it then you are free to pursue your own as well, and I trespass against you and your rights as an individual when my pursuit has an burden on your pursuit. You are free to pursue happiness, but you cannot steal from me in order to do it.

@@cxa340 "because there is nothing more selfish than the robbery that is socialism." I really think we need to sort out what "selfishness" really means. Do you really think that robbery is selfish? Does robbing people actually lead to a good, happy, flourishing life for the robber in the long term (even if he so to speak "gets away with it")? Personally, I think robbery is inherently self-destructive to the robber, in other words it is the exact opposite of selfish behaviour. The robber is admitting to himself and the world that he cannot produce his own prosperity, that he is a parasite. I can't see how that could possibly promote his selfish interest in the slightest.

@@phamnuwen9442 Yes, because the robber simply doesn’t not have such self-actualization. Do voters in Venezuela or protestors Colombia realize they are robbing their neighbours when they demand every social program for free? Does the illegal immigrant to the US realize they are robbing Americans of their human rights when they work without obeying the law or paying taxes? The robber/socialist simply does not care that their actions are immoral and rotten to the human soul - they simply seek to take from others what they cannot or will not provide for themselves.

@@phamnuwen9442 France is catholic, southern Germany and Austria are Catholic, etc.

It's not just Venezuela - it's pretty much all of Latin America. Even more amazing is that occasionally someone is able to turn the tide for a while and bring a level of relative prosperity to a country, such as Pinochet after Allende had Chile on the verge of starvation - and as soon as the people get a chance they choose poverty again.

@@alanlight7740 I have talked to several people from Chile, Guatemala, and El Salvador, as well have done a fair bit of research on the subject, and you're full of it. Allende was a democratic leader who was helping Chile. Many of the problems he faced were due to US sanctions. Pinochet, on the other hand, did not help the country very much. He massacred thousands of innocents, though, but I forgot, it's only bad when commies do it. You "libertarians" are sick freaks who support some of the most authoritarian and brutal people.

@@botodin6979 - There's a great documentary called "The Battle of Chile" about the end of Allende's rule which has just a little bit about Pinochet at the end, by the communist film maker Patricio Guzman. I didn't know anything about the events in Chile until I saw that documentary, but it is what made me realize how bad Allende was and how good Pinochet was. Of course the film maker, being a communist, did not understand this, but he made a faithful documentary that included conversations that Allende's supporters had among themselves. It is an excellent documentary, but not in the sense that Guzman intended it to be, because it shows just how deluded Allende's supporters were. For instance, Allende was NOT a democratic leader - at least not in the sense that we usually think of these things. The film begins with Allende's supporters celebrating his "victory" in a recall election. Allende "won" with 40% of the vote. That is far from a mandate, but these fools thought it was. Then the film celebrates Allende's supporters robbing a small business owner. It continues on along a similar vein from there. It also turns out that Chile did not have just a president, they also had a congress. Imagine that! And the congress repeatedly told Allende that he did not have the authority to do what he was doing, but Allende just continued doing it anyway. So 60% of Chilean voters did not want Allende as president, and the Chilean congress told him that he was out of line - and that is your "democratic leader". It went on from there, but one scene was about the food shortages that happened after Allende enacted his policies, and it was no mystery why there were food shortages. I have yet to see any evidence that the U.S. established any sanctions, but it would hardly matter - Allende's policies forced businessmen into a no-win situation, where if they did what Allende wanted them to do they would go bankrupt - so of course they did not do it. They just dropped out, because you can't run a business by spending more than you can earn. Not for long. Those policies could only ever end in starvation for the Chilean people - and this was all extremely obvious looking at the documentary. There's no nice way to say it - Allende and his supporters were utter fools, and it showed. What is truly sad is that this complete lack of understanding of even the most basic economic principles appears to be endemic throughout Latin America. It's sad because for the most part the people of Latin America are nice people, but so long as they keep demanding the impossible and punish anyone who tries to help them they will remain impoverished. Pinochet, or his supporters, killed a few thousand communists. Most of them would have died anyway if their cause had been successful, along with many other Chileans, from starvation - just as happened in other nations where communists got the upper hand about that time. Judging from what happened in those other places, Pinochet may have saved about a million Chileans from dying of starvation. The end of the documentary mentioned a few things about Pinochet. For example, Allende had purged the Chilean military of anyone he thought might prevent him from establishing his dictatorship, but he skipped Pinochet because Pinochet had a reputation for not being at all political. Given that Allende's policies were already leading to hunger throughout Chile, it appears evident therefore that Pinochet was just a man who felt a duty to his country and acted to protect it from madness and famine. The film also mentioned that Pinochet immediately offered Allende to go into exile and to take his supporters with him, in order to spare their lives. They refused. Therefore Pinochet had no choice but to kill them in order to save his country. There was more in the documentary too. You may have talked to people from Chile, but I saw the film of what actually happened. The fact that many of the people of Chile have been so easily deceived does not speak well for their testimony. They may believe what they say, but only a fool would believe such nonsense.

@@alanlight7740 yeah, and the Vietnamese only killed a fee thousands anti-communists. You not seeing proof of the impacts of US sanctions is due to your own ignorance. Allende was a democratic leader. Pinochet was an authoritarian monster. To say everyone he killed was a communist is like saying everyone Stalin killed was a fascist. Also, "offering" to send someone into exile isn't a very democratic or kind thing to do. You conservative bootlickers lack morals, or any understanding of history. Do you have any idea how horrible his rule was and how little it accomplished? You are just as bad as a communist.

@@alanlight7740 Also: Allende wasn't a communist. But expecting a conservative bootlicker to understand history is like expecting a communist to understand economics.

[...2 years later...] So how does Latin America like Javier Miliei as a 'messiah figure'? Someone with the _cahones_ to tell the people "there is no money."

Very interesting!

Ahora dilo sin llorar.

Lot's of people actually believe that.

This is over semplified🤣 America export inflation on foreign country, using international sanction to steal tecnology etc. People like castro are puppets "designed" and financed in western country😄

Those other things essentially being having a huge swath of land handed to them on a silver platter because of their technological advantages over Native Americans, their own expansionist policies and their countless crimes against other countries, and so on. Not to say many of the people they were up against were better, in fact in many cases they were worse, but in many cases-certainly not all-the USA grew wealthy because of theft.

@@theghostofspookwagen4715 "the USA grew wealthy because of theft", not sure that's true any more than saying the US grew wealthy because of slaves. The US grew wealthy because of innovation and property rights and how were were less corrupt that others. You can steal all you want and you can have slaves all you want and STILL be a poor nation. Look at all the theft from all the humans over all the centuries... how many of them had anything close to the wealth of the US? None of them even begin to compare. Theft and slavery, actually made things worse. BTW, every single nation, except the very, very first one millions of years ago, is a thief, based on this "whoever is there first, owns everything". I'm not sure what person or God made that rule, but just because someone said that was the rule, doesn't mean the human race has to follow it. What if I say the rule is that anyone that wears a red hat is a God, does that make it so? Humans have to fight for land, it's not a "first come, first owned" rule that everyone has to follow just because "someone said so". Humans make up their own rules, usually by killing each other.

@@theghostofspookwagen4715 the Only Truth I See in these Comments, Thank you Hvala. Smrt Fašizmu, Sloboda Narodu!!! These Countries Know the Evils of Nationalism and Far-Right Banana Republics where America Reaps what it Sewed, New Poor People to Exploit!

I think it's funny that people say that migrants are moving for ideological reasons rather than desperation, while knowing that Californians moving out of state and voting for the same policies that drove them away in the first place is an issue.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Cuban immigrants tend to become naturalized citizens and vote AGAINST socialism . . .

@@jfangm No they don't look at the republican cubans in office they are the worst socialists

@@f__kyoudegenerates Sorry, but you're wrong. Cuban immigrants are amomg the biggestand most vocal critics of socialism. That is simply a fact. They fled socialism in Cuba and actively fight it here. One politician does not a demographic define.

@@f__kyoudegenerates Cuban, here. Let me be clear: DC politicians are crap, regardless of nationality or affiliation. Marco "Thirst" Rubio and Ted "Zodiac Killer" Cruz do not represent the rest of us, any more than Nancy "Polydent" Pelosi and Mitch "The Tortoise" McConnell represents all US-born citizens.

Another problem for Capitalism is ignorance (often purposeful) of the economic characteristics that define it. "Mixed Economies" better describes the economic form of most modern "Capitalist" societies.

You have identified the reason why a truly libertarian society has never existed: Human nature. People want government to be their saviors. They don't recognize that, without government, emergent order would create a very organized, efficient, and just society. The difference is that all associations are voluntary; you're not born into a social contract that you never agreed to.

Sounds good to me. Why should I desire the unearned?

Nah, they just want misery on others.

Yeah- this is absolutely mind boggling. Why is this even an argument? Just compare Chile to Venezuela over the last 45 years. Chile was socialist and the poorest Latin country while Venezuela was capitalist and the richest. Now Chile is capitalist and the richest country, while Venezuela is socialist and the poorest. What more do you idiots need? Start doing shit that works and stop doing shit that doesn't work. WTF are they thinking? I get why the politicians want more power, but jesus christ the people who support this are stupid.

Exactly, it's crazy to think that a politician arrested for corruption won the elections in Brazil

It's not a _wise_ basis for running a society. It's "good" in that it works as long as there is someone wealthy for the government to coerce or steal from. Envy is a natural human impulse when facing either one's own poverty or someone else's affluence.

Precisely. In fact, we should abolish all laws and let people rape and murder as they please. Wouldn't want to get in the way of their personal freedom, no?

@@icneo9738 Yes that is totally what I meant! What a good comment. You are so smart!

@@icneo9738 you forgot 'almost' fool.

It never is

Maybe not zero, but it's awfully close. I liked most of the people I met in Latin America, but the vast majority were adamantly opposed to any course of action that might lead to prosperity.

Yes, it needs to end.

How did feminism get into this?

​@@VidkunQLHuman rights, the basis of capitalism. Freedom from force. This is what feminism was supposed to do. Extend equality under law to woman, not robbery under law.

The author has died already

Oh yeah, explain that theory to China. Those so called Communist must be doing something Wright if they pulled 850 Million Chinese out of Poverty in the last 20 years. Compared to the same shite Latin America goes through every presidential election. Even after 200 years of independence from Spain, still can’t get their act together.

Oh yeah, explain that theory to China. Those so called Communist must be doing something Wright if they pulled 850 Million Chinese out of Poverty in the last 20 years. Compared to the same shite Latin America goes through every presidential election. Even after 200 years of independence from Spain, still can’t get their act together.

I wish that were true, but they are interested in your finances also.

@@badendhappy2903 yeah, how much I can afford to pay them that is.

@@MouseDestruction ^

*People are more interested in themselves than others. It is human nature and nothing inherently wrong with it. The problem is when you give someone too much undue control or power and then expect them to help others. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Any country dependent on foreign tourism has the same issues.

@@ralphemerson497 hardly.

Yea I agree, it’s partly the format of these shows, if you don’t get a word in there’s no one really moderating to give everyone equal chance. More of a fight with words than a debate

It's cultural. Have you seen debates in Brazilian government with Bolsonaro.

American media is uncomfortably like this too. Republicans on CNN have to talk over the hosts just to get their points across.

I only spent about two weeks in Argentina, and I liked the people, but it was sad to see how much trouble they went to in order to impoverish themselves, and it was pretty cringe hearing them talk about their economic ideas. Like yourself I hope that they can change course - but the rot is so deep in Latin America I wonder if it is possible.

The Falkland Islands should annex Argentina.

@@jwadaow based and red pilled take

Stay tuned to Reason. All of the others are exactly the same as German National Socialists who claim you must choose them or communism. It's a religious war to avoid.

It's deeper than that. The people of Latin America keep demanding poverty.

No thanks

Most of us assume Zoolander is Castro's kid.

Socialism works beautifully for those at the top of government.

Bruh… Foreign intervention in Latin America is pretty much one of the main causes of why the countries are as fucked up as they are now

communism doesn’t sacrifice freedom and also it has never been tried before

No no no, leave that to us Latin Americans u gringos fucked up our homes for way too long, let us run our own countries and focus on urs.

The lack of taxation on the ultra-rich is the actual theft whereby those at the very top rob the middle class and working class

@@tomover9905 obviously you're operating on a different definition of "theft". I'm using the dictionary as my reference.

@@humanhiveanomaly We're using the same definition of 'theft.' The taxation-is-theft claim would be least absurd if applied to the regressive forms of it that burden the working and middle classes. But the broad brush claim supported by Koch propaganda, Turning Points...and other plutocratic propaganda is at odds not only with social justice but also freedom, prosperity, and US national interest. Without taxation funded investments into our nation's human and material resources, we will continue in our economic and political decline. The private sector left to its own devices will not solve our economic or political problems, and certainly not our ecological ones. Let's talk about 'theft.' The ultra-rich use publicly funded resources and services and then privatize the gains, concentrating wealth among a relative few at the top, socializing the costs. A good example is Big Pharma. Extreme wealth is amassed by extracting value from public resources and the human resources of the general public. We'd be wise to distinguish socially and ecologically beneficial entrepreneurial innovation, on the one hand, from, on the other hand, predatory capitalism which is currently the biggest driver of US decline and the biggest threat to our freedoms and prosperity. The corporate elite have used all sorts of taxpayer funded entities including the US military which uses terror and violence to create social and institutional settings around the world that are favorable to US corporate interests. Taxing the ultra-rich is no more a matter of 'theft' than the grocery store manager calling the police if you take items without paying. The ultra-rich take much more from society than they are returning. Taxing them is the best way to address this imbalance. Most of the tax burden should be on the wealthy in order to make ongoing investments into the foundation upon which such wealth was created in the first place (after also factoring in the extreme theft of Native Americans' land and the labor of enslaved Africans and African Americans. Yeah, let's talk about theft) If we're talking about theft, the most glaring example of it is neocolonialism.

they aren’t evil ideas

@@Proxyyy825 Sorry buddy Envy and theft, which is what socialism is based upon, are wicked acts based upon evil ideas

@@kathyheavner3585 in socialism there is no envy or theft and capitalism is also based on evil and wicked acts such as greed, self entitled and self caring only, gluttony, and lust

@@Proxyyy825 socialism is Only envy and theft. You are obviously a college graduate 😂

@@Proxyyy825 capitalism is based upon the biblical truth, that if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. I hope you get a decent job, work hard, do your best at all you do, and enjoy your life. Maybe then you will understand

And yes, taxes are robbery

@@andreagraziano9033 then how will u pay for social services and maintaining the country?

Agreed. I fully support a free exchange program: those who want mommy gov't to wipe their bums can go to Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. Those living in those countries, and who are willing to work hard and strive for a better life, can give up their shacks and hovels to the aforementioned wanna-be "revolutionaries", and take ownership of the US homes those people left behind.

Travel restrictions imposed on American citizens by Washington, perhaps?

WE NEED MORE OF THIS GIRL!!!!

Exactly!

Um, yeah, ya are, sweetheart. Or did The French Revolution escape your attention?

"Government is not sustainable" is not quite true. A Free society with a representative government is only sustainable so long as the people demand that it is. Once the people stop caring about representation they lose it followed closely by the free society which spawned it.

@@willstikken5619 It may very well be representative of the wants of the majority, but in a free market, people's wishes can be fulfilled if they provide something in return through trade, while under a state and its decisions, there's no ultimate requirement for something in return, and because you can't make something from nothing, the economy declines. People have proven for 6521 years straight, that they cannot be trusted to vote for the things which provide them liberty and in turn long term prosperity rather than the empty promises of immediate gratification at the cost of all of their liberties. The sole requirement on behalf of the state and the psychopaths that crawl their way to the top, is that they strip the liberties away one by one, gradually, so as to not cause too much of a shock.

@@TheFloatingSheep What you are pointing out are largely failures in people, not failures inherent in government itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of government but all of these systems, including anarcho-capitalist and free markets require people to act in their own best interests. That is why like any other utopian ideal it fails when left in the hands of the people. It is that recognition that drives authoritarians and the like to try to "protect" people from themselves by asserting control over their lives. Regardless of your preferred model, in order for any type of cooperative society with any degree of individual self determination to succeed the oft missing element is a populous with the knowledge and understanding to pursue and protect their own interests.

@@willstikken5619 //largely failures in people, not failures inherent in government itself// Governments are made of people. //require people to act in their own best interests// People do act in what they believe to be their best interest. We can never know with 100% accuracy and certainty what is right for us, but people learn and change their habits. And if people are not able to decide what is best for themselves, then they're most certainly also not able to choose what's best for others or which ruler is best... so then the logical conclusion would be that, you either settle for democracy which is the rule of the majority over the minority, a free market which ensures a large degree of strictly voluntary decisions which each gets to make over their own self and own body, or you can settle for totalitarianism and somehow hope that by random chance the dictator happens to be the best for everyone and know what's best for everyone. //That is why like any other utopian ideal it fails when left in the hands of the people. // Anarcho-capitalism would be no utopia. There's likely to be more or less just as much conflict, it's no cure to scarcity or inequality. //populous with the knowledge and understanding to pursue and protect their own interests// Yeah, and having a monopoly such as the state in power is most certainly going to prevent that. They've taken over education a long time ago. They corrupt the market they heavily monopolized through regulations, and use that to control much of narrative. etc. If we want to reach good, correct conclusions in society we need the largest possible number of competing sources of information. The closer we get to the opposite the more doomed we are to have no idea what's in our best interest.

Never heard a coherent argument how conflicts would get successfully resolved in an ancap system. But otherwise I agree. Biggest problem I see is with the control the state has over your money. Not saying it would be perfect but making taxes modular (so you pay for government education if you need it or want to pay) and financing the courts, police and military also modularly or as a service charge for enforcing contracts would make the situation a lot better in my opinion. That would allow for a mechanism to actually choose where your money goes to and actual competition to be able to exist . The only exceptions would be the police, courts and the military, they would still have a monopoly but they won't get money if they don't provide a good service due to not getting that voluntary money or service fees (why would you pay if they don't enforce the contracts well?) and thus are forced to innovate and adjust the price. And many agencies like the NSA would probably end because not many people would pay for that. Would this count as small government or would this not be a goverenment anymore for you?

I fully agree. Government money doesn't belong to the government, or the politicians, but the people, which is what it should be spent on.

Latin America has been doomed since the beginning, Spains way of colonizing such as creating a racial caste system and using Indigenous and African slave labor along wit viewing an ideal leader as a caudillo made it ungovernable. America getting involved was like lighting a fuse to a bomb waiting to explode.

if bolsonaro is a leftist leader im mfing santa claus

I think they said left and populist

Just a monopoly on force through police & military. That's it

yea, I hate it

The difference between national socialism and international communism is mainly shout volume. Both factions are afraid to debate libertarians

How the hell is the us a socialist country? It is for corporations but for the people. Never in a billion years

socialism in itself doesn’t suck cause you get payed more for it’s hard labor and is democratic in nature it’s jus the US is so anti Left that ie on purpose sends sanctions and coups to try to get it to fail because America doesn’t want people to realize that other systems other than capitalism can work anyway most of those latin american countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia aren’t even socialist to begin with they jus had some socialist ideals and in politics but in economy were just social democracies like Norway Denmark and Switzerland

Quite correct. People think Castro was bad, but so was Pinochet in Chile.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Yeah. I hope these people aren’t psychopaths and are just mimicking a desired narrative. BUT. I’m seeing more and more people who I thought were fairly normal practice the sick art of gaslighting… which means if they’re not, gaslighting has become so normalized it’s just an “accepted way of communicating your position.” Either way, we’re in dangerous times.

@@paulrebstock4993 yes but it seems libertarians have no issue calling out the u.s. government when it comes to the middle east but since latin america serves as a convenient reinforcement of their beliefs against socialism they'll completely ignore the u.s. meddling in that region.

@@poopoo6186 Most libertarians I know are against the CIA meddling and foreign interventionalism. We're not living cartoons like Charlie Kirk.

@Seldom Forever The fuck is wierd?