Feel free to respond/school on youtube or discuss:
" Under market anarchy, the slightly wealthier party will have a slightly biased vote; the vastly wealthier enterprise may have infinitely more influence over the decision than the weaker economic agent. And you do not choose whether you work for your own benefit, for example - if you can’t acquire the sufficient capital, you’ll be unable to start your own business and forced to subject yourself to wage labor. You choose your master, sure, but that is not freedom"
I’ve never understood youtube comment debates; it’s not exactly an ideal forum. Regardless, are we to believe that the vastly wealthier don’t have disproportionate power in the statist society? And as was pointed out (by you?), trade is not a zero-sum game, and the wealthier members of society do not necessarily consume at the expense of the poorer. That many producers work to satisfy the wealthier does not mean producers will neglect satisfying the poorer. It pays to serve the poorer as well as the wealthier. Capitalism is “mass production to satisfy the needs of the masses.”
As for his claim that in socialism he still has the freedom to choose what to wear… well, you can’t wear what is not produced by the central planner. If it is up to some central authority to decide what clothing will be produced, then you may only wear what the central planner deems proper. If the decision is subjected to a democratic vote, you either win or you lose. In the market, it is of little importance if the majority wishes to wear suspenders; if a small group of people prefer to wear belts, an entrepreneur will work to satsify that demand.
Yeah I made zero sum comment, and I upvoted after I watched it. I love starting these topics on socialist comments. I feel like dissecting socialist political commentary reveals much about politics in general.