VIDEO: Why The Cult Of Dusty Is An Idiot

The Cult of Dusty? Or The Cult of the Omnipotent State?

The YouTube channel CultOfDusty, aka Dusty Smith, released a video some time ago bashing libertarianism titled “Why Libertarians Are Idiots”, and I decided to make a long overdue response to it. It drives me out of my mind to see these “atheist” content producers, then go on to support the most dangerous superstition of all, government.

Here’s the original video I was replying to

 

 

Here’s a rough transcript of what I say in my video.

 

One of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about being an atheist libertarian is that I find content producers who are really good at bashing religion, and I subscribe to them after they tear apart some religious zealot, only to find out that they aren’t actually atheists. What they actually are is Statheists, or State Atheists, who may have rejected the bible, and the koran and whatnot, but instead believe in something even more demonstrably false, the State. Such was the case when I stumbled across this video from “The Cult of Dusty” titled “Why Libertarians are Idiots”.

Dusty Smith, aka Cult Of Dusty gets Owned

Dusty Smith, aka CultOfDusty gets Owned

The channel is aptly named, because Dusty is in fact part of a cult. This cult adheres to the most dangerous superstition of all, the State. People like Dusty think they are so much smarter than everyone else because they reject ancient religious texts, and granted, thats a step up from your average Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but if believing in a deity is stupid, then believing in a government, well, that’s full retard, and you never go full retard.

We’ll get into the video in a moment, but think about it for a second. Does the government exist? Where is it? Can you point to it? Can you touch it? Of course not, it doesn’t exist. It’s a made up idea, where you give magical powers to a group of people, and if anybody disobeys the people with the magical powers, then terrible punishments will be visited upon the sinner.

They have bizarre rituals, like elections, and trials, to determine who will get the magical powers, and who will get the punishments, and if the people with the magical powers don’t follow through on their promises, well, too bad, you have to obey them, because they’re in charge. No matter how many times they fail to accomplish their stated goals, no matter how many hundreds of millions of people they murder, you have to keep on beleiving in them.

Where do these magical powers come from? Well, the constitution of course, you know, that document that was written 225 years ago by a bunch of dead Christians, because that’s totally different than believing in the bible or the Koran, right?

Well, If that’s not a religion, then I don’t know what is. So let’s see what this religious zealot has to say about the non believers.

[The market has magical self regulating powers]

Well, actually Dusty, it’s not magic. It’s a science, and it’s called economics. Unfortunately they don’t teach that in your precious public schools, probably because if you understood economics you would hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats. But please, continue,

[People will find out if the corporation acts badly and won't buy their products]

I don’t know what libertarians you’ve been talking to, but in the absence of the State there is no such thing as a corporation. A corporation is a State created legal fiction entity, and if you don’t believe that, then go ahead and try to create a corporation without filing government forms. It’s literally not possible. It exists for the purpose of avoiding responsibility when doing business, and it is given special privileges by government because its basically a tax collector. Think about it, you leftists have been screaming to tax corporations for hundreds of years, there’s hardly an election cycle that goes by where taxes and regulations are not increased, and yet this has no negative effect on the people at the top of these corporations whatsoever, but the costs of goods and services, well, they sure do go up don’t they?

[BP]

This is actually a really good example of what I’m talking about. If I dump a gallon of gasoline in the long island sound, I go to prison. If BP dumps hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil into the gulf of mexico and destroys private property and puts fishermen out of business, well, hey, no big deal, pay a fine and take a couple of years to do a terrible job of cleaning it up. The guys who actually caused the spill, absolutely nothing happens to them, the people at the top of the corporation, absolutely nothing happens to them. The corporation just takes a few bucks out of the bank and this government you’re so fond of is really perfectly happy with that.

And why is a foreign corporation drilling for oil in the gulf of mexico anyway? Well, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that it’s a crime for you to drill for oil on your own property, because the government claims ownership over all natural resources. They let BP drill for oil in the places the government designates because BP pays the government for the privilege of doing so. And when BP refines that oil into gasoline and sells it to you, the government gets a bigger cut of the profits than BP does. So let’s stop pretending that the government is some enemy of corporate interests, okay, the government is just the king of the corporations, they give them free run to do whatever they want,  while police rob assault kidnap and murder us regular folks, because corporations bring in the bulk of the money that your precious politicians spend on wars and prisons and police.

[People are stupid]

You’re onto something there, remember that you said that.

[People are evil]

Yes, keep going.

[And that's why we need an organization to regulate them]

So, let’s think about this, people are stupid, and people are evil, I actually totally agree with you on this, but here’s where you lose me, people are stupid, people are evil, and that’s why we need a democratically elected government? Seriously, I want this to sink in for a minute. People are stupid ignorant monkeys, they are evil dangerous terrible creatures, and so we should get them all together and ask them who should violently rule over all of mankind. Doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense to me, and the evidence is pretty plain to see that this isn’t working out so well. Every complaint that you have about “the market” is actually happening in the presence of the State, all of these things are happening, not despite the government, but because of it. This wonderful omnipotent State that you’re so fond of, is acting on the ignorance and malice of the stupid evil fucks that are electing it, and your solution to this is to, give it more power.

[Unbridled capitalism breaks everything down into a dollar sign]

Do you really believe that governments see you any differently? Politicians need money to get elected, they need money to buy TV advertisements to convince the aforementioned stupid evil monkeys to vote for them. Does that money come from guys like you and me? Well, I don’t know about you but I don’t have tens of thousands of dollars laying around that I can give away to every candidate for every office that effects my life, but you know who does? The wealthy corporate interests who you think the government is supposed to be protecting you from, I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that politicians are going to take money from those interests, and then act against them.

Do soldiers murder innocent strangers half way across the world to protect our freedom? No, they do it for a paycheck, they do it so the government will pay for their college.

Do police beat the shit out of peaceful protesters out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they do it for a paycheck and a pension and a sick dental plan.

I got news for you, stupid, everybody looks at you like a dollar sign. The government, the “corporations”, and even me. You aren’t making these videos out of the goodness of your heart, you’re running adsense ads on them. You see your viewers as dollar signs, and that’s why you’re spewing this idiotic pro government propaganda, not for the betterment of your fellow man, but for money, just like every other liberal propagandist.

With that in your mind, it should be easy for you to understand why a business seeing you as a dollar sign is infinitely better than a government seeing you as a dollar sign. A business wants your money, and to get your money, they have to provide you with a good or a service, it is in the best interests of that business to see you stay alive, because dead men don’t buy products.

A government sees you as a dollar sign, and to get your money they need only threaten you with violence, imprisonment and death. If the government is giving you anything, then your dollar sign has a minus in front of it, and its in their best interests that you die.

[We need more regulation to prevent corporations from buying the government]

I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but it really shouldn’t be. Regulation benefits corporations by preventing competition. There are thousands of pages of business regulations on the books right now, and because of that it is very difficult to enter most industries these days. If you need licenses and special tax preparers and lawyers to manage your industry, then the only people who can compete with you are very wealthy politically connected people.

Let’s compare this to a business like making YouTube videos. All we have to do is fill out a form to apply for AdSense, give them a routing number to deposit funds into, and be interesting. It’s an unregulated industry. Anybody can do it, so whether its you, or me, or Adam Kokesh or Mark Dice, or Stefan Molyneux, we’re all terribly unlikely to gain a monopoly over internet entertainment and screw our viewers over by making them watch dull and poorly produced videos. If some retard like you calls himself an atheist and then makes a video worshipping a State deity, then a competitor like me pops up and exposes you for a fuckin fool and gains market share.

Since the industry is unregulated, we really don’t have any reason to lobby the government, and since there’s so much competition in the market, we’re terribly unlikely to become so rich that we can afford to buy it. Compare that to an industry like pharmaceuticals, where it is so tightly regulated that they literally can’t even sell a product without getting FDA approval, they can’t even develop and test a product without spending millions of dollars on lawyers and licenses and jumping through regulatory hoops, despite all this regulation, big pharma sells poison to millions of people, and governments actually force parents to give it to their children through CPS and the public education system. Saying that you’re going to give that same institution more power to prevent competition, and that’s somehow going to improve our lives, makes a national day of prayer look like a real winner of a strategy, because at least prayer does nothing, governments actually do harm.

[The government is not evil]

In the last century, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens. That’s not even including war, we’re just talking about democide at this point. Add war to the mix and that number exceeds 320 million. Police have killed more people in the US since 9/11 than all the US soldiers killed in Iraq. In the United States alone, upwards of 12 million people are arrested, every year, and the majority of those crimes involved no victim whatsoever. There are over 2 and a quarter million people in prison in the US right now, and by some estimates upwards of 10% of them will be raped in prison. Government is literally the number one preventable cause of human death and suffering in the world, if that’s not evil, then what is?

[The libertarian answer to poverty is fuck em]

Alright, I get it. You’ve never actually spoken to a libertarian, have you? You’ve never even google searched the word. You just love your government so much, that you hate anyone who opposes it, and say nasty ignorant things about them.

Libertarians care about the poor a lot more than you liberal scumbags do, that’s why we don’t want police pillaging their neighborhoods and killing and imprisoning their fathers, husbands, and sons. That’s why we don’t want government driving up the costs of goods and services with taxes and regulations, thats why we don’t want them put out of jobs by minimum wage laws, thats why we don’t want them dependent on government welfare programs that prevent them from being productive members of society.

People like you, Dusty, are the perfect example of the stupid evil people you think government is supposed to be protecting us from. You see a problem, and the best answer you can come up with is “Government” you don’t think about it for even 30 seconds to try and understand all the unintended consequences of a policy forced on hundreds of millions of people. You’ve obviously never studied economics, and yet you think yourself uniquely qualified not only to walk into a voting booth and decide who should violently rule over all of mankind, but also to get on YouTube and propagandize for that same government. But you’re a moron, you’re not even misled, you just plain don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, you’re willfully ignorant, you don’t even try to know what it is that you’re advocating.

If you’re going to speak from a position of ignorance, you should probably stick to religion, because at least you’re on a level playing field with the idiots on the other side of that argument, but if you’re going to bash libertarianism, sorry pal, you’re just outta your fuckin league.

[Money is an invented concept, just print it and redistribute]

Oh yeah, just print money, just spread it around, just take it from one person, and give it to another, why not, its just an invented concept? Just like grades, grades are just an invented concept, so lets take some from the really smart people and give them to the really dumb people, to make things fair and all. Hell, its just an invented concept, why even redistribute, just give everybody an A and then we can all be really successful in the world with our post graduate degrees from esteemed universities.

How hard is it for you to understand that this completely defeats the purpose of both invented concepts? If you redistribute grades, or if you print grades and give everybody an A regardless of performance, then grades become meaningless. If Harvard University just accepted and passed everybody, it wouldn’t make all those people smart and successful, it would make Harvard a meaningless phony diploma mill.

THe same thing goes for money, if money is just printed out of thin air, that leads to a little thing we economists call inflation. It drives up the costs of actual goods and services because as more money enters the economy, it has to compete for a limited amount of resources. It hurts poor people more than rich people, because no matter how much you redistribute, the poor, by definition of the word, have less of it and they are harmed disproportionately by the increased costs of goods and services.

[Public Education]

Oh, this is too funny. Listen Dusty, if you really like public education that much, do it a favor, and don’t stand up for it. Idiots like you are exactly the reason that there should be no public education system. Remember earlier when you said people were stupid and evil? Yeah, that’s public education. If public education is so great, then why do most Americans still believe in God? Worse than that, they still believe in the bible, and worse than that, they still believe in the Catholic Church.

Think about this for a minute, Public education has been the norm in America for over a century, okay. And in a century of public education, what have we achieved? Your only claim to intelligence is that you figured out religion is bullshit. One day, somebody told you “Hey there’s a magical sky monster that watches over our every move, he drowned the entire planet once, and he’s a really swell guy” and you were like “That’s dumb, that’s probably bullshit” and this is what qualifies as being smart in America. That the 2nd biggest scam in the history of the world, religion, goes almost completely unfettered, after a century of public education.

You have a population of stupid, evil people, who elect a stupid, evil government, that creates a stupid, evil education system, which produces more stupid evil people to keep on doing this in perpetuity until mankind’s extinction, and if you can’t figure that out, then you’re exactly the kind of fucking retard this system was designed to create!

[The libertarian party]

Well, now I know you’ve never researched libertarianism, because there’s actually very few libertarians in the libertarian party. The fact of the matter is, the libertarian party is mostly comprised of rejects from the DNC and GOP, they were fuckin kooks and they got run out of the major political parties, they showed up at an LP meeting and realized “Wow, if I can bring 4 idiots to the next meeting, I can become chair”

Actual libertarians are not terribly interested in vouchers or tax breaks, we oppose taxation in its entirety. If in a completely free and unregulated market with no taxes and no regulations, you’re still unable to make enough money to educate your children, then I’d suggest teaching them your fuckin self, because if you’re not making enough money to hire someone else to teach your kids, then you’ve probably got a lot of god damn time on your hands because you don’t have a fucking job. Teach the fuckin brat to read, and then give him Google, and he will have the entire wealth of human knowledge at his fingertips for free. That is infinitely preferable to him being raised by a government school system where he is taught the opposite of all that is true until he throws on a trench coat and celebrates hitler’s birthday by killing classmates and faculty members.

[Everybody who made money made money because of this system]

The only people who made money BECAUSE of this system, are the same corporations you bitched about for the first half of this video, everybody else who made money, did so DESPITE this system, not because of it. Anything that relies on systemic theft through taxation and inflation and prevents competition through regulation, is by definition something that PREVENTS accumulation of capital, not something that facilitates it. It’s the exact opposite of what you’re portraying it as you fucking moron.

[Yes I realize the government is fucked up, but we can fix it]

The government is not fucked up, it is not malfunctioning, this is its design. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It is a scam, it is a ruthless, violent institution that has never in the history of mankind produced anything but suffering. We have thousands of years of history that teach us this.

[The job of the government should be to maximize the happiness of its citizens]

And when in the history of mankind has a government done anything that even remotely resembles what you’re talking about? nobody has ever been happy with thier government, ever. The best case scenario is literally that they find it a tolerable annoyance. Governments rob assault kidnap and murder, this has a terrible track record of bringing about happiness, what you’re describing is a fairy tale even more ridiculous than religion. At least religion relies on you to believe in something that supposedly happened thousands of years ago, at least religion has the common decency to cover up its lies well enough that they can’t really ever be disproven. Government lies straight to your face and fucks you over in your lifetime, on television for all to see, and you still believe in it anyway.

[Conservatives and Libertarians are cut from the same cloth]

And this is all the proof that we need to say that you liberals don’t give a shit about war, and you don’t give a shit about civil liberties, and you don’t give a shit about rationality. You would rather pursue your incoherent economic fantasies and have war and checkpoints and religious government, than do anything that would reduce the influence of the State.

Libertarians are not conservatives, we oppose war, we oppose the war on drugs, we oppose search and seizure, we oppose government, that’s a lot different from these lunatics you see gaining control in the Republican party and conservative talk radio.

[Libertarians are idiots]

The feeling is fuckin mutual, shithead.

 

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Alexandre Karpov

    I’m a Christian myself, but I love your articles, Christopher! And yeah, many religious people (Christians included) are idiots (and abuse their own faith far more than you could possible hope to accomplish), so I enjoy even your bashing of religion – most of it, regrettably, is spot on.

  • t3hsauce

    Dusty is such a fucking moron.

  • paendragon

    Some statist libtard cross-posted that inane rant to my blog (where I’d already cross-posted one of yours, Chris) here:

    http://unclevladdi.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice-to-you/#comment-1685

    So of course I too went over to ScrewYouTube and smacked down the little beyotchka:

    “Here’s both how and why you’re wrong, Dusty.

    Libertarians believe in individual rights, not group-might-made-”rights.”

    So libertarians don’t “believe” in corporations at all.

    People who form corporations get a “legal” free-pass to remain irresponsibly wrong, simply by dint of being in their gangs!

    Imagine if you or I went before a judge, and asked him: “Your honor, I want to take risks which will only effect others, for gains which will only accrue to myself!”

    Any sane judge would (at the very LEAST) either tell us to get stuffed, or have us arrested for attempting to engineer a criminally-negligent conspiracy.

    BUT, the second we say “WE” want these false rights, and invoke the idolatrous “corporate” alibi excuse to do so, the judge will immediately grant us the false yet “legal” “LLC” (limited liability i.e: limited responsibililty) status, of what is officially known in legal terms as the “Legal Fiction of the Corporate Person!”

    So NO libertarian is for ANY kind of false “legal gang” status at all, ever! Libertarians are completely inherently and instinctively opposed to “group rights!”

    It’s really only whiny, infantile delinquent statist gang-sucking liberal hicks like you who assume that, if libertarians come to power – i.e: if politicial “party” gangs are destroyed in favor or returning power to we the people – that “corporations” would be allowed to remain in existence, in stead of having their corporate “charters”‘ legal protections immediately revoked!

    Nice try, though!”

    ;-)

  • Joe McDowell

    I watched Dusty’s whole video and felt informed and agreed. I watched yours for 30 seconds and I knew you were a moron! Your mouth would be put to better use sucking rich dicks.

    • Axxion

      Oooo so much edge. Care to rebut what Cantwell said, or provide an actual fucking argument? How about you watch the video, get the sand out your vagina and come up with an actual rebuttal?

    • Chris

      The fact that Dusty’s video made you feel informed tells me all I need to know about the worth inherent in debating you… or rather, the complete lack of any worth in debating you.

  • Damien Hollon

    This was the best fucking video I’ve seen in years. I hope this gets 500 million views.

  • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

    It’s understandable why Dusty’s video would be upsetting. After all, the closet thing I’ve seen to religion that isn’t actually religion is libertarianism, in both its fantasy and adherence to dogma by its followers.

    • Chris

      So please explain to me how libertarianism (or more appropriately anarchy) is more like religion and dogma than statism?

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        Like I said, it is pure fantasy. Sounds great on paper, could never work on a planet going on 8 billion people. It is all brains and no heart. Libertarians like Cantwell here love to tout their Mensa-level IQs, but fail to recognize their lack of emotional quotient. While I mostly agree with the social platform of libertarianism, the economic policies are nothing short of an endorsement of social Darwinism. And, typically, no matter how many different approaches and arguments one presents against libertarianism, its adherents will remain steadfast in its defense. Usually, they’ll also accuse anyone who criticizes it as endorsing “tyranny”, “theft”, “force at the barrel of a gun”, and similar hyperboles.

        • Chris

          First, I heard no proclamation from Cantwell about his IQ. Second, he mentioned and demonstrated how libertarians actually care more about the poor than the politicians that have so many others convinced they do… even as they incarcerate and or kill so many of them.

          From this, it appears to me that your assessment of a lack of an emotional quotient has much more to do with liberal narrative and it’s incessant inculcation than history, philosophy or empiricism.

          And in fact, our statements about theft at the barrel of a gun are not hyperbole. They are, instead the purest, and most honest assessments of the condition. Get a fine. Refuse to pay it. Cops come to arrest you. Resist. Get killed. This isn’t rocket science. By comparison, politicians on the left and right want to convince us all that if we just grant them more power, they can increase our security. If they take more money, they can improve everyone’s lives. A cursory examination of history shows that the exact opposite of these things is true.

          And I can’t really address your last assertion, as you never answered my question about how libertarian thought is more religious or dogmatic than statism. Instead of answering it, you simply posted more assertions abut libertarian economic policies. I don’t think anyone condones all the evils of government, but they’re sure as hell happy to continue voting for the evils of government they approve of to continue. And as to “libertarian economic principles,” you really ought to read up on Keynesian economics, then Austrian economics. When you’re done, come back and explain how a central bank in control of a fiat money system is in line with libertarian economic principles.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Just because he didn’t mention IQ here doesn’t mean that he hasn’t in the past. He has clearly trumpeted the supposed fact that Libertarians have higher IQs than Mensa members.

            Also, you’re making the typical libertarian assumption that any support for a government and enforcement of reasonable laws equates to 100% support of all laws and corruption which currently exists, while refusing to acknowledge the inherent failings of libertarianism.

            Yes, you are full of fantasy and hyperbole in your fervent adherence to the cult of libertarianism.

          • Chris

            I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about this video.

            Can you explain “reasonable laws?” See, Plato said a very long time ago that good men do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad men will just find ways around the law. A poignant observation, in my opinion. Moreover, a law means nothing if there is no enforcement of it. How do they enforce laws? Do the enforcers write ever more terse exhortations of your offense, or do they come after you and demand your compliance from behind the barrel of a gun? What’s reasonable about that? Laws are very well-armed opinions, and little more.

            You haven’t posted any “inherent” failings of libertarianism. Do you acknowledge the immorality of a monopoly on the initiation of force, violence or coercion for one small group over a large group?

            I’m no more full of hyperbole or fervent adherence than you are of willful ignorance you attempt to mask with a platitude like pragmatism.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            OK, then what would a libertarian society look like? No laws at all? Or would there be some? Would they be reasonable, and who enforces them?

            Reasonable laws prohibit actions which cause harm to others against their will. For example, there should not be laws prohibiting drug use or prostitution. Those are attempts at forcing morality and “saving people from themselves”. Obviously someone has to enforce laws and make sure that just punishments are handed out.

            The inherent failings of libertarianism include the facts that it is not realistic on a planet with almost 8 billion people, that it overstates the goodness of man, that it promotes social Darwinism, and removes all means of reigning in the most unscrupulous among us. It is laughable to think that things would be BETTER than they are now when we have an enforced minimum wage, labor laws, prohibitions on monopolies, etc.

            No, I do not consider a government inherently immoral. When governments go too far in restricting freedom and liberty, and when people become too corrupt, then it may be, but not in general.

            I’m not ignorant, willfully or otherwise, because I reject your religious dogma. I have considered your mythology and rejected it as fantastical.

        • Karl Schipul

          Pure fantasy? Most people since the dawn of homo sapiens some several hundreds of thousands of years ago have never seen anything statelike beyond a tribal unit. And most of those tribes were and are really extended families that were very minimal in enforcement of customs.

          Most of mankind did not even have states until well within the 19th and 20th centuries.

          So you can’t pretend that something most humans throughout history is like some eternal axiom. That’s like saying life without cars or computers is a fantasy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            There’s a reason why governments were created. Same reason cars and computers were created – because they are better than not having them.

          • Karl Schipul

            You conflate one with the other. Does not logically follow.

            Cars and computers were created to improve productivity and other good things.

            Governments were created because people with the morals of criminals but with higher intelligence were clever enough to dupe people into following their own system.

            Besides, the only folks who like government are those who use it for their own selfish ends or they were sufficiently brainwashed in public schools, much like how sufficiently brainwashed people become religious.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            LOL this is getting comical. This is why I view libertarianism as a religion. You’re even projecting indoctrination onto people who think governments are necessary for civil society just like theists do to atheists. To top it off, you even readily admit that this occurs with theists, but fail to see it in yourself.

            No, I don’t think government is necessary because it’s the only thing I’ve known or because somebody brainwashed me, but because I’ve considered the alternative and rejected it.

          • Karl Schipul

            “LOL this is getting comical. This is why I view libertarianism as a religion.”

            This is like calling atheism a religion, or like calling ‘bald’ a hair color.

            All libertarianism means is non-belief in the need of a central monopoly to coerce and indoctrinate others into following it. (well okay, this would be the anarchist variant)

            Everyone is born a anarchist, much like everyone is born an atheist or a NON-arabian speaker or a non-english speaker. People have to be taught and often forced into these beliefs. Kids follow along because they do not know any better and their instincts are to trust whatever the parents say.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, it isn’t. I don’t believe that libertarianism is actually a religion, only that it resembles one because its adherents act so similarly to theists with respect to their adherence to and defense of their beliefs.

            You can sit here and accuse “statists” of being “indoctrinated” and claim that “we’re all born libertarians” all day, it doesn’t make your position any more logical. Yes, humanity’s original condition was that of anarchy/libertarianism. Mankind also used to live in caves and hunt and gather. We’ve moved on past tribalistic existence devoid of rules, because most people agree that this is preferable.

            Libertarians like to broadly generalize people who believe in the existence of government and also represent them as condoning the worst that government has to offer without acknowledging that there are more than 2 options.

          • Karl Schipul

            “You can sit here and accuse “statists” of being “indoctrinated” and claim that “we’re all born libertarians” all day, it doesn’t make your position any more logical.”

            Then why is it considered logical by atheists who use this same argument sometimes to justify atheism?

            Also, why are people’s political beliefs usually mostly the same as the society around them? Why were most folks in soviet russia sympathetic to communism? Why were many people in kingdoms sympathetic to kings? Why do people today in Great Britain defend the idea of a taxpayer funded Queen? Why do so many folks in muslim countries also happen to defend sharia law? Why did so many people in North Korea cry when Kim Jong Ill died and had a funeral procession?

            You conflate cultural norms with rationality. Which is pretty sad for an atheist like yourself. Because as an atheist, you should know that cultural norms and rationality are 2 different things.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Because almost nobody becomes religious or believes in mythology without having been indoctrinated, typically as a young child. Also, religion can be easily shown to be untrue. This isn’t an apt comparison. I wasn’t taught that government is infallible or that humans always had government. I know these to be false statements. However, I can compare the pros and cons of government (which doesn’t mean ALL governments, just what I think would be ideal) and no government, and come to an informed opinion. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean I’m incapable of coming to this conclusion on my own or that such a conclusion is illogical.

            It does make sense that people would most likely support a style of government in which they have lived under, but that doesn’t mean that there is a right or wrong answer. We can look at many different forms of government which have been employed and compare and contrast them. I personally favor a mix of social democracy and capitalism, but we’d have to go point-by-point to really get at my preference, you can’t really just slap a label on it.

            I’m not conflating cultural norms with rationality. Again, I’m perfectly capable of critically analyzing the subject. You seem to think that you have some sort of special knowledge unavailable to others, such that any other opinion is uninformed or ill-conceived.

          • Sam Singer

            We also shit all over ourselves when we’re born.

        • Blah

          Yes, all those libertarian policies executed by government. We all remember when they abolished the Federal Reserve and all of the government regulations in education, marriage, healthcare and denied bail outs to the banks etc. Really allowed the free market to operate, didn’t they? Oh, no, they didn’t.

          Yes, it’s so very realistic and practical to centrally plan for millions of people and print money as if there were no consequences. That’s all so pragmatic and there won’t be any repercussions!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Please explain how you rationalize ANY support for the existence of a government being characterized as full support for the government of the US in it’s current form.

          • Blah

            Please rationalise how government in its current form remotely implements libertarian economic policies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I see you’ve chosen to deflect.

            At any rate, many Republican policies reflect libertarian principles with respect to the economy. They are against a minimum wage, they are against regulation, they support the free market, etc.

          • Karl Schipul

            “At any rate, many Republican policies reflect libertarian principles with respect to the economy. ”

            You can say this all you want, but the reality is that the United States government is the largest and most powerful government in the history of the world. This includes contenders like Soviet Russia, the British Empire, Red China, even ancient Rome.

            It is pretty clear you shallowly conflate rhetoric for reality. Most actual republicans are vocally against minimum wage INCREASES. But sometimes they actually vote in favor of it. They also VOCALLY support the free market, but their ACTIONS show that they increase the size and scope of government more than democrats do every time they make it to the presidency.

            Please go out and read some actual statistics.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            The size of the US government has no bearing on the fact that Republicans espouse libertarian economic policies. Yes, Republicans want smaller government when it comes to this; but they want more government when it comes to legislating morality. Again, I’m pretty much a social libertarian, but I do not support libertarian economics.

            So, you can sit here and play both sides of the fence. Yes, progressives want government regulation of business, and conservatives want regulation of social issues. You just don’t like any of it.

          • Karl Schipul

            “The size of the US government has no bearing on the fact that Republicans espouse libertarian economic policies.”

            1. What the hell are you talking about? This is like saying a fat guy is skinny because he always talks fondly of good dieting practices.

            2. Republicans support a great deal of non-libertarian policies. War on Drugs, wars around the world, banker bailouts, police state, 3 strikes your’e out legislation, anti gay marriage legislation, the NSA, the department of Homeland Security, etc.

            The numbers of laws they support and vote on are the actions which speak louder than words.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You’re trying to claim that Republican economic policies can’t be libertarian in nature because Republicans are part of government and also favor big government on social issues. Yet, Republicans and libertarians largely agree on these economic policies. Strange. Kinda like how progressives and libertarians agree on social issues.

            I clearly stated such in my last comment. Libertarianism isn’t difficult to understand. While libertarians often like to present themselves as some sort of “common middle ground” between the left and right, in fact they are comprised of the extremes from each end – progressive social policy and conservative fiscal policy.

      • http://coachalgreen.com/ Allen Green

        I’m sorry Chris, but you are not an anarchist. You sound to me to be a libertarian capitalist, which is an oxymoron.

        An anarchist does not believe in any form of hierarchy. This cannot exist in a capitalist system. With or without a government a capitalist system creates masters and peasants. It exploits the working class by design. It works on profit, which is nothing more than value produced by workers that is not paid to them.

        You call out Dusty for worshipping the state, and those who follow religion for worshipping imaginary Gods, but it seems to me that you worship the almighty dollar and the invisible hand of the market. You, sir, fall into the same group as the people you spent all this time talking down to.

        A true libertarian is in fact an anarchist, but real anarchists are libertarian socialists. True liberty allows for equality for everyone. It does not create slaves out of the poor or working class. Liberty does not put the means of production and therefore the means of life into the hands of a few at the expense of the majority. Liberty allows each individual to earn the full fruits of his labor.

        You are right when it comes to abolishing government, but that’s only half the answer. This economic system of slavery also needs to end.

        When you have time put down Murray Rothbard, Ayn, Rand, and Von Mises. Then catch up on some people who truly cared about liberty. Proudhon and Benhamin Tucker are good places to start. Noam Chomsky has a lot to offer as well.

        Then there is this link, which will explain what anarchists actually are
        http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

    • Blair Gebkenjans

      lmfao, how much did government pay you to type that bullshit?

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        Just another Mensa member turned libertarian

  • Kevin

    That was excellent Chris! Enjoyed the hell out of it. Nailed each and every point. Good fucking job! :)

  • Chris

    I came.

  • paendragon

    HEY! Where’s my rant?!

    ;-(

    • Go fuckyourself

      puts the word OWNED on a picture of dusty , woo we gotta badass here who clearly owned Dusty smith …. No.

      • Chris

        Well, at least you have basic reading skills and could recognize the word “OWNED.” Did you happen to listen to the arguments in the video? Why don’t you try that, then bring your stellar intellect back here to qualify your claim?

        • paendragon

          Fucktard clearly doesn’t have even basic reading skillz, because he somehow managed to aim his vitriolic “reply” at my simple 4-word post, which was only asking Cantwell why he’d censored my own former posted rant here. Cantwell cleared “owned” Smith, but so did I – now Cantwell doesn’t seem to want to share the joint ownership LOL!

  • TroubleBaby

    Dusty proclaimed, “People are morons.”

    What better spokesman is there to show us the truth in that statement?

  • Sam Cru

    This “debate” between Stefan Molyneux and Sam Seder made my head hurt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVW1t900Jg If you can watch more than the first 15min I will applaud you.

  • Coimeádaí na Saoirse

    Privatized education forces those companies to actually a: teach better, and/or b: be cheap enough to attract the poor.
    Ford, Carnegie and van Der Bilt got rich from ascending from factory workers, and so did my great-grandfather who wasn’t wealthy but well enough into black.
    You want an example where almost all (except for certain people which should become obvious shortly) people of a country are made happy by its government? Well, Nazi Germany was the only country doing well economically in the Great Depression and could subsidize vacations, but we all know how that story goes…
    So get the fuck back on the state’s dick, Dusty, because I like my floor clean from the bullshit spewn from your fucking head.

    • aidanjt

      “Privatized education forces those companies to actually a: teach better, and/or b: be cheap enough to attract the poor.”

      And that’s happened which parallel universe? In every country in the world, throughout the entirety of written history, only two systems have notably delivered on mass education for the poor, the primary achiever was socialised education, and to a much lesser degree, religious charity, and the latter comes with added strings of religious interference with education, so not exactly ideal. Bare asserting that privatised services is universally superior in every application doesn’t make it true just because you say so.

      Next you’ll be telling us that ISPs will magically throw up dozens of parallel carriers to every home and fairly compete with each other in the vacuum of government and they wont fuck internet companies in the ass for providing their users with content now that the FCC no longer exists.

      • paendragon

        Socialized education doesn’t teach innovation or even basic logic skills; it only teaches reams of alibi-excuses to Submit and conform, never to think for one’s self.

        • aidanjt

          What are you rambling on about? Innovating is something you do, not something you can be taught. Specific innovations require extremely specific expertise in the subject matter. And that’s where the education system takes you to, from basic in primary school, to more advanced but still generalised in secondary school, and from quite, to extremely specific in tertiary education. That’s why innovation is now advancing in leaps and bounds, because (most) people are now better educated than they’ve ever been, they have a mammoth mountain of pre-existing knowledge for them to build on. And unfortunately, that takes *a lot* of unexciting hard work to digest.

          Yes, pre-college schooling is often dull, is a lot of rote, is imperfect. But it’s better than a load of fairy tales and hot air, that’s never actually materialised in the private sector in reality.

          • paendragon

            Re: ” Specific innovations require extremely specific expertise in the subject matter.”

            NO, they don’t. Just basic observational skills, coupled with a comprehension of cause-and-effect* – which is the main thing which is NOT taught in the liberal socialized public education system. In fact, I’d have to say that avoiding cause and effect entirely, in order to blame one’s victims, is the main modus operandi of such criminally child-abusing institutions. It’s nothing more than, as you put it, “a load of fairy tales and hot air!”

            For an excruciatingly well detailed expose of it all, I dare you to read Bruce Bawer’s latest book, The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind. (Hint: your local library)!

            ;-)

            Other than that, all they amount to is places where people pay people who say they’re smart, to say those that pay them are smart, too.

            *I own several patents for common-sense innovations, which required nothing more than what I’ve just described; certainly not any “extremely specific expertise in the subject matter.”

          • aidanjt

            Ahh, you mean ‘innovation’ as in gluing widget a to widget b hyped up bullshit, not actual scientific discovery and engineering original and world changing technologies.

            As for not teaching observational skills and causality in the liberal socialised public education system, that’s the first thing I learnt in high school physics. I don’t know what shit-kicking outfit you got your education from, but I’m betting it wasn’t one born from a modern social democratic government with consistent world-class education policies.

            And I still haven’t heard of any actual reference economies (3 or more would be ideal) with comprehensive private education for everyone.

          • paendragon

            What the flaming fuck is a “reference economy” and where on here did you ever ask anyone for one?!

            PS: You’d lose that bet: Carleton University, Ottawa.

            Also, congratulations: so you got to take a physics course; but the liberalized “soft sciences” are all based on avoiding the cause-and-effect principle.

            ;-)

          • aidanjt

            A reference economy is an economy you can refer to demonstrating an economic system you claim is viable. It’s what scientists call a little thing called ‘evidence’. And the request was implied in my very first sentence on this post which you replied to and glossed over.

          • paendragon

            So: you implied you wanted something you didn’t specifically name?! I think you’ve tried to make a noun out of a verb – you wanted someone to refer to an economic system (system being dynamic) but you’re now asking for ‘an economy’ (noun) which has as it’s inherent descriptor adverb (assuming you might still really mean it as a verb,) or (if not,) adjective: “reference”?!

            So, not only an economic system, but an ‘economy’ which was designed to be referenced somewhere?

            Fuzzy thinking leads to imprecise terminologies and wild expectations that others will be – and should be – able to read your mind for you, O Great One?!

            Nice try, but… NO.

            You can’t just make up your own language and expect others to go along with it, no matter how self-important you might want it to make you feel!

            I went back over your first post, in response to Coimeádaí na Saoirse, but there’s no reference there on your part to an economy.

            In fact, you’re just continuing to prove MY first point in this thread, that:

            “Socialized education doesn’t teach … basic logic skills.”

            ;-)

          • aidanjt

            It’s extremely obviously, and extremely strongly implied by questioning which parallel universe has produced an economy economy of private mass education for everyone. And an economy is an economic system. Seriously, if you don’t even understand the bare level basics of economics (or language in general, ostensibly), then why are you weighing in here?

          • paendragon

            Thanks for proving all my points for me – again.

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

    “that’s full retard, and you never go full retard.”

    And then you proceed to “go full retard” with hackneyed libertarian cliches, memes, insults and obscenities. Why won’t anyone take libertarians seriously? You’re Exhibit A.

  • Mike Holton

    Government is a religion because some of the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians.

    Airtight logic, that….

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Belief in the divinity of the god Government, the almighty and omnipotent, maker of all things human and creator of Society, is the purest form of religion you will find.

    • TroubleBaby

      Notice there wasn’t talk about whether a Deist is a Christian or not….

  • Andrew B

    This was a digital crucifixion.

  • Michael Shanklin
  • Zhaliberty

    Almost every time I hear or read your stuff I react with…. Christopher Cantwell is really smart. I like the way you take the time to make logical arguments with a lil spice that seems to often degrade to name-calling. (Keyword…. almost. ;)

  • Red the Fister

    Question: How can you say that States are “demonstrably false”?
    While states may not be naturally occurring… wait. no. they are. Various species of insect colonies, flocks of birds, herds of wild herbivores, pods of aquatic mammals, prides, packs, murders… the social communities formed by nearly every other primate species.
    You’re throwing out the No True Scotsman fallacy and massacaring the definition of Atheist.
    Atheists simply don’t believe in deities. That’s it. Political “philosophy” has nothing to do with it.
    I almost wish that I could have stood to consume any more of your idiotic ranting, as there is little I find more enjoyable than tearing apart the so-called arguments of you Libertarians.
    Your sad, sad rant starts with a bullshit premise.
    You misuse the language to try (and fail) to sound like you have anything more than idiocy and impotent indignation to support your “argument”.
    I look forward to noticing a Disqus notification and seeing what rage-filled drivel you or your fans leave me in reply.
    Until then, Mr. Cant(construct an argument)well, i bid you heartburn, upset-stomach, diarrhea and an empty bottle of Pepto-Bismol.
    Cheers!

    • Harold Rehling

      I never cease to be amused at how socialists confuse The State with Society.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Why are you on your knees worshiping an imaginary being? State worship is no better than invisible man worship.

    • Maty Aksenton

      Thinks social interactions among animals and humans are a state:
      “While states may not be naturally occurring… wait. no. they are.”

      Then goes on accusing someone else of “misuse of language”.

      Need I say more?

    • Maty Aksenton

      “Your sad, sad rant starts with a bullshit premise.”

      More bullshit than your premise that social interactions among animals are a state?

  • Harold Rehling

    God damn this was fucking amazing!!!

  • Zach

    Not your best video rant, Cantwell. Arguments were solid, of course, and much better than dusty’s obviously, but just not angry enough as u usually are. I want to see spittle fly.

  • Bill Bochynski

    Well done, Chris. Beautiful job.

  • Dr. Weezil

    “When you have time put down Murray Rothbard, Ayn, Rand, and Von Mises.[sic]
    Then catch up on some people who truly cared about liberty.”

    If it was at all possible, this is the stupidest, most inaccurate statement in an already incoherent, factually and conceptually incorrect, stupid statement. Congrats you won the entire internet.

    • http://coachalgreen.com/ Allen Green

      Great argument! It has absolutely no substance.

  • Drum

    Another thing that is long overdue: a new set of dentures for Dusty.

  • Karl Schipul

    “I’m sorry Chris, but you are not an anarchist. You sound to me to be a libertarian capitalist, which is an oxymoron.

    An anarchist does not believe in any form of hierarchy.”

    You say this because you don’t understand what capitalism is. Capitalism means people trade their goods and services with each other, using money. If you oppose this, then you are some uppity elitist who would use guns on some kid at a lemonade stand (for buying/selling).

    • http://coachalgreen.com/ Allen Green

      You, sir, don’t understand what capitalism is. What you just described is a “market”. A market is not capitalism.

      Capitalism requires two other things besides the market. The first is private ownership of the means of production and the second is wage labor.

      Markets can exist in just about all economic models. The differences lie in who owns the means of production.

      • Karl Schipul

        I don’t understand these things? Just because I provide a really basic example does not mean I do not understand more complex examples or factors. That would be like saying that if one demonstrates arithmetic as an example of math that they therefore do not understand things like algebra or calculus.

        I actually knew about these things for quite a long time about capitalism.

        Besides, in my really basic example, ownership of the means of production was implicit in my lemonade stand example. That is unless the lemonade seller is Harry Potter and can just magic up some lemonade out of nowhere.

        The reality is that the lemonade seller owns the lemonade or his/her parents do. Sounds like ownership to me. And if they own a lemon farm, that sounds like owning the means of production to me. Or if they bought the lemons/lemonade from the supermarket, then the supermarket or the farmers who sold to the supermarket own the means of production.

        • http://coachalgreen.com/ Allen Green

          It wasn’t a basic example of capitalism though. It was a basic example of a market. A market can occur in socialism as well.

          Ownership is the primary factor in defining and understanding economic systems.

          Does the little girl own the lemonade all by herself and keeps all the profit? Or are her parents the owners and they keep the majority of the money for themselves and give her whatever they see fit?

          The second case is capitalism. By virtue of having assets the little girls parents get to keep money that the little girl produced. They did no work, but they received money from her labor. In other words, they were able to exploit her labor because she lacked assets.

          This type of exploitation is inherent to capitalism. Those who have money are able to enslave those who do not have it. There is no liberty in a capitalist society.

  • Karl Schipul

    ” but it seems to me that you worship the almighty dollar and the invisible hand of the market.”

    Hello, newcomer. Before you launch in to some tirade against someone, you might want to do a little background research. Chris is a supporter of gold and bitcoin.

    • http://coachalgreen.com/ Allen Green

      It isn’t the type of currency that matters. It is the obsession with material wealth. Whether it is gold, bitcoin, the green back, or yen it doesn’t make a difference.

      • Karl Schipul

        “It isn’t the type of currency that matters. It is the obsession with material wealth. Whether it is gold, bitcoin, the green back, or yen it doesn’t make a difference.”

        Well now you are moving the goalposts. Before, you were slamming capitalism. Now it is “obsession with material wealth”

  • ericka saunders

    I love this.. we may disagree on God, but man we agree on freedom. :) Hugs to you and yours.

  • John Doe

    Now, I have to say that I disagree with Mr. Cantwell. Don’t kill me for it, it’s just my opinion. I understand what he says about how humans will vote for whoever pours the most money into advertising, but we have to have a government, a regulated government, or we risk the possibility of a region slipping into a feudal system run by powerful and rich men (remember the dark ages?) or even worse, a social apartheid. I’m not saying that would happen, but there’s a very high chance that it could. The other thing I’d like to comment on is the fact that the idea of government, while also being an abstract thought, is not like a religion. One of the main reasons why humans became so successful was because of our ability to use abstract thought. The difference between government and religion is that government can actually physically interact with the world. It’s based in facts and based off of real people, government can be proven. The same can go for math or for love, both are man-made ideas used to understand the world that we live in. The last time that mankind lived without any sort of political power, we were nomadic gatherer-hunters (I guess that Somalia could have been considered a place without government for a while, but you could say that it was run by warlords). Now, one could argue that their lives were better than ours, but I’m sure that most people in the world don’t want to sacrifice their technology and innovation for the gatherer-hunter life. The other thing is that Mr. Smith is NOT supporting our modern government. He is supporting governments, but he clearly rejects ours to be the answer. He wants humans to come together and work together in the society that has benefited everyone. He wants a government that isn’t ruled by corruption, but is ruled by the common interest of mankind to advance their minds. Now, he never gives us an answer as to how this could happen, but he argues that libertarian-ism is not the answer. Mr. Cantwell says that he believes government to be made of the exact same abstract material as religion. But isn’t money also an abstract idea of mankind? How is a monetary system any more abstract than a government one? How can Mr. Cantwell argue that Mr. Smith is motivated by greed when he is a believer in money, but not a believer in government and taxes? I could even go further to say that Mr. Cantwell’s webpage is covered in advertising and Mr. Smith was kicked off of adsense for “Hate Speech”. Also, speaking of adsense, Mr. Cantwell made a comment stating “Regulation benefits corporations by preventing competition” and used Youtube as an example. Well, Youtube is very different than a pharmaceutical company (the comparison he makes). Youtube videos are not sold as products, the income that Youtubers get is purely from advertising and because no actual product is being sold, there’s no way to regulate them. If a video makes it on to Youtube that could potentially put someone in danger, the video is flagged and shut down. In the pharmaceutical business, you need regulation because the difference between medicine and poison is very slight. Mr. Cantwell says that deadly FDA “approved” medicine makes it onto the market. That is true. But that’s not because the idea of government is flawed, it’s because the FDA has been so corrupted that anything can get past it. The core of government problems comes from human greed, and what would stop human greed even without a government? The closest that America has come, from what I’ve seen, to Libertarian ideals was the early 1900’s. There was no regulation on corporations and corporations kept monopolizing, they easily stamped out any kind of competition. Heard of a book called “The Jungle”? It was pretty much the Victorian version of “Food Inc.” It showed the masses about how without regulation, corporations can do anything they want as long as they make a larger profit. This mass realization started the progressive movement in which President Roosevelt split apart monopolies and put regulation on the agricultural companies. With time and changes in manufacturing, these laws have lost their power and businesses are largely becoming unregulated again resulting in a mass increase in political corruption (there has been for a long time though). But despite this, the government isn’t evil. Yes, a lot of people have died under governments, but governments have also saved countless more lives than that. We would still be hunting animals and gathering berries and living to the age of thirty without a state to help us grow and advance. Because of schools that received government funding, men like Fritz Haber were able to make nitrogen based fertilizer that has allowed half of the earth’s population to live. That’s about 3.5 billion people. There hasn’t been a single war in any time period that has taken 3.5 billion lives, and Fritz Haber isn’t the only one. The truth is, a well-run government allows for human expanse and innovation. Oh, and the education. Mr. Smith says that he believes in a strong public education, where everyone gets at least a chance, if not more. According to Mr. Cantwell’s ideology, the best approach is to cut off the poor. He says that they could learn from the internet. Now, I have definitely seen my fair share of people who are… how do I say this… “Less educated” every day on the internet. The internet alone is simply not a good enough tool for education and it certainly could not replace a school-based education. So, Mr. Smith wants to strengthen our education system, beat out the corruption and scams, and give all the tools of knowledge that we can to our next generation. I for one, believe that we are as strong as our weakest link, but cutting off our weakest links only makes the chain shorter. Mankind should work as a team, building ourselves up, working towards a common goal. Cutting off the poor and taking away taxes only takes away the problem temporarily. But societies have done this before, the society runs out of money, the lower class revolts and overthrows yet another dynasty. A system based in greed will never work because it puts humans against each other and allows people to stab each other in the back. Sorry if this paper was too long and dragged out and a bit scattered, but I feel like people aren’t really thinking entirely about the consequences of their own actions.