Libertarian Views Scotty M

Stemming from the BLM protests we have seen much violence, vandalism and robbery. Following that were the attacks on our statues, many may wrongly believe that this is about targeting solely statues that merely offend them relative to the slave trade, however, as we have seen from attacks on certain statues non-related, it's clear to see the real agenda behind the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter mob; it's the modern day Cultural Revolution.

One only needs to learn about the history of the Cultural Revolution of Mao's China to see the pattern of events and from what we have been seeing behind the agenda of the Black Lives Matter movement, the defunding of the police was never about police brutality, that's not to say there aren't certain bad police officers, but the real agenda we can see taking place in their Libertarian Socialist circus show experiment in Capitol Hill, Seattle.

The socialists have already shown that in practice there have been countless arguments, fights, and threats of violence and now we see them calling for the "chop" talking about the French Revolution. As I will show you in a later part, the inevitable consequence, it leads to violence; you don't obey your orders in the eventual hierarchy, you'll be punished dearly. Whilst it has been funny to watch, it's an insight into how Catalonia and the Paris Commune played out, the difference is, we now have video evidence to show for it.

The following parts I'm covering or have covered:

• *Part 1:* why all lives matter.
• *Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are.
• *Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution.
• *Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda.
• *Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism.
• *Part 6:* Slavery and the riots.

You can find my video on education here:

That gives an insight into some of the history behind state education. This is no different to what you hear in this video with American education. This is why I have long argued that the education system needs to be privatised and why we need a free market in education. The argument on costs is a whole other issue.

You can also check out the previous two parts if you haven't already seen them:

All Lives Matter Part 1

Statistics and What Does Black Lives Matter Stand For Part 2

The full Talk Radio Show with Mike Graham and Neil Oliver:

As we have seen in the past few weeks from the BLM protests it has created a lot of division. The purpose of my videos is to get to the bottom of the truth and as I made clear in the part 1 on why I support all lives matter, my opposition to Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with racial background.

As I mentioned, there are many black people I have great admiration for, one of which is Thomas Sowell, another, Walter Samuels and various black players who play for Rangers Football Club and past and present.

As I pointed out previously in part 1, we are all equal and that the beauty of humanity is that we're all individuals with our own unique personality and we should be judged down to our character, not based on colour or nationality, etc.

The following parts I'm covering or have covered:

• *Part 1:* why all lives matter.
• *Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are.
• *Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution.
• *Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda.
• *Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism.
• *Part 6:* Slavery and the riots.

*Luke Reid's Channel and his full video:*

*Sources on Black Lives Matter:*

As I pointed out previously, this information is to provide you with enough information to back Luke's arguments, so if you question what does Black Lives Matter stand for, then the information is all there for you to see the history of Black Lives Matter and their pro-Marxist views, as well as on segregationism.

This is why I could never support such a movement. To me, I would never use such a term. Is racism wrong? Yes, does it exist on both sides? Yes, would I ever defend people who are racist towards either side? No, of course not. I would stand in your defence and fight your ground to defend you regardless of your colour.

It is important to note that the clear problem in the black American community is clearly an issue that has stemmed from the welfare policies of the 1960s and this I will address in part 6 on 'slavery and the riots.' I feel it is vitally important to get people to understand the issue. The only way people can sit up and fix the problem is by first of all, accepting there is a problem, that way they can address it and then attacking the problem at its roots.

And for your information, I strongly support the free market economy for this reason, to destroy the cause of the problems at its roots. Black people in America and elsewhere deserve as much chance at life as anyone and I firmly stand by the fact that the greater the opportunity to get by in life, the less incentive for crime. The solution for me is not more government.

The BLM protests have been pretty chaotic as most of you will have seen. Since a lot has gone on with the protests over the past few weeks I have decided to break things down into the several following parts:

• *Part 1:* why all lives matter.
• *Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are.
• *Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution.
• *Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda.
• *Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism.
• *Part 6:* Slavery and the riots.

*Luke Reid's Channel and his full video:*

*Sources on Black Lives Matter:*

All of the above sources are of reference showing you more in-depth of who Black Lives Matter are and what they stand for, showing they are anti-white, segregationist, pro-Marxist and how they are backed by George Soros.

As a strong advocate for capitalism, I feel it is vitally important to educate people of Black Lives Matter so they better understand the position for why I oppose the BLM movement. It is sad that it has got to the stage that I have to reiterate which should be common sense that this does not make me a white supremacist and that white supremacists are every bit as wrong as black supremacists and that capitalism has nothing to do with racism.

The sad thing is about ignorant Marxists (socialists) claiming that capitalism is racist, not only are they utterly clueless about the fundamental basic economics, which they expect you to take them serious on, but also the history is strongly against them. You would think having seen the 20th century proving that socialism was the most oppressive ideology on the planet that they would take the hint, but clearly the very people protesting against slavery seem to love slavery under a different name.

What you will also find is the Libertarian Socialist utopia of Capital Hill Autonomous zone, which has proved to be nothing short of pure comedy, resembles much of the history of the Paris Commune:

From what I have analysed thus far, the CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) is far from as Libertarian as they made out it out to be and there is no greater comedy than to see these mindless people depending upon the rest of Seattle outside their _"Autonomous Zone"_ as they are completely clueless. It is like watching a bunch of 12-year old basement dwellers who have just entered the real world for the first time.

The #NHS is treated like a religious institution and it seems that no matter how bad the NHS gets, it is a #healthcare system that can do no wrong in the eyes of its supporters.

The NHS has been faced with the massive long waiting lines, surplus waste, and shortage problems since its inception in 1948, yet despite this evidence, we hear these tired used up excuses about the NHS underfunded or about immigration. This completely ignores the fact the problems they're facing today are no different to those same problems that date back to the 1950s.

In this video, I explain the differences between the free-market model of healthcare with Direct Primary Care as opposed to the main American healthcare system that people erroneously try to turn to in order to try justify the failed healthcare system, the NHS.

It is important to note that doctors and nurses are not at fault for the system itself, yes, there is a management problem, the doctors and nurses can only do the best to their ability in a system that is nye impossible to make work, so I do sympathise with them. Unfortunately, the supporters of the NHS are very religious of it, one word of privatisation and they lose their minds.

Do they understand the complexity of the argument behind privatisation? Well, as I've explained, no, they don't. People assume that privatisation is black and white.

My explanation makes clear the distinction between a free market model of healthcare and why it would give the like of the NHS a showing up.

A speech by a founder of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw who quoted saying he would love to kill people. I recently noticed this video had been either banned or deleted from YouTube and was requested to upload it separately for people to share. This is the safest bet away from Facebook and YouTube.

The reason why economics is important is because without the study of economics it has a detrimental impact on humanity. The importance of economics in our daily life helps us to improve the standard of living of the masses.

An argument I recently had on Facebook shows the gross misunderstanding of the study of economics, one must understand the importance of economics in our daily life because then they will comprehend why you cannot place 'humanity' before economics. There are many examples of disastrous consequences that have occurred as a result of ignorance of the subject of economics, such given policies had detrimental effects on society, many were so disastrous that it led millions to their death.

As I explain on why economics is important, I touch upon the difference between 'goals' and the 'intentions' that people may have, to that of the consequences people may face. Economics is a study of our place on this earth with scarce resources and the study of economics is a study of trade offs. I mentioned about profits and losses in part 1 on the economic calculation problem, but what I didn't touch upon was the 'incentives' that drive from profits and how prices help us to ration what is scarce in a society that's demands far exceed what is available to them. Scarcity, much like profits are is grossly misunderstood.

The examples I give in this video will help you better understand the importance of economics in our daily life, to explain of the disastrous consequences we face if one believes they can simply ignore the study of economics or even argue with what history has already proven from said given policies. The examples I give help clarify the relationship between consumer behavioural patterns to the impact it has when a price ceiling is imposed creating a 'price shortage'.

🎵 Track Info:

Title: 1812 Overture by Tchaikosvky
Genre and Mood: Classical + Dramatic

Laid Back Guitars by..

The argument and question, can our planet survive capitalism as I explained previously without market-driven prices the economy leads to chaos as a result of the resource allocation problem that socialism is faced with, otherwise known as the economic calculation problem. In this argument, Francesca Fiorentini managed to pull off this crazy argument against economic growth and climate change in her argument would be solved by overthrowing capitalism.

Low and behold, surprise, surprise, here we have the typical BBC with ignorant Marxists sitting debating the issue claiming that productivity is killing the planet. I suppose if you're an ignoramus with no understanding of economics then that would sound like a reasonable argument. I mean, what exactly are they arguing for, to take us back to the dark ages?

The BBC is a crying shame because it produces some of the greatest content such as the amazing wildlife programmes with top class videography work, I should know, I'm a photographer and can appreciate the work they do. However, when it comes to politics and economics, this is why all government funding and the forced TV licence should be abolished. The BBC should be forced to work for its money, maybe then it'll start providing for the people of this country.

Even if we were to go along with their argument on economic growth and climate change, how is overthrowing capitalism in the mixed economy going to help matters any? As I explain in this video it would lead to a major catastrophe. It is, therefore, my case that if we wish to improve and protect our environment, it is an argument for capitalism, NOT against capitalism.

As I explained before on the disaster of socialism and its failures relative to the environment, another problem is without a private sector to finance the public sector, where will you get the money from to not only pay their wages in those jobs but also where will the jobs come from? The government destroys more jobs than what it creates.

In part 2 covering the question, can our planet survive capitalism, I cover the argument on resource allocation in response of what Francesca Fiorentini argues.

The argument relative to GDP and production in general from what Francesca is saying is that overproducing creating waste is why we need to overthrow capitalism. The problem with this argument is that we don't live under a capitalist system, we live under corporatism and socialism through socialist government interventionist policies resulted in the surplus waste problems, as well as the resource allocation problem we see today.

The way Francesca is arguing is almost as if to say because production goes to waste due to inefficiency, then we need to drastically cut back on productivity altogether. It sounds almost as if she is arguing to take us back to a period of life before the Industrial Revolution.

Again, you can check out both videos I made on the economic calculation problem, which is the resource allocation problem, in both parts I covered on profits and losses and on the variety of options where I go more into detail on this subject matter:

• Economic Calculation Problem: Profits & Losses

• Economic Calculation Problem: Variety of Options

The economic calculation problem (resource allocation problem) is primarily the reason why socialism is so inefficient, why the Soviet Union resulted in such waste as both Soviet Union economists Shmelev and Popov pointed out themselves. The problem cannot be solved by technology as no technology can read the human mind and humanity is never going to accept living in an Orwellian surveillance state, we're already fighting for our liberty from all of that today.

So, even if we were to go along with her argument about climate change, how would socialism solve the problem? It would create an even GREATER problem, in fact, a problem so cataclysmic it would result in most o..

The question surrounding can our planet survive capitalism is rather ludicrous for a variety of reasons. As I argue in this video on part 1 of climate change and capitalism I touch upon a variety of the climate change myths with regards to the our planet temperatures in correlation to CO2 level data.

Socialists like to believe (or other climate alarmists,) that CO2 drives temperature as they like to use data from the past 800,000 years. Another one of their favourite arguments is to touch upon the arctic ice melting, however, strangely enough, much like Francesca Fiorentini she completely ignores the Antarctic as ice sheets have been growing more more than 10,000 years. There is plentiful data out there to back this. Another erroneous myth is that sea levels are rising leading to such a dooms day scenario, for this argument check out Tony Heller's informative video titled 'Accelerating Rate Of Sea Level Fraud' explaining in detail that debunks this claim and be sure to subscribe to his channel that has a wealth of information out there refuting their arguments on climate change, etc:

I'm sure there is much more data out there than I could possibly imagine, some of which could detail more information regarding the CO2 spike in data over the past century.

When it comes to the argument on climate change and capitalism just like Francesca Fiorentini tries to argue, you can hear from the basis of her argument she doesn't even understand prices, she thinks Donald Trump just sets any old price he likes but doesn't comprehend the laws of supply and demand that determine cost, no different to her sarcasm on the $700,000 price tag on medication. As I have argued in detail before, the reason American healthcare costs are through the roof is to blame on government intervention, I explained that in detail in my response to VOX which you can also find here:

The economics of climate change is arguably a very serious argument and in my opinion it is the most important argument and the case I make for my argument is that climate change is anti capitalism. Capitalism and climate change is so heavily correlated simply because a great many people are ignorant of what capitalism is, the subject of economics and even economic history for that matter. Climate alarmists would like to have you believe that we live under some sort of a capitalist system and it's that ignorance that is troublesome.

In order to tackle problems with the environment, as well as over resource usage, one would have to have some level of understanding of the economics of climate change and it just so happens to be that the entire agenda behind the movement proves that climate change is anti capitalism.

The anti capitalist hysteria stems from a great many who are ignorant of history, for example; the failure to comprehend why and what caused the Great Depression, as well as the failure to comprehend why the Banking Crisis occurred and what led to the crash in 2008. If one does not understand, it is easy enough to point the finger and blame capitalism and what you find today are a great many who do not understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

The purpose of my video on the economics of climate change, relative to the anti capitalism is to point out what the real agenda is behind the movement. One only needs to look at the protests and Extinction Rebellion are more than certainly a symbol for that. But as I argue, socialism has proven to be a complete disaster for the environment, whether that being the Soviet Union or any other socialist regime for that matter. It is also important to note that inefficiency in the private sector stemming from socialist government subsidies is not a fault of capitalism, but a fault of government intervention to begin with.

Therefore, the reason the economics of climate change is based off Anti C..

In part 2 on the Industrial Revolution I cover issues relative to child labour relative to the myths of child exploitation regarding the Victorian children. Several of the myths that you will hear claim that mothers and children were enslaved and forced into working in the factories, that the Victorian children were poorly mistreated by the capitalist factory owners and beaten up. Another common myth, as mentioned, relates to the child exploitation, claiming the Victorian children worked endless hours for such little pay.

There is no question that living conditions and the pay was awful during that time period, but when you compare that to where they came from before, the pay was substantially better and relative to part 1 their living conditions had significantly improved thanks to the machinery that capitalism made possible.

An interesting quote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo strikingly puts things into perspective:

"Interestingly, there was never an organized propaganda campaign against child labor in agriculture, even though the work performed on a farm could be every bit as hard and grueling as in any factory. The most likely reason for this is that labor unions were the driving force behind the anti-child labor crusades, and unions were concerned about child labor in large part because it represented competition for union labor. In other words, the unions' first concern was their own membership rolls and dues revenues, not necessarily the welfare of children."

E. P. Thompson's own concession shows this in of itself:

"Child labor was not new, the child was an intrinsic part of the agricultural and industrial economy before 1780. Certain occupations; climbing boys and ships boys were probably worse than all but the worst conditions in the early mills."

Take notice of how he refers to the 'early' mills, this puts into contrast that their working conditions prior to the factories were worse off, but propaganda would like to paint this picture of child labour durin..

In part 1 on the Industrial Revolution, I touch upon the living conditions during the industrial revolution debunking the myths relative to both Victorian Britain and the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

There are countless myths you could go through, such as the myth of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, or about the monopolies and the dangerous concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. I have covered the Robber Barons myth in refutation of another YouTuber which you can check that video out below along with the antitrust myths.

Robber Barons Myth:
Antitrust Myth:

Much of the information I must give credit to the Mises Institute with many great scholars as I named in this video, are as follows:

• Thomas E. Woods Jnr
• Robert P. Murphy
• Thomas J. DiLorenzo
• Robert Lefèvre
• Ralph Raico

There is plentiful great information out there covering the industrial revolution and in this part 1 I mostly covered relative to Victorian Britain living conditions during the Industrial Revolution. The strong critique of capitalism and of living conditions improving was Edward Palmer Thompson, a British economic historian and socialist. The work Ralph Raico cited from was E. P. Thompson's 'The Making of the English Working Class' from 1963.

You can watch Ralph Raico's full argument on the living conditions during the Industrial Revolution here:

In part 2 on social democracy and why social democracy doesn't work in relation to Keynesian economics I address about the inefficiency relative to the economic calculation problem and the disastrous consequences of thinking demand is something secondary that you need to produce to create.

Throughout history, relative to the economic calculation problem and the lunacy of believing production drives demand, it results in surplus waste wasting scarce natural resources. As the claims about resource usage it results in neglecting areas of the economy in greater urgency whilst producing aggregate supply in other areas. This explains why mixed economies aren't just so wasteful, but stagnant. As I have explained many times before, you require an economy to be free to drive prices to efficiently allocate resources efficiently that results in better improving the material wealth of the masses, which is why the free market economy works best.

Add to the fact social democracy results in serious inflationary problems through reckless borrowing and spending running the printing press, resulting in an ever growing problem through fractional reserve banking and the strong government regulation over the private sector and you end up with not just a monopolistic corporatist system, but one lacking in opportunity in the marketplace as government tries to take more and more control trying to 'create' jobs that results in the destruction of jobs in the private sector.

Government is not a job creator, it destroys more jobs than what it creates via higher tax rates as mentioned previously. The whole idea of social democracy is predicated around the state and trying to correct so-called problems, but as I mentioned before, the governments intervention only exacerbates the problem.

In this first part video I explain about social democracy and why social democracy doesn't work, which is Keynesian economics. Much like Marxists, Keynesians fail to comprehend there are trade offs in the economy that can lead to disastrous consequences.

I have covered briefly on social democracy before on the brief history and some of the things that social democrats believe in, as well as explaining why it eventually results in people crying out for more socialism here:

For the purpose of this argument, it isn't so much about where it eventually leads, but similar to full-blown socialism, it inevitably results in monopoly creation. One of the arguments is on unemployment and wage suppression, again, this is part of the consequences social democracy is faced with as a result of introducing socialism into the mixed economy through socialist government interventionism.

There is a lot of information out there on the industrial revolution, the argument, therefore, for social democracy is erroneous given the fact that not only was the British industrial revolution anti-capitalist, in many regards, despite that, we still saw improvements in material wealth. I've argued before that things are a question of scale and economies perform better off the freer the economies are. As social democrats would argue, they try to accredit the state for the improvement in people's living standards when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Finally, we can clearly see from what Keynesian economics caused resulting in the banking crisis through the reckless printing, borrowing and spending via all the failed quantitive easing, leading to legally protected fraud that not only did corporatism thrive as a result of this and put the poor and small business people at a disadvantage, it led to the economic recessions and economic crash of 2008. This proves that Keynesian economics is far from stable and is why social democracy doesn't work...

In part 2 in response debunking Mouthy Infidel on the Labour Theory of Value, I make the argument for why socialism doesn't work. Mouthy Infidel claims the failure of the Soviet Union would eventually come as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev, as I prove, the Soviet Union was always a failure.

In correlation to the previous argument he claimed about the failure of Venezuela, Cuba, Chile and the Soviet Union about U.S. embargo's, I cover the reason for why socialism doesn't work regarding the issue on currency and inflation.

It is important to note, I describe and define socialism from the real world perspective, not the theoretical fairy tale bed time story nonsense of Marxism being this moneyless theory, so before Mouthy Infidel responds saying Marx didn't believe in a monetary system, that has no bearing on the real world; what you have in theory on paper is not the same thing as to what you put in practice and socialism in practice leads to catastrophe either way, whether that is a moneyless based economy, as there is no price information signals or fixing prices.

Therefore the Marxist Labour Theory of Value is directed at Marxists from the real world perspective. I could cover on why having a moneyless based economy is ludicrous but that is a whole other topic issue.

Therefore, the natural state of socialism and why socialism doesn't work, why it results in such inflationary problems isn't just the requirement of higher tax rates (which I explain,) but also the monetary issue.

Another thing I do address is what constitutes economic success. Now, I understand that economies are complex and you could cover on a variety of things like life expectancy, etc, however, I relate economic success to it's sole purpose and the evidence I provide shows for just how inefficient socialism has been. Again, this correlates to the economic calculation problem which I argued in part 1 and the knowledge problem.

In this first part response debunking Mouth Infidel on the Labour Theory of Value I cover the difference between Adam Smith vs Karl Marx explaining why the Marxist is deeply and inherently flawed.

Mouthy Infidel doesn't even understand the Labour Theory of Value of Marx himself as he attempts to conflate the laws of supply and demand with Marxism saying that Marx accepted the laws of supply and demand. Furthermore, he attempts to state that price fixing has nothing to do with Marxism, whilst he may be accurate that by theory it aims for the moneyless based economy, this is still faced with the economic calculation problem.

Important to note, my definition of Marxism is of the real world of socialism, not theoretical fairy tale bed time stories of Marxist theory. Even if you go along with that argument, however, you can find my argument on the economic calculation problem in 2 parts:

Part 1: Profits and Losses —

Part 2: Variety of Options —

As I have argued, the economic calculation problem isn't something that can be solved via technology, here is an example provided by Kevin D. Williamson in his book, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism' that explains why:

"Milk, imagine what it would take in terms of sheer information to run a socialist redistribution network for milk in the United States. Some people, such as vegans or the lactose intolerant consume no milk, but some households consume large quantities of the drink; those with many kids, those who use lots of milk products in their cooking, etc. Others may consume varying amounts; in July when it’s hot and humid, a family might prefer lemonade but it might consume a lot of milk in August if it’s whipping up a bunch of ice cream for a big family reunion.

"In addition to quantity calculations, there are various questions to answer to; whole milk or skimmed; 1 percen..

In this final part 5 video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy I cover on why the NHS is killing you. Polidice, like many social democrats, doesn't comprehend that not only is single-payer healthcare socialism, it most certainly is not working as he likes to have you believe. The long waiting times doesn't just pertain to that of A & E, it correlates on a far greater extent to those of other demands.

This is one of the main arguments against social democracy that socialists and mixed economy supporters don't seem to understand, you cannot ignore the laws of supply and demand and the it's a failure to comprehend the damage created by that of government fixing prices, in the case of the NHS failure with the massive long waiting times it is caused by a price ceiling in the name of "FREE" healthcare.

Setting price ceilings result in 'quality deterioration,' I provide my argument for this and why the NHS is killing us. Polidice argument is erroneous on American healthcare because he's comparing the NHS to that of American healthcare by today's standards. The American healthcare system as I have covered is in the mess it is in and neglectful because of all the socialist government interventionism, that's what happens when you turn your back on capitalism and strangle capitalism half to death through government created monopolies.

Again, you can check out my argument on American healthcare in response to VOX for why healthcare costs in America soared out of control:

In part 4 debunking Polidice ont he arguments against social democracy, I cover on the U.S. debt crisis. One must remember that the argument on universal healthcare and on the NHS correlates to this crisis as it would cripple the U.S. if they were to ever move down that path.

The real U.S. debt crisis is way over $210 trillion and national debt now sitting at $22 trillion, as I've explained, it would be irrational for anyone to claim capitalism is the fault of the mess the United States is in today. The U.S. debt crisis one must lay the blame squarely on social security and all the other welfare programs.

Again, correlating to the argument, the claim about universal healthcare for something akin to the NHS is laughable, the NHS has been far from anything successful.

In this third part video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy, I cover on the social security and medicare arguments.

Polidice likes to believe that through having higher tax rates in the United States that they would be able to sustain themselves, apparently, much like that of Scandinavian economies, however, as I have pointed out, these countries aren't the utopias he paints them to be and they are social market economies, not social democracies going by what social democrats want with the strong government regulation.

The arguments on social democracy and medicare are ludicrous because the whole reason for the cause of why American healthcare costs are so expensive is to blame on the absence of the free market, therefore, the answer isn't universal healthcare.

Also, it is unfair to compare Scandinavian economies with that of the United States given the fact those countries at least have low levels of government regulation like Sweden and Denmark. I also covered the unemployment argument, again, Denmark with a real unemployment rate 3 times higher than official figures this again paints the real picture of the damaging impact. The argument on the social security and medicare of the United States is ludicrous for the simple reason that the social security was the largest contributing factor to the United States soaring debt problem and medicare is NOT more affordable, it's more expensive.

You can also check out my argument debunking VOX on why American healthcare costs are so expensive, which I cover more in depth on each reason given here:

In this second part video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy, I cover more on the Scandinavian economies and why they aren't so great as they are made out to be. Polidice, like many others, don't seem to understand what constitutes as a successful economy which is something else I briefly cover.

Again, I cover partly about the United States, however, it is important to note that it is an unfair comparison and cover the arguments for why Scandinavian economies have been doing reasonably well compared to some states in the U.S. like California.

Again, whilst these countries may not be full-fledged socialist economies with strong government ownership, they are mixed economies and socialism does have its presence to some extent and most certainly isn't benefiting their economies, such as the higher tax rates.

As mentioned in this video, I covered on the minimum wage and for why it is so damaging, you can check that out here:

For more information that I have covered on social democracy, again, the link to that you can find here:

In response debunking Polidice on his video titled: 'Debunking 20 Arguments Against Social Democracy' I cover my own arguments against social democracy. In this first part I cover Sweden setting the example of the economic failure of social democracy.

It is important to note that the Scandinavian economies are social market economies, this differs from the common belief of social democrats as they typically believe in strong government regulation over the private sector. The historical example I have given of Sweden setting the example shows that socialism is a disaster no matter how much of it you try to implement into the economy, whether it's full-blown Marxism or even the mixed economy.

I covered previously on the topic issue of what social democracy is with a bit of history which you can check out here:

the video about social democracy covers why social democracy eventually leads to people crying out for more and more socialism.

The argument I covered in both parts on the economic calculation problem can be found here:

• Part 1:
• Part 2:

As I have shown by example in this first part video, universal healthcare is a disastrous failure and the NHS is no exception to this, you cannot make socialism work, not even in a mixed economy. This pertains to the price mechanism problem which is the economic calculation problem.

In this video on 'Why Capitalism is Great: Non Compete Debunked' I cover the anti-capitalist rhetoric where Non Compete tries to conflate Liberalism with that of capitalism. Another thing I cover in response is the erroneous argument claiming that it somehow enabled fascism and national socialism, as I point out from evidence, both national socialism and fascism are inherently socialist.

The definition of the word synonym means:
• A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

The synonyms for collectivism are clear:

Under umpteen sources you will find socialism listed synonymous to the word collectivism. Even nazism and fascism can be found listed in sources under synonyms for collectivism. The reason why capitalism is great is that it is an individualist system, it doesn't place the state as the main element of the economy like collectivism does in practice that results in tyranny.

This video on why capitalism is great: Non Compete debunked, I cover the argument in defence of capitalism and the capitalist. Like all socialists, Non Compete paints an erroneous image describing the capitalist as some greedy individual who provides nothing in return. Unfortunately, as a result of living under corporatism, people like Non Compete are obsessed on trying to blame this on the capitalist, he doesn't understand the difference between a market entrepreneur and political entrepreneur, which one is a capitalist, the other is anticapitalist.

The data which you will find in this video you can cite from:
• Thomas J. DiLorenzo's book, 'How Capitalism Saved America'.
• Thomas E. Woods Jnr's book, 'Real Dissent'.

Why capitalism is great is because you aren't faced with the knowledge problem and economic calculation problem. In relation to this, I briefly cover the Broken Window Fallacy which is all too common with people such as Non Compete who don't understand this.

For information I covered on the Great Depression and the New Deal:

The world poverty argument is something we hear quite often and in this video I provide the facts with world poverty statistics to prove why communist YouTuber, Hakim is completely wrong on his assertion that the rich have been getting richer and poor getting poorer. There is plentiful data out there that backs the evidence for this and it really only requires a simple understanding of the meaning of what defines wealth.

In my argument, I define wealth based around the material wealth, people's living conditions, life expectancy and even working hours. I contrast the difference between the 18th century in my argument to that of the life of average poor people today.

Whilst it is true to state that in certain parts across Africa there are poor people getting poorer, the purpose of this argument is 'world poverty' and overall, the number of people in extreme poverty since the 1970s as shown by the world poverty statistics, the facts prove that the number earning less than $1 per day in the extreme poverty bracket has dramatically decreased in unprecedented levels of the likes the world has never seen before.

World Poverty Reduction Sources:


Created 2 years, 3 months ago.

105 videos

CategoryNews & Politics

Hi people, my name is Scotty M, I'm a Classical Liberal or as some call a Libertarian; an ardent defender of the free market as I believe strongly the free market economy is the only sustainable type of economy and best, this means I support laissez-faire Capitalism. I post out my Libertarian views arguing for Capitalism and the free market and for me speaking about Libertarianism is a great way to connect with like minded people. I'm also a UKIP member and supporter, enthusiast of political and economic history, some of my biggest influences are Tom Woods, Ron Paul, Tom Dilorenzo, Nigel Farage, Peter Schiff; follower of the Mises Institute, FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) and enjoy listening to Proudly Scottish and British so I aim to provide videos that teach the fundamental basic economics, to show from the historical perspective why Socialism and Communism are wrong and why we should embrace Capitalism, the free market economy and Libertarianism.