April 8, 2020
  • 10:58 pm Delta Cafés “Estamos Juntos” | #fazatuaparte
  • 10:58 pm Santa Cruz Shelter in Place 2020: Day 17
  • 9:58 pm When Rituals Replace Relationship – POSTURE Episode 038
  • 9:58 pm How To Celebrate Passover And Easter During Trying Times | TODAY
  • 8:58 pm Evangelism: He’s Not Afraid of the Coronavirus! | Way of the Master: Home Edition, Ep. 1
Atheism and Libertarianism 2: Special Pleading


Welcome to the second video in our series
on the common fallacies committed by both theists and statists. This video covers the
concept of Special Pleading. This is a form of compartmentalization where you posit some
sort of universal rule, but then make an exception for whatever it is you’re supporting. This is related to our first video on the
burden of proof. Ordinarily, the positive claim has the burden of proof, but with woo,
it’s quite often the case that they use special pleading to shield their claim from this burden.
For example, homeopathy fails every double-blind test, but that’s because: “Homeopathy is special, and just can’t be
tested that way!” Religious people do this all the time. I’ve
already covered one example in my video, “Why Intelligent Design is WRONG.” In it, I showed
how Intelligent Design advocates say that no system can exist ad infinitum, cannot appear
spontaneously, and cannot develop from less complex systems. Therefore, the universe must
have a cause. Of course, they want that cause to be God, but that runs into a problem: if
God cannot exist ad infinitum, could not have appeared spontaneously, and could not have
developed from less complex systems, then that God needs a God to design him–and that
God needs a God, and that God needs a God, and so on, in an infinite regress. The way they get out of it is to simply claim
that one or more of these universal rules do not apply to God: God can exist ad infinitum,
when it’s impossible for the universe to. But they don’t realize that they’ve just shown
that their universal rule isn’t so universal, and as Carl Sagan pointed out, if you’re going
to say that the universe was created by a God who always existed, why not just save
a step and say that the universe always existed? Another example happens when theists look
to the universe for proof for their God. They may use such arguments as the Argument from
Complexity, or fine-tuning, or many others and express incredulity that this could happen
absent a creator. But then when skeptics point to the evidence for an old universe, or the
Big Bang, or any of the other findings that refute certain theist’s claims about the universe,
those are dismissed, because scientific observation all of a sudden just isn’t reliable anymore. In particular, the nasty and often reprehensible
behavior of the God of the Old Testament is often justified using Special Pleading. “There must have been some reason for these
atrocities! It was a different time and place! God is all-good and all-knowing, so if he
does it, it MUST be moral! Who are you to criticize him? After all, he’s God, and you’re
not!” So when God says to kill adulterers and homosexuals,
that’s okay despite the fact that Thou Shalt Not Kill is in his Top Ten List. Actions performed
or condoned by God are loving and wise, even though those very same actions committed by
human beings on their own would be considered stupid, violent, evil, and even criminal.
We lowly human beings use evil science to vaccinate our kids so that they won’t get
certain diseases; but the God who caused and allowed those diseases to persist loves them
more than we do. Fallible humans create charities to feed starving people in the Third World
and give them clean water, but the God that made those conditions in the first place is
all-loving and all-powerful. Of course, there’s the flip side, too: in
many religions, if you don’t fall to your knees and bow and scrape to whichever God
in particular they believe in, then you’ll receive punishment in the form of eternal
torture, forever and ever and ever–no matter how good a person you were otherwise. But
if a parent demanded this of a child? If any human being demanded this of any other human
being? It’d be WAY beyond criminal; it would be considered psychopathic and the person
would likely be locked away for a VERY long time. So why is it any different with God?
Oh, right: “Because he’s God”! What’s interesting is that different factions
of theism engage in Special Pleading when dealing with each other. When Christians debate
Muslims, for example, they each demand evidence from the other that they’re not able to provide
themselves. And even different denominations of Christianity claim that the Bible supports
their own particular beliefs–even the same passages of the Bible are interpreted in different
ways to support the varying beliefs of these sects. So, how do statists engage in Special Pleading?
Let me count the ways! Like God, actions committed by the state are considered justified when
those very same actions committed by private individuals would be punished as criminal.
If you think someone is threatening you, and you go and kill them, then as long as they
weren’t acting on that threat you can be charged with murder. Unless, of course, you’re the
President and you use a drone to take him out in a foreign country. He even gets to
take out American citizens, without even so much as setting foot into a courtroom, and
several bystanders as well. Imagine if someone comes into your home and
you think they may be armed, and you forcibly search them. This could easily be considered
battery in a court of law. And if you search them on their genitals, you could even be
convicted of sexual assault. But if you’re at an airport and your uniform has the letters
TSA on it, all of a sudden, it’s acceptable, and what are you complaining about? Do you
want the terrorists to win? “Why do you hate America?” Another example is the misanthropy that permates
many forms of statism: the idea that humans are fundamentally evil, or irrational, or
greedy, or selfish, or whatever, and therefore we can’t just leave them to their own devices;
we need a government to keep these people in line. But who is going to comprise this
government? Government is just a group of people, nothing more, so if people are fundamentally
greedy and selfish, then it stands to reason that that government will be greedy and selfish
as well. Unless you somehow think those in government are cut from a different cloth?
As Milton Friedman repeatedly asked, where are these saints and angels that you’re going
to have to find to run the country? And even beyond that, statists assert all
the time that we need a government to do x, y, or z because no private entity could. “We need government to feed the poor! We need
government to manage our retirement! We need government to fund science! We need government
to create jobs! We need government to fix the economy!” On and on and on. But what is so special about
the group of people in government that gives them abilities that other people in the private
sector don’t have? If you say that a certain group of people can do something that no other
group of people can do, you are ascribing to them supernatural abilities. And politicians
become priests and saints and demigods. This is what libertarians mean by the phrase, the
Cult of the Omnipotent State: the assertion that only government has the skills and knowledge
to perform these tasks. Personally, I have to give the edge to the theists here: at least
they acknowledge they’re positing the supernatural. Statists try to hide it. Want proof? Just
check in the comments of this very video; I’m CERTAIN you’ll see statists denying it
here. And like religion, statism even engages in
special pleading among its own factions. When George W. Bush started lying to get us into
wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats were outraged, and even called for his impeachment.
But when Obama took office and started telling us the same lies to get us into war with Libya
and Syria and Iran, liberals for the most part were silent. Up until the 2008 election,
anti-war rallies attracted hundreds of people, most of whom were waving Obama signs. After
Obama took office, most anti-war rallies consisted of about a dozen libertarians and a tumbleweed.
Even many liberal commentators have bemoaned the fact that the anti-war protests have slackened
immensely under Obama. Another example is the NSA wiretapping scandal.
During the Bush administration, this was a terrible thing, but under Obama, what’s the
big deal? And yes, it goes the other way, too, before
you Democrats engage in your favorite activity of playing the martyr: The IRS scandal where
they arbitrarily punished Tea Party groups has outraged Republicans–even though the
practice dates back at least to Richard Nixon. Where was the outrage when THEIR guy was doing
it? And oddly enough, statists even engage in
special pleading when trying to attack libertarianism. A conservative attacking libertarians might
say: “I like your ideas on the economy, but you’re
just out to lunch when it comes to gay marriage and the war on drugs. Don’t you know marriage
is between one man and one woman? Do you want our kids to be able to buy heroin from vending
machines in their school?” We get the same response from liberals: “I like your stance on gay marriage, but ending
the Minimum Wage? Why do you hate the poor?” (No matter how many studies we show them demonstrating
that Minimum Wage itself hurts the poor.) “You want to get rid of regulations? So you
want the big corporations to take over?” (No matter how much we show them that regulations
are WHY big corporations are taking over, since they can absorb the costs of compliance
better than small businesses that compete with them.) Get it? The parts of libertarianism
that I agree with are good; it’s those parts that disagree with my pet government projects
that become insane and stupid. For whatever reason, they’re just completely unable to
apply the criticisms of the policies they hate to the policies they like, even though
for the most part they’re pretty much the same criticisms! Especially when it comes
to things like: “Alcohol prohibition was stupid and didn’t
work, but we need the War on Drugs!” For another example, Mitt Romney campaigned
against Obamacare, even though it’s pretty much the same legislation he passed as governor
of Massachusetts. “But that’s totally different! It’s fine when
the states do it, but it’s not good when the Federal government does it! More examples: “Ron Paul’s not gonna win any caucuses! You’ll
see! …What? Ron Paul won a caucus? Well, caucuses don’t matter!” “It’s great that government passed this stimulus
package to fix the economy! …What? The economy’s not any better? That’s because we didn’t spend
enough!” Get the idea? There’s always an explanation,
EXCEPT one where the statist is wrong. Just like with God: no matter what criticism you
come up with, it’s just different somehow. That’s really what this series is about: many
statists commit the same fallacies as theists, but then deny it, because it’s just different
somehow. And as we’ll see throughout this series, they employ this tactic judiciously
to avoid the problems with all of the other fallacious reasoning they employ. Stay tuned.

Jean Kelley

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 3:54 am

    Of course, if government decides to put you on a No Fly list or take your license away they can restrict your freedom of movement all over the place.

    Reply
  2. Loyal2Liberty Posted on July 13, 2013 at 4:07 am

    Well, you can assume your worst case scenario but I don't see it happening. Since you brought up a hypothetical situation, I wonder if the government had a monopoly on the internet if you would argue for non-privatization because a big company like GE controlling part of it would sound scary to you. Companies want to make a profit, not upset consumers. The only way I could see any company ban a paying customer is for similar reasons the government does it now (i.e. reckless driving, etc..)

    Reply
  3. Ganga Din Posted on July 13, 2013 at 4:17 am

    His example is particularly ironic since black people were once prohibited by law to use roads…. to escape their slave masters. So much so they had to create the competition. Hiding in water for fear of the rain… every …single …time!

    Reply
  4. Ganga Din Posted on July 13, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Oh, and as a "minority" I do note that your racist assumption that I am not capable of deciding who to patronize just because of my skin color and I am too stupid to find alternatives, unlike white people.

    Reply
  5. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Well it's more sensible than every street being run for profit and seeing dinosaurs that existed millions of years ago!

    Reply
  6. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    HA HA HA, imagine if George Zimmerman owned his own street! Imagine if Daniel Carver owned ten streets. We would be back in the 1940's in no time LOL!

    Reply
  7. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    I made no such statement!

    Reply
  8. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    George Zimmerman isn't a racist. This was pretty much proven at the trial. And false accusations of racism are NOT allowed on this channel (see Rule #5). First warning.

    Reply
  9. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    I thought libertarians were in favor of free speech?? U sound like a dictator now ?? LOL

    By the way, whether Zimmerman is a racist or not is debatable, but we know for sure he is a lunatic! Go ahead and ban me Mr. Libertarian Dictator! LOL, I knew that was what u really were!

    Reply
  10. Loyal2Liberty Posted on July 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    LOL. I thought we were having a serious conversation, but I get it now. Thanks.

    Reply
  11. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    False accusations DO NOT COUNT AS FREE SPEECH. Second warning.

    Reply
  12. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND A DICTATOR PRETENDING TO BE A LIBERTARIAN! I've seen u cuss people out in the comment sections of your videos, now you're offended by me saying George Zimmerman is a racist as if you're some kinda fucking angel???

    Well fuck off u sack of shit, go ahead and ban my ass, I don't give a fuck! Do it and show everybody the coward u really are!!

    Reply
  13. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    Oh my god, I said a dirty word? That's FAR worse than a drone strike!!!

    Come on, LIAR–NOT EVEN THE PROSECUTION is saying Zimmerman is a racist! Trayvon Martin's friends even TESTIFIED UNDER OATH that Zimmerman wasn't motivated by race!

    YOU are the fucking coward, because you have to resort to LIES and don't take the opportunity to fix them when you're proven wrong. And this lie is LEGALLY ACTIONABLE, so I HAVE to restrict it.

    THIRD AND FINAL WARNING.

    Reply
  14. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Well actually Rand Paul said he's ok with using drone strikes on liquor store robbers in the US. v=Yh2LJKK1RD4

    Do u have the clip in which Trayvon's friend said Zimmerman wasn't motivated by race??

    Reply
  15. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 13, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Also, if I can't attack Zimmerman, u can't defend him! Argue fairly!

    Reply
  16. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Just look at Rachel Jeantel's testimony.

    And if you didn't even know that–if you didn't even BOTHER to follow what was being said–then HOW DARE YOU make accusations like that???

    Reply
  17. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    "Well actually Rand Paul said he's ok with using drone strikes on liquor store robbers in the US."

    Yes, and he's just as bad for doing so. Stop being a fucking dogmatist.

    Reply
  18. Shane Killian Posted on July 13, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Attacking him is one thing; FALSE ACCUSATIONS are something else entirely.

    And by the way, although there's nothing in the rules here against attacking him, you'll have a difficult time doing so, since even according to the prosecution's case the facts are absolutely consistent with what Zimmerman says happened.

    Reply
  19. johnrainrules Posted on July 14, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    "but we know for sure he is a lunatic!"

    Says the person who claims light isn't necessary to see, time doesn't exist and the moon landing never happened.

    Ladies and gentlemen I present your lunatic.

    Reply
  20. johnrainrules Posted on July 14, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Common sense from the person who thinks the moon landings were faked, time is an illusion, and light isn't required for seeing?

    Reply
  21. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    Whatever idiot! keep following Father Krauss and his stupid theories! U can't fool anyone, people will never believe in his silly theories!

    Reply
  22. johnrainrules Posted on July 16, 2013 at 11:58 am

    If by people you mean uneducated morons who have been caught lying numerous times I agree. Of course your opinions are also worthless unless backed up by the state.

    Reply
  23. malgault Posted on July 23, 2013 at 9:36 am

    The Autobahns in Germany are an interesting example to look at, they don't have blanket speed limits, but restrictions on certain vehicles (though they advise 130kmph [81mph] generally). I haven't looked into it very much from a road safety point of view, but they have been operating for many years and should provide quiet a bit of actual data. While it is theortetically possible to get to 300kmph (195mph) on an autobahn, it's not very easy to do it in real life.

    Reply
  24. Shane Killian Posted on July 23, 2013 at 11:52 am

    I do know they're VERY officious about pulling over people driving recklessly, especially people going from lane to lane.

    Reply
  25. malgault Posted on July 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    Well I guess that is reasonable enough. I just hope that it provides an example for the person who seems to think 18 months isn't a statistically useful sample size (considering there are plenty of other trials for different things that are much shorter).

    Reply
  26. Shane Killian Posted on July 23, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    It's an excuse to disregard the evidence, nothing more.

    Reply
  27. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 23, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Why? Drivers in Germany must be at least 18 years old and fork over more than $1,000 to undergo 24 hours of rigorous private instruction, including training on the Autobahn, and pass a comprehensive written test, before obtaining a license. (Compare the U.S. with no required training and a minimum age of 16 in many states.)
    In addition, they strictly enforce other laws such as tail gaiting and overtaking in the wrong lane!

    Reply
  28. Shane Killian Posted on July 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    "(Compare the U.S. with no required training and a minimum age of 16 in many states.)"

    And they STILL did better in Montana with no speed limits.

    Tailgating and other forms of reckless driving absolutely should be restricted–and actually are by private companies who monitor their own roads MUCH better than government does. Not only are accidents far fewer, but they're cleared more quickly and stranded motorists are helped on their way at no additional charge!

    Reply
  29. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    So you're in favor of laws against other forms of reckless driving but not flat out speeding?? It seems that u don't recognize the act of speeding as a reckless act which I find a bit odd?

    Do you have an opinion on seat belt laws?

    Reply
  30. Shane Killian Posted on July 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    "It seems that u don't recognize the act of speeding as a reckless act"

    Because it isn't.

    "Do you have an opinion on seat belt laws?"

    People should assume the risk of their own choices. We don't need mommy government to do it for us.

    Reply
  31. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    Well your opinion on seatbelts seems reasonable for adults!

    But speeding however can be very reckless! It depends of course on the type of road you are on and by how much you are breaking the speed limit!

    Reply
  32. Shane Killian Posted on July 23, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    Do you think your assertions are superior to the conclusions warranted by the data?

    Reply
  33. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 24, 2013 at 3:58 am

    And by the "data" I guess u are referring to 18 months in Montana?

    Reply
  34. Shane Killian Posted on July 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    And everywhere else in the world that it's been tried.

    Still waiting for your math showing that 18 months is not statistically significant.

    Reply
  35. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 24, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    Statistical calculations can be misleading.

    Reply
  36. Shane Killian Posted on July 24, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    But statistical assertions backed up by nothing are apparently okay…

    Reply
  37. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 26, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    twas a logical assertion. Besides, Montana is only one place!

    Reply
  38. Shane Killian Posted on July 26, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    We've pointed out several other examples, LIAR. Not FUCKING ONCE has your fear-mongering EVER taken place in a place without speed limits. NOT FUCKING ONCE!!!

    Reply
  39. piwright42 Posted on July 29, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Sorry I'm a deist so the Ten Commandments really don't apply to me, beyond rules of thumb that keep you outta trouble that is, but isn't is Thou shall not murder? How would one eat if the commandment was thou shall not kill. Life feeds on life after all. To quote Tool's Disgustipated, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust… …Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses."

    Reply
  40. Shane Killian Posted on July 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    "but isn't is Thou shall not murder?"

    Distinction without a difference. A lot of the activities we're talking about constitute murder, and even genocide. Yet when those atrocities are depicted in the Bible as a work of holy men they're given a free pass. Blatant Special Pleading.

    Same with government. Mass murder and genocide are a-ok, at least as long as if it's the right party doing it.

    Reply
  41. piwright42 Posted on July 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    I've argued against biblical genocide in the past so you'll get no lip from me on that distinction.

    Reply
  42. Markus Phillipus Posted on July 29, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    I'm not fear mongering. I'm just using commonsense. The only example u gave me was Montana!
    U still haven't been able to give a real reason as to why there would be less traffic accidents if we did away with speed limits!
    Tell me in plain English why traffic accidents would decrease if there are no speed limits! What is the root of your logic?

    Reply
  43. furicon Posted on August 11, 2013 at 7:20 am

    Actually, Montana borrowed this idea from Germany. In Germany (to a great extent) the Autobahns (interstates) have no speed limits and are among the safest in the world. Current thinking is (I think) that this is an issue of attention. That is in certain, highly specific circumstances when you remove a certain rule, people begin to switch their attention to their surrounding rather than relying on other people to follow the rules… in short it incentivizes defensive driving.

    Reply
  44. furicon Posted on August 11, 2013 at 7:33 am

    That is not to say that I disagree with you. I would posit that no speed limits would not have a similar effect in the US because of your litigious society. That is, the "I'll sue you!" mentality would negate the effects on attention that removing speed limits has in other countries. It is important to discus why A causes B in order to assess if a new situation (USA vs Germany) is meaningfully different in specific parameters that would alter or negate the impact of decision A on outcome B.

    Reply
  45. Shane Killian Posted on August 11, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    And that is exactly what they've found, not only in Montana but also in European cities where they've taken down the road signage and traffic signals.

    Reply
  46. furicon Posted on August 12, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    But this is not universally applicable. It is because people know the rules exist but have been situationally removed. In cities, say in Yemen, where are is no signage and basically no rules, traffic still flows but much more inefficiently and there are orders of magnitude more deaths from traffic, notably among pedestrians.

    Reply
  47. Shane Killian Posted on August 12, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    "But this is not universally applicable."

    Evidence?

    Reply
  48. furicon Posted on August 12, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    Ugh, I'm not a traffic engineer, so I will answer this rhetorically. Why don't we imitate the traffic systems of cities like Mumbai or Sanaa? Let me guess, it's a conspiracy between government and road builders? sign makers? Or could it be that there is a strong correlation between driver training and road fatalities? That it's cheaper to "force" people to learn how to drive rather than pay people to mop their blood off the highways?

    Reply
  49. Shane Killian Posted on August 13, 2013 at 12:43 am

    Do Mumbai or Sanaa use Shared-Space for their traffic system?

    Reply
  50. Markus Phillipus Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    Well regardless, there is no logical basis on which to assume that the removal of speed limits would result in less traffic accidents!

    Reply
  51. Shane Killian Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    Not only is there a good logical basis for it (look up the Peltzman Effect), it's what we OBSERVE IN REALITY.

    Reply
  52. Shane Killian Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    Not only is there a good logical basis for it (look up the Peltzman Effect), it's what we OBSERVE IN REALITY.

    Reply
  53. Markus Phillipus Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    Well in the video, Mr Peltzman didn't comment on speed limits, what he explained was that building a safer automobile eg. more airbags or pop out windshields may result in more traffic accidents because the "cost"/ consequences of the accident would be less. Not sure how u apply the same logic to speed limits??

    Reply
  54. Shane Killian Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    Uh, no. 1) That wasn't Peltzman and 2) that isn't what the Peltzman Effect says.

    Reply
  55. Shane Killian Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    Also, read "A driving-simulator test of Wilde's risk homeostasis theory," Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6):950

    Reply
  56. Markus Phillipus Posted on August 16, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    This isn't Peltzman?? v=7IB2xRfRHOA

    Reply
  57. Shane Killian Posted on August 16, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    That's a completely different video than we were looking at earlier.

    Anyway, the fact that people drive more attentively without speed limits is EXACTLY what the Peltzman Effect is about.

    Reply
  58. Shane Killian Posted on August 26, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    "I would like to know where this assertion about minimal wage is coming from;"

    Basic economic theory backed up by literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

    "to my knowledge the industrial revolution had a bigger divide between the rich and the poor"

    Bullshit statistics. It's invalid to compare it to today, which is based on what happened before. What you're supposed to do is look at the CHANGE in the divide over the period, and that divide got MUCH smaller.

    Reply
  59. Shane Killian Posted on August 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    "Minimal wage = 1 cent per day if you where lucky."

    My mother has an Indian-head penny from that time. The metal content alone is worth $8.

    "Libertarian’s ladies and gentlemen, ignorant of human history."

    Uh-huh. Right.

    Reply
  60. Shane Killian Posted on August 27, 2013 at 10:31 am

    "but you would still live in worst conditions than slaves during the Roman Empire."

    Oh, bullshit! How many slaves had oil heating and modern agricultural tools and industrialized cities and easier access to fresh meat and all of the other advances they enjoyed them?

    "But I believe that shearing ideas and reaching a consensus is better than staying divided and arguing who is right."

    Yes, that attitude worked SO well for the Soviet Union…

    Reply
  61. Shane Killian Posted on August 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    "A worker during industrial revolution had no rights"

    Bullshit lie. Workers were more upwardly-mobile than they have been at any point in history, before or since, they had better opportunities for living environments, better working conditions, lower child labor, and so on.

    And I DON'T FUCKING CARE how well Romans treated their slaves. YOU DON'T GET TO OWN PEOPLE.

    Reply
  62. Shane Killian Posted on August 27, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    "and see the amount each worker is paid"

    Do you look at the gold value of the money and compare it to gold prices today?

    Reply
  63. Shane Killian Posted on August 27, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    The poor in America have over 500 square feet of living space per person on average. This compares very favorably with the middle class throughout western Europe!

    Reply
  64. Ganga Din Posted on August 27, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    "Romans treated slaves better than other slave using communities at that time"
    note the last 3 words. AT THAT TIME!

    Not during industrial revolution.

    Reply
  65. Ganga Din Posted on August 27, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    "I come to a conclusion that the workers are paid Less than they should be"
    Should be? What are you basing this "should be" on?

    Reply
  66. Shane Killian Posted on August 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm

    Wow.

    I grew up on a farm and worked hard on it, you smug, self-righteous, narcissistic nimrod.

    Reply
  67. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 10:19 am

    "You thrown out this insults without even thinking"

    No, I threw it out at you BECAUSE YOU DESERVED IT. You drew conclusions about me SOLELY based on my arguments, which I backed up not with personal experience, but sound logic. You accused me of not presenting any constructive ideas, which anyone familiar with my channel knows is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. You then used this as a reason to impugn my character, using 100% Marxist propaganda.

    And you can't even admit it now that you're caught.

    Reply
  68. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 11:30 am

    "I will not agree on your logic."

    Then refute it logically, not with personal attacks. You assumed that you were so much better than me solely because of my position, which you have not yet refuted. It led you to make an incorrect assumption about me and my history. When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you STILL would not correct yourself.

    Reply
  69. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 11:31 am

    "Socialism is the only way for humanity to survive"

    WAY unproven. And there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Socialism results in starvation and misery, every time. Private property and free markets result in progress and prosperity, every time. History is unmistakable in this.

    Reply
  70. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 11:31 am

    "Logic sometimes doesn't help it is actually harmful if used too much."

    Spoken like a creationist and every other anti-science loon.

    Reply
  71. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    1) How do you properly set it up and 2) how do you keep it that way without special interests messing it all up?

    Reply
  72. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    Sorry, but you didn't fix anything there. All you did was beg the question. You're DEFENDING the illogic of the way we do politics by CLAIMING that politics is inherently illogical, but that's what you must prove!

    There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why logic and reason cannot be applied to politics. NONE. Anyone who says otherwise is making excuses.

    Reply
  73. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    "I was thinking of a 200+ page rulebook of different regulations and laws that you need to follow, forcing that the owner of the company gambles his own property on an investment (no bailouts you f. it up you lose everything)"

    Why would you need that? Just, don't bail them out!

    Same with the rest. If you didn't have government making those guarantees in the first place, you wouldn't need rules overturning them!

    Reply
  74. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    See Part 7 for more on that idea.

    Reply
  75. Shane Killian Posted on August 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    "Well it is a problem I have saw first hand."

    So, anecdotes are now evidence?

    "than he sold the company to a friend and with the money bought 2 other companies, this was continuing"

    And THAT'S how you know you're in a monetary bubble. Switch to sound money and that doesn't happen. Again, you don't need a new law; just stop the government doing its jackass meddling.

    Reply
  76. Shane Killian Posted on August 29, 2013 at 11:56 am

    That makes absolutely no sense. And by that I mean, it's unparsable nonsense. Go educate yourself on basic economics and try again.

    Reply
  77. DC AC Posted on October 22, 2014 at 5:50 am

    This shit is seriously stupid. You're so biased it's almost unbelievable. Strawmen and false equivocations abound.

    Reply
  78. killer14bee Posted on February 26, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    What are the chances of us being secretly observed by ET? 

    Considering that there are more than 100 billion stars in our galaxy and more than 100 billion galaxies in our universe and an infinite number of parallel universes, there could be civilizations that have achieved wormholes and Alcubierre drive and are able to leap from one universe to another. 

    And if we are being observed by them, do you think that they might make their presence known to us when the world goes libertarian?  

    Reply
  79. Jamison Drapeau Posted on October 28, 2015 at 3:59 am

    Do you support Obama?

    Reply
  80. Shadyhunter04 Posted on April 23, 2016 at 12:57 am

    You sir have earned a subscription. It's lonely being a libertarian atheist and you have articulated very well what I've long had much difficulty with. Wish you the best.

    Reply
  81. reven ice Posted on January 31, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    If someone says only government can fix X I would think that meant only a government has the power to fix X not that they nesasaraly will do the right thing to fix it but that only they can implement an action on that scale. For me it's part of the definition if you can implement a nation wide road net work or a ban on drugs or what ever then you are a government. It doesn't mater If you started as a corporation or a social club if you have the power to implement your ideas nation wide you are a government now

    Reply
  82. DEADeyeEFFECT Posted on May 24, 2017 at 8:14 am

    If the universe can create itself from nothing, then couldn't a being create itself from nothing. What is the difference in a being or an environment without a true definition of either?

    Reply
  83. Kelpy G Posted on July 29, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    let's all agree that Shane is the absolute king of youtube

    Reply
  84. Darth Utah 66 Posted on August 15, 2017 at 2:50 am

    All government really is is an enforcement of certain standards. And as for worries that government officials would misuse that power, that's what democracy is for. Politicians are elected by the people and if the people don't think that the person they elected is doing a good job, they can always vote in another person in the next election.

    Now I do realize that corruption is more than skin deep and that corporations can donate money to political campaigns in return for support but the same can be said for free market. While it is true that capitalism gives individuals freedom of choice, it often leaves those who don't have any wealth in the dust.

    Reply
  85. Dra åt Helvete Posted on October 10, 2017 at 8:45 am

    Well put.

    Reply
  86. nanahachi kurenai Posted on December 10, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    I think social security is ridiculous… they take your money, give it to retired folks, and when you get old, they take from other young ppl. How is that a good system? Shouldnt you just earn what you need, and retire once you earned enough to the point you dont have to work for rest of life? I dont need government to manage my bank… spenders gonna spend no matter what

    Reply
  87. Don181, you'r a frickin Neanderthal Posted on April 13, 2018 at 6:05 am

    I still enjoy and agree with most if not all of these videos as an atheist conservative.

    Reply
  88. Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem Posted on June 9, 2018 at 8:19 pm

    oh boi look at the imagery….black and white background………idk it seems like the symbolism doesn't care about neuance……

    Reply
  89. Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem Posted on June 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    I believe drugs are like sex…kids aren't for it but for adults it's fine…

    Reply
  90. Paul Robinson Posted on November 22, 2018 at 5:24 pm

    I once pointed out there are some things requiring restrictions: you can't have two simultaneous broadcasters on the same frequency, or two different parties using the same domain name. I pointed out in the case of broadcasting, the FCC registers stations. I also pointed out domain names are registered through ICANN, a private organization. It just happened that no one thought of the idea of a private registration agency for radio stations in the 1920s.

    Reply
  91. BobWidlefish Posted on January 14, 2019 at 12:02 am

    I, too, have noticed remarkable similarity in the theist and statist arguments. My conclusion: statism is secular religion. If it had fewer adherents we would easily recognize it as a cult.

    Reply
  92. GeekOverdose Posted on January 24, 2019 at 11:24 pm

    As much as i agree with you, i offer to you my humble critique 6:00 is a logical fallacy, qualities of components of a bigger structure don't necessarily dictate the qualities of the structure itself. For example the qualities of iron is hard and brittle while carbon is soft and powdery, but when combined they make new unique qualities such as elasticity and ductility (aka steel)

    Reply
  93. Darron Lewis Posted on January 28, 2019 at 4:53 pm

    Here’s the difference Politics == Religious woo.

    Reply
  94. Darron Lewis Posted on January 28, 2019 at 4:54 pm

    I would like to debate you. I’m an atheist but I’m not a Libertarian.

    Reply
  95. TheOmega7Project Posted on May 18, 2019 at 1:56 am

    My opinion on God and the universe: they are one and the same. And the universe particularly doesn't give two shits about what we all do as it has expansion to do.

    Reply
  96. ShreddingSkeptic Posted on July 16, 2019 at 5:24 am

    Agree with first half of this video. The second half starts off with straw mans and weak premises.

    Reply
  97. Anonymous Anonymite Posted on August 27, 2019 at 3:58 pm

    Good work Shane. Keep fighting the good fight.

    Reply
  98. Check Mate Posted on October 18, 2019 at 2:22 pm

    As a qusi libritarian
    i think companies are incentivized to find the intersection between cost and market demand.
    And that the market doesnt allways demand good things.

    People tend to want food that is safe and cheap. But if pressured, its been shown safety is something consumers are willing to forgo in favor of reduced cost. In todays world with improved sciences, food can be dangerious to eat while not smelling or tasteing bad. And as such consumers are less likely to recognize unhealthy food site on scene and refuse business.

    So thats why i begrudgingly posite that a orgonization that exsistance is seprate from market forces is useful for imposeing safty rules.

    I understand their are issues with who will be in charge, what biases they have, how the rules they impose will be decided upon.

    I think a free market aproval orgonization built on reputation to aprove safety would be ideal.
    but i dont see how the market would be demanding such a orgonization.

    Reply
  99. Prohyono Oolo Posted on November 12, 2019 at 4:01 pm

    The best channel on the entire internet of the Always Existing infiniverse ¡

    Reply
  100. Shamus Michael Richard Duffey Posted on February 11, 2020 at 9:41 pm

    The Massachusetts state motto is by the sword we seek peace but only under liberty. Massachusetts tried to ban the word bitch one time just last year.

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT