I had one question to my friends coworkers and family today What is being talked about at the G20 meeting today in London no one could answer it so we hire these people to run our planet and we have no idea what the f#@k their doing the emotions from most amaze me cmoleon his comment says it all
it is always interesting to see people first stumble from the ivory tower of academia, trying to dissimulate their shock as it dawns on them that there is a universe out there they had no idea even existed; that might be so vastly more real than their previous world of perpetual pedantery, pointless diversion and circular cross-referencing which they've learned at such great pains to substitute for thinking.
I believe that the only logically and morally consistent position is anarchy, and that is under the umbrella of libertarianism often... Check out my free audiobooks on anarchy if you like... :)
Oh, I forgot, if it's all in "the books" it must be true. Nevertheless I am a product of european public schls & quiet illiterate, pls indulge me: what PRIMARY sources can you bring up in defense of your claims in this particular video? For example the ones concerning poverty before the "welfare state" and after. I assume you speak of the New Deal. Does your source use the Orshansky method to determine poverty rates before 1933, or something else? I heard UWM research is avail for 1940-50.
Thanks. I'll have a gander. Though it just occured to me. How is the evidence in those books any different than Stefs books? Outside of actual experience I suppose we have to rationally discern for ourselves what is true from what we read.
I wasn't aware that Stef's books were unsubstantiated claims of a random nature. I assumed that he wrote about something he was educated in and spent time with. Which is why we should never assume I guess. I'll have to check them out as well.
No, what I meant was that this particular claim I asked him about is unsubstantiated, ie. it's not sourced and his reply to refer me to some random "books" with no specific page or bibliographical reference, not even a title means it remains an unsubstantiated claim, that's what I meant.
BTW Robert Rector is a respected conservative authority on the subject & his arguments r fairly well sourced, sometimes it takes more than 20 mins of googling to devastate'em, but at least it's a challenge.
I see what you mean. From what I gather his books probably explain why he "believes" anarchy is the logical choice. I haven't read all of them so I'm not a credible source on that. The one thing that does click for me is the non aggression principle and as soon as you stand by that there's no logical way of accepting government even if I had no access to any historical facts.
20% of the UK live UNDER the poverty level set byteh WHO. 14% are children.
There is MASS poverty in the UK, but you dont see it in nice places, becasue the victims are "moved on" or arreested by police.
One of the main causes of death for homeless peopel is when they get killed sleeping in SKIPS. Yes, the man comes in the morning with his lorry, tips the skip and ther's one less statistic.
LOTS of peopel die this way - LOTS ! I know because i have a CPC in road transport.
Thank you for this video, I am going to spread it around. I appreciate that you stuck to the economics and politics and ethics of the issue without condemning the belief in Christianity. As a Christian w/ like-minded company, it is useful to have such a great and clear-minded rebuke of statism w/o the baggage of atheism. I know it took restraint and I appreciate that you allowed the distinction here between statism and religion which regrettably have been on the same-side in history.
"Hi Stef nice vid! Please do a video about copyright and patent law! Are you against it or pro copyright?" Check out his podcasts on his website. He does a few on the topic. Podcast #164, 165, and 166 to be more specific.
To everyone who calls stef and other anarchists (myself included) crazy, I just have to say is that all anarchists want is the option to live in a governmentless society, we would never threaten statists with punishment if they DID listen to government and all we ask is the same respect. If we DONT want to listen to government though, would you threaten us with punishment. We would never dream of forcing statists to be anarchists, contrary contrary to how statists want to do to to anarchists.
Stef I really think you just broke your cardinal rule, in the socratic cave scenario(I think) those who become truly free should leave the illusions of the cave and live a happier life and leave it at that. They can never return to cave to convince the others to join in on the happiness, because it only proves that they are not happy enough by themselves and need to share the "misery". The best thing the person can do is show the cave dwellers what happiness is, but never coerve them.
"I agree with a lot of your views, but I think we need some sort of state. A VERY small state. But I enjoy your videos and your intelligence." I can understand your perspective, but some questions arise: How do we keep the state from growing larger, as the USA did? The state is a big target for manipulation when it has any power at all. Would you say that a small cancer is better than no cancer? Check out Stef's Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy to see how stateless societies can work.
"Socialist programs, like wealth distribution, providing welfare for the young, and the old is called theft."
yeah, by dummies who never been to other countries and have no clue that during the biggest real economic expansion in US history top marginal tax rate was 90% and the GI bill gave free education ie. welfare to millions of returning soldiers who then went ahead and built the basics for the electronics revolution.
There is no free education. There's only a series of privately owned schools called the "Public school system". You pay for it with taxes, which are collected with or without your consent and you do not get a say in it's curriculum. "Public" and welfare are simply one of those feel good words that governments love to use, stimulus pack anyone?
BTW, what u practice my friend is an age old way of reasoning and it's called "sophism": the idea that you can prove just about anything, no matter how absurd or controversial, if you perform mental masturbation long enough and are not bothered by little things like stats, facts and or the real world. Calling 4 ex gov a "small group of people" is point in case "sophism": a little lie by omission. In a free society that "small group of people" is ELECTED by a very large group of ppl!
31% is not a "very large group". If you calculate the number of people who elect the present government, in any country, compared to those who either voted for another, or did not vote, you'd see those who "voted for the government" are the minority.
Democracy is dictatorship in which you choose who to be supressed. You miss the whole point. "Elections" are an illusion. You do nothing but "elect" the next fascist.
Yeah, take it out of context, nice one there. You are ultra smart now. Read the entire sentence again, and think about it. If you can't figure it out on your own, read the following sentences.
In principle, democracy is a dictator that says: From now on you can decide who is going to be supressed for the next four years. Democracy = hypocricy. People think democracy is all great and fun until it's in their disadvantage. It's pathetic.
Better than living in a feudal system where local warlords control local resources because there is no authority to stop them. You want no government?! Go to Afghanistan! I love it when spoiled brats talk about gov this and gov that. You ppl don't know how good you have it. I don't know what you would do if 1 day GA decided to extend its border a little north so they get a piece of the Tennessee river. It would be resource wars and the most brutal life u can imagine.
Or imagine anywhere you go you would have to go through private land and pay private toll and submit yourself to the whims of some local hillbilly with his own ideas about security.
Hell, you wouldn't even be able to pay the toll, you would either be ripped off by money changers in every truck stop or you would be arrested for not having the local currency. and when you finally get to the next town you get arrested because you didn't have the right stickers for their town. LOL, that's freedom for you Afghanistan style, but NRA said the streets r EXTRA safe: every 14 year old has his own gun ;)
When did we get of the warlords? Are people in high places not profiting of war?
There is no war in America because of the nukes and the lords know they would get killed if they tried. And the most brutal life I can imagine is only slightly worse than getting tortured and being told it's not torture. Getting your stuff stolen and being told your getting something. Being told the state is moral when violence is wrong and the state seems to be nothing but a monopoly on violence.
U guys are talking about the whole IDEA of gov being bad. What I am saying is that's hogwash and a fairy tale for little girls. In the real world you need gov to protect society. If you think I am wrong point to 1 example in the world where there is no central government and it's not in the uttermost chaos and mayhem you can imagine. African countries are like that and central asia, all of them are places you wouldn' t survive for 5 mins.
The reason a lot of anti-statists point that out,is to make one main point,which is that since the government is conformed of people like you and me,these people can not possibly have rights that you and I don´t have,not in a just society.You might disagree with the conclusions and what it all means, but that IS the point. If it´s wrong for me to use force against human beings that are not using force against me, it is also wrong for people within the government to do so.
On this point the method by which these people become part of the institution we call government is irrelevant, be it force, chosing between two people, or based on lineage, the method of selection does not change these human beings in any essential way, they are still bound by the same morality you and I are. What is right and wrong for me and you as individuals to do, is also wrong or right for people in government as individuals or acting together to do.
The anarchist argument is against the idea of institutionalized government itself. That's why it's a logical fallacy. It takes an abstract argument and supports it with anecdotal evidence designed to provoke emotions against violence and injustice. When in fact none of the anarchists are capable to point to a simple real world example of how their ideas are applied in practice. In fact like with so many utopian ideas there is ample real world evidence that it doesn't work and it's a disaster
Some version of the argument might work in repressive countries, for instance in Iran or Saudi Arabia, others might work in oligarchies and police states like the US. But as soon as they apply it to the IDEA of gov itself they are in fallacy land: there nothing anybody can prove about an abstract concept such as "the government" & if somebody tried, that person would have to indulge in fruitless sophism and speculation.
Anarchism is the complete rejection of any violence and authority and as such can only be realized through extreme violence and authority. It's a little bit like Bolshevism that way.
If we had a society where everybody behaved well we wouldn't need cops, the courts or a military. Fact is that wouldn't be a human society. In other words you would have to lobotomize the population and put them through Dollhouse style high tech reprogramming, 100X as repressive as communism & it wouldn't work
The biggest problem w this video, as noted before me is that it makes a lot of accurate observations about the US and then generalizes and thus arrives to a completely wrong conclusions. For instance the US school system is by far the most privatized system in the industrialized world and also it's among the least effective in terms of results. Same with heathcare. The second most private hcare is Switzerland where everybody can get in the socialized prog incl foreign workers after 3 months.
Another problem is that the whole idea that u put your life savings in the hands of some private money manager and get 20-30% return on it every year without real work is unique in the world, it's too good to be true. That's part of the reason we had the financial meltdown: the babyboomer generation decided they'll take the wealth accumulated by honest manufacturing econ and put it into the financial markets. Every other capitalist country has defined pension benefits supported by gov.
"decided they'll take the wealth accumulated by honest manufacturing econ and put it into the financial markets."
definitely not a good idea: it created a huge misallocation of resources. I know something was wrong the moment I heard from an engineer friend of mine working at GE Medical that he's requesting transfer to GE Finance and he's almost done w his MBA. GE finance was far more profitable than any other branch. A lot of talent and resources went to satisfy this speculative paper tiger.
Yes, the society where everybody behaved is a stretch but one wonders if giving authority to one group is best. I suppose it's the feeling that we all have a say that keeps it afloat. How about we do a reality show whereby 1000 volunteers agree to start a new life in a remote location and see how quickly a government arises.
In a human society you'll have human emotions, greed, hate, jealousy and thus violence. The choice is not between violence or no violence as the anarchist would like you to believe, but between community controlled violence against the individual or uncontrolled individual violence against the individual.
Most of history proves that the 1st is preferred to the 2nd:
Extreme isolation experiments with russian astronauts shows that small communities under stress fracture and become violent.
I have never heard an anarchist say "the choice is not betwen violence or no violence" And only a tiny few ever advocate "extreme isolation"
Non -state does not equate to "individual or uncontrolled violence" and State violence does not equate to "community controlled violence" because The state and community are not synonyms, the state is only a small part of the community.
By definition the state is the community's way of self organizing, not a "part of it". It's a logical fallacy to point to individual bureaucrats working for a particular state, or to bring up individual pathologies of states gone wild like the US empire and conclude via naive induction that ERGO "all states must be like that". In fact the US Constitution, ie. the founding document of the US state starts with "We the People". The IDEA of a democratic state is commensurate with justice for all.
Not every member of society is a member of the state. Even if you think voting makes you a member of the state ( a debatable stance) not all memebers of society are allowed or choose to vote. A mayor or govorner are not "the community" and so to say we should abolish either post does not mean your against community organization. The division of labor is another of societies ways of organizing itself and it predates and exists in the absense of the state.
You seem to confuse 2 notions: the state is an abstract idea, nobody is member of a state. The government is the practical realization of the principles of a state and it is composed of individuals that society either by election or other qualifications deem worthy of carrying out the will of the people. How well this application works in practice depends on many things. However the idea itself has little to do and usually predates its applications.
All catarories of human society are abstract ideas. To say nobody is a member of a state is to say nobody is in the mafia because it only exists as an Idea. A member of a state is a person who is using the application of stateitst ideology to justify their actions. Also certain members of society (like Stefbot here) do not "deem" people worthy of being in a state, so to say that "society" has blessed them with such legitimasy is nonsense. Only a portion of the population has done so.
"A member of a state is a person who is using the application of stateitst ideology to justify their actions"
Wow, I learn a little something every day ;)
Can you show me any mainstream english language example where a person is called "a member of a state"? as opposed to a member of a society?
As for the legitimacy of ppl in government, we call it election. You don't like it you can pitch up tent in a jungle, every free country has them, it's the only known way of surviving in a society.
So you make no distincion between the president, a congressmen, or other people in "government' and other people who are not in government?I dont know of any dictionaries that say "state" and "community' or "society" mean the same thing, but you make no distinction. Also Why should I have to leave if a minority (and yes usually only minorities vote) of people around me "vote" on something. Why is this legitimate? Its the only way you know about, but thats not the same as "the only know way"
The Idea of communism is for Utopian plenty for all, but it would be foolish to concluded that communism is a great because its ideas are good. Democorcy is never mentioned in the Constitution and most of the Founding fathers were explicitly against democrocy. Maybe the idea for democracy is egalitarianism and justice for all, but in ever democrocy ever there has been a power elite, usually people in the state. Can you name one democratic state with "justice for all"?
The other thing about democracy, I don't want to go into, it's an argument I don't really enjoy having because it usually turns out to be a misunderstanding of basic greek vs roman etymology of "democracy" vs. "republic" which most ppl don't follow. But your basic community will "self organize" a fire dept as soon as a house catches fire and will "self organize" a military as soon as they are attacked etc. They soon will arrive to the same organizing principles we call the state: it's survival
Not all societies have developed what "we call the state" The first Urban societies in Mesopotamia for instance were stateless for literally thousands of years. The first know example of fire protection were Roman and were not run, mandated, regulated, or subsidized by the Roman state. Your just assuming that the functions the state currently performs can only be provided in a manner that "we call the state" Since there are examples to the contrary your assumption is falseafiable.
"The first Urban societies in Mesopotamia for instance were stateless for literally thousands of years."
WOW, that's news to me! I thought Mesopotamia was the BIRTHPLACE of the state. Even pre urban societies like Ubaid in the copper age had social stratification w elite class of chieftains managing intra group violence and maintaining social order:
en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Ubaid_period # Society
LOL, I like you playing Karl Popper based on your shoddy understanding of Mesopotamia ;)
I didnt say it wasnt the birthplace of the state, but its was urban and stateless for thousands of years prior to that. It was also to a large extent egalitarian. Ubaid was not the first or only urban society
Do a video search for
(1/6) The Rise Of Man - part1
Its 12 parts in total, and I recomend the whole thing, note the statlessness egalitarian and Urban nature explained here. An elite class is not nessisarily the same as a state, regarless of its desirability.
Look, we can go back and forth with examples. Fact is that the state as we know it today is the result of historic circumstances and it's adapted to the needs of a complex society. I have no doubt that there were examples of isolated communities that lived in virtual stateless paradise w no private property and no laws. Fact is today we don't live in such a world: resources are scarce and conflicts are abundant. The state is the only known way to sort them out, if u know ow pls list'em?!
I dont think there has ever been paradise. I also dont know where you get the idea that there should be no private property. Private property is the basis of civilization as far as Im concerned (lots of socialists will disagree with us there), and the main reason its so important is because resorces are scarce. The basis of your claim that "the state is the only known way" is based on simply ignoring all other examples as "irrelievent."
Right now the state provides certain "servises" but only a tiny fraction of them. The state does not provide your food, computers, cars(yet), most housing, and a fast number of other goods and services. It does provide a few servies. I agree that these are vital, but I do not agree that they must be provided by a state. For instance even today there are completely voluntary non-state examples of those vital servies being provided.
Arbitration for legal disputes, regulation, protection, utlilites, and even law itself have all been (and often still are) provided via non state means so thinking it is impossible without the state is absurd. The same principle that puts food on your table, gas in your car can provide you with all the "servies" of the state, and that priniciple is free market capitalism. Just as an example there are private regulators right now, like Underwriters Labratories, MPAA, AARP, and AAA.
people do self organize, but that organization does not nessisarily meet the definition of what we call a state. You seem to be argueing that whatever solution a socitiety arrives at is a state. I might agree in saying we could call such organization "government' but only because it's a broader term. Many social problems are solved with organizations that don't meet the definition of a state, unless your definition is that all social solutions whatever their form are automatically states.
yeah, the state does not pruduce, provide, or distribute your food. It does "regulate" some sectors, but not all, and this regulation only raises the costs, it does not make it possible. In a few places (like North Korea and the Former Easter Block) the state has run this sector of the economy, and the result was not very encrouaging.
"but that organization does not nessisarily meet the definition of what we call a state."
According to Merriam-Webster:
state = a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory.
In this sense the state is part of human nature, it's been around for eternity. Our sense in which we talk about state today is defined in the US Constitution and in that sense our current government is inadequate. However any argument against this particular state is not 1 against the IDEA
I find stefbot contradict himself in trying to be both a libertarian and an anarchist. As an anarchist he is against state violence and as a libertarian he is against any social welfare program, even the ones already in existence in every much less violent and oppressive capitalist country. However the most oppressive form of state violence is imperial war for private profit. The US can maintain the war machine by denying social benefits to much of its citizens xcept the elderly.
In fact the only way the US military can find enough volunteers is by artificially suppressing certain regions economically and denying benefits like affordable higher education so that it can use these to lure in young people who have no economic prospects. The most extreme state violence, ie. empire is built on the misery artificially inflicted on young poor people. That's why no other democratic country denies cheap gov education and healthcare from ppl: they don't have an empire to protect.
The key word is violence. Social welfare can also be voluntary and charitable. It's the idea of shaking the public down with force then pretending it's for their own good. I believe Stef claims to be a philosopher first. Making the notion of anarchy in line with non-violence.
i find calling taxation "violence" a highly dubious and hypocritical argument coming from a few ideologues in probably the most violent democracy on earth. The idea that some random charity that's subject to the whims of the rich or the stock market will take care of educating generations or feeding disabled people & the poor is not proven in the real world. There is not 1 capitalist country in which this crazy notion is even entertained for a very good reason : it doesn't work.
Stefbot would define a state as "a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force" This is how all current states opperate and the basis of the definition. How is being forced to pay taxes ethically any different from being robbed on the street? Nobody says charity is 'random" I could just as easily say that random socialim can never fulfill peoples needs. "Social Welfare" as you call it is based on violence, people must support it of face punishment, meaning it cannot be called charity.
while I really feel the plight of millionaires bitching about paying another % in taxes and I am really shaken to the core by that senseless violence perpetrated against them as a class, I would have to say there is still no country on earth that has a successful education or healthcare without government support. The reason for that is because gov is the only entity that has a guaranteed revenue indefinitely. Charities go bankrupt, private services disappear, rich people can change their mind
Governments cannot guarantee revenue indefinitley. I know you like to pretend people who oppose you are always rich, but I'm poor and right now I have to give all the money I have left to the government to pay my taxes. I do it because if I dont they could arrest me and throw me in prison. Thats violence, even if they say they are doing it to "help the children." What your saying is that violence is ok if it has the votes. Thats real kind of you.
Even then they can and do. Several European nations like Germany and Austria ceased to be able meet is obligations.They could still tax, but they spent way more than they taxed (as is happening now) and so they just printed and after a while the stuff they printed became worthless as in Zimbabwe now. And they can only "guarantee" taxes, by using violence to force people to pay, an issue your still avoiding.If the government could actually insure all the banks we would never have bank holidays.
Austria and Zimbabwe! funny ;) But u are right, governments can go belly up, but they don't cease to exist like corporations can. they can get into debt but they always have a guaranteed source of revenue. That was the argument. No matter how solid a private healthcare or education system is it will never be as solid as 1 guaranteed by gov. Not to mention that the private sector is inflationary and sooner or later will price ppl out of the market. that's socially unacceptable 4 edu & hcare
How on earth can you say the private sector is inflationary when inflation is caused by the government? The government screws people out of what they "promise" to provide them all the time and so claiming that they offer any "guarantee" in some absolute sense superior to the private sector is silly. Also while a bank, school, or hospital might fail, if there is a demand it will always be replaced, unless the government prevents this, as it does in many areas.
"How on earth can you say the private sector is inflationary"
Just an economic fact. Education costs for example grow on average 2X CPI/yr in the private sector. That's mainly because collages are funded by private endowments. Healthcare is the same: inflation induced by private sector profits. Everywhere in the world where u have strong public education and healthcare to compete w private, prices are a lot lower than in the US.
Rising prices are not nessisarily a sign of inflation, but often a sign of either a rise in demand or a drop in Supply. The price increase in most goods is caused by an increase in the mony supply (inflation) and this is from the government printing money, which lowers the value of existing money aka makes everyone with money poorer. Prices in education and healthcare were both going down (while their quality was rising) prior to the governments intrusion into them.
that's just fuzzy econ theory. the fact is that americans are increasingly priced out of the system and FACT is there is real inflation in education, something you didn't have in the 60s because public schools were taxpayer funded. Today most are funded privately and driven by increasing costs because they are forced to compete with the private research labs for teaching talent. Same is true about hospitals competing 4 specialists, when in fact a sane system would emphasize prevention.
When the government prints money that causes inflation. Thats not 'fuzzy" at all. Most Universities are public and when they dont recieve direct subsidy they recieve indirect subsidy because the government will loan anybody money to go to school. Thats your price inflation right there. Thats also how houses got so expensive, the government made credit artificially availible and directed its flow into the housing and stock markets. This river of money raises prices, not profit seeking.
Well, it's not gov but conservative government that does that a lot, and there is a good reason for that:
zfacts . com / p / 318 . html
As for credit made artificially available you are right about that. What that did was introduced moral hazard into the financial sector and forced every player in the economy to give their money to casino capitalists because a real econ investment could sink but a financial firm w cheap money thrown at them could never. That was also a libertarian: Greenspan.
Calling Greenspan a libertarian is laughable. A libertarian fed chairman would work to abolish the federal reserve. Libertarians support commodity-backed currencies like gold, or at least a free-market of competing currencies, in which good money will inevitably drive out bad.
Libertarians are against central banks. Why dont you find some libertarian literature that calls for the FED artificially increasing the money supply, instead of the stupid guilt by assosiation idiocy your using now. I'm just going to say you favor Gulags and Death camps because your a socialist and so were Stalin and Hitler.
Greenspan as a libertarian in the 60's advocated a gold standard as the only moral or workable monetary system. if he is so consistent, why hasn't he advocated a return to one at any point in his career as fed chairman, or now?
The people who critizised the artificial credit were people like Ron Paul who is libertarian and has tried to abolish the fed numerious times. Liberal "economists" like Paul Krugmen disagree with you and want the government to artificially creat even more credit.
Ron Paul talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. There is no private money scheme that he doesn't support, from health savings accounts to education savings etc, as long as americans give their hard earned money to some money manager that's fine w Dr Paul. Abolishing Social Security is 1 of the most idiotic ideas coming out of conservatives, but as a liberal I am happy 4 it because it assures that conservatives will not even run a 7-eleven let alone the federal gov anytime soon ;)
Why cant people be allowed to save how they want to? Lots of people die way before they ever see benifits, despite having payed into them. Is that fair? If I dont believe in your socialism with its bunk economics, should I be forced to pay for it?
If my socialism is "bunk economics" how come it's your capitalism that's collapsing and leaving millions of americans without healthcare and education. "My socialism" works in every free market capitalist country except the USA ;)
Socialism cannot be trusted in the hands of a bunch of greedy psychopaths. Nor can any government. Only reason why they 'work' in a certain country is because 1) the population is low and 2) The government of that country isn't in the position to rip people off. oh wait, taxes do that already. Yeesh. :D
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background),a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid" D.Eisenhower
If I dont think your ponzi scheme is a good investment of my hard earned money (and no Im not a texas oil millionair) why is ok for you to force me to contribute? If you want a communal,expensive, program with poor benifits that can be arbitrarily cancelled, changed or otherwise annulled thats your business and your welcome to it, but how do you have the moral authority to force me into it against my will?
On this site, you can hear the voices of peopel who wear black capes. Naturally stefbot doesnt really believe in Anarchy, since it cant work, while there are lawyers running round in black capes (and i think he is a lawyer).
Therefore, this may be as education, to study the views of people, or he may be teachign law students somehting about how peopel hate them.
Who knows.
But any workers who can hear these peopel speak, LISTEN to how they view you, me and the other "insects" who are us.
We dont have "my capitalism" in this country. There are no "free market capitalist" countries in the world including the USA. The fact that you dont know this shows that you dont even know what your talking about. You claim "inflation" is caused by profit seeking, but then when you explain rising prices you dont even mention profit but instead say prices rise (which you erroniously refer to as inflation) comes from increased production costs, not profit seeking.
"as long as americans give their hard earned money to some money manager that's fine w Dr Paul"
You mean like when Bush gave a bunch of money managers hundreds of billions or our tax dollars? In a bailout that Obama supported whole heartedly, despite almost everyone being against it. So much for democrocy, they dont care what you think. Your a fool to trust the government.
Right now there almost no government intrusion into the computer sector. According to you since it is all private sector the prices should be rising though you say inflating.However the exact opposite is happening, and the same is generally true in any industry. When the government gets involved its deep pockets make the prise go up.If tomarro Obama said he thought every american should own a lawnmower and would spend money to make it happen, their price would rise from this access to credit.
Computers r not human beings. You break a computer, you buy another one: you can't buy another year in college or another body once it's broken. But I am happy you made this argument, it shows how libertarian laissez faire treats human beings like commodity. Every sentence you start with "when the government" is something u are pulling out of some conservative economists rear end. It's based on no research or statistics. Again, americans pay 2X the OECD average 4 hcare and get inferior serv
Your just being emotive. You claimed that inflation is caused because in the private sector especially without extensive government involvment prices will always rise (inflate in your words) because of profit seeking. However this doesnt happen with computers, why not? Saying Im callus is not an argument. Why dont computer prices rise? Healthcare and Education recieve far more government money than most industries, and yet you pick them as examples of a private sector failiur?
It's a genuine question and a very interesting one at that why is the hightech sector deflationary and the answer has to do with productivity: every year processors are faster and cheaper which enables new R & D into even faster processors. Moore's law. This is not true in any other econ sector.
What Obama is doing in fact is trying to apply IS to healthcare because that will introduce deflationary pressures and will drop prices. Beside records, finding new drugs is a computational problem.
Its not only the high tech sector, over time processes in most industries become faster adn cheaper. And besides why dont they simply over charge above and beyond the savings they make from such increases in efficency to make even more profit? Why was there and explosian of 5$ pizzas and subs? Competition with each other is what drives down the price. Directing rivers of government money into an industry makes the prices there go up.
No, the fact is no sector of the economy has innovation outpace inflation to the point that it becomes deflationary. Cars over all are more expensive and not much more efficient than they were in the 60s. The only commodity that actually dropped in price is computing power and that's because the # of transistors/ sqr inch is increasing exponentially since 1958. Moore's law has effects on other sectors, like real time inventory or industrial automation, but that's not enough 2 turn them defl.
And inflation is not caused by the government printing more money? Is Zimbabwa's inflation from the private sector raising prices? what about Weimar German's? Rising prices and inflation are not the same thing.What your describing is a rise in price caused by production costs (supply side). Inflation is when the monatary unit losses purchasing power, and the primary cause of this is the creation of more money. Something only the government can do.This increase in the supply lowers the value
If Obama said tommarro, that to set the economy straight he was going to make availible 1 billion in low interest government loans to pay for people to get lawn mowers, do you think the price of lawn mowers would go up, down, or not change? Why?
If you look at examples of private currancies, (which exist even today and are actually not historically rare) their value usually deflates, or rises in purchasing power, which is a good thing. Government currancy could only achieve this if the government stopped spending (so it only happens when governments DO cease to exist like Iraq or the USSR). Private currances that inflate, or loose their value are outcompeated by ones that deflate.
Even when corporations (which are actually a legal fiction created by the state) fail their assets are not destroyed but revert to their creditors. Governments renig on their promiese all the time. China for instance has told the 100 million + people in its State run heavy industries that contrary to what they had been told they will not recieve pensions or healthcare as they had been told. Ask anyone in the VA about the promises the government makes and "guarantee" is not what comes to mind
I think a lot of the anti tax sentiment in the US can be attributed to the unfair nature of the tax code. Folks don't realize that the ruling elite skewed the US tax system so that only the middle class pays taxes while wages are stagnant or falling. No person who can afford an accountant for himself will pay the nominal amount of taxes he is supposed to mainly because of tax loopholes available for the rich through corporations and investments. Plus Americans think % tax is the same as net $
Not knowing the stats on whether it's even "working" now I can't argue but let's say someone stops you in the street and says I know what's best so give me your money. At the very least you'd want to be able to say "Can I check with some other muggers first?"
If the peopel of many foreign countries were offered the cnance to evolve without ANY cntact with us, as tribes or whatever, they would bite our hands off.
in fact, they cant keep us out, no matter how much they beg.
So it will either end up world slavery, or world utopia, but either way, will probably be the same peopel in control.
World peace or world war.
I personally cnat imagine anarchy working in the long term, since one group always dominates anohter.
Today I am more afraid of "free enterprise" inflicting extreme violence on people than I am afraid of the idea of "we the people" or what u call "the government" doing that. Of course your argument works in a police state like the USA, a state that's incarcerating 1 in every 136 of its own citizens. It doesn't work in a free democratic country like Finland or Denmark, sorry.
Lol im am from Finland and i can ashure you that this country aint free.. for example i have to buy my alcohol from government owned monopoly and it only open on random hours like on saturday from 8 am to 6 pm. after that its impossible to get wine.. And dont even get me started on taxation or healthcare.
So are you a finnish libertarian, or are you just saying that all the people in the US that salivate over the supposad scandanavian Utopeas are ignorant?
While I feel the pain of scandinavians about their booze inconvenience, fact is the US locks up 1 in every 136 of its citizens, in scandinavia that's 1 in every 1500. US child poverty rate is 18%, that's non existent in scandinavia. US premature mortality rate is the highest in the west. US population is slightly healthier than eastern eu mainly because they have no maternity leave and health is 90% determined by the 1st 3-4 years of life: children are not respected by the system like in Finl.
I suppose the high incarceration rate is the fault of the private sector and not the government, just like inflation. The US is a vastly Larger nation than any in Scandinavia, having 10 times the population of Sweden. Its also the destination of many millions of immigrants every year, mostly from "3rd world" countries. Im not at all against this immigration, but to ignore it is foolish.
Incarceration rate among US immigrants (legal or illegal) is slightly lower than the general population. The highest rate is among black men, 4000 over 100k, then hispanics. That's 5X what it was under Apartheid: 850/100k. You have to realize that RATE is a % and it it doesn't matter how large the population itself. I lived in 3 countries and travel a lot: I find libertarians all over the world, they are usually uninformed people. Educate yourself, go 2: books . google . com and type in OECD
I meant to say "well meaning but uninformed". I have nothing against libertarians I like to chat with them, usually very nice ppl, but not up to snuff with facts.
I wasnt suggesting that immigration caused the incarceration rate, but that it contributes to the poor health stats. We do have a high incarceration rate and it is mostly because of people being arrested for victimless crimes, like buying,selling, or using drugs. Libertarians are all against this, and it is not a problem with the private sector, but with the government. Or do you think the incarceration rate is somehow not the government's fault?
I agree with libertarians about mandatory minimums and draconian drug laws. Where I disagree is their differentiation between gov vs. private sector. In reality there is a revolving door and it's the same people on both sides. Hank Paulson and Dick Cheney are most well known examples. What causes problems in the US today is like the systemic problems that brought down communism: an unaccountable class of people in priv or pub sector who are isolated from the consequences of their actions.
As for the poor health stats, it has mostly to do with diet and lifestyle, again among not immigrants but the most oppressed group of US citizens: black men, and right after that black women. It has to do with the availability of healthy food in inner cities. That's because the market doesn't take care about things like a sensible agricultural policy or public health. In the US gov policy is created by politically connected industry oligarchs who dictate policy thanks 2 this revolving door.
You cannot have a state and not have an unaccountable class of people isolated from the consequences of their actions. I Agree that this is a huge problem, you acurately called it moral Hazard. No state that has ever existed has been without it. If you think Sweden, Canada, or Iceland are examples where there is no unaccountably upper class, your totally naive. Healthy foods can be had at almost any grocery store, the fact many choose not to use them is not an indightment of the free market
Beyond the basic fact that the state is violence, you don't need historical data in order to prove that the state is immoral - it's irrelevant.
andrewimeson 5 months ago
We're in Canada Stef, why do u always refer to America?
hagbard72 1 year ago
excellent.
Thank you.
kevinz1985 1 year ago
I had one question to my friends coworkers and family today What is being talked about at the G20 meeting today in London no one could answer it so we hire these people to run our planet and we have no idea what the f#@k their doing the emotions from most amaze me cmoleon his comment says it all
crapalator 2 years ago 2
it is always interesting to see people first stumble from the ivory tower of academia, trying to dissimulate their shock as it dawns on them that there is a universe out there they had no idea even existed; that might be so vastly more real than their previous world of perpetual pedantery, pointless diversion and circular cross-referencing which they've learned at such great pains to substitute for thinking.
cmoleon 2 years ago
oh, just get a grip!
asdf545454096 2 years ago
I like some of the points you make, describing the way taxes work and such, but it's a rather blunt commentary: You are a statist. You are wrong.
empbac 2 years ago
Are you a minarchist or an anarchist?
SandwichPirate 2 years ago
I am a philosopher, and therefore an anarchist... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I don't understand. Are you saying that those who are analytical reason their way to anarchism by default?
Also, isn't libertarianism minarchy and not anarchy? I remember you talked about Ron Paul a lot, and 'libertarianism' is in the description.
SandwichPirate 2 years ago
I believe that the only logically and morally consistent position is anarchy, and that is under the umbrella of libertarianism often... Check out my free audiobooks on anarchy if you like... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
belief is nice, doesn't really substitute for evidence.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago
Quite true, which is why I suggested the books.
stefbot 2 years ago
Oh, I forgot, if it's all in "the books" it must be true. Nevertheless I am a product of european public schls & quiet illiterate, pls indulge me: what PRIMARY sources can you bring up in defense of your claims in this particular video? For example the ones concerning poverty before the "welfare state" and after. I assume you speak of the New Deal. Does your source use the Orshansky method to determine poverty rates before 1933, or something else? I heard UWM research is avail for 1940-50.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago
You seem quite educated on these matters. I'd like to find out more about Orshansky. Where did you find this info?
Thanks
DCLugi 2 years ago
I would be happy to share links but the youtubes don't really allow the dissemination of links in comments ;)
do a google search on site:census . gov "The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds "
census . gov / prod / 2006pubs / p60-231 . pdf
irp . wisc . edu / publications / focus / pdfs / foc113a . pdf
These r examples of primary and secondary sources, or what we colloquially call "evidence" in books and such
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 3
Thanks. I'll have a gander. Though it just occured to me. How is the evidence in those books any different than Stefs books? Outside of actual experience I suppose we have to rationally discern for ourselves what is true from what we read.
DCLugi 2 years ago
You mean what is the difference between US Census data, academic research based on US census data and unsubstantiated claims in a random book?!
en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Definitions_of_primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago
I wasn't aware that Stef's books were unsubstantiated claims of a random nature. I assumed that he wrote about something he was educated in and spent time with. Which is why we should never assume I guess. I'll have to check them out as well.
DCLugi 2 years ago
No, what I meant was that this particular claim I asked him about is unsubstantiated, ie. it's not sourced and his reply to refer me to some random "books" with no specific page or bibliographical reference, not even a title means it remains an unsubstantiated claim, that's what I meant.
BTW Robert Rector is a respected conservative authority on the subject & his arguments r fairly well sourced, sometimes it takes more than 20 mins of googling to devastate'em, but at least it's a challenge.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 2
I see what you mean. From what I gather his books probably explain why he "believes" anarchy is the logical choice. I haven't read all of them so I'm not a credible source on that. The one thing that does click for me is the non aggression principle and as soon as you stand by that there's no logical way of accepting government even if I had no access to any historical facts.
DCLugi 2 years ago
20% of the UK live UNDER the poverty level set byteh WHO. 14% are children.
There is MASS poverty in the UK, but you dont see it in nice places, becasue the victims are "moved on" or arreested by police.
One of the main causes of death for homeless peopel is when they get killed sleeping in SKIPS. Yes, the man comes in the morning with his lorry, tips the skip and ther's one less statistic.
LOTS of peopel die this way - LOTS ! I know because i have a CPC in road transport.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Thank you for this video, I am going to spread it around. I appreciate that you stuck to the economics and politics and ethics of the issue without condemning the belief in Christianity. As a Christian w/ like-minded company, it is useful to have such a great and clear-minded rebuke of statism w/o the baggage of atheism. I know it took restraint and I appreciate that you allowed the distinction here between statism and religion which regrettably have been on the same-side in history.
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
My name is Freedom3001 and I'm a statist.
freedom3001 2 years ago
haha, the first step... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Now I just need to join a support group and get a sponsor.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Great video Stef
iorbit 2 years ago
Dotn worry, in the future, lawyers will be taught manual labour (it really is the best way to serve the people, and god, you know).
You can clean cars. YOu can also KEEP your capes, as uniform, to amuse the peopel who are waitning for you to hurry up.
Shut up !
Shut up !
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
The British sutem would be the best in the world, if it wasnt such a lie.
The Lawyers who ALL beocme millionaires, get to persecute (gleefully), youths for carrying £10 of weed.
The trial may cost THOUSANDS< but the lawyers, police and judges say its EXTREMELY NECCESSARY.
They are the only ones who benefit though, and society as a whole, produces another "lawyer hater", thats all.
After centuries of this, there comes a "moment" where the grip of the cape wearers, seems breakable.
See ?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
wow
xPRiiCeYxRFCx 2 years ago
The nonsensical nature of these comments is quite ridiculous... =\
snipa4lyfe 2 years ago
Hi Stef nice vid! Please do a video about copyright and patent law! Are you against it or pro copyright?
A anarchist from finland.
ukkonoa 2 years ago
"Hi Stef nice vid! Please do a video about copyright and patent law! Are you against it or pro copyright?" Check out his podcasts on his website. He does a few on the topic. Podcast #164, 165, and 166 to be more specific.
sumadartsan 2 years ago
I think you make more sense than anything I have heard so far.
Thank you.
Glad I subscribed.
sc1100 2 years ago
hurray the truth!!!!!
LibertyJedi 2 years ago
i like how you said destructive drugs. to make it clearer pot is non destructive!
canyouseetheproblem 2 years ago
To everyone who calls stef and other anarchists (myself included) crazy, I just have to say is that all anarchists want is the option to live in a governmentless society, we would never threaten statists with punishment if they DID listen to government and all we ask is the same respect. If we DONT want to listen to government though, would you threaten us with punishment. We would never dream of forcing statists to be anarchists, contrary contrary to how statists want to do to to anarchists.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
Stef I really think you just broke your cardinal rule, in the socratic cave scenario(I think) those who become truly free should leave the illusions of the cave and live a happier life and leave it at that. They can never return to cave to convince the others to join in on the happiness, because it only proves that they are not happy enough by themselves and need to share the "misery". The best thing the person can do is show the cave dwellers what happiness is, but never coerve them.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
I want my MTV
trainluvr 2 years ago
Warlords!Cracks me up everytime!
VCADD 2 years ago
I agree with a lot of your views, but I think we need some sort of state. A VERY small state. But I enjoy your videos and your intelligence.
mrcool011 2 years ago
"I agree with a lot of your views, but I think we need some sort of state. A VERY small state. But I enjoy your videos and your intelligence." I can understand your perspective, but some questions arise: How do we keep the state from growing larger, as the USA did? The state is a big target for manipulation when it has any power at all. Would you say that a small cancer is better than no cancer? Check out Stef's Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy to see how stateless societies can work.
sumadartsan 2 years ago
"I-talk-like-a-ro-bot."
I agree with his points, but dude should speak with a normal inflection.
BandedArtists 2 years ago
Sorry Stefan, you're preaching to the converted! Perhaps you send you're video to Obama!
bogesk 2 years ago
Low res-high concept!
jakster72 2 years ago 2
See ?
You only have to pray, and he re does the video, in low res !!
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Great idea.
rflosi 2 years ago
Thank you for making this video.
I hope people don't get confused with Obama's idea of volunteerism which is actually forced labour.
So much of your video made great sense to me, I will be passing it around the internet.
TruthFN 2 years ago
"Socialist programs, like wealth distribution, providing welfare for the young, and the old is called theft."
yeah, by dummies who never been to other countries and have no clue that during the biggest real economic expansion in US history top marginal tax rate was 90% and the GI bill gave free education ie. welfare to millions of returning soldiers who then went ahead and built the basics for the electronics revolution.
madashelldude 2 years ago
There is no free education. There's only a series of privately owned schools called the "Public school system". You pay for it with taxes, which are collected with or without your consent and you do not get a say in it's curriculum. "Public" and welfare are simply one of those feel good words that governments love to use, stimulus pack anyone?
crazypants88 2 years ago
So, what you're saying is that men with guns can come and haul me away, lock me up, then take my house. Aaand... it's not theft?
erhnamdj 2 years ago
BTW, what u practice my friend is an age old way of reasoning and it's called "sophism": the idea that you can prove just about anything, no matter how absurd or controversial, if you perform mental masturbation long enough and are not bothered by little things like stats, facts and or the real world. Calling 4 ex gov a "small group of people" is point in case "sophism": a little lie by omission. In a free society that "small group of people" is ELECTED by a very large group of ppl!
madashelldude 2 years ago 2
31% is not a "very large group". If you calculate the number of people who elect the present government, in any country, compared to those who either voted for another, or did not vote, you'd see those who "voted for the government" are the minority.
Jeffersonianatheart 2 years ago
Democracy is dictatorship in which you choose who to be supressed. You miss the whole point. "Elections" are an illusion. You do nothing but "elect" the next fascist.
myusernameisluc 2 years ago
"Democracy is dictatorship "
and black is white, up is down and left is right! Really clear thinking there Jr!
szatmar666 2 years ago 2
Democracy is a dictatorship of useally a slightly larger group of individuals than in your run of the mill dictorship.
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Yeah, take it out of context, nice one there. You are ultra smart now. Read the entire sentence again, and think about it. If you can't figure it out on your own, read the following sentences.
In principle, democracy is a dictator that says: From now on you can decide who is going to be supressed for the next four years. Democracy = hypocricy. People think democracy is all great and fun until it's in their disadvantage. It's pathetic.
myusernameisluc 2 years ago
So when a large group of poeple use force their own idea on others is ok.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
Better than living in a feudal system where local warlords control local resources because there is no authority to stop them. You want no government?! Go to Afghanistan! I love it when spoiled brats talk about gov this and gov that. You ppl don't know how good you have it. I don't know what you would do if 1 day GA decided to extend its border a little north so they get a piece of the Tennessee river. It would be resource wars and the most brutal life u can imagine.
szatmar666 2 years ago 2
Or imagine anywhere you go you would have to go through private land and pay private toll and submit yourself to the whims of some local hillbilly with his own ideas about security.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Hell, you wouldn't even be able to pay the toll, you would either be ripped off by money changers in every truck stop or you would be arrested for not having the local currency. and when you finally get to the next town you get arrested because you didn't have the right stickers for their town. LOL, that's freedom for you Afghanistan style, but NRA said the streets r EXTRA safe: every 14 year old has his own gun ;)
szatmar666 2 years ago
But that doesn't sound like freedom at all. Sounds kinda shitty. Sounds really violent actually.
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Don't you use private land that isn't yours all the time? Have you met any hillbillies that try to submit you to their whims? lolwut?
gosmokesome 2 years ago
Yeah, because of federal land laws, nitwit!
szatmar666 2 years ago
When did we get of the warlords? Are people in high places not profiting of war?
There is no war in America because of the nukes and the lords know they would get killed if they tried. And the most brutal life I can imagine is only slightly worse than getting tortured and being told it's not torture. Getting your stuff stolen and being told your getting something. Being told the state is moral when violence is wrong and the state seems to be nothing but a monopoly on violence.
gosmokesome 2 years ago
U guys are talking about the whole IDEA of gov being bad. What I am saying is that's hogwash and a fairy tale for little girls. In the real world you need gov to protect society. If you think I am wrong point to 1 example in the world where there is no central government and it's not in the uttermost chaos and mayhem you can imagine. African countries are like that and central asia, all of them are places you wouldn' t survive for 5 mins.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Yeah because ten different warlords are fighting to become the government.
garvess 2 years ago
The reason a lot of anti-statists point that out,is to make one main point,which is that since the government is conformed of people like you and me,these people can not possibly have rights that you and I don´t have,not in a just society.You might disagree with the conclusions and what it all means, but that IS the point. If it´s wrong for me to use force against human beings that are not using force against me, it is also wrong for people within the government to do so.
dieonyourfeetDEC16 2 years ago
The problem is, when you get deeper and deeper into phillosophy, its a load of bull.
The principles require other principles, right down to the right not ot be "breathed" on, or shoted at.
Eventually, we have a situation, where you touching me, would warrent your death (same as we have now, with the monarchy, i suppose, interestingly).
I think the way it is here, is the way it is or was or will be, on lots of planets.
The only possible result is utpoia, or slavery. Nothing else CAN result.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
On this point the method by which these people become part of the institution we call government is irrelevant, be it force, chosing between two people, or based on lineage, the method of selection does not change these human beings in any essential way, they are still bound by the same morality you and I are. What is right and wrong for me and you as individuals to do, is also wrong or right for people in government as individuals or acting together to do.
dieonyourfeetDEC16 2 years ago
The anarchist argument is against the idea of institutionalized government itself. That's why it's a logical fallacy. It takes an abstract argument and supports it with anecdotal evidence designed to provoke emotions against violence and injustice. When in fact none of the anarchists are capable to point to a simple real world example of how their ideas are applied in practice. In fact like with so many utopian ideas there is ample real world evidence that it doesn't work and it's a disaster
szatmar666 2 years ago
Some version of the argument might work in repressive countries, for instance in Iran or Saudi Arabia, others might work in oligarchies and police states like the US. But as soon as they apply it to the IDEA of gov itself they are in fallacy land: there nothing anybody can prove about an abstract concept such as "the government" & if somebody tried, that person would have to indulge in fruitless sophism and speculation.
szatmar666 2 years ago
Anarchism is the complete rejection of any violence and authority and as such can only be realized through extreme violence and authority. It's a little bit like Bolshevism that way.
If we had a society where everybody behaved well we wouldn't need cops, the courts or a military. Fact is that wouldn't be a human society. In other words you would have to lobotomize the population and put them through Dollhouse style high tech reprogramming, 100X as repressive as communism & it wouldn't work
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 4
Wow, alot of assertions you have there.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
The biggest problem w this video, as noted before me is that it makes a lot of accurate observations about the US and then generalizes and thus arrives to a completely wrong conclusions. For instance the US school system is by far the most privatized system in the industrialized world and also it's among the least effective in terms of results. Same with heathcare. The second most private hcare is Switzerland where everybody can get in the socialized prog incl foreign workers after 3 months.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 4
Another problem is that the whole idea that u put your life savings in the hands of some private money manager and get 20-30% return on it every year without real work is unique in the world, it's too good to be true. That's part of the reason we had the financial meltdown: the babyboomer generation decided they'll take the wealth accumulated by honest manufacturing econ and put it into the financial markets. Every other capitalist country has defined pension benefits supported by gov.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 4
"decided they'll take the wealth accumulated by honest manufacturing econ and put it into the financial markets."
definitely not a good idea: it created a huge misallocation of resources. I know something was wrong the moment I heard from an engineer friend of mine working at GE Medical that he's requesting transfer to GE Finance and he's almost done w his MBA. GE finance was far more profitable than any other branch. A lot of talent and resources went to satisfy this speculative paper tiger.
szatmar666 2 years ago
got hive mind?
whispers83 2 years ago
Yes, the society where everybody behaved is a stretch but one wonders if giving authority to one group is best. I suppose it's the feeling that we all have a say that keeps it afloat. How about we do a reality show whereby 1000 volunteers agree to start a new life in a remote location and see how quickly a government arises.
DCLugi 2 years ago
In a human society you'll have human emotions, greed, hate, jealousy and thus violence. The choice is not between violence or no violence as the anarchist would like you to believe, but between community controlled violence against the individual or uncontrolled individual violence against the individual.
Most of history proves that the 1st is preferred to the 2nd:
Extreme isolation experiments with russian astronauts shows that small communities under stress fracture and become violent.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago 2
I have never heard an anarchist say "the choice is not betwen violence or no violence" And only a tiny few ever advocate "extreme isolation"
Non -state does not equate to "individual or uncontrolled violence" and State violence does not equate to "community controlled violence" because The state and community are not synonyms, the state is only a small part of the community.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
By definition the state is the community's way of self organizing, not a "part of it". It's a logical fallacy to point to individual bureaucrats working for a particular state, or to bring up individual pathologies of states gone wild like the US empire and conclude via naive induction that ERGO "all states must be like that". In fact the US Constitution, ie. the founding document of the US state starts with "We the People". The IDEA of a democratic state is commensurate with justice for all.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago
Not every member of society is a member of the state. Even if you think voting makes you a member of the state ( a debatable stance) not all memebers of society are allowed or choose to vote. A mayor or govorner are not "the community" and so to say we should abolish either post does not mean your against community organization. The division of labor is another of societies ways of organizing itself and it predates and exists in the absense of the state.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You seem to confuse 2 notions: the state is an abstract idea, nobody is member of a state. The government is the practical realization of the principles of a state and it is composed of individuals that society either by election or other qualifications deem worthy of carrying out the will of the people. How well this application works in practice depends on many things. However the idea itself has little to do and usually predates its applications.
szatmar666 2 years ago
All catarories of human society are abstract ideas. To say nobody is a member of a state is to say nobody is in the mafia because it only exists as an Idea. A member of a state is a person who is using the application of stateitst ideology to justify their actions. Also certain members of society (like Stefbot here) do not "deem" people worthy of being in a state, so to say that "society" has blessed them with such legitimasy is nonsense. Only a portion of the population has done so.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"A member of a state is a person who is using the application of stateitst ideology to justify their actions"
Wow, I learn a little something every day ;)
Can you show me any mainstream english language example where a person is called "a member of a state"? as opposed to a member of a society?
As for the legitimacy of ppl in government, we call it election. You don't like it you can pitch up tent in a jungle, every free country has them, it's the only known way of surviving in a society.
lpszOxFFFF 2 years ago
So you make no distincion between the president, a congressmen, or other people in "government' and other people who are not in government?I dont know of any dictionaries that say "state" and "community' or "society" mean the same thing, but you make no distinction. Also Why should I have to leave if a minority (and yes usually only minorities vote) of people around me "vote" on something. Why is this legitimate? Its the only way you know about, but thats not the same as "the only know way"
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
The Idea of communism is for Utopian plenty for all, but it would be foolish to concluded that communism is a great because its ideas are good. Democorcy is never mentioned in the Constitution and most of the Founding fathers were explicitly against democrocy. Maybe the idea for democracy is egalitarianism and justice for all, but in ever democrocy ever there has been a power elite, usually people in the state. Can you name one democratic state with "justice for all"?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
The other thing about democracy, I don't want to go into, it's an argument I don't really enjoy having because it usually turns out to be a misunderstanding of basic greek vs roman etymology of "democracy" vs. "republic" which most ppl don't follow. But your basic community will "self organize" a fire dept as soon as a house catches fire and will "self organize" a military as soon as they are attacked etc. They soon will arrive to the same organizing principles we call the state: it's survival
szatmar666 2 years ago
Not all societies have developed what "we call the state" The first Urban societies in Mesopotamia for instance were stateless for literally thousands of years. The first know example of fire protection were Roman and were not run, mandated, regulated, or subsidized by the Roman state. Your just assuming that the functions the state currently performs can only be provided in a manner that "we call the state" Since there are examples to the contrary your assumption is falseafiable.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"The first Urban societies in Mesopotamia for instance were stateless for literally thousands of years."
WOW, that's news to me! I thought Mesopotamia was the BIRTHPLACE of the state. Even pre urban societies like Ubaid in the copper age had social stratification w elite class of chieftains managing intra group violence and maintaining social order:
en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Ubaid_period # Society
LOL, I like you playing Karl Popper based on your shoddy understanding of Mesopotamia ;)
szatmar666 2 years ago
I didnt say it wasnt the birthplace of the state, but its was urban and stateless for thousands of years prior to that. It was also to a large extent egalitarian. Ubaid was not the first or only urban society
Do a video search for
(1/6) The Rise Of Man - part1
Its 12 parts in total, and I recomend the whole thing, note the statlessness egalitarian and Urban nature explained here. An elite class is not nessisarily the same as a state, regarless of its desirability.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Look, we can go back and forth with examples. Fact is that the state as we know it today is the result of historic circumstances and it's adapted to the needs of a complex society. I have no doubt that there were examples of isolated communities that lived in virtual stateless paradise w no private property and no laws. Fact is today we don't live in such a world: resources are scarce and conflicts are abundant. The state is the only known way to sort them out, if u know ow pls list'em?!
szatmar666 2 years ago
I dont think there has ever been paradise. I also dont know where you get the idea that there should be no private property. Private property is the basis of civilization as far as Im concerned (lots of socialists will disagree with us there), and the main reason its so important is because resorces are scarce. The basis of your claim that "the state is the only known way" is based on simply ignoring all other examples as "irrelievent."
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Right now the state provides certain "servises" but only a tiny fraction of them. The state does not provide your food, computers, cars(yet), most housing, and a fast number of other goods and services. It does provide a few servies. I agree that these are vital, but I do not agree that they must be provided by a state. For instance even today there are completely voluntary non-state examples of those vital servies being provided.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Arbitration for legal disputes, regulation, protection, utlilites, and even law itself have all been (and often still are) provided via non state means so thinking it is impossible without the state is absurd. The same principle that puts food on your table, gas in your car can provide you with all the "servies" of the state, and that priniciple is free market capitalism. Just as an example there are private regulators right now, like Underwriters Labratories, MPAA, AARP, and AAA.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
people do self organize, but that organization does not nessisarily meet the definition of what we call a state. You seem to be argueing that whatever solution a socitiety arrives at is a state. I might agree in saying we could call such organization "government' but only because it's a broader term. Many social problems are solved with organizations that don't meet the definition of a state, unless your definition is that all social solutions whatever their form are automatically states.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"Many social problems are solved with organizations that don't meet the definition of a state"
Can you mention 1 example?
szatmar666 2 years ago
yeah, the state does not pruduce, provide, or distribute your food. It does "regulate" some sectors, but not all, and this regulation only raises the costs, it does not make it possible. In a few places (like North Korea and the Former Easter Block) the state has run this sector of the economy, and the result was not very encrouaging.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"but that organization does not nessisarily meet the definition of what we call a state."
According to Merriam-Webster:
state = a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory.
In this sense the state is part of human nature, it's been around for eternity. Our sense in which we talk about state today is defined in the US Constitution and in that sense our current government is inadequate. However any argument against this particular state is not 1 against the IDEA
madashelldude 2 years ago 2
I find stefbot contradict himself in trying to be both a libertarian and an anarchist. As an anarchist he is against state violence and as a libertarian he is against any social welfare program, even the ones already in existence in every much less violent and oppressive capitalist country. However the most oppressive form of state violence is imperial war for private profit. The US can maintain the war machine by denying social benefits to much of its citizens xcept the elderly.
madashelldude 2 years ago
In fact the only way the US military can find enough volunteers is by artificially suppressing certain regions economically and denying benefits like affordable higher education so that it can use these to lure in young people who have no economic prospects. The most extreme state violence, ie. empire is built on the misery artificially inflicted on young poor people. That's why no other democratic country denies cheap gov education and healthcare from ppl: they don't have an empire to protect.
madashelldude 2 years ago
The key word is violence. Social welfare can also be voluntary and charitable. It's the idea of shaking the public down with force then pretending it's for their own good. I believe Stef claims to be a philosopher first. Making the notion of anarchy in line with non-violence.
DCLugi 2 years ago
i find calling taxation "violence" a highly dubious and hypocritical argument coming from a few ideologues in probably the most violent democracy on earth. The idea that some random charity that's subject to the whims of the rich or the stock market will take care of educating generations or feeding disabled people & the poor is not proven in the real world. There is not 1 capitalist country in which this crazy notion is even entertained for a very good reason : it doesn't work.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Stefbot would define a state as "a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force" This is how all current states opperate and the basis of the definition. How is being forced to pay taxes ethically any different from being robbed on the street? Nobody says charity is 'random" I could just as easily say that random socialim can never fulfill peoples needs. "Social Welfare" as you call it is based on violence, people must support it of face punishment, meaning it cannot be called charity.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
while I really feel the plight of millionaires bitching about paying another % in taxes and I am really shaken to the core by that senseless violence perpetrated against them as a class, I would have to say there is still no country on earth that has a successful education or healthcare without government support. The reason for that is because gov is the only entity that has a guaranteed revenue indefinitely. Charities go bankrupt, private services disappear, rich people can change their mind
madashelldude 2 years ago
Governments cannot guarantee revenue indefinitley. I know you like to pretend people who oppose you are always rich, but I'm poor and right now I have to give all the money I have left to the government to pay my taxes. I do it because if I dont they could arrest me and throw me in prison. Thats violence, even if they say they are doing it to "help the children." What your saying is that violence is ok if it has the votes. Thats real kind of you.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"Governments cannot guarantee revenue indefinitley."
Of course it can. As long as you have taxpayers you have taxes. No other organization can. That's why gov is the last resort in insuring banks.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Even then they can and do. Several European nations like Germany and Austria ceased to be able meet is obligations.They could still tax, but they spent way more than they taxed (as is happening now) and so they just printed and after a while the stuff they printed became worthless as in Zimbabwe now. And they can only "guarantee" taxes, by using violence to force people to pay, an issue your still avoiding.If the government could actually insure all the banks we would never have bank holidays.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Austria and Zimbabwe! funny ;) But u are right, governments can go belly up, but they don't cease to exist like corporations can. they can get into debt but they always have a guaranteed source of revenue. That was the argument. No matter how solid a private healthcare or education system is it will never be as solid as 1 guaranteed by gov. Not to mention that the private sector is inflationary and sooner or later will price ppl out of the market. that's socially unacceptable 4 edu & hcare
szatmar666 2 years ago
How on earth can you say the private sector is inflationary when inflation is caused by the government? The government screws people out of what they "promise" to provide them all the time and so claiming that they offer any "guarantee" in some absolute sense superior to the private sector is silly. Also while a bank, school, or hospital might fail, if there is a demand it will always be replaced, unless the government prevents this, as it does in many areas.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"How on earth can you say the private sector is inflationary"
Just an economic fact. Education costs for example grow on average 2X CPI/yr in the private sector. That's mainly because collages are funded by private endowments. Healthcare is the same: inflation induced by private sector profits. Everywhere in the world where u have strong public education and healthcare to compete w private, prices are a lot lower than in the US.
finaid . org / savings / tuition-inflation . phtml
szatmar666 2 years ago 3
Rising prices are not nessisarily a sign of inflation, but often a sign of either a rise in demand or a drop in Supply. The price increase in most goods is caused by an increase in the mony supply (inflation) and this is from the government printing money, which lowers the value of existing money aka makes everyone with money poorer. Prices in education and healthcare were both going down (while their quality was rising) prior to the governments intrusion into them.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
that's just fuzzy econ theory. the fact is that americans are increasingly priced out of the system and FACT is there is real inflation in education, something you didn't have in the 60s because public schools were taxpayer funded. Today most are funded privately and driven by increasing costs because they are forced to compete with the private research labs for teaching talent. Same is true about hospitals competing 4 specialists, when in fact a sane system would emphasize prevention.
szatmar666 2 years ago
When the government prints money that causes inflation. Thats not 'fuzzy" at all. Most Universities are public and when they dont recieve direct subsidy they recieve indirect subsidy because the government will loan anybody money to go to school. Thats your price inflation right there. Thats also how houses got so expensive, the government made credit artificially availible and directed its flow into the housing and stock markets. This river of money raises prices, not profit seeking.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Well, it's not gov but conservative government that does that a lot, and there is a good reason for that:
zfacts . com / p / 318 . html
As for credit made artificially available you are right about that. What that did was introduced moral hazard into the financial sector and forced every player in the economy to give their money to casino capitalists because a real econ investment could sink but a financial firm w cheap money thrown at them could never. That was also a libertarian: Greenspan.
szatmar666 2 years ago 2
Calling Greenspan a libertarian is laughable. A libertarian fed chairman would work to abolish the federal reserve. Libertarians support commodity-backed currencies like gold, or at least a free-market of competing currencies, in which good money will inevitably drive out bad.
twentyonepyramids 2 years ago
Tell The Economist:
"A lifelong libertarian and firm believer in free markets, Mr Greenspan is ordinarily wary of government regulation"
economist . com / blogs / freeexchange / 2008 / 12 / a_bank_recapitalisation_roundt . cfm ? page=1
szatmar666 2 years ago
Libertarians are against central banks. Why dont you find some libertarian literature that calls for the FED artificially increasing the money supply, instead of the stupid guilt by assosiation idiocy your using now. I'm just going to say you favor Gulags and Death camps because your a socialist and so were Stalin and Hitler.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Greenspan as a libertarian in the 60's advocated a gold standard as the only moral or workable monetary system. if he is so consistent, why hasn't he advocated a return to one at any point in his career as fed chairman, or now?
twentyonepyramids 2 years ago
The people who critizised the artificial credit were people like Ron Paul who is libertarian and has tried to abolish the fed numerious times. Liberal "economists" like Paul Krugmen disagree with you and want the government to artificially creat even more credit.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Ron Paul talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. There is no private money scheme that he doesn't support, from health savings accounts to education savings etc, as long as americans give their hard earned money to some money manager that's fine w Dr Paul. Abolishing Social Security is 1 of the most idiotic ideas coming out of conservatives, but as a liberal I am happy 4 it because it assures that conservatives will not even run a 7-eleven let alone the federal gov anytime soon ;)
szatmar666 2 years ago 2
Why cant people be allowed to save how they want to? Lots of people die way before they ever see benifits, despite having payed into them. Is that fair? If I dont believe in your socialism with its bunk economics, should I be forced to pay for it?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
If my socialism is "bunk economics" how come it's your capitalism that's collapsing and leaving millions of americans without healthcare and education. "My socialism" works in every free market capitalist country except the USA ;)
szatmar666 2 years ago
Socialism cannot be trusted in the hands of a bunch of greedy psychopaths. Nor can any government. Only reason why they 'work' in a certain country is because 1) the population is low and 2) The government of that country isn't in the position to rip people off. oh wait, taxes do that already. Yeesh. :D
gypster2004 2 years ago
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background),a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid" D.Eisenhower
szatmar666 2 years ago 3
If I dont think your ponzi scheme is a good investment of my hard earned money (and no Im not a texas oil millionair) why is ok for you to force me to contribute? If you want a communal,expensive, program with poor benifits that can be arbitrarily cancelled, changed or otherwise annulled thats your business and your welcome to it, but how do you have the moral authority to force me into it against my will?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
On this site, you can hear the voices of peopel who wear black capes. Naturally stefbot doesnt really believe in Anarchy, since it cant work, while there are lawyers running round in black capes (and i think he is a lawyer).
Therefore, this may be as education, to study the views of people, or he may be teachign law students somehting about how peopel hate them.
Who knows.
But any workers who can hear these peopel speak, LISTEN to how they view you, me and the other "insects" who are us.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
We dont have "my capitalism" in this country. There are no "free market capitalist" countries in the world including the USA. The fact that you dont know this shows that you dont even know what your talking about. You claim "inflation" is caused by profit seeking, but then when you explain rising prices you dont even mention profit but instead say prices rise (which you erroniously refer to as inflation) comes from increased production costs, not profit seeking.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
"as long as americans give their hard earned money to some money manager that's fine w Dr Paul"
You mean like when Bush gave a bunch of money managers hundreds of billions or our tax dollars? In a bailout that Obama supported whole heartedly, despite almost everyone being against it. So much for democrocy, they dont care what you think. Your a fool to trust the government.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Right now there almost no government intrusion into the computer sector. According to you since it is all private sector the prices should be rising though you say inflating.However the exact opposite is happening, and the same is generally true in any industry. When the government gets involved its deep pockets make the prise go up.If tomarro Obama said he thought every american should own a lawnmower and would spend money to make it happen, their price would rise from this access to credit.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Computers r not human beings. You break a computer, you buy another one: you can't buy another year in college or another body once it's broken. But I am happy you made this argument, it shows how libertarian laissez faire treats human beings like commodity. Every sentence you start with "when the government" is something u are pulling out of some conservative economists rear end. It's based on no research or statistics. Again, americans pay 2X the OECD average 4 hcare and get inferior serv
szatmar666 2 years ago
Your just being emotive. You claimed that inflation is caused because in the private sector especially without extensive government involvment prices will always rise (inflate in your words) because of profit seeking. However this doesnt happen with computers, why not? Saying Im callus is not an argument. Why dont computer prices rise? Healthcare and Education recieve far more government money than most industries, and yet you pick them as examples of a private sector failiur?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
It's a genuine question and a very interesting one at that why is the hightech sector deflationary and the answer has to do with productivity: every year processors are faster and cheaper which enables new R & D into even faster processors. Moore's law. This is not true in any other econ sector.
What Obama is doing in fact is trying to apply IS to healthcare because that will introduce deflationary pressures and will drop prices. Beside records, finding new drugs is a computational problem.
madashelldude 2 years ago
Its not only the high tech sector, over time processes in most industries become faster adn cheaper. And besides why dont they simply over charge above and beyond the savings they make from such increases in efficency to make even more profit? Why was there and explosian of 5$ pizzas and subs? Competition with each other is what drives down the price. Directing rivers of government money into an industry makes the prices there go up.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
No, the fact is no sector of the economy has innovation outpace inflation to the point that it becomes deflationary. Cars over all are more expensive and not much more efficient than they were in the 60s. The only commodity that actually dropped in price is computing power and that's because the # of transistors/ sqr inch is increasing exponentially since 1958. Moore's law has effects on other sectors, like real time inventory or industrial automation, but that's not enough 2 turn them defl.
szatmar666 2 years ago
And inflation is not caused by the government printing more money? Is Zimbabwa's inflation from the private sector raising prices? what about Weimar German's? Rising prices and inflation are not the same thing.What your describing is a rise in price caused by production costs (supply side). Inflation is when the monatary unit losses purchasing power, and the primary cause of this is the creation of more money. Something only the government can do.This increase in the supply lowers the value
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
If Obama said tommarro, that to set the economy straight he was going to make availible 1 billion in low interest government loans to pay for people to get lawn mowers, do you think the price of lawn mowers would go up, down, or not change? Why?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
If you look at examples of private currancies, (which exist even today and are actually not historically rare) their value usually deflates, or rises in purchasing power, which is a good thing. Government currancy could only achieve this if the government stopped spending (so it only happens when governments DO cease to exist like Iraq or the USSR). Private currances that inflate, or loose their value are outcompeated by ones that deflate.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Even when corporations (which are actually a legal fiction created by the state) fail their assets are not destroyed but revert to their creditors. Governments renig on their promiese all the time. China for instance has told the 100 million + people in its State run heavy industries that contrary to what they had been told they will not recieve pensions or healthcare as they had been told. Ask anyone in the VA about the promises the government makes and "guarantee" is not what comes to mind
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I think a lot of the anti tax sentiment in the US can be attributed to the unfair nature of the tax code. Folks don't realize that the ruling elite skewed the US tax system so that only the middle class pays taxes while wages are stagnant or falling. No person who can afford an accountant for himself will pay the nominal amount of taxes he is supposed to mainly because of tax loopholes available for the rich through corporations and investments. Plus Americans think % tax is the same as net $
szatmar666 2 years ago
Not knowing the stats on whether it's even "working" now I can't argue but let's say someone stops you in the street and says I know what's best so give me your money. At the very least you'd want to be able to say "Can I check with some other muggers first?"
DCLugi 2 years ago
LOL, that's funny DCLugi. Let me help you out with some of the stats:
opencrs . com / document / RL34175
madashelldude 2 years ago
If the peopel of many foreign countries were offered the cnance to evolve without ANY cntact with us, as tribes or whatever, they would bite our hands off.
in fact, they cant keep us out, no matter how much they beg.
So it will either end up world slavery, or world utopia, but either way, will probably be the same peopel in control.
World peace or world war.
I personally cnat imagine anarchy working in the long term, since one group always dominates anohter.
Total control = slavery or utpia
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Remember kids! If you assert a bunch of bullshit, it counts as an argument.
crazypants88 2 years ago
then why dont you stop arguing ?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
I wasn't.
Accidentally hit the spam button instead of reply, sorry about that.
crazypants88 2 years ago
Are you an anarchist?
MelCartman 2 years ago 3
Yes, Stefan is an anarchist.
Jeffersonianatheart 2 years ago
When drugs were free to use alcohol was not. :-)
canerdc 2 years ago 2
Today I am more afraid of "free enterprise" inflicting extreme violence on people than I am afraid of the idea of "we the people" or what u call "the government" doing that. Of course your argument works in a police state like the USA, a state that's incarcerating 1 in every 136 of its own citizens. It doesn't work in a free democratic country like Finland or Denmark, sorry.
madashelldude 2 years ago
It's hardly free if you can't opt out of the system and not be deported or jailed.
crazypants88 2 years ago
I applies to every country in the world. Some more subtle than others.
myusernameisluc 2 years ago
Lol im am from Finland and i can ashure you that this country aint free.. for example i have to buy my alcohol from government owned monopoly and it only open on random hours like on saturday from 8 am to 6 pm. after that its impossible to get wine.. And dont even get me started on taxation or healthcare.
ukkonoa 2 years ago
So are you a finnish libertarian, or are you just saying that all the people in the US that salivate over the supposad scandanavian Utopeas are ignorant?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
While I feel the pain of scandinavians about their booze inconvenience, fact is the US locks up 1 in every 136 of its citizens, in scandinavia that's 1 in every 1500. US child poverty rate is 18%, that's non existent in scandinavia. US premature mortality rate is the highest in the west. US population is slightly healthier than eastern eu mainly because they have no maternity leave and health is 90% determined by the 1st 3-4 years of life: children are not respected by the system like in Finl.
madashelldude 2 years ago 2
I suppose the high incarceration rate is the fault of the private sector and not the government, just like inflation. The US is a vastly Larger nation than any in Scandinavia, having 10 times the population of Sweden. Its also the destination of many millions of immigrants every year, mostly from "3rd world" countries. Im not at all against this immigration, but to ignore it is foolish.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Incarceration rate among US immigrants (legal or illegal) is slightly lower than the general population. The highest rate is among black men, 4000 over 100k, then hispanics. That's 5X what it was under Apartheid: 850/100k. You have to realize that RATE is a % and it it doesn't matter how large the population itself. I lived in 3 countries and travel a lot: I find libertarians all over the world, they are usually uninformed people. Educate yourself, go 2: books . google . com and type in OECD
madashelldude 2 years ago 2
I meant to say "well meaning but uninformed". I have nothing against libertarians I like to chat with them, usually very nice ppl, but not up to snuff with facts.
madashelldude 2 years ago
I wasnt suggesting that immigration caused the incarceration rate, but that it contributes to the poor health stats. We do have a high incarceration rate and it is mostly because of people being arrested for victimless crimes, like buying,selling, or using drugs. Libertarians are all against this, and it is not a problem with the private sector, but with the government. Or do you think the incarceration rate is somehow not the government's fault?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I agree with libertarians about mandatory minimums and draconian drug laws. Where I disagree is their differentiation between gov vs. private sector. In reality there is a revolving door and it's the same people on both sides. Hank Paulson and Dick Cheney are most well known examples. What causes problems in the US today is like the systemic problems that brought down communism: an unaccountable class of people in priv or pub sector who are isolated from the consequences of their actions.
madashelldude 2 years ago
As for the poor health stats, it has mostly to do with diet and lifestyle, again among not immigrants but the most oppressed group of US citizens: black men, and right after that black women. It has to do with the availability of healthy food in inner cities. That's because the market doesn't take care about things like a sensible agricultural policy or public health. In the US gov policy is created by politically connected industry oligarchs who dictate policy thanks 2 this revolving door.
madashelldude 2 years ago
You cannot have a state and not have an unaccountable class of people isolated from the consequences of their actions. I Agree that this is a huge problem, you acurately called it moral Hazard. No state that has ever existed has been without it. If you think Sweden, Canada, or Iceland are examples where there is no unaccountably upper class, your totally naive. Healthy foods can be had at almost any grocery store, the fact many choose not to use them is not an indightment of the free market