Libertarian Scot

Yet, another anticapitalist critique I have to respond on when it comes to capitalism. There is certainly no shortage of ignorance out there with regards to videos on YouTube from Breadtube and Unlearn Economics is the prime example of such ignorance you will come up against. Someone who likes to think of himself as intellectual but stupidly tries to correlate capitalism with that of collectivist systems. It is important to make the distinction on individualism and collectivism and that capitalism has absolutely nothing at all to do with collectivism. The word antonymous means a word opposite in meaning of another word in the same language. It is a simple fact that capitalism is the opposite in meaning of collectivism, it is an individualist system and that evidence can be found everywhere. The reason the likes of Unlearning Economics despise this fact is because individualism defines the free market, it does not define the corporatist system which we live under today, again, attempting to blame capitalism for what was never the fault of capitalism. This is no different to his erroneous claim in his video that wealth creation under capitalism somehow stemmed from imperialism and colonialism. This illustrates the level of dishonesty you're up against. In his video he speaks at great length of complete nonsense, likes to say a lot, but says nothing, which is why he turned to the very Thomas Piketty of all people, a man who couldn't even get his dates right on the Great Depression as some sort of 'credible' source. If you wish to see Thomas Piketty being torn apart by two REAL economists, Thomas E. Woods Jnr and Robert P. Murphy, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL90pISm7Y8&t=54s His claims on the industrial revolution, yet again, illustrates how far these compulsive liars will go with making up things out of thin air, such as claiming that women were "subjugated" in the factories, or that people were 'forced' into working in the factories. Behind all that lengthy rhetoric, ask him to show you where on planet earth you've seen a strongly government regulated private sector result in prosperity for the poor, in every instance it resulted in economic stagnation and soaring private sector costs. All monopolies, oligopolies and cartels alone owe its origins to state intervention in the economy, so regardless of whether he supports full-blown socialism or the mixed economy, he most certainly is never going to achieve this egalitarian utopia. As I've mentioned on equality, it's all nonsense, including the dangerous concentration of wealth in the hands of the few claim. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/ In this video I cover a comment made by Boris D refuting his argument on capitalism relative to some of the economic history. Much of these arguments you may come across yourself which are erroneous and I thought it would be best to cover in a live stream addressing the points made.

In this second part on the medicare for all debate refuting UZworm on healthcare, I cover why healthcare is NOT a right on the moral argument, as well as why positive rights negates the rights of other individuals. I also address on why the main American healthcare market is not free market and other relative arguments relating to why universal healthcare will not be more affordable. Again, UZworm has the assumption that just because it is called medicare for all that this somehow means everyone will have access. Like I explained in the previous part, socialists really only see things from face value, they do not comprehend the broken window fallacy and where costs come from to pay for such things. This, again, is something I cover more upon that illustrates why it is not more accessible or affordable. Like I've explained before, universal healthcare requires a greater tax burden on society and that is most certainly not beneficial for society as I explained previously. There are consequences for those actions, which also contradicts the likes of Vaush who claim they stand for equal opportunity, these things create the opposite of that. Not that there ever is such a thing as equal opportunity anyway. Finally, I address briefly upon profits covering the arguments for why it is important to ration in a world of scarcity, which UZworm doesn't comprehend, like all socialists. Healthcare is NOT inelastic, therefore, cannot be excused from the laws of supply and demand, which is why the American healthcare market became so expensive. I also explained the role of profits briefly on technological improvement, which can really only be achieved through an economy with market-driven prices. Again, this is something socialists would eliminate through price controls. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

The medicare for all debate is the same regurgitated arguments you will hear from proponents of universal healthcare. As I have done various responses on healthcare in the past, including on PoliDice, in this video I am refuting UZWorm. UZworm, like many, live in the assumption that the main American healthcare market is somehow capitalist, but as I've pointed out numerous times before, this simply isn't the case. He is also completely unaware of the existence of the Direct Primary Care model in the United States. UZworm, like many, make the argument on the Scandinavian countries, but much like Vaush, UZworm completely misunderstands these countries. The broken window fallacy is something socialists don't understand as they can really only see things from face value and it is no different on this particular argument as socialists don't understand the consequences that follow what they propose with the higher tax rates, etc. Much like every other socialist, UZworm is of no exception to throwing around baseless claims with nothing to back up what he states about conservatives, etc. The argument conservatives have made regarding job losses and on taxes are absolutely spot on. However, because people like UZworm are clueless about economics, they think they can have their cake and eat it too, which simply is not possible. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Opportunity is something socialists like Vaush seem to think government can create, but as I've argued before, government destroys more jobs than it creates. In this video refuting Vaush on Thomas Sowell, this time his argument is based on equality of opportunity, which is every bit as ridiculous as that of equal outcomes. As I argue, we as human beings are naturally unequal and that's fine, the argument that Thomas Sowell was making that Vaush took out of context was on freedom of opportunity and it's through that freedom that creates more jobs. Vaush wrongly assumes that the welfare redistribution somehow creates greater freedom, but it doesn't, it not only destroys jobs elsewhere in the economy to compensate paying for a big welfare state due to higher tax rates, it limits innovation and economic growth such as productivity. He doesn't understand scarcity and the laws of supply and demand, he's clueless on the broken window fallacy as he believes things can be viewed from face value alone and this example you can see from the universal healthcare or education systems. All the good intentions he has results in dire consequences. As recorded history has proven, mixed economies have been stagnant and come nowhere near close to the productivity and level of opportunity made available in free markets, this is an irrefutable fact which is why Vaush's entire argument is deeply flawed. Even his argument relative to deregulation is nonsensical as all oligopolies, monopolies and cartels owe their origins to that of state interference in the economy. So effectively what he is supporting results in the very corporatism he proclaims to stand against. It's one thing to complain about giant corporations, but they don't gain their dominance because of the absence of government, rather, it's through governments regulation. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

I was asked several questions about arguments on socialism and decided to give my response. A brief summary of what I have covered is how far removed from reality socialists live in as they base everything off of theory rather than practice in the real world; the ludicrous projectionism carried out to try and exonerate socialism of the blame, as well as on Bolivia and Yugoslavia. Socialists will have you believe that socialism is anything other than what the world has actually seen, and as I've spoken about, they attempt to relabel socialism at every given turn much like pointed out in Kristian Niemietz book 'Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies' as every time socialism was attempted, they would attempt to distance themselves and rename and redefine things. Like I have argued numerous times, it is a waste of time debating socialists because you're dealing with people who refuse to accept reality, facts and are that far removed from reason they will move the goal posts constantly and redefine things. The purpose for why I do the videos I do is to reach out to people who are willing to learn, not those who are already far gone. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

I was requested to check out another video by Jordan Theresa, this time covering plastic surgery in relation to her blaming capitalism relative to the advertising, etc. Whilst I acknowledge there are problems today, capitalism is not the problem. In my video I set about explaining that not only is there manipulation of the markets today, but also given the choices available, the problem can be a variety of external factors and more often than not it is your own personal responsibility. Capitalism gives people options for what they wish to do, just like how I had choice between turning to medication or reading books that contains knowledge to fix my problems. It is no different to plastic surgery, sometimes it may be the right thing for people and help boost people's confidence, other times it may not fix the problem at all. The reason why capitalism is not the problem is because these issues will exist even without capitalism, the difference is, you'll be left with nothing to assist you with. One only needs to look at the example of Venezuela to see there is a problem. There is no denying, however, the negative impact that social media may have on people, as well as advertising that can make people feel insecure, whether it is through television or magazines, but one has personal responsibility to not only reject that by mind, but also finding the best version of yourself that is realistic. I learned a lot of that through the book 'Psycho-Cybernetics' by Maxwell Maltz and illustrates how an alternative means can be used. Jordan Theresa illustrates subconsciously by showing herself without makeup that proves the point that one doesn't really need to go to such lengths of all the botox, etc, more often than not it is what is in your own head that is the problem. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

In this video I'm refuting Victor Magariño on an argument I have done several times already in relation to do with the Labour Theory of Value. As it was requested, it can be difficult not to repeat over certain things relative to subjective theory, but in relation to Victor's argument, this video I explain the flaws in his claims of where value comes from. It is important to note that when Victor mentions about _'use value'_ he doesn't understand that it is people's subjective value over its use. Something may be of greater use to one particular person over another and as I've pointed out in his attempt to differentiate the use value and exchange value, he fails to acknowledge that his explanation of the exchange value still correlates to someone's subjective value. Another thing to note is that the size of a given commodity, it's material, etc again is based on the individuals subjective opinion of the product. It's like how consumers may prefer smaller cameras to bigger, heavier, bulkier cameras, therefore, the physical aspects of a commodity is even determined down to subjective value. Whilst certain larger portion sizes of food could be construed as having greater value due to quantity, it is the opinion of the consumer what they prefer. If there's greater quantity, there is greater costs, so there will be a greater price, however, it is still the subjective value determined down to the individual consumer, people have different value for different things, we don't all like the same clothes, food, books, music, films, games, etc. A product may be made of a particular material that could push the price up, but the real determining factor determining the value for such products is down to the individual preference of the consumer, some may prefer the cheaper material, others may not. In other words, something of better quality is actually determined down to the preference of consumers, not because of the object itself. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

As was requested, this video on the minimum wage debate is debunking Thought Slime on his irrational arguments. There were numerous points he covered in his video, although, I feel I covered much of that. His arguments claim that the minimum wage doesn't result in higher unemployment, but as the studies show, the majority contradict him. Likewise, he makes the claim in his video that the inflation only changes ever so slightly, even if we were to go down that road, inflation is not something justifiable, therefore, if people are struggling to get by, we should be looking at ways to combat the inflationary problem in the economy. This, however, is not going to be achieved because of socialism as socialism is the problem. I covered on value and cost, the relation it has to the employer and employee relationship showing an illustrative example of how it plays out in the real world relative to consumers. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

For those of you unaware of the argument on the Economic Calculation Problem, you can find my arguments explained in fuller detail in some of my other videos I have playlisted. William Paul Cockshott makes the argument 'Towards a New Socialism,' but this is just dishonesty, it's merely trying to bastardise the meaning of socialism and a core tenant of socialist central planning with that of the market. Paul Cockshott mentions numerous times in his argument about market demand, but as I've argued, socialism and its central planning has absolutely nothing to do with the market and the demand. When consumers drive production, this is capitalism. Even using his argument, I explain why destroying the information of price signals is destructive. It is very clear from Paul Cockshott's argument that he doesn't understand the role of prices and how important prices are for conveying the information of consumer demand. I have provided a few Thomas Sowell examples that illustrate the role prices play regarding scarcity that contradicts the narrative of Paul Cockshott, as well as in relation to the economic calculation problem why without prices you're destined for disaster with the illustrative example of the hundreds of petrol stations dotted across the United States and the vast knowledge required for knowing where to allocate the fuel for such a vast ever changing market in demand. Like every other socialist, they don't understand value is subjective, not objective and that value changes with time, as well as consumer demand. The linear thought process behind socialist thinking is that consumer demand is somehow fixed and knowable, it doesn't take into account who it is valuable to, in relation to what other given products, as well as time preference. Since value rapidly changes with time and demand isn't fixed, but fluctuates, it is why attempting to calculate is impossible. The example of the petrol stations is a prime example for why Paul Cockshott's argument is irrational as the demand throughout each month persistently changes, and changes dramatically and sporadically in an unpredictable manner. For what one petrol station faces in demand one month, we have no way of knowing what the demand will be like following month and without the information of prices conveying to the market across hundreds, upon hundreds of petrol stations across the length and breadth of the country, it's impossible to determine what petrol station.needs what and at what given time. The only reason a central office in Texas would know such information is price signals. Socialists like Paul Cockshott may sound intellectual to the economically illiterate, but in the real world of economics, you've never in world history seen socialism avoid the economic calculation problem, nor will you ever. You can tell socialists have no understanding of what the economic calculation problem actually is when they fail to comprehend the role prices play with regards to profits and losses. The only way information of profits and losses can be determined in a market with vast array of options of produce is through consumer demand driving production indicating to the market what prices are. Price is a reflection of consumer demand, which explains why Paul Cockshott is ignorant of basic economics. If you do not hold the information of profits and losses, there is no "rational" calculation, because you've no information to tell you what consumer demand is. Consumer demand isn't fixed, nor is it simplistic fixed as if society is a group. Demand is made up of individual consumers and preference, therefore, trying to plan for 65 million people in Britain alone is impossible as demand isn't fixed. His video is pretty long, so I decided to cover the basis of the argument that refutes most of it. You can check out my other arguments on the economic calculation problem that explains fuller: • Profits and Losses Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI •Variety of Options Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc • Fuller Explanation of the Economic Calculation Problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Debunking the falling rate of profit is straightforward. Having done a bit of research I immediately grasped the deeply flawed argument. Much like I've mentioned before about economies of scale and cutting costs actually benefits businesses resulting in greater profits, the theory of the falling rate of profit is based on the deeply flawed view that when one company cuts costs and reduces prices, other companies will be forced to do the same. This is a simplistic worldview of the economy and of the real world of economics, but you don't expect much else from the economically illiterate. Marxists simply do not understand business and the marketplace, they have no understanding of value, the fact they think value is something endogenous regarding price, never let alone objective tells you all there is to know that you can't take them seriously on economics. The history has been strongly against socialism as I've argued numerous times and no different to all their other flawed theories they create up in their own head, this theory is no different. It has nothing in history to back it with. The history of the failed attempt of the predatory pricing example against Herbert Dow illustrates why the falling rate of profit is deeply flawed, furthermore, the examples of Soviet Union production illustrates a contradiction to their Labour Theory of Value and in the real world with value being subjective as I've explained numerous times before and in this video, I cover why their theory has no basis for the real world. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

What is capitalism, some may ask, in this video explaining capitalism I illustrate just how irrational socialists are and why they are completely wrong about capitalism. Viki 1999 is the perfect example of someone whom is disingenuous, attempts to bend and pull capitalism outside of what defines it and attempts to pull capitalism apart from the market. As you will see later in this video, the market is in direct correlation to capitalism. The reason for why socialists like Viki 1999 are desperate to pull capitalism apart from the market is so they can attempt to correlate capitalism with that of monopoly creation, but this is wholly dishonest. As I've illustrated, not only does Viki 1999 not understand individualism and collectivism regarding rights, but also ignorant of the fact capitalism is the opposite in meaning to collectivism as I've provided in such sources. Do your research yourself, folk, you do not see capitalism listed antonymous to collectivism for nothing, nor do you see socialism listed under umpteen sources as synonymous to collectivism for nothing. It is disingenuous to correlate capitalism in any shape or form to collectivism on any level. Sure, capitalism exists in a mixed economy and is a mixture between individualism and collectivism on a question of scale, but capitalism is not collectivism and that could not be clearer. The definition of individualism I have illustrated, just as I have pointed out both definitions of collectivism and socialism to illustrate they hold the same meaning. As you will see from such evidence, capitalism is defined around the free market economy, not a merger between state and corporate power. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/ The defamation of character is the game a socialist plays when they know they cannot challenge you on an intellectual level, so instead, resort to constant personal attacks and dishonest forms of argument on purpose to antagonise seeking to get a rise. This showed more recently in a live feed where I reacted in a way and said something I don't intentionally mean. Instead, taken out of context, the video was downloaded and a clip uploaded on Twitter trying to defame my character as being 'homophobic' when it clearly isn't the case. This is classic socialist behaviour and it isn't even an accurate depiction of my views or who I am as a person, but because he knows fine well he can't challenge me on an intellectual level, he kids on this is somehow an argument.

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/ The argument on Market Socialism is an oxymoron. In this video I explain why it is an oxymoron, describing about a market versus that of what defines socialism. When attempting to combine socialism with the market, you're essentially combining capitalism with socialism in a mixed economy. You will NOT get the truth from Wikipedia, so if you're expecting to get some accurate description of what. market socialism is there, you simply aren't. I will cover examples that explains why market socialism is oxymoronic in relation to socialism on communal ownership.

Scottish independence has been talked about for a long time now, even talks of a second independence referendum. As was requested I decided to do this topic issue with my two friends Keryin and Cameron on what an independent Scotland should be. As we have covered on Scottish independence, the issues to do with the education system. We also cover on the healthcare, as well as other issues relative to the state-run police and government holding the power it does over our lives. Here you don't just get my own insights but from two friends who came across my YouTube channel a number of years ago who are much like a good number out there who have passed similar comment. I'm always very grateful, but this gives an insight that there is hope for Libertarianism, it's just about winning the intellectual argument for the free market and why capitalism is the solution. As you may know by now, I'm still in support of the British union, as I've explained previously the political indoctrination over so many years that has bred an anticapitalist mentality in Scotland and much of society elsewhere being the main influence. The yes and no campaign, for me, just looked like one big argument over who was the bigger socialist regarding more state-funded services, etc. If only people understood why the free market would provide better and more affordable service through such things. You can find out more about the Scottish Libertarians and even join here on their website that covers much information on what they stand for: http://scottishlibertarians.com/ *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

In a recent comment from a follower there seems to be confusion over what individualism and collectivism are and how the current problems we face today came about, such as the immigration crisis. Why libertarianism is the solution is because collectivism is the problem. The argument on individualism vs collectivism is important, but a lot of people fail to comprehend what individualism and collectivism are. The reason for self-serving governments and for why the state creates such problems is because of collectivism. Here I argue why the fault is not capitalism and for why libertarianism is the solution. One cannot stand in a position to complain about things like wage suppression and the corporatist system whilst opposing the capitalist system. The reason for this corporatist system today is the mixed economy due to the socialist government intervention in the economy and to oppose even that, you'd be going down the road of full-blown socialism. Capitalism is the only rational system that works efficiently and is sustainable, the same cannot be said for the mixed economy or communism. I have seen a lot of people misconstrue the argument on libertarianism relative to immigration and other issues, but they ignore individual rights and the damage collectivism creates through subordinating individuals rights. One simply cannot blame individualism for today's problems when it isn't individualism that pushes forward all the Cultural Marxism. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Many socialists would have you believe that socialism can be anarchist, however, as I argue in this debate on socialism vs anarchism in response to the question asked, I explain why socialism is totalitarian and why it cannot exist without a government. Socialism is everything other than what it actually is when it comes to socialists, they will relabel and repackage socialism under different names, but the fundamental problem with their argument is the reality of economics and human nature which defy them. As explained, it is impossible to rail against human nature and expect to avoid dictatorship, even then, being faced with a variety of economic problems due to the core problem of the central planning problem. Central planning is the natural state of socialism in its path of aiming to achieve the end goal of ridding the economy of the private sector, but as I've mentioned, you are then faced with dire consequences. As I have mentioned numerous times before, no matter how many time you ask the question, you never get a straight answer as to how the state will just wither away after it has nationalised everything. Aspirations are all well said, but when push comes to shove, practice is an entirely different world to the theories they imagine. You could see this from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone experiment regardless of how childish it was, it was rife with violence and problems they faced due to self-interest, even when trying to self-police such an issue, more violence occurred. The very definition of socialism is predicated around collective ownership, which requires the subordination of the individuals rights and liberty, as well as all individual ownership. I reiterate, personal pertains to individual, therefore, any socialist trying to redefine collective ownership to mean personal ownership are simply being pedantic and attempting to redefine the entire meaning of socialism. Personal property is often used to describe movable property, which is the only slight difference from immovable property, but still defies the entire meaning of what is based on communal ownership. As I've illustrated before, communal ownership of property resulted in starvation prior to the industrial revolution because individuals were forced to work for the collective and everything that was to be produced was communally owned, they could not work for the fruits of their own labour. Any attempt to redefine communal ownership outside of that is disingenuous and merely an attempt to pull socialism away from what it actually is. A good reason for why socialists attempt this is because they can't defend such an irrational position, the idea of socialism itself is completely irrational, never let alone how it turns out in practice. You can't remove the government and then expect society to just do as you say, with individual self-interest, the only way you can attempt such a thing is a central governing body, especially across a vast society such as 65 million people of Great Britain. This is why socialism cannot avoid totalitarianism, it needs the state even to achieve the egalitarian utopia. The failed examples of the Paris Commune, Ukraine 'Free' Territory and Anarchist Catalonia were anything but anarchist, but a prime example for what played out in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

In this video I explain why subsidies don't work which is a common problem with government failure in economics. Socialists and quasi-socialists alike fail to comprehend capitalism, that it is not a system of guaranteeing business success and more often than not, it is a result of their government intervention through regulation, taxation and subsidies that result in business failure, which leads them to believe that capitalism is somehow failing, therefore, capitalism needs to be bailed out. This is an erroneous argument as it ignores what capitalism is. Capitalism is not about an over-regulated private sector nor is it relative to government taxation. As history proves and as I explain, the internal improvements [corporate subsidies] were being financed by heavy protectionist tariffs imposed on the market. The evidence stacked against the subsidies illustrates why subsidies don't work. Throughout the 19th century, whether it was the turnpike industry, steamship industry or even the railroad industry, you would see hundreds of private companies that took on the corporate subsidies by government going under facing bankruptcy. I have noted numerous times about the North Pacific Railroad company and James J. Hill, you can also check out Burt Fulsom's excellent talk on the failure of Edward Collins steamship company and why Cornelius Vanderbilt gave him a showing up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsCptN_F1OA&t=8s Time and time again, folk, regardless of whether you talk about the lead up to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Great Depression of 1929, or even the Banking Crisis of 2008, you will see why subsidies are destructive. It was the fault of the government subsidies that resulted in bad banks getting away with legally protected fraud because the government through subsidies took away the risk of the creditors. Risk is something important, as are losses which play an important role in the economy as profits do. I have explained in detail for why this is. You can also check out my explanation on the banking crisis of 2008 for a better understanding on why it happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCHahZ2e6kU *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/ In this video we talk about the ignorance of the subject of economics today, the impacts it has on society, the correlation between people's flawed understanding of things like conservatism, libertarianism and when it comes to economics, capitalism and socialism.

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/ A response on Rose Wrist relative to the market versus planned economies in relation to do with the argument on the economic calculation problem.

Timelapse photography can be a lot of fun. In this video, I briefly give explanation in response to a question I received on timelapse photography. The problem this person may have had applies to video. I must extend on what I explained on my video, however, that what you would use mostly for timelapse photography where in such a scenario you may have a light in your shot and causes flickering. The 3 scene modes under video setting on the Canon G7X Mark II clearly illustrates 3 scenes, the camera would automatically adjust the shutter speed accordingly to suit each scene. For the walking people, it would obviously increase the shutter speed. In this video on timelapse photography, I explain how to stop light flickering to solve such a problem. It seems like it is a common problem that people run into and I hope this video serves you well, whether you're taking pictures using timelapse or video. I must add, however, that using the timelapse feature on the Canon G7X Mark II I personally haven't faced those issues. Bearing in mind, if you're drawing with a slow shutter speed, your hand will appear blurred. It might be preferable to record in a brightly lit room with a faster shutter speed. However, this video should give you a bit better understanding behind the light flickering problem you may have come upon.

Taxing the rich doesn't work. As I was requested to do a response on Robert Reich taxing the rich I decided it was time to cover this topic issue as it is heard ever so often, whether it's the nonsense about the United States in the 1950s taxing the rich, or that there is wealth inequality. In this video I explain what wealth really is, why taxing the rich doesn't work and is really just envy of the rich. You hear nonsense all the time about Jeff Bezos wealth, but clearly people don't understand where most of that wealth comes from and probably do not understand what assets are. However, I don't just touch upon the problem they are faced with in their vain attempt I also cover the moral argument, why it is immoral and is nothing other than theft. It is nonsense to claim that tax cuts results in the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, in fact, as I've explained umpteen times, if anything makes the poor poorer, it is running the printing press as it is the poor who are strongly reliant upon the paper currency for a wage, the rich are not. Robert Reich, like any other socialist, doesn't understand the very fundamental basics of economics, hasn't the slightest understanding of what prices are, thinks he can somehow ignore and defy the laws of supply and demand, thus the belief in trying to control prices. Although he doesn't touch upon this in his particular video, that is more or less what socialists support as they would never support the market regulating itself regarding prices. Such evidence can be found in his argument in favour of universal healthcare, we know where that argument is going, no doubt arguing in favour of the British NHS with the 'free at the point of use' service, or the usual 'free tution fees' to university, etc. You can check out Robert Reich's original video here: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RS_BtLB3QE&t=295s *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

Having used RØDE PSA1 boom microphone arm for several years, I felt it was time for an upgrade to something more suitable for me. The RØDE PSA1 is a good boom arm for desks more suited to its use. The VIVO boom arm Stand-Mic01 is a lot more flexible, easier to store away when the microphone is not in use and due to the ability to swivel direction due to the middle joint there is greater flexibility of use. The VIVO pneumatic spring arm was pretty heavy, it is made mostly of solid construction with some plastic parts, is very sturdy and pretty simple to construct to setup with options of either using the parts to drill fit into the desk or using the clamp which I personally prefer. The problem with the style of boom arm such as the RØDE PSA1 is the lack of flexibility, whilst you can swivel it around, the main arm is intrusive and fixed between pulling out or swirling around. This is unfortunately restrictive and is better used for desks where it can attach to the back of the desk. The VIVO boom arm, however, is flexible enough to attach both at the back of a desk or even to the front like I have and because of its low profile, it is not intrusive. RØDE are a great company and my microphones are all made by RØDE as I fully trust in their excellent brand for affordable quality microphones. My RØDE NT1a came with the shock mount so was simple enough to screw onto the VIVO pneumatic boom arm. You can buy a shock mount with the VIVO Stand-Mic01 which is optional. Overall, for the price, I'm impressed with the quality and this allows me to also store my microphone away neatly without the arm getting in the way.

Lauren Southern doesn't understand capitalism, unfortunately, although she means well, she misconstrues capitalism. If you would like to check out her video 'A Conservative Critique of Capitalism' you can check that out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV6N68ETT80 In her video she gives 3 critical arguments, but none of it makes sense, which confuses me over her own position of where she stands. She wrongly misconstrues today's economy as some type of capitalism and erroneously claims capitalism is the problem for corporations dominating the market. The baseless claims she has made has nothing to back them. The thing that contradicts her position is that government intervention created the very problems she complains about. A fine example for this is her second critique claiming that capitalism destroys the community and culture, but as we know, it's actually socialism through welfare statism that destroyed the community spirit. Furthermore, it resulted in moral degradation that correlates to her third critique relative to the moral argument of capitalism. She doesn't seem to comprehend that capitalism serves for what the people are in demand of, which illustrates that it is a common problem to misunderstand the role of prices and what profits are. Claiming that capitalism is immoral because of an individuals poor choices in life is also an illogical fallacious argument, it fails to acknowledge that the problems people are faced with personally through poor decision making is the same for any system, therefore, nothing as such to do with capitalism. Instead, capitalism would actually cater for such people in need through charitable operations and other voluntary action. She fails to comprehend that capitalism rewarding success and punishing failure is actually a good thing and it sounded to me like as if she was making an argument in favour of government subsidies by complaining about the financial independence of someone possibly facing losses. It is no different to her stance against Libertarianism, as I've explained, Libertarianism is incompatible with free flow of immigration, unless there is specific private property designated specifically for that purpose and if anyone is to blame for the terrorist problems, it is governments and all the war intervention, as well as governments funding the likes of ISIS. It is also a fallacious claim to make out that capitalism has never been tried and then claim that we live under some form of capitalism today, just as wrong as stating that capitalism is the fault for the problem in the mainstream media, etc. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM

As I was asked by numerous people on why I changed my channel name, this gives a brief explanation for why I made the changes that I did. The YouTube channel update that I have made, in some ways, a lot still remains the same, but with slight changes to implement the photography and vlogging videos combining this channel with my other. I feel that this will really help grow the exposure of this channel and things are much easier, it should grow in hindsight and may benefit from it in the long run. The channel name is something more generic as I've explained and would like to update the profile channel picture, although, I am not exactly a logo designer so I'll have to think of something. For those of you who have been subscribed long enough and subscribed namely for my political videos, all of that will remain the same, as well as the branding as such.