After much procrastination THE MERCH STORE is finally here! mentiswave-merch.printify.me/products Also subscribestar is open with some extra content!: www.subscribestar.com/mentiswave
I remember seeing a video of his where he says: "why are the universities on the left?" and his first argument was: "because peoples on the left tend to be smarter".. I was speechless
That’s actually kind of true. People that are kinda smart, the majority of college students, are smart enough to think they’re smarter than they really are, which leads them to reject tradition making them easy to convince to be liberal. Republicans tend to be less educated, they know they aren’t very smart and that gives them a sort of respect for tradition. But the smartest group are libertarians because they can actually think through things instead of just accepting someone else’s beliefs uncritically.
The funny part is that the parts of universities that have to be based in reality, such as the sciences and athletics, aren't really on the left, definitely not like the humanities and liberal arts.
He probably refers to "liberals are on average smarter then conservatives" which... is hilarious considering many leftists don't consider them Left at all, and also there's issue of what they mean by liberal or conservative
It's just a larger example of leftists not understanding the right, while people on the right generally understand the left. A leftist could go on ad nauseum about the nuances of left leaning political groups but unironically call anyone to the right of Joe Rogan a fascist.
@@botchedmandala5197 Never, ever criticise anyone for "dehumaning" people ever again. But who am I kidding? Hypocrisy is the stock and trade of the left, from the filthy layabout slob Marx to the tyrant Lenin to the sleazy blackfaced Castreau of Canada.
As a canadian its really nice, but it sucks if your government becomes incompetent at managing it lol. Translinks done me a lot of good recently, but the crackheads have ruined it
That is a technology or labor problem than a choice problem. Robo Taxis or fully self driving cars aren't here yet, and very few people can afford to take a taxi or Uber whenever they leave the house. Mass public transportation inevitably needs several other people to want to travel the same route as you. If there was enough demand for mass transportation, even by bus, some entrepreneur would happily fill that demand. Just like there are tourist trap roofless buses, boat rides in touristy places. In countries where people have a hard time affording cars, you would notice that most buses are privately owned, and tuktuks or even motorcycle taxis pick up the routes buses can't.
That pretty much describes his Dubai video : great exposition of the UAE corruption at first, ruined by "muh proletariat ownership" bs, especially with that flimsy Bertolt Brecht quote. Also, his whining over Musk has reached "Old man yells at cloud" levels by now.
I only liked his ancap society videos, they are a funny thought experiment and actually the only one that I found online. Every other video I watched is bland and doesnt have much of value.
His community posts can very quickly make a man sigh in disappointment. Elon Musk tweets a meme and within seconds he just flings around the words far right and conservative in the same sentence without thinking.
@@demonking86420 and i still remember that one post where he practically said that it was good that people from x country were being genocided cuz said country had like 3 terrorists lol
i liked his takes on urban planning, while i dont wont to live in an apartment if i dont have to , id like more business to be in mixed residential zones , i think they are a awesome piece of our history that should make a come back.
it's funny i watched his missing middle video and my first touhgt was 'oh this guy must be a libertarian' since his logic really boiled down to ''state artificially reducing the opportunity for people to entepreneur and to have choices in thier lifes via saying what cna and can't be built", which sounds pretty libertarian to me weird when the thing he said that make sense is the one that seems to agree with the side he claims to hate...
I agree with this take. Modern day suburbia has kind of removed the community aspect of living. Having shops nearby that I can readily walk to and maybe converse with someone sounds a lot more enjoyable than being forced to get in a car and drive 10 minutes to the nearest grocery store and interact with no one because just about everyone is located 10 minutes away by car in other directions.
In order for Adam Something to actually believe his claim that "Nobody would buy the water at a higher price", he would have to have never set foot in a grocery store his entire life. I can walk to the grocery store at the end of my block and step through aisle after aisle of products that are virtually/entirely indistinguishable from one another and yet differently priced (often drastically!) and are sufficiently good movers that they all continue to be stocked. People buy products at a higher price than the market minimum all the time.
@@bobseven310Yea. And I found it's not purely a premium vs. storebrand thing either. There are plenty store brands I have found to taste better than premiums. Of course many store brand foods are actually premium brand products labled and sold as store brands in some grocery chains.
Though it's not a monopoly - other brands of water exists. Tap water (self filtered or no), exists. Those brands are merely charging what the market (and their advertising) will bear - not "monopoly prices".
Let us remember that he is also so enlightened that when he went to the countryside to meet with his family he felt offended by his rural relatives since their beliefs and ideologies were so archaic... Like bruh what.... You're fking family and they probably helped you get into uni and all that and now you act all smug around them...
Well, I'm sure rural folk are archaic to such a complex, enlightened, and cultured Leftist guy like Adam. I mean, what kind of yokel rubes don't have a yoga class, and Pumpkin Spiced Soy Lattes within biking distance?
A lot of people believe the whole "city le good, countryside le bad", especially when politics are thrown into the mix, cuz surprise surprise, urban people are more likely to be Leftoids let alone milquetoast commies like Adam Something
I’m the opposite. Grew up in the city, but when I flew out to visit my bf in a rural town, I’d already hated the city. Now, the smell of chemical plants and dealing with city traffic just pisses me off much more than it did before. Adam’s a f@ggot. Sincerely, a f@ggot.
My favorite example of this "ideological robot" phenomenon is a study which asked left and right wing people to estimate the rate of hospitalization from Covid. Right wing people said it was something like less than 1 percent. Left wing people said it was closer to 50%. The actual rate of hospitalization was something like 1 to 3 percent. Now this was used by leftists and "centrists" as a cope to say, "Hey look both the right and left got it wrong," while ignoring that the left got it wrong about 10 times worse than the right did.
I would also like to see these 2 studies. I can believe them, but I would like to still see them. As for links, don't use that, instead name the article and who published it. RU-vid deletes links
the simple argument against bread tubers is you point you "you beleive centralization of resources in the hands of monopolies is bad right? so why do you vote for the centralization of resources into the one and only government monopoly?"
@@Neko_Mario "democracy" has become a nationalist dog whistle. It is currently used the same way George Bush used the term "freedom" to justify invading Afghanistan
I honestly think that buses, rail, scooters, bikes, personal cars, and foot traffic in addition to planes and boats each offer their own unique subset of advantages and disadvantages that actually compliment each other in the long run.
That’s the thing: an ideal society would offer a range of different modes of transport instead of killing the majority of them off due to some perceived general superiority of a couple of them. That’s why banning cars is retarded, but building a subway is not.
@@janusasorousrex2118 you don't need to forcibly reduce cars if citizens realize organically that somemeans of transportation are cheaper, safer and/or more efficient in some situations. Generally society will organize itself pretty efficiently if given the chance.
@@janusasorousrex2118 People will automatically choose the best mode of transportation for their needs. For some people, a car is the best option, but given that getting a car isn't easy under the best of circumstances, no one is going to get one unless it is the best option available to them
“Can’t solve systemic problem with Personal responsibility” may make a solid argument if it isn’t the fact he used his personal experience with his job to critique capitalism
The issue is they think personal responsibility means "The status quo is fine" and don't understand why it's not mutually exclusive. That's why I made a meme with a lion based on the Serenity prayer, which does a decent enough job explaining how those views are not contradictory.
@@Rb39-ej5hhyou can use just about anything to criticise anything. Capitalism > communism, idk about you but I like access to food and water. We wouldn't have the means to debate these issues if not for capitalism as communism provides less than zero incentive to innovate - it actively discourages innovation, as it results in more expectations, responsibility and burden with no reward for any of it.
@@alyssarichardson2544 Communism is a very loaded word that can mean so many different things depending on who uses it, but if we go with the common (technically wrong) use of it - to describe what existed in the USSR and the states it inspired, then I think that capitalism in European social-democracies is far better. For me, some of the best gauges of a society are living standards and democratic accountability, both of which were somewhat lacking in the USSR, particularly the latter. Nonetheless, I think we can do a lot better than capitalism in terms of maximizing living standards and democracy. The workplace, where we spend most of our waking lives, is still a democracy-free zone, where unelected oligarchs (shareholders) give huge handouts to themselves and their friends while we, who do the work, are expected to accept stagnating or even worsening standards of living. In my view, we could improve our lives by implementing more democracy in the workplace, so that leadership is accountable to the workers. It won't be perfect, but it will certainly enable a fairer distribution of income and increase the democratic accountability in our society compared to capitalism.
He’s just a dumb establishment shilling German Cosmopolitan Shitlib who thinks he’s a leftist even though he’s not and most other leftists and breadtubers hate him.
I live in a very conservative rural area. I had a coworker (in this same area) who was a democrat. We all got into a discussion about the welfare state and, despite having been surrounded by conservative folk his entire life, he was shocked to find out that the reason we opposed the welfare state had nothing to do with hating the poor and everything to do with responsible spending and "if you give a man a fish" mentality. He had lived almost 30 years among conservatives and, despite considering them good people, and despite much of the community being poor because its rural, thought we hated the poor. That's a hell of an echo chamber.
You need welfare temporarily to bail people out from destitution, but, to take any Job, or at least, an appropriate job to their skills, which is how almost all welfare states operate. Though, keep exemptions for the disabled after they unintentionally fail an environmental work assessment with a psychological assessment to make sure they don’t leave the job in 3 months. The “teach a man to fish” would be the state workforce Commision for vocational training, and social services to take care of mental illnesses, and to give people potential activities. (should be done with parks and rec, who should also refer to outings in the private sector, and give out vouchers to the poor, so they can at least have a public for one weekday, and one for both weekend days.) This applies for outings for if they don’t like their own enough to feel satisfied, or are shut-ins due to autism, or abuse and/or neglect, so having serious trust and attachment issues.
@@steamnamebbderinvade__ You need welfare in general, because there are less and less jobs in the west every day due to automation and outsourcing, but more or the same amount of people that need money to survive. We are already at a point where in the next few decades a universal income will become mandatory in most developed countries if you want to prevent disaster. For some sooner than later. The entire reason this hasn't been addressed yet is companies rule the world and need to leverage being unemployed as being undesirable to justify bad (aka cheap) work environments. Welfare causing bad spending habits is plain and simple not true. Being perceived as a lower lifeform is what causes bad spending habits, because people compensate for the hit to their ego with expensive shoes, cars or drugs. I do think teaching better spending habits is a good thing, but less welfare doesn't do it, that's literally propaganda to keep the less fortunate in their place. "Yeah, giving people less money will surely make them work harder! And smarter!" - Rich narcissist
You need increased taxes and beurocracy for each increase in social spending, which reduces growth and create vices. Some amount of it might be beneficial, but stagnant growth means much lower average life quality in the long run. @@Reac2
It’s ok Adam Something, we all confuse right and left in critical moments, like that one time you turned on the freeway when the school was to the right and not the left. Not that right and left? Damn.
"Libertarians are bad/stupid/etc" is quite literally just arguing against freedom. Saying "freedom is bad" would be bad optics, criticising libertarianism is just saying it without saying it. People like Adam legitimately believe they should control everything, that they're the ultimate big-brain and that they'd be a "benevolent dictator"...
@@alyssarichardson2544 Boom, you hit the nail right on the head. It doesn’t matter how high or low people are on the ladder, they ALL want at least some power. The difference between a Libertarian and somene like Adam Something, is that the Libertarian doesn’t want anyone around them to have less power than them, especially in regards to their free will and what other people do in their free time (so long as it’s not hurting others). Someone like Adam Something, on the other hand, jumps at the idea to have enough power to lead a nation, the logistics of such and other people be damned. It does not matter who gets absolute power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something people in opposite ends of the political spectrum only see the negatives in when their favored candidate doesn’t get elected, but is an issue regardless of where they stand on the spectrum.
@@alyssarichardson2544 Nah. Freedom as defined by libertarians isn't freedom at all. Their view on how freedom works is fundamentally flawed. Freedom is more complicated that that. The one satanic commandment isn't enough to sustain an actual society.
@@camarokidbb4347 if libertarians want give people equal power (the only way nobody will have less than someone other), they should also want to abolish private property, since capitalists dictate the terms of use and workers can only accept or decline.
I remember that when Russian invaded Ukraine he was constantly posting community posts saying how the war would've been over in less than 3 weeks due to Russia's poor military resources. It's been more than a year already.
He has actually gone far with that and expressed disappointment in NATO for not deploying their own forces on the ground in Ukraine. He called NATO cowards for hiding behind the threat of future nuclear war. He wants NATO to get more involved than just military aid.
@@notsaab yep. and what's funny about this is despite Russia being humiliated and embarrassed as well as being shown to be much weaker, Adam still fucking managed to underestimate their capabilities. that is why him somehow underestimating the Russians is funny.
Agreed, I feel like that was a deflection considering hiking is for leisure and walkability is a necessity for some without a car. Im a gearhead and love working on my motorcycle and car, and I wouldnt wanna be in a world where they disappear. But you cant ignore how a majority of american metros are endless parking lot strip mall sprawl hell and could be so much better for both cars and pedestrians
@@JohnathanWilliamson849 you can have walkability without being a commie. i may have bias bc i detest socialism, but i feel this is more of a situation of a city being designed for the humans that actually occupy them and not for the vehicles they drive. i do not want commie block cities, i want mixed use zoning were business and residents coexist in closer proximity. i dont get how this is a controversial idea
Yes, for example many free market cities in china are very "walkable" despite being huge, the roads are 80+% privately owned and still accommodate a lot of privately owned cars, you will see a massive quantity of car owners in China if you visit, some middle class families have 3-4 cars for their college age children, for themselves, their spouse and 1 for their grandparents who usually live with them @np51486
This whole “ideological robot” idea reminds me of a certain song. One that starts with… “THE UNENLIGHTENED MASSES THEY CANNOT MAKE THE JUDGEMENT CALL GIVE UP FREE WILL FOREVER THEIR VOICES WON’T BE HEARD AT ALL…”
Why individuality is vital. The idea of a "collective conscious" and "status quo" feel so incredibly wrong to me, you're basically letting others decide on your behalf how you should live.
@@mrscruffles801 Hell, maybe the writers of the funny cyborg ninja game were on to something. (Disclaimer: I actually love the game for its story, but the hack-and-slash genre apparently just isn’t for me. That said, the first 3 MGS games are coming on Switch, and as someone who has been wanting to get into the Metal Gear Solid storyline for a while now (without jumping in just ANYWHERE in the timeline), I can’t be happier.)
@@mrscruffles801 Yes. Jokes aside, he’s a great villain not because he stomps on puppies unapologetically, but because he has ideals that people unironically agree with, it’s the means of which that make him villainous, though with how deeply rooted corruption is in the government, maybe the means aren’t *ludicrously* insane after all, only a moderate amount. Votes can only do so much to a government that doesn’t give a damn about who the people of an area have really voted for. Dictatorships thrive off of complacency. If not one citizen stands up, then why change for the better?
I mean, there’s a reason Elon’s the richest man in the world. He may have had a few flubs (namely making decisions that are ultimately killing Twitter/X, and maybe a few others too), but for the most part I think he knows what he’s doing. Emphasis on “think;” I can’t get into the man’s head myself.
@camarokidbb4347 nah, Elon's been falling up for a while. Tesla has a fraction of the market yet at one point it was valued higher then every other auto manufacturer combined. Most of his promises are vaporware made more as a marketing scheme/investor bait. Hyperloop is a joke, cybertruck is 4 years late, roadster is years late, solar pannel rooftop are a joke, mars colony is the new "we'll have fusion in 10 years", full self driving is a decade late and probably will never happen, the boring company offers a sub-par service for higher cost, it's made to abuse the incompetence of politicians.
Adam Something has a really weird obcession with Ben Shapiro and constantly talks about him like it is still 2016 and Shapiro and SJW triggered compilations are still the status quo. His obcession with Ben was really weird to me until I realized that it's pretty much a mix of projection and jelousy. Projection in that both Ben and most Bread Tubers mostly create low effort political content to pander to their audiences so he sees Ben as his evil nemesis, and jelousy because Ben is far more successful than most Bread Tubers will ever be.
Honestly that's a very insightful take and I wouldn't be surprised if that's also the reason why so many bread tubers go after Jordan Peterson and PragerU as well
@@PeruvianPotatoWalt isn’t the reason because they got something wrong or contradicted their statement, like for example PragerU got so many things wrong (Even agreeing on Christopher Columbus actions). What make you said it’s Jealousy
Adam…needs to check his rhetoric. But Ben Shapiro content keeps getting pushed into my recommendations even when I’m more left leaning. His content is still pretty ‘relevant’ even if I passed the stage of caring. Same with JP. It’s just…still very much there. Then again, could just be a result of my weird politics not fitting into the algorithm neatly.
@@insertsomememereferenceher8483 Kinda depends who he watched, there's obviously a scale of anti-sjw feminist youtubers with how much bigotry and arguments based on intuition. I mean sargon of akkad is very rightwing and he used to be pretty popular back in 2016. I feel like you're making a strange uncharitable interpretation
@@vapingfury4460 being alt right is supporting white supremacy and neo nazism though. sargon is many things (cant stand him) but he wasnt alt right. people tend to get being anti sjw and conservative with being alt right and thats a real issue.
Another solution with the monopoly "guerilla tactics" thing is that the upstart doesn't have to skip to rock-bottom prices. They can start out at 95% of the monopolies price, which lets them get a cut of the inflated monopoly prices. This will trigger a "race to the bottom", which the monopoly may be able to undercut on using wealth reserves... but the *time* taken by the race to the bottom (and starting at inflated prices) lets the upstart build up wealth reserves as well, allowing them to hold the monopoly underwater longer.
That’s genius. Then again, it depends on the industry. If Insulin Manufacturer B comes into the fray with Insulin Manufacturer A holding a monopoly with jacked up costs, would it be more ethical to start offering the same kind of insulin at 95% the price, or should it go much lower knowing that it’s a drug necessary for about 2 people for every 1 trans person (odd analogy, but should put into perspective how rare Type 1 Diabetes is, relative to the general population)? Don’t get me wrong, I’d take every chance I’d get to fuck over a monopoly and earn money while doing so, but the ethics of something like pharmaceuticals shouldn’t be forgotten in the crossfire. If it’s a ‘want’ though, I’d fully go for it.
The same race to the bottom, however, means using all possible ways to victory, including outright criminal ones. Which is why it is actually capitalism that incentivizes corruption. Race to the bottom would also drag everyone down into tiny squabbling enterprises unable to create efficient infrastructure because their resources have been spent on unsuccessful attempts to gain the upper hand.
You assume: -The monopoly doesn't hold all profitability captive through patents and effeciency of scale -People hear of the alternative in the first place considering they have a fraction of the advertising budget -People are ready to switch from a trusted long term supplier to a non name, no reputation alternative for a measily 5% discount -The alternative doesn't simply get bought out -The alterative has any meaningful area coverage to even compete with the monopoly in 10% of the area they even cover in the first place Overall D- take Additionally, the monopoly can simply buy out all the alternatives stock and keep their prices high (while the alternative makes a profit here, you can use the time by delaying payments and billing and paper pushing to out compete them buy ordering supplies or snatching employees they need to grow , instead of losing the same amount of money reducing prices, though this mostly is part of being bought out as whole. Most big companies have many times the R&D personnel they need just so competitors don't get their hands on them.
I find that very unrealistic. To me that basically hinges on the company that out competed all the other competitors in it's field. Complete mastery of it's supply line and innovation to be hyper incompetent and a randoms startup to be hyper competent
@@churchseraphim1380 The concept is that the monopoly is using its position to 'squeeze' consumers. If they're charging an excessive margin, then a competitor doesn't *need* to be near-perfect to compete; they just need to have 'decent' metrics and accept a lesser margin.
Every time I raise issues like biological men in women's prisons or female sports I'm told I need to justify how police could enforce sex segregation laws on public bathrooms which they insist are just too impractical. They just do not want to hear about biological male rapists being put in women's prisons.
@@garrettzanin940I guess no prison in history has done “its job”. I fancy keeping criminals away from non-criminals is close enough to 80/20. You do have to consider the implications of women getting knocked up in prison though.
@@jmass4207 Actually fun facts, prisons don't, and can't legally keep a woman from getting knocked up. A prisoner may get knocked up by a conjugal visit, or by being raped by a prison guard, which, being sexually assaulted by prison guards is disturbingly common in women's prisons. Some babies may be put up for adoption, given to the non-incarcerated parent, or put through a prison nursery program.
Adam Something's takes on transportation are on the extreme side, but generally the right direction. I believe that the option of walking and biking needs to exist in a safe capacity, alongside with some form of basic public transportation, but I don't believe the fully anti-car argument he presents, especially for areas that are developed as suburbs and unlikely to change, as suburbs are too complex for a bus or tram to cover easily, and too far from main city infrastructure to conveniently walk or bike. Of course, I'd like to see sectionals of these suburbs re-zoned to allow for some shop strips to be in range of a short walk or bike, but that takes time. As for AI powered cars, if they're networked in such a way to allow them to communicate with each other and with safety equipment along the streets to perfectly weave around each other, there will be security vulnerabilities, and all it might take to invoke a deadly collision in fully AI traffic would be a single spoofed command or safety device from a single malicious entity who found a zero-day. It's a very real thing, and it's far too much of a risk for a system like that. All that aside, his political takes barely make sense.
I'd love for places to be a lot more bikable. Where I live bikes are allowed to share the roads with vehicles, but I nervous as hell sharing a road with a motor vehicle that could send me flying on a bike with the slightest love tap.
@@Sandact6 that can be remedied by setting up "living zones", it's a zone where pedestrians and cyclists have priority and the cars drive slowly, additionally using speed bumps and placing sections where cars have to slow down to pass an intentional obstacle and/or let other cars pass greatly increase safety, also pedestrian crossings and bike lanes. It all could be done even in a suburb.
people like adam and others "vegonise" their argument. by being annoying or mean like vegans are, they ruin any chances of people taking them seriously or supporting them.
I just want to know when Ben Shapiro was a libertarian. He's just a non-authoritarian conservative. He's against a lot of things libertarians are usually for, he just doesn't think his will should be enforced on everyone
That still essentially is libertarian. You can very much be libertarian while still being personally against something. It just means you don't support state force to enact it.
So does he belief in state government over federal government or alternative ways of enforcing stuff without a government? In his book Texas invaded Mexico and revel against the federals in the process so I would say he is in team state rights@@Neko_Mario
@@alvarorubiodomech8327 I should've added that he's has some Libertarian view points but is only a constitutionalist pseudo Libertarian aka not an Austrian Libertarian as he does still support the state. I more so meant he generally doesn't believe in views being forced on people even when he disagrees.
@@Neko_MarioShapiro is absolutely not a libertarian. He believes in state enforcement of morality through righteous laws. He is 100% for state enforcement. Most people are. Should the state intervene when a parent is sexually assaulting their children and posting it online? What if they just want to transition their child?
@@FilmFlam-8008 I'm getting some mixed statements about what he supports then. To be fair I haven't seen much of him in awhile. I just mean if he didn't support state enforcement of views then he's be at least under the broader Libertarian umbrella. But if he is for state force of such then yeah he's definitely not one.
The idea of walkable cities isn’t just “oh I like to be in nature” which you could figure if you did a little research. The idea is that you would be able to access most of what you need in a distance that wouldn’t require a 20 minute drive for example. It would mean you could get groceries AND see a park easier and faster
Mentis changed his stance, this video is from may of 2022. Now Mentis sees the lack of walkable spaces as another example of why we need to go lib-right. The government as it exists now, serves to further the interests of the Automobile lobby at the federal and state levels, and zoning laws at the local. Less government will kill that incentive for them to lobby, thereby killing that source of opposition.
In the example of the prodigy being able to simply close and re-open his water business... -What about rent on the premises? -Machine maintenance? -Sourcing/firing workers? -Loan repayments? You assert that he can just re-open at "practically no cost" to compete with the loss leader, but I don't think that's the case.
Yeah, that bothered me too. Most young folks aren't going to have more than 1 income source and they're lucky if they don't have hundreds of thousands of debt. And, businesses have expenses and obligations that often can't realistically be put on hold indefinitely to wait out an established industry colossus. Dude said "well in a free market economy people would have more than 1 income source" but I don't find that assumption very persuasive.
Also, if the equipment will be profitable in the long-run, he could probably sell a share of the business to someone with deep pockets, who would then have an incentive to help bridge over lean periods.@@blackosprey2219
Herbert Henry Dow (the Dow Industries guy) successfully used this strategy in real life with bromine. A German state-backed bromine cartel tried to drive Dow out of the bromine business by flooding the US market with below-value bromine at a massive loss. But they had to hike up the prices in Germany to give them the short-term boost to survive that massive loss. So Dow reconfigured his business model into one that bought the below-value bromine, repackaged it, and resold it in Germany at a price lower than the cartel, but still high enough to be profitable for him. The cartel tried this strategy multiple times until Dow had made so much money from their stupidity that he expanded into the Asian market, where they could no longer touch him. So you can say you "don't think" it is possible, but it has been done before.
Same breadtuber that lauded the soviet union for their environmentalism, and one of his own followers had to point out that the ussr drained an entire sea lmao
Adam takes many shortcuts, but so do you. Especially in the an cap section. "Just do nothing with the company until prices are good again" generally doesn't work at any scale aside from very tiny scale personnal business. Businesses usually have costs, even when idle. Loans are usually pulled to start things up and regularly thereafter to expand, these loans involve payments including interests. Almost all businesses will also have regular monthly payments, whether it's for taxes, licenses, utilities, etc. Pretty much no serious business has no fixed costs. Then there's labour: you can't just ask all of your employees to stand by. If you don't pay them, you'll lose them. You could fire them and hire anew, but training has costs, and causes delays. Infrastructure also typically requires upkeep. Even factories that shut down, in the real world, usually have a sizable budget and crews to make sure the machines don't fall apart while production is down. In some cases, like for oil processing, companies kept producing even at negative prices, because shutting down was too costly. Cashflow is a serious concern to actual businesses, and "just go do something else in the meanwhile" might work for a youtuber, but normally doesn't work for real industries.
I think he was talking about doing nothing regarding the customer’s POV. The customer has a choice in which company to purchase supplies or services from, though the worker probably doesn’t. That said, it costs the company money to keep the worker, while the customer is what supplies the company money, hence why wages are the way they are. If the company only supplies wants, then the customer can literally just do nothing to protest the company (or if they’ve already bought their product before their boycott, all they need to do is not buy anything else from them). For non-monopolistic industries where the consumer still wants to partake in the industry, they can buy from a different brand. The only exception to this rule are monopolies on needs, like with the pharmaceutical industry where if you need a specific drug (e.g. insulin), you buy from one company, and one company only. Boycott them, and you’re fucked. Funny enough, the government is more to blame for the monopolization of the pharmaceutical industry, and making healthcare “free” isn’t gonna do shit. All it does is hide the cost, and even if it’s cheap at first, what’s stopping the same pharmaceutical companies from jacking up the tax rates, since _not_ paying them is illegal now, and they now have the government in their pocket. The only difference now may be a different set of equally gullible politicians calling the shots on the pharmaceutical industry, and even then they likely still won’t be. As capitalistic as I am, I loathe the circumstances of a monopoly on specific drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. That said, I don’t think making it all tax-paid is going to help either.
I was looking for this comment. As insufferable as Adam Something can be, he does get some stuff right, and this economics discussion exposes that MentisWave can also be blindly partisan. In his case, he can only conceptualize economics in the free market sense and can't grasp simple things such as, "maybe this business owner doesn't have a side hustle, and can't just leave his business and wait out the storm caused by the big corporation"
@@fuckoff4705 As a staunch supporter of libertarianism, an opponent of it, or a mix of the two? Perhaps he’s speaking at these events because there’s no other events that WOULD let him speak. Besides, as a libertarian myself, I can say that echo chambers are a bitch. Both for those inside, and outside. I’ve talked with people who were decently left-leaning, and they’re (almost) nothing like the caricatures that rule the media and the government. Some were, don’t get me wrong, but some others weren’t.
I think Adam Something is malicious. There is no way someone could make multiple videos on Anarcho-Capitalism and not stumble across material that utterly annihilates his arguments regarding monopolisation, religious cults, and anarchist opinions on paedophilia.
He's done all the research he will ever need to do. He was fed his truth by hand with a silver spoon in a modern nation. Somebody had to pay for him to get brainwashed, which is the true horror.
'I'm not talking about people who fit the definition of right libertarian, I'm talking about people who identify as right libertarian.' - WHat? Identifying as and actually being a thing are different?! That's transphobic!
Nah. This comparison is flawed: Right libertarianism is a name for a school of political thought meant to be conveyed and shared among people, therefore its definition and membership are open to public scrutiny. Someone’s personal gender identity, however, is much more subjective and constituted by the person’s own experience. In short, right libertarianism is meant to be a set of held principles, while gender is a far more subjective mode of self-expression.
Adam Something was an ancap. Much of what he says is projecting back on positions he once believed. He was an atheist anti-sjw edgelord. Kind of like the person who watches Christopher Hitchens for 5 years straight and believes that CH is the greatest thinker of all time. And yes this type of person is not much better when reformed. The kind of personality that floats along with the algorithm and jumps from 1 belief to another who then strongly condemns the very beliefs that they, once upon a time, felt were part of their core identity.
A problem I have with Libertarian thought is the feeling I can't take that this whole "monopolies only exist as a result of actions from the state" thing is, essentially, an article of faith. It's difficult to challenge it because, essentially, we've never had a society with the kind of free market and minimal state that Libertarians want - ergo they can fall into the same defence as some Communists; "Real capitalism has never been tried!!111" I mean, it's a fair defence to an extent, but it can't dispel my fear that any Libertarian experiment could still lead to a corporate tyranny that's even worse than what we have now (since states at least have to pay lip service to their laws and constitutions). Likewise the assertion that, historically, no monopoly has ever existed without state involvement is a sort of platitude you hear repeated again and again, but never really substantiated. I get that it's somewhat onerous to ask someone to comb through all human history to prove step-by-step that every monopoly had state involvement, but it still feels like an assertion I can't just "take your word" on.
12:10 because this isn't how infrastructure works. If you build more highways and don't build any train tracks, then more people will switch from train to the road. That again increases the traffic which leads to more roads and so on. It's a snowball effect. Personal story: I already did multiple road tours through the US. Often I wasn't able to walk from one shop to another in a shopping area, because there were no walk ways and a street between. One time walking time would have been less than 5 minutes, but I had to drive nearly 10 minutes to get to the other shop and find a parking spot. This is stupid and I didn't have a different choice. I never felt less free than in these moments.
I find it painful to listen to adam something, he is so incredibly ignorant it baffles the mind. He has zero understanding of the other side and always thinks he knows what they want, without having a single clue to begin with. Personally i have always thought that the coconut island argument is really dumb for several reasons, what, i cant fish? I cant offer anything to the guy with the coconuts, like for example that i climb the coconut palm tree and harvests them? I cant make a fire, i cant find any other food or fresh water, i cant create some shelter and rent it out to him? I mean there are a thousand different things i could do so that i could trade for his coconuts. I cant even dig a shallow pit cover it in leafs let some seawater flow into it and cut it off from the ocean with more sand, let the water evaporate and now i have salt? The argument is so painfully stupid i dont even know what to say. Not to mention the argument isnt critiquing capitalism its critiquing monopolies.
remember: Karl Marx clearly states in the Communist Manifesto that the opposition is not worth arguing with. They have a greater good. They believe that everyone that disagree with them to be ontological evil. They want you to die for not complying with them.
7:40 is completely missing the point. while cgp grey may only be proposing a solution to car traffic, their solution would create problems with city walkabilty, which is much more of an issue than just “muh trainz.” Imagine having to pay for fuel (or battery recharges i suppose) anytime you wanted to go to the grocery store. I don’t that’s an irrelevant argument to raise at all. Also I like how at that point you shift the focus to trains while in the clip he said that cgp grey’s solution is comparable to trains. He doesn’t say anything about trains and fully autonomous vehicles coexisting
I really agree with most of what you said in this video, except for the part about natural monopolies. Sometimes, barriers to entry are not just cost related, but actually geographical / spatial. It's VERY HARD to compete in infrastructure because PLACEMENT of assets is key for their functionality. Think of a road or a railway built by a company who charges everyone passing by it. It's all fair and game until this company realizes that everyone is hostage to the infrastrcuture and they have no choice other than using it, so they start charging an absurd amount of money for people to use it. See: there's no way another company can compete and outprice those morons because it's physically impossible to build another road in the same place leading to the same destination. There's a bigger problem with electricity infrastructure: you simply cannot having dozens of different companies competing for the supply of a single household because there's no way several enterprises would all build the infrastructure to the same place. It would be logistically insane, there's no chance that your household could have access to a dozen different power grids from which you can choose. There's going to be one grid, you either pay or live without electricity. It gets even worse with water and sewage infrasctrucutre. Also, there are many industries that recquire different levels of standardization that will inevitably be enforced by some agency be that public or private to regulate such matters.
Absolutely. UK has just come to realise that privatising water (a resource everyone needs to live) was a stupid idea. When the water systems and piping was sold off to the highest bidder the populace was told it would be beneficial. Now its clear that water firms don't compete, don't innovate and haven't improved their own infrastructure. The only thing they have improved is their profits. Since responsibility was handed over to low cost high margin types, water has become dangerously bad in England's streams and coastlines. The ultra efficiency of "the market" has meant that competing with the already made piping infrastructure owned by a water company is downright impossible. Water firms have become regional monopolies in the UK.
Agreed. Some things exist for reasons other than economics. It'd be nice if more libertarians realized that. Every safety regulation is written to the tune of body bags being zipped and signed by someone saying "never again".
I didn't even know he was a breadtuber, but it certainly explains why even the videos that agreed with my preconceived notions felt off. Of course it would have been obvious had I actually clicked his channel and saw his full video list, rather then watching the occasional randomly recommended video.
"making the economy more free" does not actually make it more free for the average person. it just moves the control from the democratically elected government into the hands of corporations who care only about profit
Like how he put ayn rand on his thumbnail on his first captilism video when the video had absolutely nothing to do with her at all just some random meme quote
@@Amin-al-Husseini_1941picture I mean, he does act like one. He definitely has proven that he isn't one, but the mask he's wearing does look like a nazi
Finally... a good youtuber who actually debunk the leftist without overusing "L1b3r4l c00mm135 s0yb0y g3t 0wn3d l00l0l!!!1!!1" But instead, it's debunking with another more valid research and using a good faith.
Anyone who uses terms like "fascism" and "far-right" unironically to describe libertarian or conservative ideas and proponents should not be taken seriously. Fascism came from socialism and academic historians like A. James Gregor, Stanley G. Payne, and Paul Gottfried have acknowledged this for over 30-40 years. The idea that fascism is far-right is a far-left talking point that has been rejected by scholars who actually study real fascism.
🤨WRONG. They _MUST_ be taken *seriously*. Because they’re *actually* NOT “stupid”. They _know_ what they’re doing… ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EoDOazaijYY.html
I always make it a point to emphasize the words national socialism instead of using the popular german contraction. Oh how they squirm, they've spent half a century trying to bury the connection.
@@cjthebeesknees National Socialism was indeed socialism, yes. Build around nationalism instead of classism or racism. If you look at how they handled "private companies", they did the same things the CCP does today. They're not very much apart. Of course they fought anyone who would get in their way to power, just like most regimes.
@@MadsterV amazing, your full of 💩 my friend, just because they applied the name doesn’t mean they embodied the ideals. They very much crushed leftist movements, workers unions and opposition yes but worked closely alongside (before H came to power and afterwards) “private companies” within not only Germany n Italy but the UK and US for a time as well, plutocracy and capitalism per business as usual was my conclusion, socialism only in name, slightly different variant of fascism in Germany then Italy but pretty close nonetheless, I’m not going to go into it but there was much more going on in the background and backdoor/behind closed doors right before and during WW2 that’s not as it seems or is portrayed popularly today, appreciate you responding.
12:44 That's basically almost all Breadtubers videos on Don't Step on me Libertarians and people like Vaush literally have the exact same belief about Libertarians and Ancaps as Adam Something
I actually enjoy Adam's rants, but his arguments are coming from someone raised in a culture outside of the car-centric USA. Just the same, your argument comes from a view inside the inescapable car requirement of North America. In Hungary and most of Europe, the pedestrian hasn't been completely relegated to a second class traveler as they have been here. His arguments on passenger train efficiency are actually well explained, though. And, his constant skepticism on new technologies points out how many tech moguls (Musk and the CyberBeast, for example) are trying to implement untested ideas much too early just for the sake of making money now and not later. This ends up making consumers the Guinea pigs instead of dedicated beta testers prior to full production to the public. I do agree with you on many points, but I think you overlook the historical tendency of the "haves" taking advantage of the "have-nots" to fill their pockets and satisfy their egos with a complete lack of ethics.
Literally the first thing I thought when Adam Something popped in on the scene was “oh look, it’s another one” and as is typical, he gains 100,000s of subscribers practically overnight. That’s all he is to me, he’s just another one of these overly hostile leftoid people.
Average leftist "science" or "culture critique" channel that becomes wildly successful just regurgitating talking points with zero research or original thought.
@@LarsOfTheMohicans Thus why I tend to question the moral integrity of most people who slide from a hard political position/side to another. Regardless if its left->right, right->left, libertarian center -> authoritarian center etc.
Adam Something never claims to totally ban cars. Secondly, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that we should leave the value of cars to the free market as many countries (especially in North America) have been fundamentally changed by government policies in ways that make it so that you have to drive. Think of minimum parking requirements, ubiquitous single family zoning and demolishing cities to make way for highways. Having bulldozed the US for 70 years for the car makes their value artificially higher. The criticism of CPG Grey is more that developed countries, especially the US, are so addicted to cars that we can’t imagine a world without them. So we come up with needlessly complicated solutions like self driving cars while we could also make walkable cities and public transportation while reducing car use to the minimum necessities and negate their inherent inefficiency. Sorry for the long rant comment…
While some of your points are valid, you too are using logical fallacies to ensure your community gets their bias confirmed. You better work on that, you are a similar part of the same problem. While Adams videos on political views may not be well based and he may have done some/many mistakes in them, most of his other content, that also includes his videos on urban planning, is valid and backed up by scientific research and theories. This comes from someone that studies these exact topics. Disregarding these videos with plane generalisations about him is not only wrong but disrespectful.
This was actually intentional for this video. I made my arguments knowing full well that there will be people who agree with me on issues of Adams misrepresentation of right leaning thought, but disagree with me on Austrian school economics. And that's a good thing. I don't ever want people to blindly accept what I say, or what anyone says for that matter. The hidden point behind the subject of ideological robots is "Think for yourself more".
apparently the reason he's a far leftist now is because he watched some youtubers as a kid because they were edgelords and was disappointed that they turned out to be edgelords
Its the same guy who in one of his videos he said that classical buildings and statues are white or pastel colored beacuse of white supremacy. Implying that white supmremacysts literally like the color white instead of the europid race wich have been nicknamed as "white". He also said that we should paint on actual ancient statues to fight white supremacy somehow. It is true that once they likely were painted, but what would that change, they would still be depicting the white leaders of great european empires that white supremacysts idolise so much all the same, so what would be the point? He also claimed that europeans preferred less colors in their folk clothing and medieval architecture compared to other cultures, wich shows that he has less than no idea about the topic and he couldnt be farther from the truth. And that he most likely gets his knowledge on ancient europe from game of thrones. Also the condescending tone he speaks in that is so typical for similar psuedointelectual smartasses is so irritating that it alone makes me not want to watch his videos. And in his video where he criticised why mars colonisation is a bad idea (tho i generally agree with that, but i still think space colonisation is important) Just straight up made things up. The channel rivus space made a good video about it.
Mars colonization is smart and likely nessecarry for continuead human expqnsion smane with space mining…, just how it is. Theres only so much resources on this rock
medieval clothing was colourful as heck. if you could colour it you did. however if you were shit poor then ye maybe you didnt have much coloured clothing (only some for special occasions) and mostly relied on either cheaper colourings or the natural look of the material
I remember finding him through his videos on not-hyperloop projects (i.e. other non-Musk hyperloops) shortly before he blew up. Its pretty ironic how he then made overtly lefty videos, with people talking about "The Alt-Right-Pipeline (tm)" in comments, when most seemed to have found him, through the exact same means they first fell into that totally real pipeline (i.e. Thunderf00t Hyperloop videos)
Ok, so what's your solution? Are you going to privatize every industry, leading to peoples livelihood being put on the line as industries integral for peoples lives have the prices jacked up due to a for profit motive(industries such as energy, transportation and the like). Also does the free market lead to monopolies? Yes, yes it does, not always mind you but for the most part if you let the free market go with zero restrictions then one, two or three companies owning an entire sector with none of your great and glorious 'competition' to actually insight change. Now I'm not a socialist but I think their some in-between between the glory of Soviet Union and Goddam Ayn Rand Bioshock land.
@@Nic_Bloody1905 If companies increase prices beyond affordability then people will not be able to pay for that service and the company will stop making money. Not to mention that high prices present a HUGE incentive for entrepreneurs who wish to capitalize on a lucrative market. Transportation is already handled by private industry. Roads are built by companies and the auto industry is infamous for its competition. We already have to pay taxes and tolls on roads- if these were privatized the main difference would be that all the money collected would go directly to the company maintaining the road- not a bunch of different programs. If an electricity company held a complete monopoly then they would not be able to jack up the price beyond reason because then not only will every person support a competitor- every single company would to. Investors would flock to any company providing cheaper prices because they want to pay less for electricity. Oligopolies have only ever formed as a result of artificial barriers to entry.
@@mathiaszanotto7287 and how well has that gone for Russia, America or Britain where privatisation has monopolies in every sector. Apple is my favourite example, because the privates sector, without any regulation will lead to any consumer practices and shit products. There is a better way. A combination of capitalism and government oversight to stop stupid practices.
@@Nic_Bloody1905 I don't understand. Are you against monopolies? On what basis and which kind of monopoly (compulsory or just a dominant one)? And, if so, why ask for a combination of capitalism and government (a compulsory monopoly on taxation and on ultimate arbitration)? It seems to me that you are a little bit confused on your principles (that is, if you have any). Also, it must be noted that no anarcho-capitalist is in favor of privatization for the sake of privatization (Rothbard has a good exposition of this point in Ethics of Liberty I believe). We are in favor of freed markets without State imposed regulations.
27:00 Ik this is like a year old, but what about ISPs? Free markets work the best when each agent is "compartmentalized" yk? But the problem is, no city or resident would want 50 different ISP cables running outside their house, or the constant underground maintenance of them. Theres a "chain of liability" that has to be enforced when you startup a large infrastructure type business like ISP's or Electrical companies. Especially in more densely populated areas. Imo its just really inefficient trying to solve this problem with a state. I live in Canada, and our state-ran corporations are basically regulated by law to allow other small companies to "rent out" ISP networks. So we get the benefits of free markets, along with limiting the monopoly that ISP's have, in a decently practical way. Personally its helped my phone bill a lot lol. Overall I agree with you, but I think when it comes to these issues its a lot more nuanced.
In the US, most local governments grant "Franchise Rights" or what is basically a monopoly license to ISPs. If they didn't do that, what you described would be the natural outcome of the market. One or two companies would gather the capital to build the infrastructure, and everyone would rent the infrastructure. It's how my power bill already works. One company handles the grid while dozens of power plants compete to push the cheapest electricity possible in the grid.
Just realized monopolies are the actual capitalism equivalent to dictatorships in socialisk, only difference is in a monopoly your job sucks, but in dictatorships you starve to death
"How will pedestrians cross the highway??" A... pedestrian overpass? What? How is that even a question? We already have those! This problem was already solved!
In the video Adam actually brings up pedestrian overpasses but correctly asserts that they are an expensive and sometimes impractical venture if they're to keep up with federal and local laws on accessibility for people of low mobility (I.E. Old people, disabled etc.) meaning they'll need elevators or a very long and impractical ramp. The crux of the video was criticizing the dependency on cars and was in line with his general belief of reclaiming cities as "livable spaces" (meaning less roads, more parks and European style social spaces).
You know... the Island analogy is easy to counter, cut down every tree or remove every branch and block every piece of shelter or simply prevent him from entering. How are you gonna live off coconuts if your just gonna burn in the sun?
About the traffic thing, here’s my solution: Even as a conservative, add more and better public transit (especially in cities). Have the roads be scaled back but still take equal priority and be 100% useable. The Leftist hive mind who worship the state and the government would clearly rather have a government service rather than private ownership of a car. Therefore, we won’t need as many lanes and be so pressed about traffic issues because the remaining people on the road who still believe in private ownership will be probably in the ballpark of ~50-75% smaller than before we had the effective public transit. There is a high correlation between rural vs urban and con vs lib… have lots of public transit where there’s lots of people, and the people who want that service are conveniently in the same place. When the rural folk (who believe more in private ownership anyway) have to reluctantly go to the city for something they can’t get in their town, they have less traffic to deal with… with the convenience of less braindead drivers (citiots as my family has always called them) stuck on their phones or clueless about the rules of the road. Mission accomplished, everyone gets what they want. The sheep get shepherded from A-B as they wish while the real ones don’t have to deal with said sheep on their roads. Win win! 🤠
This video is wrong on the fact that natural monopolies dont exist outside of state intervention and even making that claim is laughable, monopolies will always exist in non interventionist systems, the only difference being that natural monopolies usually do not last extreme periods of time due to the inability to quickly adapt to market forces
Cars are superior only in rural enviroments. Trains (including trams) are superior in bough urban and suburban, as an american you just dont have rails in your suburbs so you dont know how great it is.
There is one big misconception about this video that a few people have had that I feel the need to point out. Simply believing in something is not enough to warrant the "ideological robot" label. Rather it is specifically when a person is incapable of viewing an idea from multiple angles, due to having little to no knowledge of how people from those different perspectives think. The basic problem here is that Breadtubers often argue against right-wing concepts, libertarianism, and Austrian economics despite clearly having little to no understanding of what conservatives/libertarians/Austrian economists actually believe or how they would respond to such criticisms. This is what makes things like the "coconut Island" analogy or the "muh monopolies" attacks that Breadtubers make so deceptive. The truth is that even from an "orthodox" economists angle, it would make more sense to reduce government involvement and many legal barriers to entry rather than to go in the direction that Breadtube generally argues for. Basic economic sense shows special interest legislation to be currently out of control. Here is a more mainstream article from the University of Chicago explaining why: ( www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/686474 ). While I don't agree with all of Rubin's solutions, he points out the underlying issue that government lobbyists have zero incentive to ensure their favor seeking is efficient for the economy and why the Marxian direction would only make things worse. So even for people who dislike the Austrian Schools methods, you still really shouldn't be taking what people like Adam say about the free market seriously.
I think this is slightly complicated by the fact that (IIRC) Adam Something is actually a reformed former right wing conspiracy theorist. Having once believed everything right wing extremists told him he now instead believes everything any socialist tells him.
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Yeah, how silly for someone to trust the collective intellectual capabilities of hundreds of millions of people over a handful of power hungry elites
12:18 If you want to complain about bad arguments its a bit weird that you then say "if you want walkable spaces why not go somewhere where you do not live" that is absolutly away from any point and therefore a bad argument too.
Well he isn't wrong. If you want walkable spaces think about that before living in a city. Actually if you want happiness in any form at all, just don't live in a city.
@@deaj8450 Why not... you know... live in a nice city? like amsterdam, tokyo or many others, if you hate cities that tells me you've probably never left America
@stengon2603 I don't like crowds. The mass of people. I could live in the nicest city on earth and not enjoy it. I want to have space. The country is definitely my preference. No I haven't left America and would never wish to unless it's a simple vacation. My ideal place to live is the middle of nowhere.
Not that i agree with Adam Something, but i think you miss the mark on natural monopolies. They absolutely do exist. Yes, alot of the time due to regulation. But a lot of the time due to physical limitations and also because its desirable. There is no way utilities should be anything but regulated monopolies. Without making up some kind of substitution using muh technology, no one wants 2 power lines, water supplies, gas lines, sewage lines. Let alone 20 of each. And ignoring aesthetics, how would you possibly cover the cost of capital for all that infrastructure? In regards to regulation, you can't reasonably argue its never required. Ill refer to the tragedy of the commons. And therefore there must be some monopolies made due to reasonable regulation. But yes, all monopolies are dangerous and regulators are often captured, intentionally underfunded or incompetent. And yes, i think there is way too much unecessary regulation
It's pretty amazing that Adam chose 6 people to exemplify the "right-libertarian to fascist pipeline," and of those only Spencer is an actual fascist - and has as far as I'm aware never even pretended to be a libertarian - and only Molyneux strongly identifies as a libertarian - and he is an explicit anti-fascist. Shapiro is just a mainline classical conservative, and McInnes drifted from a leftie punk to a weird mix of cultural liberal and paleo-conservative. I guess Yiannopolus and Alaska fit the best but even they require some broad definitions: Yiannopolus going from a libertarian-conservative to a trad-conservative and Alaska from a stock conservative to a sort-of-fascist authoritarian reactionary. As you say: there is 0 nuance in his conception of the right, just a vague sliding scale of "dumb" to "evil."
Adam Something and CGP Greys both made the point argued clear: "Automated Cars are the solution to our traffic problems" (if grey really meant "car traffic" he should have made it clear and even if he meant that his solution is at best suboptimal, I can forgive him tho, because at this point one may call traffic in the US just car traffic cuz its 90% of all transit forms) I agree with you, that long term development may fix pedestrian-car interactions. I agree with you that automated cars make cars more efficient. But that does not really solve traffic: Cars that are more efficient allow for more cars on the same space of road. That certainly betters the horrible space use of cars, but not nearly enough when compared to real mass transport. In Addition to that more cars on the same space of road literally means more supply (=cars that can drive on the road) leading to more demand. So automated cars really are just a form of induced demand, not really solving any car traffic (cuz yes if the amount of cars stayed the same, they would move faster, but there will be more cars because of induced demand) or traffic at all (because the essential, unsolvable problem of cars in cities is still given: the road, cars and parking lots just take up too much space). If you actually build a good mass transit system, alleviating pressure of the road, thereby allowing for fewer roads and more walkable spaces (which are economically better and allow for a higher quality of life, your "go take a walk in the woods" is ridicilous btw, I don't want to walk in the woods, I want to be able to walk in my city in a nice shopping allee or smth). It is likely we still need roads themselves in our city (even in a no-car city) for supply trucks, busses (altough they would have their own lanes maybe) etc. By using automated cars we can use that road space as effieciently as possible in terms of transit. So in that sense automated cars are beneficial but not anywhere near being a solution to traffic/car traffic. I did watch the other parts of the video, but this comment would get too long answering all of those. The actual critique goes on for 30mins so ofc I can't answer it all and I don't even want to, because I agree with you on some points (like that the right libertarian Video is clickbait).
While we're on the subject, I'd also like to bring up that in one of his videos he mindlessly rants about conservatives "sCrEamINg aBouT tHE wAr On cARS". He stated in his video of European vs American suburbs, that whenever there are decongestion measures in cities, there are conservatives always trying to block them. It's as if in his mind he has some kind of perfect vision for how urban planning should work, but since it isn't working everywhere, he decides to blame conservatives for this, seeing them as subhuman racist car loving freaks who are hell bent on making life hell for everyone else, even going as far as to say that US suburbs were plans by Christian conservatives to uphold an unequal society where they were on top and everyone else suffered under them, which is a flat-earth level conspiracy theory. Suburbs were only built that way due to faulty zoning codes, stupid urban designers, and massive lobbying by car companies to build car-centric infrastructure so more people would buy and use more cars. Not simply because conservatives wanted to be racist against everyone else. Even back then, people didn't wake up first thing in the morning and think "How can I make life worse for everyone else?". That's not how most people are. I will not lie to you when I say that I have a conservative bias, but even then I do agree with some of his opinions against conservatives because I don't generalize all conservatives as good just because I am one. Adam generalizes almost all conservatives as a roadblock to his ideal world without even giving a thought to the many conservatives who also advocate for good public transit, just like him. But no, they're all evil and morally inferior to Adam simply because of their side on the spectrum. He purposefully handpicked examples of pro-car conservatives so he could claim the entire group was opposed to his ideas. He even stated that it was a rule of thumb for conservatives to be screaming about the war on cars anywhere, making it seem objective when in reality whether a conservative likes cars or not depends on their own opinions, not whether they are conservative or not. He's basically claiming that it's a fact that conservatives are always morally inferior to people who agree with him. This overgeneralization is an incredibly immature argument and just makes him look like some kind of hater towards anyone who doesn't agree with him. It's incredibly stupid first grade school level thinking and shouldn't be used as part of a valid opinion.
Every 4 way stop should be a roundabout. Most intersections of 2-lane roads should be roundabouts. There are still use case for traffic lights and stop signs, but that is when you want a bias to one of the roads.
@@shottytheshotgun For some reason people lose 30 iq points when they go on a roundabout. Going too fast, not using their signal, jumping the curb more often than not. And don't even get me started on the one asshole who likes to go round and round on the damn things like it's a circus ride! Seriously, it seems like the number of car accidents has doubled in my area at least, and it's all ways at roundabouts. So like i said: No, preceded by hell and fucking.
@LeavingGoose046 How? Roundabouts dont force you to arbitrarily stop if no one's there. People can signal when they exit, allowing a safe window for incoming vehicles. You drive slower, therefore allowing moee time to react and prevent colissions. Colissions that occur are sideswipes rather than T-bones. They're not a bandaid solution to every problem, but they are better than normal intersections in most scenarios.
Hey mentiswave. Can you give me some recommendations for other libertarian channels like yours? We need more people fighting against the breadtube plague.
Anglo Libertarian, MRH Legacy, PraxBen, Backalley Philosophy (this one’s kinda dead now but their OG videos are mostly excellent, other than criticism of Hoppe)
For not necessarily Libertarianism, but good faith discussions, I would recommend Academic Agent and the folks associated with him; as well as Mencius Moldbug for good measure.
My biggest red flag with Adam Something was when he admited he was initially on the alt-right but shifted to breadtube, i mean you went from one extreme to the other, congratulations ?
Honestly doubt it's even true. Probably was just an edgelord without any defined ideology, and then post-rationalized that as having been a fascist after he got roped into the prog cult. Like a born again evangelical talking about his pervious life as an abyss of sin and atheism, but he was actually just a lukewarm Christian who snuck out to party once or twice and lied to his mom about it.
@@vde1846 Alot of people who have been reactionary or even right wing have become leftists because they actually engaged with academia to understand long term solutions. Issues like public transportation are linked with so many other sociological factors that makes people understand that these problems require a more progressive lens.
@@vapingfury4460 Public transportation is great until it needs to be updated. A much better system would be completely privatized as there are actual economic incentives to creating the most efficient system beyond the political motivations of anything government run.
To be fair his definition of "alt-right" was people like Ben Shapiro and old Sargon. Showing that he just thinks anything to the right of Antifa is "alt-right".
@@vapingfury4460no its cause idiots work in theory where things are nice and u get A+s for regurgitating what your idiotic teacher said. Unsurprising the the government entity taught u to trust the government… even while the gov fucks everything up
I’d say whatever far-right beliefs the GOP has are very much so balanced out with how much they sold themselves to Democrats. If the GOP kept their middle finger aimed at the Democrats the entire time, there’s a chance we wouldn’t be in this mess.
7:54 As someone who loves trains, I hate that Breadtubers have made the worst idea for passenger service the mainstream. (Government operated service, which the US already has) The establishment of government operated passenger railroads has led to the downfall of the American passenger industry. Much like environmentalist, they’re lobbying against the solution (re-privatized passenger rail service).
I’ve been front-and-center for why entirely public transportation is a bad idea for about 3 months in DC. Meth-head with a machete and all. (The machete part was true. Don’t know what he was on, or if he was even on something, though if he started swinging that machete, I would’ve thrown hands with him if nobody else would’ve. Hell, if I had a gun and he started machete swinging, I would’ve put down the son-of-a-bitch then and there. That said, all he really did do was mouth on and on, so he wasn’t REALLY a threat, just had a high potential of being one).
Privatisation is generally considered to be the worst thing that ever happened to the German railroad. Tbf though there are arguments for and against. Private companies will base their service on what makes them the most total profit without giving any care to how good their service is as a whole (for example only serving high demand lines, high prices, such that they make good profit but don’t actually provide a good rail network), whereas government run will (theoretically) match the political will in terms of service provided, but is at risk of being inefficient, lethargic, and will almost certainly be a net cost for the state. The problem is that when privately run infrastructure is subsidised anyway, you can get the perverse incentives of a private company combined with the inefficiency “the government will pay for it anyway” risks. And yet, in the case of railroads, when other options like cars exist, without government incentives you won’t get a decent service, like trains on low-demand lines, even if some people really do need them.
I remember Adam Something arguing that tankies are fascist. Seriously? In Khrustev's succession speech, he disavowed Stalin and called him a tyrant, mass murderer etc. But at no point did he disavow communism, because for him to do so would be to disavow the entire USSR.
Average Adam video: "Oh my god America doesn't have enough trains! People can't go anywhere!" Average American: "I have a car and there are airports in every major city. I can go literally anywhere."
How much time do you spend in traffic and what kind of plane do you use to go to work? The point "anti-car" activists are making is that the car is a terribly space inefficient mode of personal transportation and that car-centric urbanism causes a lot of problem such as, but not limited to, everything being very far apart so that you litterally can't walk anywhere. Nobody wants to take your car away, bad urbanism is bad for you too.
Most young americans dont have a car, so are you just ignoring them? Nobody said we should ban cars or that you cant go anywhere. More railroad infrastructure just offers you a faster and cheaper option.
@@garak55 Actually, a lot of leftist politicians do want to get rid of cars completely. They say so themselves. AOC in particular is notorious for attacking the automotive industry as a whole
You're one of the few RU-vidrs, if not political commentators in general, I've seen go the extra mile to provide distinct definitions, relevant examples, data based evidence (especially), and elaborate upon all them in your arguments. It naturally causes your videos to be longer as a consequence, but it is proven to be necessary when analyzing Adam Something's videos (and other breadtubers), so I want to let you know that I appreciate the effort you put into these critiques. Breadtubers like Adam Something take so many shortcuts and jumps to conclusions so fast that I have to trace back to see how they came to their conclusions; I have to often read in between the lines to understand where they're coming from because unlike you, they do not establish fundamental elements of a strong argument like precise definitions, fact-based evidence, or an elaboration of anything. Again, keep up the good work MentisWave. It's hard to believe that you only have 10.9k subscribers. Your style and branding feels like the quality of a channel that should have at least a million subscribers by now. I was about to suggest you try Rumble, but it looks like you already knew about it WAY before I did. If RU-vid doesn't treat you well in the future, I hope Rumble becomes a strong competitor to RU-vid.
Extra mile you said, as Zenuity, the venture firm bought up in this 2022 video no longer exists since 2020 as it was bought and split into Volvo and Veoneer corporations...easily searchable on Google within secs. Or how Mentis Wave never analyzed how the program in fake self driving cars operates but relies solely on the words by who are selling it. (Basically a lazy man's solution from the Large Language Model of putting just data, rather than making a system that understands the data). Which now we can see in the San Francisco robotaxis were forced to down size as the fake AI drove into wet concrete, crime scenes and make traffic jams. Never mind that MentisWave opens into a 6 min long rant about how Adam Something has his own ideology while showing off his (Mentis Wave) ideology at the same. It's a low grade ad hominem fallacy while being a hypcocrite.
The monopoly would still need to be enforced by some form of state intervention. Otherwise alternatives will spring up that people prefer if the mains are censoring them. That's essentially what Fediverse was created to counter.
Monopolies in the tech industry, AFAIK, mostly stem from patents. Patents effectively grant a company a monopoly on a technology meaning that no one can legally compete with them unless they make a better design (in which case the monopoly just switches hands) or they buyout/merge with the company with the patent in order to produce the new tech.
I don't know if you're going to read this, considering the video is a year old, but 29:36 Standard oil literally did this. It was called "Cut to kill." The reason no one did what you suggest is: Oil storage is expensive, as long as you care if it explodes at least. Oil production is not so simple to turn on/off. The land is not free, and the pump will rust. Your day-job will not pay to put a company in stasis.
@@vde1846 In 1904 SO owned 91% of oil refinement and made up 85% of final sales _*in the US._ If that isn't a monopoly you need to deeply consider whether your definition is unreasonable and written specifically to prevent anything being a "real" monopoly. Edit: forgot an important detail.
@@flazzorb Yet none of the negative outcomes of an actual monopoly occurred: prices fell, quality increased, specialized products varieties and new technical innovations were continually introduced, and infrastructure massively expanded. Because it wasn't a monopoly. Anyone could compete with them, and many did, though few could offer a better deal.
As a historian I would put forward one singular example of a natural monopoly that had to be put down by international government force. The Renaissance Guild System, whose closest modern comparison is the modern Labor Union, formed independent state like systems, hired mercenaries to keep others from competing with them by force, and got away with it because the governments were in a state of chaos and war at the time the guilds were formed and the guilds made themselves indispensable to states while being independent. So basically we don’t have to worry about independent monopolies being a threat until labor unions start hiring private armies to compete with the government on the monopoly of force and until all of the local unions decide to merge into one mega union.
Except the Billy Bob example did happened. Standard Oil intentionally lowered its prices to such it drove its competition out of business then ramped the prices up to unreasonable levels.
The members in a cult don't just believe that outsiders are misguided, they also believe this because anyone who is member of the cult has more knowledge or gnosis than the outsiders. To the cultist the outsiders knowledge is incomplete. Only members of the cult "know" what they are doing and it's morally superior.
His early videos were enjoyable to watch, even if I didn't 100% agree with everything he said. But the moment he embraced the "everyone I don't like is a nazi" narrative, I instantly noped out of his channel.
In the economic theory of socialism, the workers own and have democratic control over the means of production. Just because the USSR and others _called_ themselves socialist, doesn’t mean that they implemented the economic theory of socialism in any meaningful manner. A Workers’ Co-op is more of a picture of socialism than anything from the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. That is why they say that socialism has never truly been tested. The flaws of socialism as an ideal, therefore, stem from the flaws of democracy more than anything.
How is the ownership and democratic control of “the means of production”, whatever that is supposed to mean, enforced? If a core tenant of socialism relies on democracy then how is that not a problem with socialism as well?
There's an obvious issue in your discussion of monopolies (I think we can also assume a natural extension to oligopolies, because the government doesn't do its job in breaking up oligopolies). You assume that a company that achieves a monopoly will lose that monopoly because they will jack up the prices and then other competitors will join seeing a gap in the market. The reason this doesn't work is that prices have a floor based on inputs but no ceiling. A monopoly can jack up the prices, but they will not lose their position unless there is a revolutionary improvement by some other player that will allow them to cut costs so that they are below the floor price of the monopoly. Even in this scenario (which is unlikely, because monopolies are still incentivized to innovate and push their own production costs down further because they will take that as pure profit, whereas an outside player is never incentivized and so any discovery would be serendipitous), the monopoly can subsidize its own production and lose money for long enough to maintain a lower price than the competitor. Unless the competitor is backed by a bank account the size of the monopoly's and all of its assets it has the ability to get a loan on, any potential competitor knows that they are running a massive risk, when in fact they could much more easily sell their intellectual property to the monopoly after demonstrating with a proof of concept how they're a threat. This is a guaranteed profit and any small time player will do this. And in the cases of markets with high barriers to entry the risk is ever larger for any would be competitor.
Also, the coverage on prisoner's dilemma is the exact opposite - cartels come into existence because the reward for cooperation is substantially higher than the temporary profits one gets from deviating. Again, prices are floating, you're not playing a one time prisoners dilemma and that totally changes what the Nash Equilibrium strategy is because the underlying dynamics of the Game change. In repeated Prisoners' Dilemma the Nash Equilibrium is tit-for-tat starting with cooperation or Grim Trigger (always defect after one betrayal), but obviously nobody plays Grim Trigger in the real world because its stupid, we always forgive.
Dude, the government ENFORCES monopolies and oligopolies. Do you understand what a patent is? A patent is a government backed permission (via guns) to have a monopoly/oligopoly on a product or service. Monopolies and oligopolies are not and have never been illegal. What is illegal is using a monopoly/oligopoly influence to control other areas. However, even that is actually allowed because that is what national Unions do. Why else would the steel workers and grocery clerks in two different states be in the SAME union?
@@FilmFlam-8008 without patents we have corporate secrets and corporation constantly screwing the inventors. By filing a patent you reveal your process to the whole world if anything the monopolies it create are short lived unlike with corporate secrets. and it also incetivizes new invention ,which usualy tend to disrupt and destroy established companies.
The monoply cannot raise the floor of the price. They can only raise their own price….. your just taking the math and saying its irrelevant cause yiur a midwit
The Richard Spencer is a Far-Right leader is kind of been proven false since the 2020 election as even before then in 2016 Spencer was a Sanders supporter. Then Sanders lost and like all Sanders supporters that year voted for Trump out of spite for Clinton then realized that he wasn’t a racist at all and when 2020 came he supported Biden. Even now Spencer believes that the Biden administration is strong and is doing very well. I should also point out that Spencer is a socialist.
I find it funny how the monopoly argument is literally happening with movies: disney has a monooly on entertainment, they reduce the quality and people stop buying their "water" and going to other places that offer high quality "water" at the same/lower prices (mario movie, fnaf movie, youtube and anime)
or just outright pirate, here in my own country as a consumer pirating isnt illegal only uploading is so the only thing that disney or such actually can do when it comes to getting profits here is to make it more convienient to pay
@@goranpersson7726 the issue with piracy is that it actively hurts the people producing the content. so that will remove incentive to produce things you enjoy. I am a person who pirates due to some convenience but I will always try and support officially the things I consume to incentivize them into making more
@@legomeaker101potato i personally have a play before i pay thing going, i see a game that i might enjoy I pirate and play it if I do enjoy I do pay for the game, however some things im simply never gonna pay for. disney products for one, dont want to support them or paradox and their dlc business model, i usually pay for the base game and maybe a dlc or two (essentially no more than 60euro as that's as far as im willing to pay for a good game) paradox kinda makes games that are unfinished only to slowly finish them piece by piece in the form of dlc, with notable ones like EU4 costing up in the hundreds of euro
@@maksimd764 monopolies competing with each other are what prevent the monopoly... reducing prices to a just price or providing better service at an elevated price (aka: youtube is cheaper but the same quality meanwhile netflix is the same price as disney but they provide a far better service)
i think he made a video once about how white greek statues are racist or anyone liking their current light gray color is racist or something? God that was a ramble of nonsense.
