YaaaY 👌🏻

congrats

let's make one thing clear right off the bat: the second amendment was written almost 250 years ago. 1:00 so what's wrong with that? if they're both normal people, what do they have to hide? also, what is your source to say that it won't reduce crime? i mean like an actual study, not a hunch. 1:43 one in five firearm purchases go through without a background check, which has lead to many instances of mass shootings and homicides. 2:32 it could mean that, and it's always good to know the mental state of someone you're handing a lethal weapon to. when he says mentally ill, he means psychopathy and such. 3:05 yeah. that's what it means. is that bad? also, oh no, the government is picky with my training! now i can't fight against tyranny! if only i had basic training, then i would be able to beat the national military, with its missiles and tanks and such! you're getting stomped if the government feels threatened no matter what. also the whole 'what if' is just the slippery slope fallacy. also literally everyone can pass basic gun training, and knowing 2A people, the government absolutely would not get away with dumb criteria. 5:10 if we taxed the rich, you know, the ones whose wealth is so massive they could lose a billion dollars and not care, maybe we could fund it. 5:29 no he's not? he said FINANCIAL barrier. nothing he said there is a financial burden. he puts up barriers, yes, but the barriers are: 1. do you know how to use a gun and 2. are you someone i can trust with a gun 6:58 if the government wants to take your guns, even without a registry, let me tell you, they are GOING to take your guns. besides, who would the government want to take guns away from? we've already established that you can't beat the government if it really hits the fan, so the only people they'd want to take guns from would be criminals, i guess? which is what you want, right? 7:54 yeah dude he's saying that there should be more innovation in smart guns so that it's basically instant. have you used face/touch id on a smartphone? that's quick enough. one of my main questions also is that other countries around the world have much less gun crime and yet much stronger gun control. why can't the same be the case for america? also, firearms are the leading cause of death for children in the USA. that is completely unacceptable. anyone who argues against policies which would decrease this statistic is a bad person in my book. 9:20 ughhhh holy crap i absolutely HATE gun nuts talking about caliber and stopping power, and i am a gun nut myself. it does not matter what caliber you are shooting; if you shoot them in the head, neck, or upper chest, they're dead. also you don't usually want a higher caliber since it might penetrate through your walls and potentially hurt others. 9:47 guns and cars are quite comparable. both are leading causes of death. also please tell me which car laws are bullcrap. 10:26 oh you don't like fuel efficiency? get out. seriously. your right to buy whatever car you want ends when it pollutes 3 times more than any other car on the road. technically, then, buying a polluting car violates the NAP, since more pollution leads to more deaths and financial damage. 10:35 they'll price up the cars... like they aren't doing that already? car companies benefit from keeping prices as high as people will buy. also fun fact: you can hardly get around without a car, thanks to lobbying from the car industry which turned our cities into car dependent hellscapes. so basically, cars are a mandatory expense in today's society. this is the end result of unchecked capitalism. 11:15 tell me why this is, when every other country does it, and they see much lower gun violence. 13:45 who needs a full auto for self defense? who needs an ar-15 for self defense? who needs basically any rifle for self defense? a pistol is better in almost all self defense scenarios. 14:08 he said AR-15, he knows what it is. the captions are auto generated, which is why it says AR fifty and not like AR-50 or AR-Fifty or something like that. 15:02 buddy just let him talk for a moment. he's saying that: they can't walk into a proper gun store, they can't buy from a trustworthy person, etc. etc. basically, with these gun reforms, any criminal who illegally purchases a gun will no longer be able to do it through a 'clean' sale, meaning they will be easier to track. 15:20 what you are naming are illegal methods of gun acquisition, which this guy knows will continue. he's saying that all the legal methods of acquisition will no longer be available to criminals, which no matter what makes it at least a little harder for them to get their hands on guns. 15:40 at least with an illicit government sale there's significant risk and monetary barrier involved. it would not be the easiest method. 16:40 man, i hate how in the usa there's this mentality of being too threatening for anyone to mess with you, instead of just removing the motivations people have for messing with you, which is almost always a lack of money due to the crappy system that is capitalism. 18:22 if you're really intent on doing something illegal with the gun, like you repeatedly say, you're gonna do that thing. it doesn't matter the laws, since, as you say, criminals will just not abide by them. so then why not just have the laws anyways just to stop the cases it can help with? 20:10 hmm i dunno, there seem to be a lot of gun crimes in the usa and still a whole lot of gun purchases. 21:05 the problem with an armed society is to get there, we need to increase the number of armed people. and it seems like increasing the number of armed people has only lead to more people dying. i don't know where i stand on gun control, but i do know that i stand on the side that leads to less people dying. and from what i've seen and read and heard, it seems like restricting access to guns is the way to go. again, why can't the USA be the same as, say, Australia? they had like one big shooting in 1996 and then after that they passed tight gun control laws and they haven't had one since

the thing is, there is no separation between people and state, really. it's a democratic system; you can just get elected. if your issue is with 'indoctrinating' kids (>please describe what indoctrination they recieve<), just run for district office. also, you advocate for private schooling. setting aside all the issues with private schooling being the only option, wouldn't private schools be incentivized to pander to certain parent demographics? like, christians, perhaps, by having the bible as part of the cirriculum. that's not freedom of religion. those kids are growing up indoctrinated. there's no benefit to removing the state if you want religious freedom. at least in a society with a government you can vote for change. can't really vote for a company to change. my problem with you is not that you're anarchical. it's that you're anarcho-CAPITALIST. capitalism is literally the worst system you could possibly have when there's no state. need proof? explain to me how ancapism wouldn't inevitably lead to environmental collapse as companies are no longer beholden to environmental/ecological standards. also name me 1 anarcho capitalist country in history that was successful the state is the powerhouse behind tyranny? do you remember the catholic church in the middle ages? do you remember the Dutch East India Company? and sure, governments can be tyrannical. i'm not denying that. but if you really don't like tyranny so much, get rid of churches, states, and companies. what are we left with? communism main things i want you to do: 1. explain why anarcho capitalism would be better/less tyrannical than anarcho communism, 2. tell me what sorts of indoctrination is going on at public schools, 3. tell me how, without regulatory bodies like governments, companies won't cause ecological collapse/massive subjugation/terrible practices. and that'll be hard lemme tell you cause even with governments they're still able to get away with some of that

First! ... Look like so much works build all those woods and i would never go outside during night time.

1 minute in, this sounds a lot like communism 2 minutes in, this sounds a lot like communism (quick note: minimum wage should be increased cause otherwise companies pay employees incredibly little) (quick note 2: most politicians don't have much control over inflation) (quick note 3: we elect politicians, it's not like they just pop into power all of a sudden) (quick note 4: do you even own a gun? sorry just curious) (quick note 5: you're ignoring all the stuff that politicians actually do which helps society, like when they protect rights (such as abortion), fund public infrastructure, etc.) (quick note 6: can we get some examples of 'indoctrination' in public schools? and i'm not talking about the '10 commandments' rule in some schools, because those rules came from the party which is super anti-government) (quick note 7: a lot of the help politicians provide is invisible unless you're actually looking into it. this is because a politician does more 'abstract' work, such as legislature, which you don't really see as often as physical workers) (quick note 8: okay but Tim Walz really is helpful, go look into him, he's great. plus kamala harris would help infinitely more than donald, so lumping them into the same category is dumb.) (quick note 9: homelessness is a very different deal in other countries, such as Norway, where the homeless population is tiny. might i mention that Norway is for all intents and purposes a total welfare state.) (quick note 10: maybe instead of being a 'squatter hunter,' let's get them all plane tickets to Norway where, might i emphasize, the government does a much better job at getting them into their own housing?) (quick note 11: you minimize the power that making laws has. they can also repeal laws, first of all, but their laws can also benefit their community. that is, in fact, why they are elected.) (quick note 12: we need taxes because that's how the government gets money to pay the contractors. also your idea of having civilians build infrastructure sounds kinda like communism) politicians ain't perfect, and a lot suck. but ignoring the good things they do as well as neglecting to mention that we literally vote for them to do those things is reductive and misleading. your message about helping the community yourself is good though.

Zomboid is rad but your political beliefs make me think you have all of about 3 braincells. get well soon

i wanna talk about this apparently lack of research on your part. it's a common theme i'm noticing. 1:20 Norway is like, the biggest welfare state i know. it has one of the lowest homelessness rates in the world. 2:13 Norway has a really, really low crime rate, despite having roughly the same ratio of police officers to citizens as the US does. it also has stricter gun laws. a good way to stop violent crime is to make sure everyone has everything they need in the first place. 3:13 Norway has some of the happiest, most educated people in the world, and some very prestigious schools. did i mention they're all free and publicly funded? meanwhile in the good ol' US of A we have terrible funding for public schools and thus terrible education. oh but when trump abolishes the DoE you'll get your perfect little 'free choice' education. i'm not going to watch the rest of your video because i have better things to do, but you do send a good message; it is up to us to build the future we wish to see.

Capina a cidade ai deixar limpinha kkk.

surprised i didn't see this one. this'll be fun, to see you try to debunk last week tonight. 1. 1:18 it's a joke. last week tonight is basically a news cast plus comedy. 2. 3:02 no school teaches that stuff in the 3rd grade. look for one, i dare you. 3. 5:37 refer to the first comment i made 4. 6:20 you fail to prove that homeschooling is really that regulated. the only regulation in a lot of states is that the government needs to at least know. 5. 7:25 what if the parents aren't teaching their kid at all? is that their right? of course not, because it harms the life and future of a child. 6. 7:57 the person being educated is a child. the child does not get to choose their education when they're homeschooled. it is not regulated enough. 7. 10:05 it mostly is the parent educating the child. 8. 10:34 i don't care if you doubt that only three companies control it, do some research and find out. i'm on the side of LWT cause they actually research their episodes. 9. 11:50 if the book is inaccurate, the material is inaccurate, and the child is learning inaccurate information. they are being brainwashed. 10. 14:00 he never acted like that was the standard, he just said that it was the worst example they'd found. their point is that there is hardly any regulation. 11. 14:37 refer to the first comment i made. seriously, these are jokes. 12. 17:36 it does have to do with homeschool. that's the leader of the main homeschoolers coalition. it very much has to do with homeschool. 13. 18:13 counterargument: you shouldn't be at risk of dying to a preventable disease because someone else decided not to get vaccinated for free and you also shouldn't persecute same sex couples just because you don't like them 14. 20:05 refer to the first comment i made 15. 22:40 refer to the first comment i made. also elon musk is a transphobe and sucks as a person 16. 23:38 where'd you hear that from? source? 17. 24:05 the point is that school is ALSO useful for finding out about abuse, mainly because it's a place where a kid can talk with trusted adults aside from their own parents. they still teach in schools. also, by that logic, the point of a home is to live there, not education. 18. 24:56 they're educators, but they can also help in cases of abuse. is that a bad thing? should they stop? also, yes, you can get abused at public school, but you can way more easily get abused at home. 19. 26:00 teachers are not paid enough outside of like some areas in California. they literally educate the next generation. without them there's no innovation. pay teachers more. 20. inflation. teacher's wages were lower back then because there was less inflation. 21. 28:17 parents can also do all these bad things. at least at a school there's an administration and oversight groups. 22. 30:10 counterargument: if they were adequately good parents who taught well, what would they have to hide? 23. 31:30 it's not pointless. under ancap they still would preside over their kids. the point is very valid. 1/3 of those taken for homeschooling were in potentially abusive families. that is not an insignificant margin. 24. 32:05 you're anti union? ew 25. 32:45 the laws aren't doing good enough, it seems. also, are you against more child abuse protection laws? i hope not. 26. 34:05 refer to the first comment i made 27. 34:40 you'd get abused a lot more and have a lot less opportunity to tell people about it if you were homeschooled. just saying 28. 35:38 if you were a good parent you wouldn't need to worry about the government taking your kids. 29. 36:40 because it's a lot easier to get abused when you're constantly at home and have nobody else to talk to about it. 30. 37:50 it's an attack on homeschooling to have more child abuse protections, got it 31. 38:35 refer to the first point i made. also it's an analogy. 32. 39:50 they ain't adequate if a third of homeschooled kids are at risk of being abused. 33. 40:00 why does it make no sense? 34. 40:20 the NRA is bad, fight me. they used to be pro gun control but now they ain't. 35. 42:15 whoa whoa whoa, slow down bucko; how is that a strawman? also refer to the first comment i made. 36. 42:37 would be found a lot more though. 37. 44:00 the man is a republican who doesn't like the government. he agrees with you on a lot of stuff. but, because he's more educated and has far more life experience, he knows that having the government be able to step in is crucial. 38. 44:45 he brings race up because there's racial prejudice. simple, really 39. 45:22 that is what's happening. that is exactly what's happening. he's been talking about it for the last 20 minutes. 40. 46:20 his point is that the gov't doesn't care about the good parents, but with more regulation, they can actually crack down on the bad ones. 41. 46:55 it is basic common sense. 42. 47:45 you do NOT get freedom with homeschool. if you understand one thing from this comment, understand that. freedom for who? the parent? the child still has NO freedom over THEIR education. the parent still holds full power, and holds ultimate power, unlike in public schools where the administration and teachers can at least help. i'm sorry that you were bullied as a kid. that doesn't mean you have to get mad at the entire government.

Man, brain rot could be great for getting an impressionable 18 year old who has trouble thinking straight to give consent. (I state this to expound on the dangers of people not having basic cognitive functions and instead are more like damaged puppets.

yeah, this guy is pretty stupid. the only reason he defends bullying is because he wasn't bullied himself. he's one dude who's never actually experienced bullying and is proudly displaying his ignorance. he says his experience with bullying was like 6 years ago in middle school, which means he's likely no older than 20. he just rambles about how bullying doesn't happen, proceeds to bully people, and then complain about people saying bullying exists. also he can't say bullying 'fell off' when kids are literally getting murdered in schools by their bullies for being queer.

nice! the beat actually lines up here which is good to say the least. that little end bit is fun too. are you considering making a third version with revised lyrics? also i just figured out that lmms is free, i'm gonna try to make some sort of backing to go with the lyrics here.

lyrics: [Verse 1] It's 1993 in Kentucky There's zombies as far as the eye can see Go get your frying pan and make a plan You don't know how this whole thing's gonna pan [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 2] How the whole thing started, nobody knows I suppose it doesn't matter 'cause this just blows Go get some supplies, or else you'll die Find a good place to stay while things are runnin' awry [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 3] Don't want them in, so barricade! Don't wanna be part of their mob charade! Wallin' off the area will serve you, Havin' some gates would be good too. [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 4] Get a car, so you can go far. Get it gassed, to keep it on the tar. Don't run 'em over or ya won't have a rover, Don't rely on luck from a four-leaf clover. [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 5] You need more than a whacker, you need a gun Go to the police station for a loot run Get as much guns and ammo as you can carry, Cause those hordes can get pretty scary [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 6] The lights will go out, but you still need power Get a generator before things go sour Plumbing will be gone, so collect that water Boil it first, or you'll be the fly on the swatter [Chorus] Zombies, they bite! It just ain't right! Just don't get bit, or that's it! Lacerations and scratches are bad too, They still have a chance to turn you! [Verse 7] So you're doin' everything to survive, But you have a feeling there's no hope to drive Don't get cocky, don't get pride 'Cause, after all, this is how you died. banger the beat was just 4 sounds in my right ear. this style fits swing quite a bit more than rap even, so it'd be cool if the remaster has a jazz beat. in the chorus, the fourth line doesn't really fit. i suggest changing the third line to 'just don't get bit, or that's it for you,' followed by something like 'they'll take every chance to turn you.' i also do like how each of the verses basically go in the order of a typical zomboid game. good work

> unironic ancap Need I say more.

Ancaps seem to think that corperations should be allowed to endanger people, and that its ok because "it's every persons own responsibility to defend themselves" even when it's children, who literally have no concept of how to. Anyone is fair game I guess in their world, collective security of anyone be dammed.

i do agree with saber brainrot is rampant however i see it more as a form of bad parenting like if you cant monitor what your kid watches then the kid should not have an iPad or phone if you cant pay attention to ur kid for more then 10 mins you should probably not have a kid. an ipad/phone is not a nanny it is not you. and most of the tings listed on youtube kids is brainrot or really sketchy things that kids should not be subjected too and you say its the choice of a kid but there is a reason why a kid cant make medical choices or vote or work at young ages. kids specially young ones are attracted to colorful flashy things and if i had not seen this sketchy uploads id probably be saying the same thing as u but after seeing colorful story times about a women getting R***d and liking it or another bad one about a man liking being choked all to a vid of someone making cakes or playing with colored sand. its bad its really bad. now i will say not all parents are bad but i do think they can do more ether by blocking stuff on the devices firewall or just being more observant. i do wish you tube would look at more what's being uploaded but they arent. i get its not all bad but at this time where adults are slipping in fetish content in to said brainrot and it getting passed off as "ok" or "safe" thats where youtube is failing as well as parents who arnt watching what there kids are doing

You're a corporate bootlicker, hahaha.

I would like for you to research the development of children and how their brains work at the younger stages of their life. I think it would be easier to understand how damaging brain-rot is for a child when you understand how a childs brain functions. The brains main function is when you're young is to learn. The problem with brain-rot is that there is nothing TO learn. That's what brain-rot is. It's the absence of anything valuble. Can children learn in their off time? Sure! But when 70% of your time is spent watching the equivalent of nothing, that time you've spent actually learning is insignificant in comparison. Children like to learn on their own. They like to choose what they watch. The issue is that children also don't understand the difference between something that has a plot and something that is brain-rot. The reason why older childrens TV. shows were so policed was for childrens' development. They needed to have a story that changes a character, they needed knowledge to be gained, and they needed a real resolution that tied the story up. It has been shown in studies that stuff like cocomelon HAS an effect on children. And it's not a positive one. Children are not stupid. They are some of the most intelligent beings. Their brains are built for learning, so they need to be learning with their entertainment, as well. Entertainment is such a big part of their life! Children who were given an ipad to watch cocomelon as their only scorse of entertainment have been shown to have such low comprehensive and learning skills. There has been a huge dip in childrens literary these past years BECAUSE of this un-checked brain-rot.

the problem is kids don't know better as their brains are literally not developed thats why those channels only audience is really kids. They don't know better and very little stimulation can keep their brains entertained. This same premise is what makes this content potentially damaging as it can become very addicting very quickly and with little effort on the "creator's" part. Which can then lead to problems with yt addiction, shortened attentionspan, and lack in development in other life skills that most kids would have been learning at the time instead of watching brainrot content. For example, using their imagination, building spacial awareness, social awarness and practicing socialization with peers, and so on. I always hated when people said this things about technology ruining kids and halting development mainly bc I felt it wasn't true with the freedom children still had to choose other activities and minimum parental influence could mitigate most problems. However the addictive nature of brainrot content stands apart from technology in general. And this addictive nature takes this freedom away from kids who don't have a developed pre-frontal lobe to help understand long-tem consequences, provide impulse control, and good decision making. Kids literally do not have the ability to make good decisions like adults do which is why they need to be taught and protected by adults.

the government can legislate wether kids are allowed to see it. It could be were these brainrot videos/channels don't get funded like any yt channel about fire-arms is even if its for educational purposes. If yt gets to rule that then they can make rules like that aggainst channels deemed harmful for developing brains, at least if they actually care about kids. There are many ways this can be done without impacting adults wether done directly through the government making yt or yt's own policies 1. yt could fix kids yt removing content farms built on stealing from other channels, have deplorable/suggestive thumbnails or content, and allowing more well made video channels. Yt channels on yt kids could still get paid well encouraging people to still make content for it after filtering the bad content out. Then they can make a rule not allowing kids under the age of 13 on yt and those kids can use kids yt. Regular yt would require you to make an account through google/email/ect. banning school emails/google/ect. accounts from that list. Any parents letting their kids on regular yt are liable for the consequences of that. 2. Yt or the government could also make rules aggainst the short channels and content farms that just steal from other posted videos or steal and add comentary that is not actually transformative. This way those shorts that just rehash what is seen or provide "new information" pulled out of their rear can be removed if channels report the theft. The same with videos that are literally nothing more than screen recordings with flashing/strobe lights added+distorted sounds and nothing else. It is stealing that does nothing more than risk kids with epillepsy/siezures stumbling upon them. This would remove alot of the unneccessary content leading to brainrot and does nothing to content anyone would actually want to see. 3. Heck you could even go the exact opposite and make an eighteen plus yt (that doesn't allow extreme smegsy stuff or anything federally illegal) that can allow more freedom for content creators and insures only those with developed brains are watching that can understand the consequences of what they view. Regular yt then can become as filtered as they want it to keeping freedom of content on the new eighteen plus youtube These are three different methods just off the top of my head that yt or the government could use to legislate brainrot and their are probably numerous other more successful ideas as well.

1:02 BEATLES REFERENCE

This is clout chasing.

Saberspark is right. Brainrot is a threat to society. While I don’t trust this government, I am 100% for increased government control over what people are allowed to watch and view. The health of a society must be considered at every turn and the problem with this government isn’t that they control too much, it’s that they never look out for the health of the society. But that doesn’t mean that the point isn’t valid.

well In my opinion If we cut the point of Regulation law about that He got a point to concern and I think I have something better to introduce to him and to you that you can do it voluntary 1.Hate speech=Free Speech if they have right to create We have right to insult if you said that you hate censorship and support hate speech to bad thing like content farm I think it's better it's may cause chaos but it's should send massage for at least in worst case make the kids swear to make parents concern about what kids watch 2.Not Exactly "Physical Removal" I dislike Hans Hermann Hoppe the popular Ancap owner of Hoppeanism ideology you may known about his reactionary view on negative to LGBTQ+ and complicated of The term that have problem of it but I think some concept of property right it should applied like example in "private school" the owner have right to applies rule for kids to not watch Brainrot content and if parent don't care and the teacher caught they will get expel it's sound bad but it's private property 3. Social obligations the Social order that make people treat those parents make their life is living hell BUT not Physical assault I mean verbally abuse to parent (but NOT RECOMMEND for kids but it's their choice) to abuse and if you are owner of shop you have right to refuse them to service 4.Seperate those parent from us by stop being friends treat them indifferent in case you're boss and tell them if they don't stop and focus on take care of baby they will get punishment like salary cut etc. this is example of what I recommend and Unlike Steve Cutt I am not that kind of "phone bad book good" guy I just think that Content farm may destroy "family value" that already bad from neglect parents from consumerism that from Keynesian economic policy I am not Trad west bigotry follower also I just think their is better solution then censorship that you and him can corporate and if you have any better Idea you can just tell me I am Libertarian and Agorist too

Im sorry but i would say saberspark has a point BRAINROT is like elsa gate some might not be but a lot is

okay, first general criticism, please, PLEASE let people finish their points before talking for 30 seconds about it. also you need to massively boost your microphone input audio. 8:30 in your video: it's a problem because kids are impressionable and easy to get hooked on this stuff. 9:10 did you hear him? you'd want some sort of government regulation on what's shown on TV because, for example, there could be undisclosed sponsors. 12:10 problem is that a lot of parents don't know that. also, the company won't stop it since they get to show more ads and so make more money. also, as he says in the video, kids will find a way around it. 17:10 "i mean, not every kid watches brainrot" this point is moot because a lot of kids do still watch brainrot. 18:36 "it's cringe, so what" i mean, it also exposes kids to a lot of inappropriate content and is pretty addictive for a young child. 19:36 ooh! point i can tie back to ancap! in an ancap society, that lawsuit wouldn't have happened, and the privacy of those kids would still be compromised. 30:30 it's not up to you, though. these kids are scrolling through an endless feed of youtube shorts, specifically tailored by an algorithm to keep their attention as best as possible. they aren't getting to watch what they want to watch, they're getting hooked to keys being jingled in front of them for hours on end. 32:05 i dunno about you, but not all parents can monitor 100% of what their kids watch, and i'd rather not run the risk of them basically watching softcore rule 34. overall this video seems so weird. like you could have talked about actual government censorship but instead you're critiquing Saberspark of all people.

why this video so w i d e also he has 1 million subscribers not 100 million but that was probably just you misspeaking. also please boost your microphone audio (the timestamps refer to the part of adam's video you're critiquing, not the timestamp in your video. it's confusing, i know, my apologies) 0:00 to 0:50: it's an analogy, not literal. also, who cares if you doubt that would be the arrangement, it totally could be. when people dive into the 'realism' of analogies like these, it always cracks me up cause the analogy just goes over their head. 1:37 you can have a free market while still having a government, so they technically are different. this point is more of semantics though. he literally says that free market has little to no (key word: no) intervention from the government, while the government can still exist, while in anarcho capitalism there is no government at all. your point was weird and didnt prove anything in the first place and then got debunked immediately by him literally just defining things. you keep arguing this point until 1:55 in his video. 2:10 my man, have you read an essay? the coconut part was his hook, the defs. of free market/anarcho capitalism was him focusing into his final thesis and the moment at 2:10 was his thesis. it's standard essay format. he goes on to support his claims in the body paragraphs. also i know this because of the public school system which is run by the government. 2:38 the counter to this counterargument you make (they could just say yes) is that they could just say no. again, adam's point is that it's entirely up to the owner, not the workers who actually make the owner money and run the business. he literally answers this the second after you make the criticism. this is an issue i have with these kinds of videos; you stop at random points in the video, right at the start of a paragraph (basically the topic sentence), and then say "but how he know that/that's not true!" right before he talks about how he knows that/how it's true. you seem to have a lot of free time, and a lot of it is spent playing project zomboid/kknd, it seems. i think it would be a good idea to watch his whole video first, and then write your own counter-essay to it. that would be pretty fun to watch, i think, and a lot more concise and effective than this sort of format. 3:54 man, the workplace IS your life at large in an anarcho-capitalist economy. without a job, you can't buy anything, which means you aren't free. 4:02 he's talking about the workplace. the workplace is literally a totalitarian dictatorship, since it is entirely owned and governed by one person. 4:05 okay, i could just say your video is really stupid. please only make substantive criticisms. also, i like how you read this quote, and then just go "nuh uh!" like where was the rebuttal? sure, work is techincally 'just' doing labor for pay, but that labor and that pay is determined entirely by your boss, making it a dictatorship. and, as adam gets to, you aren't always free to walk away from that job. 4:50 bro can you actually try to attack his claim instead of getting riled up over the definition of corporation? fine. a lot of Big Companies do union busting. is that good enough for you? also MAN you got close to communism there, after saying that unions are good since they have checks and balances so that those at the top can't screw everyone over. that is literally the point of the video! you just agreed with adam's entire point! also, i'd like it if the government forced unions on every company. yeah, i'd like to have my workplace be democratic, deal with it. also, you keep referring to companies as some singular entity; however, the company is run by the ceo, basically, or if not the ceo just someone at the top. that means that the rights of ALL of the workers are in the hands of one person. that's not moral, all of those workers should have the right to their own rights. also, they WOULD cooperate with the union, since the union could make demands that would threaten the profits of the higherups, slash do what unions do. the only reason companies don't like unions is because they might lower their profits slightly at the benefit of the workers. 6:16 okay, here's one thing you HAVE to understand from now on: in Ancapistan, money is your lifeblood. to get money, you have to work. therefore, having a job dictates what you're able to do with your outside life. therefore, the person in control of your job has control over your outside life. also, they could just say "okay then, we'll pay you, but if you ever say anything bad about Mister Money up top we'll chop of your head" and bam you have an evil gov't. 6:28 watch his series on ancap in practice to see why there would be no competition. 7:12 his point is that not everywhere has competition. oh my god he said that two seconds ago 7:22 private court, eh? what if Big Company decides to add a little monetary incentive for the judge to rule them innocent? they can do that. no gov't to stop them. 7:29 "🤓ooh haha well actually, you see, erm, by taking that sponsor, you're doing a capitalism, so your point SUCKS!!! nyehehehe!!!!" 1. that wasn't an FMC move, that was just a normal capitalism move. the gov't does regulate sponsorships. 2. he has to do capitalism because he lives in a capitalist country where money equals not dying. 9:40 cough cough? i don't mean to be rude but this does sound kinda like you 9:54 "erm actually no they can't cause same thing" dude then stop complaining he didn't even MENTION the government in his thing about FMC. 10:46 the same reason a totalitarian dictatorship would do that. 11:10 "muh deadly force! muh deadly force!" the amazon death squad will airstrike your house, dude. 11:45 did you even watch the video. companies have elitism. they have a hierarchy. 12:06 moot point since you never prove this. most of your arguments are moot, about semantics, or have no evidence backing them up. this really was a disappointing performance. i'd like if we could somehow have some sort of debate so that you actually have to respond to the arguments with proper rebuttals.

hi, do you stil having the save files?

should be a mixed economy

first off, i just noticed that you have your youtube link in the description of a youtube video you posted. anyways 1. school: not everyone will be able to afford private school, and many of those people won't be able to because of economic factors out of their control - therefore, this system would unfairly put already struggling people down and further elevate the rich. also, not all parents can be trusted with homeschooling. in fact, a lot can't. children would not gain any freedom from truancy being abolished, since they would then be at the whims of their parents. i'd argue that a child's freedom to go to school with peers and be able to make friends gives them more freedom than if their parents make all of their decisions for them. yes, bullying is an issue, but the way to stop bullying is to further fund schooling and anti-bullying programs as well as fostering more of a community. additionally, many kids have terrible home lives and school is really their only escape. this is not me defending the current system; it's a pretty crappy one, but the way to improve it is to fund it. look at finland's public schooling. literally, go to the Wikipedia article for Education in Finland. 2. i would like to point out that in a democracy you can still vote to change drug policies. also, i'd like to say that you shouldn't do heroin, nor meth, nor ecstasy. sure, you CAN, but you really, really shouldn't. 3. i cannot get over how america has like the most lax gun laws and yet people still complain that guns are too regulated. also we have the most mass shootings, i wonder why that happened. couldn't be all the guns now could it? also, buddy, nukes???? world governments almost destroyed the planet over nukes, and all of our closest shaves with nuclear war have been at the hands of individuals. do you really want to make nukes something you can just buy? what about the safety aspect? if i lived in a place where someone had a nuke, i'd move out. what if i was too poor to? do i just become that person's proxy hostage? also don't make nukes. 4. ooh, governments taking your property and giving them to corps? what if amazon appears at my doorstep and just says "your house is mine" and then blows up my dog. what am i gonna do. how can you not see that this would immediately lead to corporations establishing their own pseudo-gov't with no regulation. also the environment would immediately collapse because oil companies. don't tell me you don't believe in climate change. 5. crime being low? if there's no prison, what's stopping me from doing a crime? especially if i'm struggling to survive, not receiving any aid from the government since there is none, and can own any weapon i want and do whatever i want, what is stopping me from doing crime? you're right, actually, crime would be 0 - because there would be no government to establish laws that people could break. that last sentence was a joke, by the way. also: "gun control empowers crime" source? also please go watch the Last Week Tonight episode on Stand Your Ground laws. it explains what you complain about much better than i could. 6. police brutality being low? okay, first of all, the existence of any government decreases police brutality at some basic level, since there are laws and threats of punishment. also, if policing becomes a business, then it benefits from high crime rates, therefore nullifying your point about crime. the CopCo would basically do whatever it could to ensure crime rates were high and rates of reoffending were high so that they could get paid. you also wouldn't get competition for the "best, most just police group" - the buyer would be who, an individual or a group, right? for them, they don't care if it was just, they care if there aren't any criminals. so in their eyes, a company that just murdered every criminal would be the best one, since there would be no criminals to do crime. 7. prostitution is based, prostituting in an ancap society where you have nothing to protect you in the event that your client is abusive is not. 8. i'll admit i don't know much about social security, but if i'm assuming that they function kind of like insurance companies, and i've seen how insurance companies work, then i would rather the government do it. 9. no dealership laws? get ready for terribly fuel inefficient cars (more gas sales means more money), tons of pollution (cheaper to leave out those bits), less safety features for everyone outside of a car (the more car companies can make people feel unsafe out of a car, the more likely those people are to buy one), and much, much more. 10. all of the things you're complaining about are problems with our current specific system of gov't. i am also an anarchist, but i believe this is a lofty, idealistic goal, so i position myself as a democratic socialist. i argue that instead of giving up and going ancap, we instead vote, and improve our system until we can go socdem. 11. i made this cool, revolutionary thing that will make me tons of money! Amazon, after collecting all of my info through my Alexa which they can record any and all data from since there's no laws: no you didn't, actually, i did that, and we're gonna make money off of it, also we told you to give us your house and you haven't yet so your Alexa will now release mustard gas until you leave your home. 12. dude, how would there be no wars? have you heard of a kingdom? it's where a single guy basically kills and subjugates a bunch of people until they serve them. there would totally be wars, dude. also, you're just talking the US. without a gov't, there's no military, so we could easily get invaded, and no we are not going to be able to defend against that with our privately owned weapons. remember, those weapons were once part of an organized military, and now they ain't. 13. i would rather keep the USDA, FDA, and all the other food based organizations. those were established for a reason. as the saying goes, regulations were written in blood. nobody likes to be told what they can and can't eat; i assure you, all of those regulations are the absolute minimum that is safe. 14. "healthcare, that's a choice too" sounds so dystopian. i'd rather healthcare be COMPULSORY and you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to be AS HEALTHY AS POSSIBLE because i'm a HEALTH AUTOCRAT and I NEED YOU TO BE HEALTHY OR ELSE I WILL FEED YOU SO MANY VEGETABLES YOUR GUT HEALTH IMPROVES!!!! 15. you're right, there is no such thing as a perfect person. so why not instead of individual people, we look to groups? behold, democracies and communist societies, where the decisions are based on the group, and not imperfect individuals. all in all, the world you describe sounds to me like a hostile, aggressive, lawless dystopia where the least fortunate get no aid and the most fortunate are free to reap all the benefits of the system. it's one where there's no right to free speech, no real court system, and no voting. i will say, on the production side, this video being more concise was way better. it's actually formatted decently well, too, though i think that your lighting here was a poor choice, and your microphone audio was still way too loud. tip: listen to music through your headphones, and then adjust your audio levels in the video editing program until they match that of the music. also, if it isn't too personal, what radicalized you towards ancapism? did the government wrong you? i'd just like to know, because it helps me with trying to get you out of this harmful belief system. also, did you watch Anarcho-Capitalism in Practice yet?

I like cats. Good luck with the channel.

Statists really should sort out their cognitive dissonances and inconsistencies in their own heads. I did a song about this. I pointed out a couple of things. 1. Rulers aren't leaders. Rulers only want to rule, to violently dominate others while actual leaders don't. 2. Their collective contempt prior to investigation and to approach so defensive and even hostile while we are only trying to get them to want to free themselves from their own foolishness makes them their own effective prison wards, within their own heads.

Tell me how to upgrade tasks on a PC

Dude, if you ever want a free hour+ of content, I’d love to hop in a discord call with you and debate gun control

While I agree that Steve's arguments aren't great, I agree with his sentiment that something should be done. KZbinr Suris has a video where he goes over each state's guns laws and gun deaths per capita (source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j167enWtgbxsaNk ), his conclusion, while having mixed results, is that guns laws are good (not a complete ban, but restrictions). You seem to get hung up on him calling the AR-15 a "assault weapon" (Yes, it's a controversial term and the definitions are inconsistent, but it's the term most people use when referring to the AR-15). You go off on a tangent and it seems to distract you from his point. He asks "Why does a kid need an AR-15?", you respond with "It's up to the kid," and I think that's not a fair answer to give considering the kid was a known danger to even the FBI (source: www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-high-school-shooting-suspect-surrendered-deputy-engaged-sherif-rcna169648 ). You later in the video at least address he was a danger and agree that he shouldn't have had the gun. Steve makes the argument that the shooter was 14 and shouldn't have a gun, and you seem to just brush this off. I believe the point he is trying to make here is that he is NOT an adult and may not be capable of making good, long term decisions. He is an adolescent, so his brain isn't fully developed yet (the brain is considered fully developed at around age 25, source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/ ). I believe the point he is making here is valid, that kids tend to make rash decisions without thinking them through. I will disagree with his point that "There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner." I agree that if you practice safe gun ownership, for the most part you will be fine. As for his point on gun registration, I am unsure of where I personally stand on this issue. I think he and you have valid points to be made here, and I am unsure of whether or not it would be a good solution. According to Pew Research Center as of 2021 (source: www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ ), the most common death by firearm is suicide, though it is marginally so with murders being almost as high as suicide. I don't think your point is particularly strong here. I don't like how you brush off his point of "Some gun owners will have their guns used for heinous things". I think it is a valid point, and I believe that should know what they should do if their gun or guns are used for a suicide or murder or accident, though I agree that it alone shouldn't be a deterrent if you are prepared to take responsibility for the aftermath. I've watched enough Lock Picking Lawyer to know that a lot of gun safes have egregious security flaws (like being picked open with a piece of orange juice bottle, source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZnYZaCserqWa6s ). While there are gun owners who lock up their guns with the best of the best guns safes, many gun owners may own something similar to what I presented or Steve presented (and he said the lock his grandfather used was quote "child's play" to open) that they say is good enough. I would advise you refrain from you name calling or calling him, or his points, dumb, it doesn't make you look good. Also when addressing his points, please provide data and sources to back up your claims as well would be super helpful. Maybe not try to play the whole video. Maybe just try to clip the points that he makes, and try to respond to each one as clearly as possible. You place a link to his video which I appreciate, so that's a good start. Overall, not good, though Steve's points aren't great either. I think something should be done to address gun violence. Apologies if my comment seems all over the place, but I am typing this comment as I watch it and trying to address the points made in both parties as they are being made. Sorry if I'm not super thorough with my points as it's late as I am typing this. edit 1: fixed the links/

Yeah, gun safety is important, but Shives still right that having a gun in your house is a risk. You have statistically way more chance a gun in your house will be used for suicide than defending a life.

When someone says that you're less safe with a gun in the household, they aren't talking about gun safety. They're referencing national statistics that show that you are more likely to die violently in a household with guns. Suicidal people do not care about gun safety. Psychopathic teenagers do not care about gun safety. You have no statistics to back up your claim that gun ownership makes you safer so you just resort to calling the statistics stupid. Mississippi has some of the most lax gun laws in the United States but they also have the highest homicide rate

In fairness to Steve. In his video, he presented an argument that he at least put some thought into. He presents it clearly without stuttering or uh awkwardly uh pausing to uh say "uh" thpugh put the video. And he did it all without resorting to clickbait title cards and ad hominem attacks

Spend more time picking up your place and less time making videos. The arguments you present are pretty weak - your gun safety merely mitigates the risk Steve mentioned.

Ancap is a disease spread by the internet.

How the fuck do you think anarchism has anything in common with capitalism? You were definitely dropped on your head

If you don't like American civil rights, the good news is you aren't forced to stay here. Feel free to leave. Thank God for 2A.

Anarchy is a condition that stretches over a given territory in which none is entitled to command, none is required to obey. Conversely, hierarchy is a situation in which some are entitled to command and others are required to obey. An = without Archos = rulers If anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including governments, nation states, and capitalism. Under capitalism you are in relationship as worker to your employers. You have to do they say, otherwise you are in risk of loosing job or if you're in bad economic situation even risk of loosing life. So even not having job at all is not an option to deflect influence of capitalism. Homelessness is its feature. In summary ancap is an oxymoron, a nonsense everyone should avoid.

Anti firearm people are hands down as dumb as magats.

countries where you can't go to the shop and get an assault rifle, don't have school shootings.- what a weird coincidence

I thought this might be a reasonable critique but when you go on about how because we have so many guns then if guns were the problem we'd all be dead is just the dumbest argument I think I've heard come out of a gun nuts mouth, and there are a lot of really dumb arguments.

Being responsible with a gun and knowing gun safety does not stop somebody from committing suicide or using a gun in a bad way when they want to. On top of that experienced and well-trained gun owners hurt people they care about with their guns no matter how much they have been trained. If you had been just listening to what Steve said you would have heard him say that his grandfather was depressed and potentially suicidal and they were afraid of what he might do with that gun. No amount of gun safety training is going to deal with that!

If you have a gun in your home it is more likely to hurt you or someone you love then it is to protect you from somebody you don't want in your home. It is a fact, deal with it. No matter how much you deny it facts are facts they don't care about your feelings.

If the kid didn't have access to the ar-15 i mean less people would've been hurt or killed maybe even none at all but yeah somehow having easy access to guns isn't a bad thing where school shootings happen daily in the U.S