Libertarian Scot

I was requested to check out Ash Sarkar and decided to do my own research on her. It didn't take me long to find her views and is very clear by her words as she seems very assure of herself that she's a communist. She doesn't understand communism or economics, you can hear the typical socialist flipflopping as one minute she speaks about people being paid wages, then mentions about using money, but ignores what communism is theoretically, most importantly, she couldn't even tell you where money comes from. I'd love to see her abolish the private sector without dictatorship and run the printing press. Ash Sarkar is a team member of Novara Media I was requested to respond to on Fully Automated Communism, which is something I will get around to. I had just newly discovered she was a part of Novara Media. It's quite humorous to say the least, the argument on automation has been debunked countless times over and the erroneous claims that it is leading to higher job losses is utter nonsense and what you would find through research, the complete opposite is the truth. This is something I left out, but what you find with socialists is they are very good at making baseless claims and assertions, such as Ash Sarkar's bold claim that money ends up in the hands of the elite, as if to claim this is what would happen in a capitalist system. Nothing could be farther from the truth and history proves it. She can harp off about corporatism all she wants, that isn't capitalism and all the socialist government interventionism as I reiterate is the cause of such wage suppression, etc. Her argument even on immigration proves she's completely oblivious of the laws of supply and demand, doesn't understand prices and thinks you can just have an unlimited open door policy and that scarcity isn't real. Socialists are clueless when it comes to economic reality, they don't understand the fact scarcity is real and isn't something which you could ignore. Again, if you wish to learn about scarcity and resource allocation, watch my 3 videos on the Economic Calculation Problem, only then you will begin to understand; profits and losses, the variety of options and a fuller understanding of the economic calculation problem on scarcity, as well as why supercomputers could never solve the problem. *Economic Calculation Problem—Profits and Losses:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI *Economic Calculation Problem—Variety in the Market:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc *Economic Calculation Problem—Extended:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 Automation Argument Debunking Jason Unruhe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58r1ysmdM You can also join my Discord server here: https://discord.gg/tVMZnta

Capitalism is voluntary, again, @Thought Slime makes an irrational argument against capitalism. Whilst he acknowledges the fact that there is voluntary action over people buying goods, he attempts to twist things to make it sound like certain choices aren't voluntary, such as leaving a country behind for new life. Thought Slime fails to comprehend that socialism was put into practice and each and every single time it ended in totalitarianism for good reason and if anyone is forced to live within a country, it just so happens to be the very people living in socialist countries, as I explained, you didn't see walls being built in countries like West Germany to keep people in, nor do you see people in more capitalist countries fleeing for their lives. The most childish argument, however, by Thought Slime is claiming that because people have to sleep, eat and work, then apparently this somehow constitutes as an argument to claim capitalism isn't voluntary. It really is childish, it doesn't matter what system you live under, that's just a fact of life on planet earth, how does he think food is made, it requires work. I suppose something else I could throw in which I forgot to add, there are certain products you require trade for in order to produce where certain resources come from different countries and there is a lot of work including the trade put into producing something. It is for this reason his argument is wholly illogical. His critique of capitalism is one based off of a complete fantasy, he also doesn't acknowledge the fact that capitalism is the free market, we do not live under a free market economy today and explains why, thanks to all the socialist government interventionism, for the reason that people struggle to find work. I must reiterate the point, you'll never get rid of exploitation, corruption, rich and poor people entirely, this is the same for any system and if anything, his argument on exploitation is even irrational, the most exploitative economies the world has ever seen were all socialist and having a moneyless based economy is the very definition of exploitation because it requires hard work to produce many things and to make people do a lot of dirty jobs whilst getting paid nothing is the very meaning of exploitation. Again, you can check out my argument on the economic calculation problem which I explained about scarcity and resource allocation, this argument is the foundation for why socialism is doomed, money or moneyless economy. *Economic Calculation Problem—Profits and Losses:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI *Economic Calculation Problem—Variety in the Market:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc *Economic Calculation Problem—Extended:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 Also, I made the argument on Automation in response on Jason Unruhe's video which you can check here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj58r1ysmdM You can also join my Discord server here: https://discord.gg/tVMZnta

Human nature and socialism are two things that most certainly do not go together, as I have argued numerous times before in the past and even in a more recent response I did on The Finnish Bolshevik's argument, I covered on the humanitarian argument. Economics is a subject that is grossly misunderstood and in the past have had the argument claiming that humanity is more important than economics. As I argued before and again in this video, it simply isn't the case. @Thought Slime much like Viki 1999 really doesn't understand capitalism and the importance of the consumer driving production, he assumes that business owners can just set prices freely as they wish and the consumers can't do anything about it. Again, it's purely based off of theory with nothing to back it with, not only does the real world contradict those arguments, a free market economy most certainly would. Thought Slime really gives an insight into the mentality of Marxists, however, especially when he states that people 'have' to share, implying the use of force. How he can claim that socialism is compassionate is beyond belief, given the fact that the premise of his argument is based around force and it is sad that I have to reiterate the fact that you cannot place theory above practice. This is a common theme you'll find in all arguments with socialists, they don't live in the real world, their entire argument for socialism is purely based off of theory and no real world examples. It is all about their aspirations, much like Thought Slime argues, but none of them can really tell you how they set about achieving their goals. They ignore that in practice economic reality defies them and in the process of getting rid of the private sector there is no real answer as to how the state is going to just wither away. Note the fact that in order to get rid of the private sector you require a specific type of character, a type of leader to reach that goal and the only type capable of doing so who have the gall just so happen to be the very dictators like that similar in ilk to the Nicholas Maduro's of the world, which explains a lot for why it always ends in totalitarianism. The arguments Thought Slime uses against capitalism are fallacious also and there really is no strong foundation to his argument for why socialism pertains to human nature. His theory would require the moneyless based economy, again, I've argued numerous times before which you can check out my 3 videos on the Economic Calculation Problem that cover extensively destroying his argument of socialism: • profits and losses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • variety of options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc • Economic Calculation Problem (Extended): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 The economic calculation problem goes a long way to explain that in the process of nationalising industry to get rid of the private sector it leads on the road of an evermore self-serving government, it cannot possibly work out people's needs and wants in the absence of the information of profits and losses. Thought Slime fails to comprehend the fact that as a result of the economic calculation problem it means that jobs end up being allocated into the wrong parts of the market, which explains why governments are so famous for being wasteful building things out of its own self-interest whilst neglecting the consumer. Also, government doesn't create jobs, it destroys more than it creates, it simply reallocates resources into the wrong parts of the market creating waste when such resources and wealth could be allocated into parts of the market in greater demand where jobs would be better suited. The misallocation of resources inevitably will lead to job losses and worthless jobs that lead to nothing. Just look at the Soviet Union and all the waste it created as what they produced was left to waste. Again, automation cannot fix the problem nor can automation read the human mind. In the real world, when the private sector is eliminated the economy would go into collapse, and even attempting a moneyless based economy would result in extreme poverty, people would lose the will to live and I have to repeat again that personal ownership of property has absolutely nothing at all to do with socialism and communal ownership. Communal ownership defies the entire meaning of personal ownership. Like the pilgrims in the Starving Time between 1607 and 1609 in Jamestown that starved to death, the starvation was caused by the communal ownership, the absence of secure private property rights. Lo and behold, once the individuals were given their own private lot the colonies immediately began to prosper because then they were able to finally work for the fruits of their own labour. People like Thought Slime are a great danger to humanity because what he proposes deems to repeat history where millions would starve to death. Discord: https://discord.gg/tVMZnta

You'll hear many myths about capitalism, one of which @Viki 1999 covers with the usual innovation myths. It is the claim that capitalism isn't innovative and that what harnesses innovation is through the public sector. As I have argued in this video, it is a black and white argument to say one is innovative and the other is not. Even in the public sector you will find individuals working. As I have noted, however, it is through economic freedom that allows individuals to freely think for themselves which explains why the industrial revolution was such an innovative time period. There is no denying the fact that there have been many great inventions of the past, even throughout the history of Ancient Greece and Rome and there have been things innovated in the past, however, as I argue, @Viki 1999 fails to comprehend that it's not so much people can't innovate in the public sector, it's the inefficiency, for many things in the market you require the information of consumers in order to know what requires more developing and again relates to resource allocation, it all plays back to the economic calculation problem. You can hear from Viki's argument that she fails to comprehend not only how important business reputation is, but how dependent businesses are upon their consumers. As I've noted, she also fails to comprehend the difference between costs and price. Libertarian Views Scotty M Discord Server: https://discord.gg/xgXYmhw

An interview with my friend Mike who is originally from Hong Kong explains in great detail on a variety of questions giving you an insight into how he got into Classical Liberalism, his view of the caged, housing, the Kowloon Walled City and many other topic issues regarding the rights and immigration. There will definitely be a second part to follow regarding some important questions which we will cover on the minimum wage, the central banking system, among other things. I felt we covered a great deal within the 2 hours of this interview that covers a fair bit, including Mike's take on the NHS and even on social security. Powered by Restream https://restream.io/

The true face of Communism is disastrous and here we have the human nature argument by @TheFinnishBolshevik who claims to understand human history. In his video, which you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqYcpeQwtL4&t=11s He claims that capitalism defies human nature, yet completely ignores recorded history proving that throughout human history, every single given attempt at collectivism has been an abysmal failure. Prior to the industrial revolution, collectivism dominated the planet, lo and behold, life was miserable. Like I have pointed out in this video, their working hours were horrid, never let alone their pay. The only thing I forgot to mention was that the only way the majority could accumulate wealth prior to the industrial revolution was through plundering via theft and violence. This explains the endless feuds and wars across world history prior to the industrial revolution. I've mentioned before, people like @TheFinnishBolshevik take for granted what life was like. They live in this assumption that life was simply wonderful and then along came the industrial revolution factories that apparently came across them like a cloud of darkness and made their life worse. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, the life expectancy, wages and material wealth of the people in the 1840s alone after the first industrial revolution was far greater than it had been prior to the industrial revolution. You have to remember that before the industrial revolution there weren't those machines, you were forced to work with your hands. Life expectancy was abysmal, the average life expectancy of a child was the age of 9 and an adult the age of 40. There were periodical famines and people suffered from the common malnutrition diseases. Despite all of this, however, even into the 20th century, we saw the true colours of collectivism as millions died of starvation and were brutally murdered. The remarkable part is, however, is the fallacious claim to state that capitalism developed to a "NEW" capitalism. Yeah, I suppose if you ignore the fact we live under a mixed economy which means there had to have been an introduction of more and more socialism into the economy, then of course he would state this, because it doesn't suit his agenda. Socialism is THE most evil ideology to ever exist in human history and prior to the industrial revolution we saw people being burned at the stake or hung at the gallows for simply speaking their free mind, like the young boy Thomas Aikenhead. But apparently, individual self-interest did not exist according to him. The problem with that argument is, I'm Scottish, I was born and raised in a very historic country dating back 10,000 years that was Western Europe's poorest nation. I was born in a country that faced all those wars and strife. Dating from Ancient Greece right up to the 1760s, the wages were dirt poor, living standards were that awful that if you were to teleport someone from Ancient Greece into the early 18th century, they wouldn't tell much of a difference. However, despite this economic stagnation and EXTREMELY slow growth rate despite 2,000+ years of history, @TheFinnishBolshevik wishes to tell you how glorious collectivism was. If communism was so glorious to human nature, why on earth were countless millions trying to escape those very regimes? It's magical that despite the mass graves, the human catastrophe through their economic ignorance to what their government price controls caused that they then have the audacity to claim they are humanitarian. As history has proven, socialism is anything but humanitarian, in fact, it's the direct opposite of that. One only needs to look at Venezuela during its oil boom in 2003, immediately following price controls followed the food shortage crisis. But trust communists to defy the study of economics, time and time again that has resulted in the deaths of countless millions. The truly fantastic part is, however, they think they can then say to you, whilst not understanding a single thing about economics, that humanitarianism is more important than economics itself. Go tell that one to the North Korean people living in extreme poverty. Tell that one to the Zimbabwean people. Welcome to the real world, people, where in a 65+ million populated country, each and every single individual all have different tastes, different needs and wants and countless many people just wish to go their own way and that is precisely what socialism defies. According to communists, however, they think people are just indoctrinated that way from birth. It was that belief and influence of Darwinism put into practice that resulted in the deaths of countless millions of people, now that is what we call recorded history. *My Discord Server:* https://discord.gg/xgXYmhw

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/

Powered by Restream https://restream.io/

A test Q&A testing Restream using eCamm. There's a lot I obviously need to still get to grips with, but I'll get there in the end. Covering mostly the political and economics stuff on a variety of issues from questions asked. Powered by Restream https://restream.io/

In this video on why automation will not destroy jobs, I cover the argument for the demand for consumers as well as on scarcity. Jason Unruhe doesn't comprehend why with the market ever changing that it isn't a case that automation would just wipe out the labour force and there would be no human labour left. He doesn't seem to comprehend that if it weren't for the people, the automation would not exist. This argument and myth has been around for more than a century, the same claims about the industrial revolution, but if that were the case during that most innovative time period, how come thousands, upon thousands more jobs were created than that of what was lost? It's like I have explained before, of course jobs would be lost from the agrarian economy, this is because they transferred across to the industrialised economy working in factories, it's no different to what happened over a 100 year time period from the 1870s to 1970s where Britain was on a long transitional time period moving away from the manufacturing-driven based economy to the consumer-driven based economy. Jason Unruhe just makes the baseless assumption that the technology will then grow to a point it will be unstoppable, but as has been seen from the past, when certain A.I. robots have come out and said wrong things they found "offensive" like Sophia, they reprogrammed it, it's almost controlled in many regards. I would imagine it would be much similar to that of self-driving cars. Like I have questioned, who will regulate the regulators? Just like who will regulate the automation, and so long as there is a demand from consumers, innovation and entrepreneurship, there will always be a demand. As I pointed out, when one part of the market becomes highly productive, it frees up resources and labour in other parts of the economy. The market is ever changing.

As was requested by a follower on Facebook and of UKIP I decided to cover this topic on Direct Primary Care: the free market solution to healthcare. I covered in my previous video on American Healthcare costs, which you can check out here: https://youtu.be/SHR7FlRrhAU In that video I addressed the reasons for why American healthcare costs so much as I mentioned about the AMA monopoly, overregulation of the private sector and the third party-payer system. If you would like to learn more about the Direct Primary Care system, I highly recommend you have a listen to Rob Lambert's TED Talk on Direct Primary Care as he explains how it has made his life as a doctor so much better here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJYJPWpAX-Y&t=41s You can also check out this very informative video that gives a fuller explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTZnfxFeasI&t=17s If you would like to listen to Josh Umbehr in greater detail on Tom Woods show, here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOMI6Cqxw7E&t=295s Direct Primary Care is the free market solution to healthcare, as I've explained, the Direct Primary Care model has greatly reduced American's healthcare costs all thanks to cutting out the middle-man and most of the insurance. There is greater detail out there, I highly recommend searching up the names: • Shane Purcell • Josh Umbehr Also check out this informative talk on Direct Primary Care: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMI3CPhzGI8 The Direct Primary Care model takes healthcare back to the direct doctor-patient relationship, as I explained, the third party-payer system is anti-capitalist. I will note, that if this system became widespread and more and more doctors were available in DPC, there would be much greater access to healthcare and the medical doctors working in the DPC model would be able to see through more patients. It's heartbreaking to see how many people are so unaware of such a system and more need to be made aware as this revolutionary free market system could help save peoples lives and who knows, it may just influence Britain in a similar direction as the NHS is inefficient.

As many people question why American healthcare costs so much, the answer I provide in detail explains the government created monopoly. Countless people who support the NHS will turn to the United States main healthcare market and say: _"look at their healthcare costs, go live there if you wish to experience private healthcare."_ This is a gross misunderstanding for why American healthcare costs are expensive, it doesn't look at the bigger picture, they merely state that it's a _"for-profit"_ system and then claim it's because there is a private sector. It's disingenuous and a clear misunderstanding of economics and prices. The reason costs drive up is due to restricting the market via government intervention. As I explain in this video on why American healthcare costs so much, I explain the AMA monopoly, over-regulation of the private sector, and the third party-payer system. I will also be covering a video separately addressing the solution on Direct Primary Care, the free market model of healthcare. The point of this argument is to make it clear for not only why American healthcare costs are expensive, but also to address the point that the main healthcare market in the United States is NOT free market. I've lost count of how many people attempt to point to American healthcare costs and erroneously claim this is somehow some sort of example of capitalism in healthcare, nothing could be farther from the truth. The main American healthcare market is anti-competitive, it destroyed competition, monopolised the healthcare market through a government created monopoly that was engineered to shaft the consumer and create an age of dependency. This argument also makes clear the point that the solution is NOT universal healthcare, therefore, it isn't about crying out for more government, the solution is getting rid of government from healthcare.

The Labour Theory of Value explained in plain English. I hope I have covered enough for you to understand in this video to help you understand the difference between Adam Smith's Labour Theory of Value to that of Karl Marx. I also show the difference between the objective vs subjective, which the subjective theory would soon supersede the view of objective theory relative to the Labour Theory of Value. As I was requested to do a response video on Jack Angstreich, I just so happened to come across one of his debates he had on the Labour Theory of Value in which you can tell he struggles to answer in the original source. Bearing in mind, the audio in my own video is heavily edited. You can find his original argument in the debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQ02sTO6PM&t=177s Jack Angstreich fails to comprehend what Adam Smith's Labour Theory of Value was about, it most certainly wasn't to do with the quantity of labour, as I explained in this video. The critique I have for the Labour Theory of Value is that it viewed value as objective and I reiterate the point that Karl Marx did not accept the laws of supply and demand, he rejected prices being able to fluctuate freely in the market. Also, Karl Marx most certainly did not view value as subjective, but as objective. Value, as I have argued, can only be determined down to people's subjective opinion, not everyone holds the same value in things and in relation to price, what people are willing to pay for goods, as well as in relation to supply and demand.

In this first part covering the healthcare debate debunking @A Skeptical Human on the Scandinavian healthcare system. His own video was in response on @StevenCrowder's healthcare argument. There is a lot I left out and will leave for a separate part, such as addressing why the American healthcare system is so inefficient, problematic and overly costly and will be doing a remake of the healthcare costs. I briefly addressed the point that the American main healthcare market is anti-capitalist, therefore, is not free market and that currently in the United States there is the Direct Primary Care model, which is based off the free market model of healthcare. In this part I address mostly on the Scandinavian healthcare system as you will hear a lot about public ownership or "Universal healthcare" so to speak. This doesn't look at the bigger picture, especially the problems these countries are facing as a result of government ownership of healthcare. Being from Britain, born and raised in Scotland, into a healthcare system known as the NHS that was widely touted as the 'greatest healthcare system in the world,' I can safely tell you that opinion surveys are meaningless. What I cut down on in this video was much of my explanation as I felt it would be too long. To elaborate on my position, I have known countless people to contradict themselves where in a heartfelt discussion with strangers they'll speak of the bad and how they're still waiting for their doctors appointment all the problems with the NHS, but as soon as it comes to defending it, they contradict themselves. I have watched these people literally brush the failure right under the carpet merely to excuse it and when you confront them on it and force them into a concession where they admit it is failing, they then come up with all the excuses. The point being, people's opinion stated in survey's and polls, etc are never honest. There is a large loud majority in Britain today who live in this phase of denial and the same response is always brought up that it is all the "evil Tories fault" for the NHS failing. This is no different to those other countries he mentioned, such as the Scandinavian countries. I also addressed the Scandinavian socialism myth and the damaging impact of their welfare policies, after all, it is those policies which are harming their economies. Finland being the prime example, there's always a price to pay for such things. I did address that @A Skeptical Human did mention about taxes being used, so he does acknowledge this fact, but another thing I cut out was information of where else government takes from. I felt the brief examples I gave were suffice enough, but in short, the government cannot give to you without taking from another first, which it ends up greatly increasing your costs of living, destroying employment opportunity, productivity and so much more all in the name of paying for the free stuff. This all correlates to the Broken Window Fallacy which I feel I could make a much improved video on that topic issue soon enough. You can check out A Skeptical Human's original video on healthcare in response on @StevenCrowder's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRF4wjQmmEo&t=193s

I am a Minarchist defending Anarcho Capitalism because I believe it deserves its chance. Debunking @Xexizy on private security among other things on Anarchism, although I believe there is a role for government, I would never say no if Anarchism was ever given the chance. Anarcho Capitalism can be viewed as very idealistic and must be said that it is nothing at all like the irraitonal attempt you saw in Capitol Hill, Seattle (CHAZ/CHOP). Instead, there is private security, a court system and is most certainly not lawless. I cover a variety of these arguments in my video. Bearing in mind, my knowledge on Anarcho Capitalism will not be to the same extent as someone who has done a lot more research into it. I am not someone who is purely ideological, I go by arguments that correlate to what history has proven, therefore, unlike other Libertarians, I support any position which defends the free and open market as that is what is most important for me and for what would benefit society as a whole in my eyes. @Xexizy bases his assumption that under Anarcho Capitalism there is one corporation and it just rules all, almost as if to say that it acts as a central planner. His arguments are purely theoretical and doesn't live up to real world history that contradicts him. You can read more on the private security by Murray N. Rothbard here which is a fantastic article: https://mises.org/wire/privatize-police Another fantastic article by Tate Fegley on Private Policing Isn't a Fantasy: https://mises.org/wire/private-policing-isnt-fantasy

Taxation is theft, it is something I have long argued and having been recommended to respond on @The Progressive Voice video 'Taxation Is Not Theft,' I decided to make this video debunking his argument giving my reasoning for why taxation is theft. I must concede that given the fact I support minimal small government under minarchism, then yes, I would be forced to have some form of tax, which I would prefer a 10% flat tax rate. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the economy is best left be to the free market and not in the hands of the government. I concede, however, that regardless of @The Progressive Voice claiming taxation is not theft, no matter how often he may tell himself to convince himself that is the case, you cannot take something from someone without their consent and label it as anything other than theft. I have explained my reasoning for the use of public services today and the voting system for why it doesn't change the fact it is theft and have covered briefly on negative and positive rights to back my argument. My own personal gripe, especially on this argument, is how regressive the progressive income tax really is and there is enough evidence to show why it is a drain on the economy. I could have gone into so much information on the failure of a mixed economy and the public sector, but I felt that was a different topic issue. It must be said, however, that his argument in defence of the public services he mentioned, the free market would give it a showing up on efficiency, it's not like history isn't there to already show for why this is.

​@NonCompete did a video on so-called 10 bloodthirsty capitalists who apparently murdered their way to the top and in my video I have made it perfectly clear why people don't understand capitalism and debunked his argument. It must be said that the examples of Chiang Kai-Shek, the Pinkerton Detective Agency and the Brazilian military dictatorship were bad enough, some of the examples @NonCompete used were simply too ridiculous but still covered briefly on those arguments. The only reasonable argument I see made was on the Dow Chemical company, but I would not be surprised if there is a lot more information about that story. As I have argued numerous times before, capitalism has nothing to do with the government and its control over the economy and have explained my reasoning in this video. I have covered enough in this video to clearly make the distinction between capitalism and what is not capitalism for the purpose of explaining why his 10 bloodthirsty capitalists argument is wrong.

Privatisation is something which is grossly misunderstood, one YouTuber called @Shaun made a video on How privatisation fails, so I decided to do this video response on privatisation vs nationalisation to tackle many of the erroneous claims made in his argument. A brief summary of my argument it is suffice to say that there is a colossal difference between capitalism and corporatism, true private ownership and faux private ownership and I have illustrated in several historical examples to back my case. You will always find that those who make such erroneous claims, are the same people peddling myths about capitalism, one of the most common myths is the claim that if you deregulate the economy, all hell will break loose and we'll all die. I have long argued that Keynesian logic is every bit as deeply flawed as that of Marxism itself. I have explained why socialism doesn't work numerous times on things like the economic calculation problem, you can check those out here: • profits and losses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • variety of options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc • ECP (extended): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjzofn0qzQ4 Conservatives for Liberty: Forget nationalisation; the railway needs full privatisation: http://con4lib.com/forget-nationalisation-the-railway-needs-full-privatisation/ A number of the other arguments I addressed regarding the inefficiency when it comes to comparing privatisation vs nationalisation on regulation and governments incompetency over how it spends your own money.

Arguably the most stupid argument that has come out of the BLM protests is the argument for reparations. Not only did Britain pay its reparations as taxpayers in Britain had been paying for the end of slavery between 1833 to 2014, but the argument in of itself is ludicrous, it's opening a can of worms. If seeking slavery reparations, where does it end and if pulling down statues because you deem it offensive, then you cannot leave out some whilst going after others. The SNP seem to think they can go after our history by pulling down slave trader statues in Scotland, as I have argued to show the hypocrisy, Robert Burns whom the nation rightly admires once managed a slave plantation in the West Indies. As always, socialists dive two feet into everything without thinking things through first. If you pull down those statues, where do you draw the line? The Roman Colosseum has bloodier history than all those slave traders put together, slaves were made to fight to the death for entertainment in the Roman Colosseum, the Colosseum itself was built by slaves as well as countless other things you seen across the Roman Empire. On top of that, the Romans pillaged nations around them like Ancient Egypt. One could even argue that the pyramids were even built by slaves and when speaking about slavery reparations it really is the most stupid argument someone could ever have come up with. Anyone who knows history knows it is never ending. Does it mean Scotland should seek reparations from all our invaders throughout history such as the Romans and Vikings? What about reparations for all the other countries who fought bloody wars and lost many lives? The truth is, history isn't black and white and not everything in history paints the perfect picture. History is there to learn from so that we can learn from our past, those who seek to erase and ignore the past deem to repeat history and history has a terrible habit of repeating itself. As I've pointed out before, the real agenda behind Black Lives Matter is blatantly obvious, the riots breaking into private businesses stealing goods and pulling down statues was never about an attack on slavery, but their agenda to destroy the system to usher in Marxism. Whilst it is true to state that they are clueless in how they go about such things, this was clearly the real agenda behind defunding the police in the United States. Rather humorous that they seek reparations for slavery, yet support the very Marxism that has never once in recorded history ever avoided totalitarianism which was the very essence of slavery. In fact, even this plays into the argument where one could question if we should seek reparations for the reign of terror these socialist regimes caused having killed and terrorised millions of people's lives as it wreaked havoc on the planet.

Perhaps the best part of comedy that has come from 2020 during the BLM protests has been the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). A very sad sight to see much of the violence and division sparked from these Marxists, however, the protests in Seattle created one big comedy show having violently taken over Capitol Hill in downtown Seattle, everything these so-called "Libertarian Socialists" preached against, have done the exact opposite. Paul Joseph Watson has already created the best bit of comedy, so I'll leave you to watch that, which you can view here if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWjQOnrZRg Another thing you can watch proving how comedic CHAZ has turned out to be proving how ridiculous their Libertarian Socialism is in practice, it has formed its own government and prisons will soon follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYE6ceDjYIs The purpose of my own video on the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is to point out the inherent flaw with their ideology that becomes so glaringly obvious. Unlike socialism, capitalism correlates to liberty and doesn't mean lawlessness, instead, you have private police, a court system and protection of private property rights. As you can see from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone experiment of their "Libertarian Socialism" it has descended into chaos with violence, vandalism and complaints of property having been vandalised. They don't realise that socialism itself doesn't correlate with personal ownership and although you haven't seen their "production" stage, you can see where things will lead. Central planning is required. The problem with gauging CHAZ is that they are strongly dependent on the very capitalism from the outside. Hmm, I wonder where I've seen that before? Honestly folks, it really is the best comedy we have seen in a long, long time. You can read the article on the Paris Commune here: https://fee.org/articles/seattle-s-autonomous-zone-and-the-paris-commune-of-1871-are-ominously-similar/?utm_source=zapier Also note, unlike the Ukraine "free" territory, so-called "anarchist" Catalonia and Paris Commune, we never had video evidence. The beauty of CHAZ, however, we can now see just how much conflict of interests there really are and like you can see from above forming its own government, they're now forming their own hierarchy they claimed to be against. If there is any comedy I missed out, I may create a separate video just showing the comedy rather than speaking about it. If you have material yourself, be sure to share it for the world to have a right good laugh. The internet really has been the greatest creation for our own pleasure.

Throughout the BLM protests it has only helped to clarify why the mainstream media cannot be trusted and helps to solidify my argument of its use of indoctrination. You will have no doubt noticed a large drop in people who trust in the mainstream media especially after the whole Brexit fiasco and with the constant ramming it down our throats of how we will "crash out" of the European Union and a political class who were hell bent on destroying our democracy for their self-gratification, it only furthered the divide between the establishment and the people. Having watched the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States and here in the United Kingdom, you could see how heavily swayed in favour of Black Lives Matter whilst singling out and targeting protestors who protect their historical statues as being "right-wing thugs" or on the "far-right." The thing that infuriates people like myself is that Black Lives Matter as an organisation is at its roots, Marxist. Nothing on this planet caused more grief and killed more people than that of socialism, the media expects us to kneel to appease the Black Lives Matter crowd mixed with the violent ANTIFA, meanwhile, patriots and veterans alike are painted as "far-right thugs." If people cannot see how pro-leftist and anti-Libertarian and Conservative the mainstream media are and why the mainstream media cannot be trusted, well, I don't know what to say. You can also check out my arguments in the previous parts: *Part 1:* All Lives Matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPSgHBKejFs *Part 2:* Statistics and What Does Black Lives Matter Stand For https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa3psDxHexE *Part 3:* The Cultural Revolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdtbHK4QcrM The mainstream media sorely needs change and a solution to that problem would be a free market and is why I would support the privatisation and defunding of the BBC, that way it would force them to work for their money, at least then they would serve the people. Real change needs to take place and I wish instead of people putting so much of their energy into calling to defund the police that they would put that into defunding the mainstream media.

Stemming from the BLM protests we have seen much violence, vandalism and robbery. Following that were the attacks on our statues, many may wrongly believe that this is about targeting solely statues that merely offend them relative to the slave trade, however, as we have seen from attacks on certain statues non-related, it's clear to see the real agenda behind the ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter mob; it's the modern day Cultural Revolution. One only needs to learn about the history of the Cultural Revolution of Mao's China to see the pattern of events and from what we have been seeing behind the agenda of the Black Lives Matter movement, the defunding of the police was never about police brutality, that's not to say there aren't certain bad police officers, but the real agenda we can see taking place in their Libertarian Socialist circus show experiment in Capitol Hill, Seattle. The socialists have already shown that in practice there have been countless arguments, fights, and threats of violence and now we see them calling for the "chop" talking about the French Revolution. As I will show you in a later part, the inevitable consequence, it leads to violence; you don't obey your orders in the eventual hierarchy, you'll be punished dearly. Whilst it has been funny to watch, it's an insight into how Catalonia and the Paris Commune played out, the difference is, we now have video evidence to show for it. The following parts I'm covering or have covered: • *Part 1:* why all lives matter. • *Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are. • *Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution. • *Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda. • *Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism. • *Part 6:* Slavery and the riots. You can find my video on education here: •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2z0ug0yMI That gives an insight into some of the history behind state education. This is no different to what you hear in this video with American education. This is why I have long argued that the education system needs to be privatised and why we need a free market in education. The argument on costs is a whole other issue. You can also check out the previous two parts if you haven't already seen them: All Lives Matter Part 1 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPSgHBKejFs Statistics and What Does Black Lives Matter Stand For Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa3psDxHexE The full Talk Radio Show with Mike Graham and Neil Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjHHs8Vhq08&t=1s

As we have seen in the past few weeks from the BLM protests it has created a lot of division. The purpose of my videos is to get to the bottom of the truth and as I made clear in the part 1 on why I support all lives matter, my opposition to Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with racial background. As I mentioned, there are many black people I have great admiration for, one of which is Thomas Sowell, another, Walter Samuels and various black players who play for Rangers Football Club and past and present. As I pointed out previously in part 1, we are all equal and that the beauty of humanity is that we're all individuals with our own unique personality and we should be judged down to our character, not based on colour or nationality, etc. The following parts I'm covering or have covered: • *Part 1:* why all lives matter. • *Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are. • *Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution. • *Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda. • *Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism. • *Part 6:* Slavery and the riots. *Luke Reid's Channel and his full video:* • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoP0jSVIL8lF5RILisql7A • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTti67wrEQ *Sources on Black Lives Matter:* • https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/ • https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-in-the-classroom • https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/28/black-lives-matter-bringing-back-traditional-marxism/ • https://www.aim.org/special-report/reds-exploiting-blacks-the-roots-of-black-lives-matter/ • http://thebereanwatch.org/wordpress/?p=669 • https://canadafreepress.com/article/george-floyd-riots-antifas-marxist-anti-cop-skulduggery • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085u0NnAgjA&feature=youtu.be • https://drrichswier.com/2017/04/02/black-lives-matter-leader-rachel-gilmer-zionism-at-its-core-is-white-supremacy/ • https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/23995-the-deep-left-pockets-of-black-lives-matter • https://ladyliberty1885.com/2017/01/04/black-lives-matter-cofounders/ As I pointed out previously, this information is to provide you with enough information to back Luke's arguments, so if you question what does Black Lives Matter stand for, then the information is all there for you to see the history of Black Lives Matter and their pro-Marxist views, as well as on segregationism. This is why I could never support such a movement. To me, I would never use such a term. Is racism wrong? Yes, does it exist on both sides? Yes, would I ever defend people who are racist towards either side? No, of course not. I would stand in your defence and fight your ground to defend you regardless of your colour. It is important to note that the clear problem in the black American community is clearly an issue that has stemmed from the welfare policies of the 1960s and this I will address in part 6 on 'slavery and the riots.' I feel it is vitally important to get people to understand the issue. The only way people can sit up and fix the problem is by first of all, accepting there is a problem, that way they can address it and then attacking the problem at its roots. And for your information, I strongly support the free market economy for this reason, to destroy the cause of the problems at its roots. Black people in America and elsewhere deserve as much chance at life as anyone and I firmly stand by the fact that the greater the opportunity to get by in life, the less incentive for crime. The solution for me is not more government.

The BLM protests have been pretty chaotic as most of you will have seen. Since a lot has gone on with the protests over the past few weeks I have decided to break things down into the several following parts: •*Part 1:* why all lives matter. •*Part 2:* the crime statistics and who Black Lives Matter are. •*Part 3:* Black Lives Matter's Cultural Revolution. •*Part 4:* The mainstream media and their left-wing biased agenda. •*Part 5:* Capital Hill Autonomous Zone: Libertarian Socialism. •*Part 6:* Slavery and the riots. *Luke Reid's Channel and his full video:* •https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoP0jSVIL8lF5RILisql7A •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTti67wrEQ *Sources on Black Lives Matter:* • https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/ •https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-in-the-classroom •https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/28/black-lives-matter-bringing-back-traditional-marxism/ •https://www.aim.org/special-report/reds-exploiting-blacks-the-roots-of-black-lives-matter/ • http://thebereanwatch.org/wordpress/?p=669 •https://canadafreepress.com/article/george-floyd-riots-antifas-marxist-anti-cop-skulduggery •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085u0NnAgjA&feature=youtu.be • https://drrichswier.com/2017/04/02/black-lives-matter-leader-rachel-gilmer-zionism-at-its-core-is-white-supremacy/ •https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/23995-the-deep-left-pockets-of-black-lives-matter • https://ladyliberty1885.com/2017/01/04/black-lives-matter-cofounders/ All of the above sources are of reference showing you more in-depth of who Black Lives Matter are and what they stand for, showing they are anti-white, segregationist, pro-Marxist and how they are backed by George Soros. As a strong advocate for capitalism, I feel it is vitally important to educate people of Black Lives Matter so they better understand the position for why I oppose the BLM movement. It is sad that it has got to the stage that I have to reiterate which should be common sense that this does not make me a white supremacist and that white supremacists are every bit as wrong as black supremacists and that capitalism has nothing to do with racism. The sad thing is about ignorant Marxists (socialists) claiming that capitalism is racist, not only are they utterly clueless about the fundamental basic economics, which they expect you to take them serious on, but also the history is strongly against them. You would think having seen the 20th century proving that socialism was the most oppressive ideology on the planet that they would take the hint, but clearly the very people protesting against slavery seem to love slavery under a different name. What you will also find is the Libertarian Socialist utopia of Capital Hill Autonomous zone, which has proved to be nothing short of pure comedy, resembles much of the history of the Paris Commune: https://fee.org/articles/seattle-s-autonomous-zone-and-the-paris-commune-of-1871-are-ominously-similar/?utm_source=zapier From what I have analysed thus far, the CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) is far from as Libertarian as they made out it out to be and there is no greater comedy than to see these mindless people depending upon the rest of Seattle outside their _"Autonomous Zone"_ as they are completely clueless. It is like watching a bunch of 12-year old basement dwellers who have just entered the real world for the first time.