@fightingirishman726 I think he supports the "Anarcho-capitalism" theory, If you want to know more you can watch the misesmedia film "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?"
@SeanMauer Seriously guy, this dude wouldn't look good in the confederate grey, never minding the implications of his beliefs would've torn the civil war era south a new asshole and they wouldn't want him. Nice implied juxtaposition tho bro, bro five
Now, would you please tell us WHICH MUSIC by Kevin MacLeod, he did many songs. I want to know which one. If you can tell in the music description that the music is by Kevin MacLeod, was it too difficult to also say which music specifically ?
I want to have this music, why is it I can never get the music I want. Please, tell us which music is it. Thanks for nothing, I know I will not get any responses.
@lostnspiration Yeah like when a group of assholes take a poor areas money through all manner of taxation on those areas and any areas that deal with those areas. Kinda hard to get out of a poor demographic when your buns are being extorted right from ya
@Hashishin13 It's easier to get investment from people you know than it is from people you don't. Because of this it tends to be easier for people in wealthy areas to get a leg up. If you have a workable business idea and you live in Berkley you're going to have a lot easier of a time making it work than you would if you lived in Compton NJ.
@Distortion0 That isn't "causing" poverty. thats extending it. How did the person get poor by demographics in the first place? IT also depends on the idea, I think rappers have a leg up over someone who lives in berkely. If you had a really good idea and took it to a bank or venture capitalist you would probably not be much worse off.
@Hashishin13 I can't speak for anything outside of my own experience but poor people tend to be poor because they immigrate. I'm descended from German and Lithuanian immigrants who fled their unstable countries at the beginning of the 20th century. My family has largely been stuck in minimum wage jobs for generations now. I'm going to be the first one in my family to finish college, largely because my mom befriended a entrepreneur.
@Distortion0 Well in the current system the government takes at least half your income when all is said and done. On top of this they spend the money on things like bombs and troops which they use to invade other countries, not exactly a productive use of resources. If the state were toned down or eliminated we would all be vastly wealthier. In addition if you consider "poverty" being able to afford a computer, internet probably a TV, roof over your head and food, go look at real poverty.
@Hashishin13 Yeah, I don't support the current system and agree that a lot of organizations are just plain useless. But, I think that private firms aren't necessarily better. Monopolies in the private sector tend to support authoritarian governments anyway, since such governments can shut down their competition. I consider poverty to be the point where your next week's meals or shelter are of questionable certainty. But also think that generationally stagnant wages are bad as well.
@Distortion0 There aren't monopolies in a free market. Its impossible. A free market MEANs free entry for competition. Large firms buy off the government right now, authoritarianism as its commonly understood isn't neccessary. The FCC, FDA and all the other regulators favour the large ffirms over the small ones. Walmart literally uses the state to force people into selling their land through expropriation.
@Hashishin13 If by "Free market" you mean a market with minimal government regulations, than monopolies absolutely exist in a free market. A good example is ISPs. The technology required to run an ISP is expensive and requires immense skill and time to maintain. This makes the number of ISPs minimal. Walmart also uses the government to get free healthcare of its employees, something it greatly profits from and something that wouldn't be possible in a universal healthcare system.
@Distortion0 Would there be free entry to the market of ISPs? Yes there would be, therefore there is no monopoly possible. It doesn't matter how many people are actually providing the service, even if its only one. As long as there is the threat of competition companies have to provide cheap services. If their profit margins get too big that is a signal to other companies to enter the market and underbid them. Since capitol, and thus business focus flows to profitablility, monpoly is impossible.
@Hashishin13 How is there "free entry"? The entry is incredibly expensive by any measurement of cost. The companies aren't threatened by the potential of competing companies because they know how difficult it is for companies to enter the market. Profitability isn't the only factor that's important here, you have to consider the incredibly high upstart cost and the extremely limited skillpool. If the market corrected itself, it would do so only with extreme lag.
@Distortion0 free entry is a technical term meaning no thugs are going to come shut you down and you don't have to beg the government for some license which they could deny you. Sure they can scharge slightyl more if there is no current competition, but the threat of competition jining prevents them from acting like a true, government granted monopoly. Government granted monopolies have no incentive to keep cost down or innovate, single firms with free entry do.
@Hashishin13 I'm economics major. I know what the term "free entry" means. Technological barriers are one of the limits to free entry, by any reasonable definition. They would be consider such by any professional economists, even Austrians. High speed ISPs are a natural monopoly because of current technology. There is no threat of competition. I don't doubt that more competition will develop over time but the question is what to do in the interim period.
@Distortion0 The libertaran vision of a free market includes no IP. They aren't "natural" at all, they are granted licenses from the government to monopolize certain areas. I was talking to a guy in the states about this TODAY. He was saying "no way canadians have worse internet, ours is regulated to one for cable and one for DSL, then fibre optic if your lucky." Its the same here in Canada, the government grants monopolies, they don't occur naturally.
@Hashishin13 Natural monopolies are not created by legal licensing, they're created by high capital costs. That's what makes them natural monopolies and not legal monopolies. Concentration in high speed ISPs is do to high costs and most utilities are also examples. If you want to argue that some kind of legal protection made the concentration happen, I'd be interested to hear that argument but I don't see how you can say "There are no natural monopolies' given the examples of them.
@Distortion0 What I'm saying is that there AREN'T any examples of them. Utility companies are licensed and regulated by the state, so are ISPs. Both of these examples you have given are literally direct examples of government monopolies, utility companies and ISPs are granted local monpolies.
Monopoly means one firm only, excluding all others. The Austrian definition states it more clearly that it has to be state granted because one firm in free competition still has potential competition.
@Distortion0 I know for a fact that here in Canada Bell has a monopoly on telephone lines, so by extension they have a monopoly on DSL. Any new start up companies have to contract with them if they want to offer DSL, and if you have to contract with your direct competition just to get into the market, thats not freedom, or really competetion. I'm pretty sure its the same with cable except its Rogers that has the monopoly. As I said before I was talking to someone from the US he said its the same
@Hashishin13 Yeah, I don't know much about the internet in Canada. In the US I'm pretty sure the regulation is minimal, especially compared to the high technology costs. I would support running ISPs as utilities, just acknowledging that there's a high market concentration and that there may be certain regulation needed for markets with high technology costs. It's definitely not the same in the US, anyone can form an ISP if they can afford it.
@Distortion0 Capitol flows to profitability, try reading what I have said. If the few firms are exploiting their high-market share LESS REGULATION is the way to make it better, not more. If you sick the "anti-trust" mroons on ISPs they will attack them for their market share, not for exploitative pricing. If you attack someone for having too much market share you hurt the consumer. Utilities are corrupt bullshit, watch Tom Woods on California's blackouts to see what I mean.
There aren't any such things as 'natural monopolies'. The definition of a monopoly (the real definition - not the one propagated by the State public relations committees) is the forceful coercive exclusion of other competitors from entering the market AND/OR real coercion- violence forcing people to associate with it. Monopoly, objectively defined, is based on whether its possible to VOLUNTARILY ENTER OR EXIT from the marketplace.
@swu880 if u can voluntarily enter/exit, then its not monopoly. if there are coercive barriers to entering/exiting then its a monopoly regardless of what public relations may say. And the mafia/state is the prime example of a monopoly
Any other definition ultimately becomes arbitrary- monopoly can't be defined based on 'size' or bullshit 'homogenous goods', 'perfect competition', etc- those are really undefined & wholly arbitrary.
free market merely means people can freely voluntarily enter into & exit out of the market, exchanges & contracts
The state & mafia function to limit competition at the point of a gun rather than through satisfying customers. Not only does the state limit competition, the regulations passed are always designed to favor very small subset of people at the non-consenting expense of everyone else
@swu880 Look, if it's impossible, for whatever reason, for firms to enter a market. And because of this, the firms that are in the market exert the same kind of monopolistic power that they would if the concentration was caused by legal regulation, then why should we not call this a monopoly? It's ridiculous not to. The idea that concentration is caused by legal regulation is empirically false, and the "definition" of monopoly that keeps getting asserted here is based of that stupid idea.
@Distortion0 If there are no legal barrier to entry, and other firms cannot enter the market, the only possible reason for this is that those firms which are already in the market are providing greater and cheaper services to consumers than the firms trying to enter it. In other words, the consumers themselves have decided that those firms are incompetent. What is wrong with this? The Austrian view of monopoly is empirically false? How about an example? Read Gabriel Kolko's work.
@Distortion0 Out of the roughly 4,000 ISP's in America, which one would you say is the biggest monopoly? I don't think monopoly means what you think it means.
@petmensan It depends on which area of the country you're talking about. Much like Health Insurance ISPs tend to dominate the market share in a particular area. Where I live Brighthouse controls most of the market.
I move we start ignoring zombiefitnezz ans successfulbuild. These guys obviously know nothing about Austrian Theory, and by their own odd statements show not even the most rudimentary understanding of what has provably happened in America concerning Buisiness Cycles and Depressions. If they read this, I hope rather than responding in anger or unfounded platitudes they will be honest men and try to read Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek before they begin spouting off with unfounded accusations.
@zombiefitnezz And unlike you, Woods, Rockwell, and DiLorenzo (you can't even spell his name right) consistently favor peace. See Woods' book We Who Dared to Say No to War, co-authored with a progressive (i.e., someone not like you). Google "Interview With a Zombie."
@zombiefitnezz Woods and DiLorenzo had practically zero to do with the League of the South over 15 years ago when it wasn't even a southern group, and Rockwell had nothing to do with it. "Many others"? Name them, liar. Mises panders to white supremacists? How, by reprinting Mises' book Liberalism, which teaches tolerance, internationalism, and peace?
Corporate pollution? Do you even know what Rothbard wrote on pollution? He was tougher on it than you are, ignoramus.
"Corporate PR"? You mean, like the one you clueless eleutheorophobic statetards are engaged in by promoting more regulation and beurocracy to the benefits of the big guys to squash their competitions? How much did they pay you to do this job?Nothing, you say? Well, good job being a useful idiot to the big corporations free of charge. Useful idiots like you save them a lot of money by spreading the kind of bullshit that you spew here.Now go crawl back to your statist hole, drone.
@mistoroboto Come on. You are not that stupid. He is doing no such thing. Man, I can't believe I actually have to explain this. He is saying that the PRINCIPLE is the same. Half a century ago, air conditioned workplaces seemed as laughable as massages do now. Did you at all understand his point about the evolution of working conditions? Pearls before swine.
@LibertyWins2012 Do you understand that historically, conditions do not improve in the manner you speak of without intervention? Safety regulations is a must. No business has the right to expect their employees to work under conditions which safety mechanics in place. Obviously you've never heard of things like heat strokes and the like. The principle is NOT the same. Air conditioning did seem laughable a century ago, but we are not living a century ago.
He's got the highest degree on earth (PhD). Why would he "bask in the prestige" of having an MD, which is only considered a bachelor's degree everywhere except the US?
Btw this is my last and final post to you RPHBs. Thanks for dodging the following: Moral Hazard. Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Broken Window Fallacy, Front Loading, Political Engineering, Hamilton's curse (Mercantilism - Federalists/Whigs/Republicans-present), Merchant Law, Private Law, and Common Law, Fiat Land Claim, Violence at the Margins, Taxation = Theft, Value = Subjective, Corporate person-hood, morality = super powers. And your best attempt is straw-mans, ad hominem, and assertions.
Leaving your family to live on the Molyneux plantation is not the answer, just so that he can get more drones to go to his website and thus get more ad revenue. One organization calls the development of the Molyneux cult "worrying" - but its certainly not surprising that cults have formed up around capitalism using vague philosophy - both of which no longer exist and should be studied only for amusement. You cult members will be singing the praises of Molyneux when you're living on the street.
By the way, if you're reading this and you're actually a part of the Stefan Molyneux cult, I hope my conversion with one its cult members - "black ops" - was informative. These cult members hate themselves and hate their lives and that's why they're so angry. They want to make everybody else as miserable as they are by forcing on everybody an economic system that just won't work.
@successfulbuild They are not forcing anything on anybody, it would be a contradiction to Libertarianism then. Yes, Stef has problems with objectivism, he doesn't fully accept it, but has his own lesser problem of upb, however that doesn't discredit his criticism of the State, especially in that video. The part he was talking about human behavior to adapt was spot on. Anyway I just realized you are, RPHBs, AntiAuthoritarian. No wonder you are so dogmatic with the State. This explains a lot.
@cont This explains everything. Lets recap on all the evil you listed here. You called Austrians: Racists, Fascists, Anti-Human, Cult, Corporate Rule, Creationists, Extreme Right Wing, Republicans, illogical, mystical, revisionists, & private tyrannies.
You forget Monarchists, Nazis, Bush lovers, and anything you despise, because you just asserted, lumped, and merged everything stereotypical that the "Left" opposes both in the mainstream and in economics. No wonder you dodged the Mises forums.
Anarchism in medieval Iceland actually was not anarcho-capitalism. There was a lot of this "collectivism" that anarcho-capitalists claim never should exist. The other examples of anarcho-capitalism have been debunked as mere revisionist history on the part of the anarcho-capitalists. Somalia was the closest to anarcho-capitalism although it too cannot be said to be perfect. The free-market is something that can't exist.
@successfulbuild A stateless society is more than "capitalism", its a series of experiments that don't coerce people into anything against their will. The real revisionist history comes from public schools.
According to the international aid organization Médecins Sans Frontières, the violence in Somalia reached catastrophic heights during its period of "anarchy." So the claim that it was a more peaceful society with anarcho-capitalism is just another lie. Furthermore, they are now moving away from anarchism due to the violence and destruction caused by systems that only attempt to recognize private property. The violence was not the UN but kidnapping, warlordism, and so on and so forth.
@BIackOp Actually, evolution does not always work from the bottom up. That would imply that the only forces that affects evolution is natural selection in a static environment. The world is not like that: genetic drift, mass extinctions, outside forces all have their role to play in evolution. Consider the K–T boundary mass extinction. So actually modern society is perhaps more like evolution. And you've failed to explain how natural selection can be explained by your "emergence" philosophy
@BIackOp That video doesn't address anything. Stefan Molyneux is nothing more than a cult leader. His videos are definitely well done and have a coherent message, often incorporating progressive rhetoric like a belief in freedom from all power structures. Of course, like all propagandists he is overly simplistic. He supports a discredited form of psychology that comes from objectivism. His anarchism - or "Aynarchism" - makes no sense. The only religion he discusses there is his own.
And by the way Krugman should definitely not debate Robert Murphy. That would be giving that guy and this right-wing extremist religion credibility that it does not merit. Civilized people no longer deal with these kinds of cults, but treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.
@successfulbuild Extreme right wing doesn't define anything. You are using fear as a method to discredit actual economics. When we debunk you, we don't use extreme left wing. In fact, Austrian have been going against both Left and Right often.; so save the non sense.
@BIackOp Austrians are extreme right-wing because they favor private tyrannies controlling the resources rather than people democratically making decisions over land. However, your kooky religion probably should not be seen as either extreme left or extreme right, but as human versus anti-human. I prefer human.
@successfulbuild You just don't understand the ownership claim here. Its not about tyrannies, its about you having the ability to own 100% of your labor, your work, your earnings. All the functions that run laws should not have geographical claims nor have the power to steal to function. Statism is anti-social, how is opposing that anti-human? You treat economics like a hard science, its does not work that way. And for a person of science, you sure are dogmatic in politics.
So, far from being an example of spontaneous order, language is the result of a top down structure that is innate in the mind. Humans did NOT simply throw out words like "Mama ball give to me," and find out a grammar that makes sense. Rather, the universal grammar is built into the and brain the areas of the brain that deal with this have been found. So, for example, in "The box contains a cat" and "What's in the box?" humans instinctively know to throw verb behind the noun in a question.
@successfulbuild First a proponent of evolution should not be a supporter of a top down order, and neither is a free market. Corporatism is, and so is any other form of a command economy. It just contradictions evolution.
Language as well does not come from "spontaneous order" - it's been proven with modern computer science that from even a few simple words, thousands of sentences can form. Some of these are even grammatical. To quote from a Chomsky example, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It seems grammatical forwards, not backwards, and yet has no meaning. However, humans naturally and instinctively now the rules of grammar because they are innate and instinctive.
@BIackOp Trade did not create language. As I explained before humans did not just start spouting out words and then ordering them together. Rather, language is actually innate in the mind. As usual, Austrian schoolers just make things up as they go along without citing any evidence. Language was perhaps necessary for trade but NOT created for it.
If it was all just a matter of "spontaneous order" there would be no such natural selection or adaptation, but rather it would all be a matter of chance. This opens up evolution to criticism by creationists and is something that virtually no evolutionist believes. This is the kind of nonsense people like Robert Murphy and other Austrian creationists use to disprove evolution: that such "random chance" could never have occurred. The problem is that that is not how evolution works.
@successfulbuild You over generalize and lump Austrian Economics for a religion. Its not, so stop using it. Some people believe in God, but that has nothing to do with the economics they support. They are plenty of Atheists that are also Austrians, like myself.
Also successfulbuild if you are actually looking for a real debate against Austrian Economics, why not sign up on their forums at Mises? Youtube is hardly the place for accurate discussion, plus the forum style is very shitty. One last thing, if you are going to debate. Try not to be so vague and generalize while branching off on different subjects. Yes, material can be related but you have been all over the place, suggesting its more of an attack then a debate, especially on Rothbard.
@BIackOp I will debate how I want to debate - posting factual information and conclusions that are based off of the logical conclusions of those facts - and you cannot debate how Austrian economists prefer: throwing out random, illogical and contradictory nonsense that makes absolutely no sense and bullshit cosmological religion such as that capitalism is justified by something called "spontaneous order" - misusing science in the process to justify your absurd "beliefs."
@successfulbuild You mean you will troll how you want to troll. In here your lucky you are even talking to me, and what good is that? The whole point to posting, or at least making a debate is to have a conversation with the opposing party. But its not often you get a genuine debate on a 3rd party website, especially in an older video where the bulk of the folks represented aren't scaling this comment section to find your responses. Its much more productive to post a thread in there forums.
@BIackOp Youtube creates its comment sections so that people can comment on videos. I know you Libertarians believe that workers do not have freedom of speech and that only private property owners have rights in the anarcho-fascist society, and the workers wouldn't be able to speak for fear of them unionizing, but we're not living in your sick, twisted fascist society yet. Since Austrian economics is mythical religion it doesn't matter where you discuss it.
@successfulbuild This is you asserting again. You cross what Libertarians stand for with what Neo Cons stand for. One says they are for the free market, the other actually means it. Freedom of speech should come from the consent of the property owner. It does not mean workers do not have free speech. They can own property and function. Private property owners are not merely business owners, so you are completely off track here. Especially in your attempt to say workers would be slaves.
As noted by Dr. Carl Sagan life expectancy didn't rise to 40 years until 1870. It hit 50 in 1950, 60 in 1930, 70 in 1955, and in 1996 approached 80. This is due to the enlightenment thinking and the scientific method (what PIG series authors call "political liberalism"). Through the use of the scientific method science has saved vastly more lives than all the people killed through all the wars in history.
_
Thank goodness they removed from market forces which allowed scientists to do this.
@successfulbuild What you fail to realize is the development of mankind is the result of the market. All productivity and innovation based on the desires of the individuals came from the market, including science. Religion is an age old fallacy where Statism derived from. Its another false assertion of reality and held mankind back from evolving. The market is not utopian, its constantly improving, such is a stateless society. I don't believe it, I know it.
@BIackOp You are making logical contradictions left and right. First you say that all violence is only the result of the state - I proved that to be false. Now you're saying that all contributions are the result of "the market," even though you claim that the free-market doesn't exist and that we have a command economy. Since many scientists, about half, or as much as 60% in fields like astronomy, you are actually now claiming that the government IS the market. Austrian economics is illogical
@successfulbuild You mean logical positivism? You mean you have a problem with non-hypothetical statements based on the real world that are true? Something can not be red all over and blue all over at the same time. Two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. When a trade occurs, Person A values Person B's good more than Person A's good and vice versa, otherwise such a transaction would not occur. Value is subjective.
@successfulbuild Actually I said the State is a violence, all State action is action of violence, also known as violence at the margins. Its not the same as reactionary force.
I did not say violence can not exist outside the state, I said violence will always exist within the State. Violence outside of Statism will exist but it will be either reactionary (response to a threat which used force first) or some criminal, but this is nothing compared to Statism.
@successfulbuild The mechanism of the free market exists even under a command economy, it doesn't mean the total market is functioning. If there was no mechanism of the free market operating the economy would collapse immediately. Voluntary exchange and free association are products of the free market. Just look at the black market, violence exists vastly because there is no legal means of settling disputes. Law has been taken over by the State and in turn created chaos out of order.
@BIackOp Science does not come from the "result of the market" and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "peoples desires and preferences." You obviously don't even know what science is and, in addition to having never studied economics you have never studied a science, otherwise you wouldn't make such absolutely asinine remarks. Science is based on standards that are objective, not desires. People could desire that the world be flat - and did due to the Bible - but objectively it is not.
Anyway, this shows what a deluded idiot and fascist Murray Rothbard was: When Christianity ruled the world, scientific research came to a standstill. Secular physicians were extinct and reliance on prayer was used. And in place of real science, chants, potions, horoscopes, etc. were used. The life expectancy during Christian rule was about the same as it was during hunter-gatherer societies - 20 to 30 years. People were lying all over the streets in abject poverty in Europe.
@BIackOp Third, Rothbard said that he favored Republican administrations to "left-wing" anarchism and encouraged Libertarians to vote for Republicans over the new right. He was a crazy economist, who made no contributions to economics, and he was likely mentally insane.
@successfulbuild He made no contributions according to you, and only to you. He is crazy according to you and only to you. You are a nut job. Have you even read thoroughly any of their books? There is no substance in your posts, I could switch the names and attack any party with your lame ass posts. Get the fuck out.
@BIackOp Second, Rothbard was a racist (much like yourself) who believed that races not only objectively exist, but that some are inferior to others (another hallmark of fascism) and thus the inferior races would always be kept down or as servants to the property owners (rather than racism coming from the environment or lack of education).
@successfulbuild Much like myself? Isn't racism a collectivist fallacy? Fuck you asshole, you have no clue who you are talking to. This is you generalizing and asserting. I told you to go troll else where, and if you want a real debate go to the real forums, but no here you are dodging and making up shit. You are also trying to separate science from the Austrians, trying make them look like witch doctors when modern economics is based of your bullshit Keynesian doctrine.
@successfulbuild - It's clear you're a Leftist. I'd like to take the time to point out to others on this video that no one is THIS stupid. This level of stupidity doesn't happen on accident. This level of stupidity occurs after years of Liberal Indoctrination. Nobody could be so beyond moronic to believe that ANTI-government was somehow Fascist when there isn't a single fascist program that DIDN'T use the government. Beyond stupidity of this level leads to being wrong 100% of the time.
@thomaserossi It's clear you're an absolute idiot. Fascism is when the government transfers power into the hands of elite private industries. The Fascist revolutions were mainly between industrialists and a group of paramilitaries (conservatives) and the working class. Their ideology is that of social Darwinism and defense of the private ownership of land.
@successfulbuild - You haven't given a SINGLE example. Instead, like all indoctrinated Libtards, you read from a textbook. You're so beyond stupid you cannot understand that a textbook isn't an original document. You cannot understand that a textbook isn't an orginal source.The textbook isn't the Nazi Party platform, which included
Green Movement
The Homosexual movement (SA)
Outright ban on Firearms
Welfare State
Yeah, those gay welfare green anti-gun conservatives. Bonhoeffer disagrees.
@thomaserossi Thomas Woods is an AIDS denialist and an absolute moron who wants to return the US to confederacy standards of living - even appearing at places such as the League of the South, which is a white supremacist organization. He wants the government to implement states rights which would transfer power away from the people and into the hands of corporations. He is a coward and why no one takes him seriously except worthless pieces of shit like you.
@successfulbuild - He's a Federalist you indoctrinated Liberal Fascist. He's said it many times. But since you're a useful idiot for the collective, you cannot read anything. Nor can you understand it. How is he a "coward"? You never say. Because he disagrees with a useful idiot hatemonger like yourself he's a coward. A "zionist" coward you Liberal Fascist? He must be a Zionist AIDS denier. More slogans from the indoctrinated. Show one video with TW as LotS. But you can't because you lied.
@successfulbuild "He wants the government to implement states' rights"---that very phrase shows how clueless you are. And putting power closer to the people would take it away from the people? Sure, that makes sense. I also like your implication that power isn't already in the hands of corporations. Where did the bailouts come from? The states? No, from your beloved federal government. What a tool---he thinks the federal government is the voice of the people! Hahahahahaha
@successfulbuild What the heck is an AIDS denialist? I'm pretty sure Woods isn't one. And you can lay off the p.c. hysterics about the "League of the South" or whatever. Try and focus on the past 15 years, ok? And I'd love to be an "absolute moron" whom "no one takes seriously" if it meant, like Woods, graduating with high honors from Harvard, having a Ph.D. from Columbia, having my books translated into 12 languages and published by Columbia University Press, etc. Your credentials are better?
@BIackOp Murray Rothbard was indeed a fascist. First of all, Rothbard actually defended the entities known as corporations, which are fascistic institutions where power goes top down, not bottom up like in a democracy. (And with corporations they DICTATE to the market WHAT people want. They assume there are consumers and they sell to them. But people aren't designed to make flippant decisions between two products from corporations, they're designed to reason out production democratically.)
@successfulbuild I need your definition of fascism because you are not explaining anything, or anything accurately. Rothbard has tons of documentation against Corporatism, so this is full of shit. Keywords: Truth about the Robber Barons.
Your last statement suggests people need to only vote on a monopoly for a better product than shopping among a couple businesses which you preemptively assert that were shittier. You are offering even less choices. Voting with your dollars is far superior.
@BIackOp That's just Rothbard making up excuses for why capitalism failed at its purest stage of existence - with the government mainly existing to protect the private property. Of course he had to make up such excuses because the people hated the robber baron age and because it was even as productive as the US in the twentieth century (the twentieth century also saw better inventions). This just proves you haven't read Rothbard - he did believe corporations should exist.
@successfulbuild Mercantilism is not Capitalism. And its obvious you didn't read it, because Government had a huge involvement during those times, so how is that purest form? You do realize the Government steals resources and gives it to certain parties. Your dispute here isn't the stealing but the parties benefiting. You want the workers to have it; while fascist want the businesses to have it, and I don't want the theft in the first place. He wasn't talking about Corporate jurisdiction.
Murray Rothbard actually encouraged Libertarians to support religion since most people were "religious" he felt atheistic elements would turn people off to religion. (See, apparently the only person who actually studies this crap here is me; which makes me the idiot as AE is a waste of time.)
successfulbuild will you please stop arguing against reality, its really fucking annoying when you can't even get the basics right. Let alone your massive propaganda spam. You just keep skipping past the part of what a command economy is, and you seem to be arguing over semantics among your authoritarian comrades (fascists) over what kind of system you what to impose to fuck the people with.
@BIackOp I've shown by examples that the modern "command economies" work better than their free-market counterparts - and that the more free-market a country is the less stable it is. Even modern countries like Hong Kong and Taiwan did NOT bring themselves up by the free-market. In the case of Taiwan it was foreign investment and in Hong Kong the cartels were left over from the British empire, the government severely has restricted competition, protecting the monopolies, 60% in govt housing.
@successfulbuild So you are arguing that bureaucrats know how to better manage people's money then the people themselves? That is the foundation of a command economy.
@BIackOp Show me where I've gotten a "basic fact" wrong. Like a typical follower of the discredited Austrian school - you make assertions that you can't back up. I've shown why having such mere beliefs about the world is both philosophically and scientifically invalid. I've explained why Austrian praxeology is discredited by 60 years of research in psychology (unconsciousness plays a large part in decision making and action, for example, different areas of the mind reason differently) etc.
@successfulbuild You talk about how you debunked praxeology but you haven't explained how. You haven't even accurately explained praxeology. That is where you fail at the basics. What is Austrian Economics? And your response is a Corporate religion which typical of trolls trying act all smart thinking they "pwn" us when Corporate is a State created system.
@BIackOp Blackops you're pathetic, you're stupid, and you're ignorant. I think you're a good representative of the modern right-wing, however, and I think all right-wingers should become followers of the Austrian philosophy so we on the left can just steamroll over you idiots intellectually.
_
But how do you purpose to achieve the "ancap" society with such ridiculous sounding philosophy/religion? Another event within the mystery cult. How people need to die to the rights of Wal-Mart?
@successfulbuild Modern right wing? They are Statist you fucking tool. Again you have no concept of reality. Right wingers are either deluded minarchists or militarist authoritarians who don't respect property, markets, nor even life itself from their assault on civil liberties.
Austrians are Liberals by the traditional definition. They are not even in the paradigm of left and right, because they don't go by politics. To them the political class is nothing but parasites on mankind.
@successfulbuild Again, who is Wal-Mart? Its not a person. Someone owns Wal-Mart and he should be liable for its actions, but to transform rights into a Corporate rights is collective bullshit (group rights) turning property rights on its head. Its a complete straw-man to say that we want Corporations to run things, when no you fucktard. They already are running things. They are part of the government. If they are subsidized then they are part of the State. We want nobody running our lives.
"It sounds like a communist utopia, but a basic income program pioneered by German aid workers has helped alleviate poverty in a Namibian village Crime is down and children can finally attend school." The funding for this "basic income" program comes from tax revenues, and is a "constitutional right."
_
So, in Africa, democratic-communities: increasing employment, productivity; capitalism: high unemployment (over 50%), wasting resources. So yet another continent confirms markets don't work.
@successfulbuild Permanent unemployment is not a product of capitalism, its a product of Statism outlawing the market. Whether by moral excuse or philosophy, its imposed. All you do is spam the fuck out of this video with no comprehension of our posts. You've already been debunked, yet here you are copying and pasting fallacies and assertions.
@BIackOp Somalia has been "stateless capitalist" for years and has maintained a high unemployment rate. Furthermore, when the US was more free-market during the Gilded Age there was higher unemployment and a greater inequality gap then than even now. So where's your evidence that "permanent unemployment" wouldn't exist in a stateless society?
@successfulbuild That is because there went as many Capitalists then, plus you distort what is free market with Mercantilism often lumping it all together. Actually Somalia's had even more unemployed during the period of their government, and furthermore the illusion of employment didn't answer how productive their workforce was. They are far better off now and still much less violence then the past, even with the UN and Islam problem.
So if these Austrians are telling us that all state interventions are equally bad (all government, x, is evil), they can't then say they prefer one over the other. So they would be fine if society moved more and more towards restricting corporate rights and advancing cooperatives, or implementing universal health care, or whatever, because they have nothing to say about it? Anytime Murphy condemns the latest progress in democracy, he's being a hypocrite.
"By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. This is no logical flaw in Rothbard's theory (although it does reveal a logical flaw in Hoppe's presentation of Rothbard's theory), but it's political implications are rather different than commonly assumed: Rothbard's welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about - not denial of - the benefits of statism. "
So the way to implement "anarcho"-capitalism - which is neither anarchism nor capitalism, but bizarre nonsense - is to impose their conceptions of property on people by force. This is immoral, and would be disastrous. Capitalism generally functions in either two forms: either democratic-capitalism or fascistic, corporate capitalism. The US is a bit of each, while some European countries are closer to the former. Fascism comes out of failed states and undemocratic states, not democratic ones.
And how do you purpose to force people into the fascist anarcho-capitalist society when the vast majority of people don't even want it? Most people support property, for example, but they don't support massive inequality or absolutist ownership of property. In the US 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth - yet most people, even the upper class, believe that wealth should be distributed more evenly, and the working class feels the wealthy should only own 30-35% of the wealth.
Brazil now suffers from more inequality than the US - with one-percent of land owners owning 44% of all land. These are the types of societies ultra-conservative reactionaries like Woods, Murphy, would prefer - which is why they're against any attempts at social reform in the US and want to rollback progress. The thing is though this inequality is inherently unstable as I've shown with history. Furthermore, there are mass social democrat movements in Latin America rolling back these reforms.
Mexico went into its worst recession in its history after NAFTA and all of the experiments by neoclassical economists in Latin America failed. Nicaragua was the second poorest region in the hemisphere after Reagan invaded it and overthrew a democratic government that even the World Bank had praised for its progress (I thought democracies don't fight one another?). When the US overthrew Goulart for general Castelo Branco to establish a market friendly it massively increased inequality.
All modern industries are the result of heavy government intervention because the free-market just does not work. It was one of the most short-lived systems in history and one of America's fastest period of economic growth was during protectionism. Most people even rioted against capitalism and in England the workers gladly testified against their beloved bosses to the Saddler Committee. (If workers are such happy slaves why would they do this?) It failed in the third world as well.
In fact, this was an argument AGAINST allowing intellectual property with Unix - that so many people contributed towards it that it wasn't fair for AT&T to claim Unix as their intellectual property as not all of Unix was even their own code. They eventually got the property rights - and other companies started making other versions of Unix - and from that competition which prevented progress due to different standards DOS was born. Modern industries have absolutely NOTHING to do with choice.
In fact, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. actually do advocate this slavery, because they have it in the back of their mind that if a land owner is squatting on land and people have no other choice but to try and access his resources - they should become slaves. This is homesteading. This is absolutely ludicrous in the modern society because nobody can trace out who really owns what due to government intervention, corporate land grabs, and the fact that all modern "tools" are the work of thousands.
In worker run and democratic communities, there would be problems of free-loaders and how resources should be distributed. But these are normal human problems regardless of the economic system you have. Leftists don't believe in telling people what to do - communities would be free to solve these problems at their discretion. This is in contrast to static systems like capitalism: Wherever there is capitalism there is government as it requires an absolute implementation of property rights.
So, far from the "profit motive" being the driving factor of human creation, most creations have come from diminishing the profit motive and allowing people the leisure time to freely create (liberation of time). What socialism does is it abolishes the need for govt to have to do this through worker ownership.
_
Most people, and even business, spend all their time trying to get out of market competition - I don't blame them, that's the last place where you want to be for autonomous activity.
Notice how the Miseans can't even make a Youtube post without contradicting themselves (and also notice how daft Miseans from Europe are - a psychologist would likely consider them borderline).
_
First, "few deaths occurred in capitalist countries," and then "the socialist state is failing." Well, is the US a capitalist state or is it an interventionist, socialist dictatorship? And actually, this is not true. The vast majority of deaths from lack of basic care are in weak states.
Finally, the "free-market" has never invented anything. Everything that exists either was from the state or was done by corporations that were isolated from market forces by the government (such as AT&T with the cell phone and transistors).
_
Transistors, sockets, computers, lasers, fiber optics, game theory, linguistics, programming languages, jet planes all come either from the government directly or from researchers sponsored by the government. That's how the "market" functions.
@successfulbuild Youre sure giving a lot of leeway to what counts toward the government aren't you there champ? Corporations who were isolated from market forces huh? I'd get into you about all the innovations that the free market has come up with, but I'm betting they were all "isolated from market forces." in some way or another. Here shortly you will be claiming that corporations who invented something should give the government credit because of the taxes they were paying.
Until capitalism is abolished, we will continue to see this behavior. So my generation has Iraq (1 million deaths), prior generation had Reagan's interventions that ruined many Latin American countries perhaps beyond repair, before that Vietnam war and Indochina (6 million deaths including the brutality in Indonesia), and so on and so forth.
@successfulbuild You conflate Capitalism for State Capitalism. All the negatives are products of State. Monopolization of X. A true free market has all functions of society openly able to compete, nothing is monopolized, nor forced upon people. The consumer runs the economy, not the State, nor will there ever be central banking. Your ignorance of the matter is painful. Please stop criticizing Austrians for a subject your know little about.
@BIackOp you* know little about. Militarism is Statism, the military is a Socialist institution. Destruction does not create wealth. War is the health of State. Taxation is theft. Not all profits are products of a free market, and hardly a case against one in such a command economy. Statism perverts the incentives, look up the term moral hazard.
@BIackOp If "War is the health only of the state" and "militarism" only exists in statism, why then were people MORE likely to fight when we didn't have a government - you fool. Furthermore, Somalia, which somebody named Yumi Kim claims she "loves," has no government and yet is extremely violent, and based off of principles of the market. And yet other areas of Africa that are implementing more progressive measures are doing great.
@successfulbuild War is the health of the State. Republicans are proof of this. Militarism is Statism. Fiat land claims, please try to read my posts next time. Somalia's main problem is not the market, its called Religion. Islam is a violent religion, like most are. Btw even with the violence going on in Somalia, trend wise it has decrease since the government broke up. The two main sources that create that violence there now are two entities trying to establish States, UN and Islam.
@BIackOp Show me where violence has decreased. Violence has actually gone up. Like a typical Austrian school troll when reality conflicts with your idiotic theories you simply claim there is a problem with reality. And again, if statelessness is more peaceful - why then have all stateless societies been more violent than modern states?
@successfulbuild Now you really are pulling it out of your ass. You are suggesting that all cooperation is more violent without the heavy hand of the State. That people are irrational and they need a Nannie. You can't make that claim without lumping in all those angels running our lives. If man is chaotic, government won't help. You are wrong.
@BIackOp In ancient Chinese cosmology, there are things such as a "natural equilibrium" that make about as much sense as this "natural emergence." Things tend to balance themselves out in evolution, for example. However, it is a philosophical/religious description of the world, not a scientific one, and doesn't explain things like mass extinctions. It's pointless to argue over and is a religion - much like Austrian economics. That's all Austrian economics is, religion.
@successfulbuild Calling it an religion is your attempt to discredit something you haven't even touched the surface on. You haven't debunked the business cycle, nor the broken window fallacy, in fact you have ignored them.
@BIackOp Explain to me how the government is a religion. The government is not a religion but a series of laws with influence from the public that the government itself mainly protects. The anarcho-capitalists have no problem with "laws" - it's the fact that the people get to influence the laws that they have trouble with, because they believe their laws come from "god" and some mythical, market cosmology apparently, but everybody knows now rights are social constructs.
@BIackOp And I said Austrians make up their own reality that is ridiculous religion, not economics or politics. Learn to READ and WRITE - you spell like a third grader. Anyway, classical liberals were far closer to the methodologies of modern economists than Austrians. They were strong believers in the scientific method and believed in looking the world analytically, not philosophically.
@successfulbuild They also did not support anything like "anarcho-capitalism" but they supported what amounts to the democratic-state. The people who sat on the left in the French Parliament blamed private property for the sins of mankind and the liberals basically created modern democracy. Adam Smith said that any regulation for the benefit of the workers would be justified. TH Green was another progressive, as was JS Mill. If Smith were alive today he would be a "progressive extremist."
@successfulbuild Also, classical liberals like von Humboldt said that the true owner of the property are the laborers. This is very similar to even Marx on the far left. He clearly implied that it didn't matter who owned the "property" and he believed in free "communities" not in free "market places" where big corporations provide people with limited options due to their monopolistic power, their ability to hold back technology in order to increase profits, and so on.
@BIackOp Capitalism is state-capitalism as all capitalism requires a state. There is no such thing as "stateless capitalism" as capital requires a government, universal implementation of property rights, and the ability of businesses to purchase and own good. All of this requires a government to protect the property rights that are necessary for capitalism to function. There has never been anything like pure anarcho-capitalism and there never will be.
@successfulbuild Wrong, Capitalism has nothing to do with the State. Capital requires only the individual, no government. This was the original concept. It emerged on its own, by spontaneous order. You don't even have a concept about money, according to your fallacy of a post. There needs to be central banking, because your little mind has been condition to this brainwashing bullshit Statist spoon feeding since you were a little child that command economies are all that exist.
@BIackOp Capitalism did not "emerge on its own" you absolute idiot - capitalism was the result of government intervention and laws, some left over from feudalism etc.. It has never existed otherwise, and in fact most Libertarians do support the government. You google "Libertarian" and the LP party homepage comes up, CATO institute comes up, even Reason Magazine - and all of them support the state.
@successfulbuild The market emerged on its own: roads, courts, trade, language, law. All the necessary functions of society came from spontaneous order and cooperation, not of Statism. Cooperation created laws, not the other way around. Merchant law, Private Law, and Common Law. Medieval Ireland, Iceland, Mild Western America, maybe even Colonial Pennsylvania. Capitalism has been a very inflated word, but when Austrians talk about it. We mean a market economy, created by voluntary exchange.
@BIackOp Claiming that there are some mythical forces such as "spontaneous order" is nothing more than philosophical mumbo jumbo and vague mysticism and weird cosmology. Science does not work on the basis of philosophical descriptions but on the basis of hard facts. There is no evidence for such things as "spontaneous order."
@BIackOp For example, evolution does not work on the basis of something mythical called "spontaneous order" but on the basis of natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, adaptation, and so on. All of this can be explained analytically and has massive evidence supporting it. Natural selection, for example, is when individuals, because of particular inherited characteristics, survive and reproduce at a higher rate than others.
@BIackOp If everything "emerges" on its own you might as well say that the government "emerged on its own" and is therefore the highest level of human civilization. It is quite possible people believed it would be easier to have one entity do things like protect the laws rather than roaming tribes of thugs or the mob like in anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, land owners could monopolize all the land and force people into their laws so as to benefit them in anarcho-capitalism. This is "statism."
@successfulbuild Yes, Statism emerged as well from religion. No, its not the highest level of human civilization. Its fraud, a poser, I already told you, Law came from cooperation, not the other way around. Statism is a fiat land claim, they are a coercive monopoly that tries to impose and consume all functions of society. Last I checked your example is calling dibs, when homesteading is more than that. States claim vast areas of land and make no use of it. Taxes are more than service charges.
@successfulbuild These types of Libertarians have not fully understood the economics of law, they are known as Minarchists. Minimal Statists who either believe the State can be restrained by the Constitution (which it never has), or they are leaning towards a stateless society trying to slowly shift towards anti-statism and they are only held back by a few myths. You, I am afraid, are further up the creek.
@BIackOp So what you're suggesting is that the Libertarians who believe we should be going around the world fighting for property rights are "minarchists?" War states are never small states - in history the warring state is the largest, most powerful state, since he is conquering other states. Furthermore, a true minarchism would not imply giving property rights to powerful corporations, but rather only doing basic things like protecting the right to life. It would encourage diverse ownership.
So, uhhh, how about that lesbian kiss video in the sidebar?
fluff125 3 weeks ago
Is Tom an Anarchist?
fightingirishman726 3 months ago
@fightingirishman726 I think he supports the "Anarcho-capitalism" theory, If you want to know more you can watch the misesmedia film "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?"
/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI
CaptainSkeletor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video was featured on facebook .com/pages/Anti-Socialism/107544839265047
NietzscheanMan 6 months ago
State secession is the path to freedom....the video.
SeanMauer 9 months ago
@SeanMauer Seriously guy, this dude wouldn't look good in the confederate grey, never minding the implications of his beliefs would've torn the civil war era south a new asshole and they wouldn't want him. Nice implied juxtaposition tho bro, bro five
Chrisrayholly 7 months ago
Music by Kevin MacLeod ? Fine.
Now, would you please tell us WHICH MUSIC by Kevin MacLeod, he did many songs. I want to know which one. If you can tell in the music description that the music is by Kevin MacLeod, was it too difficult to also say which music specifically ?
I want to have this music, why is it I can never get the music I want. Please, tell us which music is it. Thanks for nothing, I know I will not get any responses.
Ihateflagging123 10 months ago
Damn, this music is good. Hats off to Kevin MacLeod!
danmarder1 10 months ago
This guy complete ignores the demographic pressures that cause poverty. Just saying.
lostnspiration 10 months ago
@lostnspiration Yeah like when a group of assholes take a poor areas money through all manner of taxation on those areas and any areas that deal with those areas. Kinda hard to get out of a poor demographic when your buns are being extorted right from ya
Chrisrayholly 7 months ago
@lostnspiration Such as? How do demographics cause poverty?
Hashishin13 7 months ago
@Hashishin13 It's easier to get investment from people you know than it is from people you don't. Because of this it tends to be easier for people in wealthy areas to get a leg up. If you have a workable business idea and you live in Berkley you're going to have a lot easier of a time making it work than you would if you lived in Compton NJ.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 That isn't "causing" poverty. thats extending it. How did the person get poor by demographics in the first place? IT also depends on the idea, I think rappers have a leg up over someone who lives in berkely. If you had a really good idea and took it to a bank or venture capitalist you would probably not be much worse off.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 I can't speak for anything outside of my own experience but poor people tend to be poor because they immigrate. I'm descended from German and Lithuanian immigrants who fled their unstable countries at the beginning of the 20th century. My family has largely been stuck in minimum wage jobs for generations now. I'm going to be the first one in my family to finish college, largely because my mom befriended a entrepreneur.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 Well in the current system the government takes at least half your income when all is said and done. On top of this they spend the money on things like bombs and troops which they use to invade other countries, not exactly a productive use of resources. If the state were toned down or eliminated we would all be vastly wealthier. In addition if you consider "poverty" being able to afford a computer, internet probably a TV, roof over your head and food, go look at real poverty.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 Yeah, I don't support the current system and agree that a lot of organizations are just plain useless. But, I think that private firms aren't necessarily better. Monopolies in the private sector tend to support authoritarian governments anyway, since such governments can shut down their competition. I consider poverty to be the point where your next week's meals or shelter are of questionable certainty. But also think that generationally stagnant wages are bad as well.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 There aren't monopolies in a free market. Its impossible. A free market MEANs free entry for competition. Large firms buy off the government right now, authoritarianism as its commonly understood isn't neccessary. The FCC, FDA and all the other regulators favour the large ffirms over the small ones. Walmart literally uses the state to force people into selling their land through expropriation.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 If by "Free market" you mean a market with minimal government regulations, than monopolies absolutely exist in a free market. A good example is ISPs. The technology required to run an ISP is expensive and requires immense skill and time to maintain. This makes the number of ISPs minimal. Walmart also uses the government to get free healthcare of its employees, something it greatly profits from and something that wouldn't be possible in a universal healthcare system.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 Would there be free entry to the market of ISPs? Yes there would be, therefore there is no monopoly possible. It doesn't matter how many people are actually providing the service, even if its only one. As long as there is the threat of competition companies have to provide cheap services. If their profit margins get too big that is a signal to other companies to enter the market and underbid them. Since capitol, and thus business focus flows to profitablility, monpoly is impossible.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 How is there "free entry"? The entry is incredibly expensive by any measurement of cost. The companies aren't threatened by the potential of competing companies because they know how difficult it is for companies to enter the market. Profitability isn't the only factor that's important here, you have to consider the incredibly high upstart cost and the extremely limited skillpool. If the market corrected itself, it would do so only with extreme lag.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 free entry is a technical term meaning no thugs are going to come shut you down and you don't have to beg the government for some license which they could deny you. Sure they can scharge slightyl more if there is no current competition, but the threat of competition jining prevents them from acting like a true, government granted monopoly. Government granted monopolies have no incentive to keep cost down or innovate, single firms with free entry do.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 I'm economics major. I know what the term "free entry" means. Technological barriers are one of the limits to free entry, by any reasonable definition. They would be consider such by any professional economists, even Austrians. High speed ISPs are a natural monopoly because of current technology. There is no threat of competition. I don't doubt that more competition will develop over time but the question is what to do in the interim period.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 The libertaran vision of a free market includes no IP. They aren't "natural" at all, they are granted licenses from the government to monopolize certain areas. I was talking to a guy in the states about this TODAY. He was saying "no way canadians have worse internet, ours is regulated to one for cable and one for DSL, then fibre optic if your lucky." Its the same here in Canada, the government grants monopolies, they don't occur naturally.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 Natural monopolies are not created by legal licensing, they're created by high capital costs. That's what makes them natural monopolies and not legal monopolies. Concentration in high speed ISPs is do to high costs and most utilities are also examples. If you want to argue that some kind of legal protection made the concentration happen, I'd be interested to hear that argument but I don't see how you can say "There are no natural monopolies' given the examples of them.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 What I'm saying is that there AREN'T any examples of them. Utility companies are licensed and regulated by the state, so are ISPs. Both of these examples you have given are literally direct examples of government monopolies, utility companies and ISPs are granted local monpolies.
Monopoly means one firm only, excluding all others. The Austrian definition states it more clearly that it has to be state granted because one firm in free competition still has potential competition.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 How are ISPs licensed by the state? I've never heard this before.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 I know for a fact that here in Canada Bell has a monopoly on telephone lines, so by extension they have a monopoly on DSL. Any new start up companies have to contract with them if they want to offer DSL, and if you have to contract with your direct competition just to get into the market, thats not freedom, or really competetion. I'm pretty sure its the same with cable except its Rogers that has the monopoly. As I said before I was talking to someone from the US he said its the same
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Hashishin13 Yeah, I don't know much about the internet in Canada. In the US I'm pretty sure the regulation is minimal, especially compared to the high technology costs. I would support running ISPs as utilities, just acknowledging that there's a high market concentration and that there may be certain regulation needed for markets with high technology costs. It's definitely not the same in the US, anyone can form an ISP if they can afford it.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 Capitol flows to profitability, try reading what I have said. If the few firms are exploiting their high-market share LESS REGULATION is the way to make it better, not more. If you sick the "anti-trust" mroons on ISPs they will attack them for their market share, not for exploitative pricing. If you attack someone for having too much market share you hurt the consumer. Utilities are corrupt bullshit, watch Tom Woods on California's blackouts to see what I mean.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
@Distortion0
There aren't any such things as 'natural monopolies'. The definition of a monopoly (the real definition - not the one propagated by the State public relations committees) is the forceful coercive exclusion of other competitors from entering the market AND/OR real coercion- violence forcing people to associate with it. Monopoly, objectively defined, is based on whether its possible to VOLUNTARILY ENTER OR EXIT from the marketplace.
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880 if u can voluntarily enter/exit, then its not monopoly. if there are coercive barriers to entering/exiting then its a monopoly regardless of what public relations may say. And the mafia/state is the prime example of a monopoly
Any other definition ultimately becomes arbitrary- monopoly can't be defined based on 'size' or bullshit 'homogenous goods', 'perfect competition', etc- those are really undefined & wholly arbitrary.
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880
Consider the free market
free market merely means people can freely voluntarily enter into & exit out of the market, exchanges & contracts
The state & mafia function to limit competition at the point of a gun rather than through satisfying customers. Not only does the state limit competition, the regulations passed are always designed to favor very small subset of people at the non-consenting expense of everyone else
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880 Look, if it's impossible, for whatever reason, for firms to enter a market. And because of this, the firms that are in the market exert the same kind of monopolistic power that they would if the concentration was caused by legal regulation, then why should we not call this a monopoly? It's ridiculous not to. The idea that concentration is caused by legal regulation is empirically false, and the "definition" of monopoly that keeps getting asserted here is based of that stupid idea.
Distortion0 4 months ago
@Distortion0 If there are no legal barrier to entry, and other firms cannot enter the market, the only possible reason for this is that those firms which are already in the market are providing greater and cheaper services to consumers than the firms trying to enter it. In other words, the consumers themselves have decided that those firms are incompetent. What is wrong with this? The Austrian view of monopoly is empirically false? How about an example? Read Gabriel Kolko's work.
IvanTheHeathen 1 month ago
@Distortion0 Out of the roughly 4,000 ISP's in America, which one would you say is the biggest monopoly? I don't think monopoly means what you think it means.
petmensan 6 months ago
@petmensan It depends on which area of the country you're talking about. Much like Health Insurance ISPs tend to dominate the market share in a particular area. Where I live Brighthouse controls most of the market.
Distortion0 6 months ago
@Distortion0 I suppose if you really hate using one of the monopoly ISP's you can always use a free one.
petmensan 6 months ago
@petmensan I'm not even saying that monopoly ISPs are bad, just, given current technology, inevitable. And free ISPs? I don't follow.
Distortion0 6 months ago
I move we start ignoring zombiefitnezz ans successfulbuild. These guys obviously know nothing about Austrian Theory, and by their own odd statements show not even the most rudimentary understanding of what has provably happened in America concerning Buisiness Cycles and Depressions. If they read this, I hope rather than responding in anger or unfounded platitudes they will be honest men and try to read Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek before they begin spouting off with unfounded accusations.
loudchristian2112 11 months ago 3
@loudchristian2112
I concur
swu880 11 months ago
@zombiefitnezz And unlike you, Woods, Rockwell, and DiLorenzo (you can't even spell his name right) consistently favor peace. See Woods' book We Who Dared to Say No to War, co-authored with a progressive (i.e., someone not like you). Google "Interview With a Zombie."
DRNevans 11 months ago
@zombiefitnezz Woods and DiLorenzo had practically zero to do with the League of the South over 15 years ago when it wasn't even a southern group, and Rockwell had nothing to do with it. "Many others"? Name them, liar. Mises panders to white supremacists? How, by reprinting Mises' book Liberalism, which teaches tolerance, internationalism, and peace?
Corporate pollution? Do you even know what Rothbard wrote on pollution? He was tougher on it than you are, ignoramus.
DRNevans 11 months ago
@zombiefitnezz:
"Corporate PR"? You mean, like the one you clueless eleutheorophobic statetards are engaged in by promoting more regulation and beurocracy to the benefits of the big guys to squash their competitions? How much did they pay you to do this job?Nothing, you say? Well, good job being a useful idiot to the big corporations free of charge. Useful idiots like you save them a lot of money by spreading the kind of bullshit that you spew here.Now go crawl back to your statist hole, drone.
Akatam0t0ma 11 months ago
Come in at 1:55 to avoid the annoying introduction. This is a great speech. Listen to it, take notes and think about it.
Pwecko 1 year ago
I can't believe he is comparing massage demands with air conditioning needs. What a load of fucking crap.
mistoroboto 1 year ago
@mistoroboto Come on. You are not that stupid. He is doing no such thing. Man, I can't believe I actually have to explain this. He is saying that the PRINCIPLE is the same. Half a century ago, air conditioned workplaces seemed as laughable as massages do now. Did you at all understand his point about the evolution of working conditions? Pearls before swine.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@LibertyWins2012 Do you understand that historically, conditions do not improve in the manner you speak of without intervention? Safety regulations is a must. No business has the right to expect their employees to work under conditions which safety mechanics in place. Obviously you've never heard of things like heat strokes and the like. The principle is NOT the same. Air conditioning did seem laughable a century ago, but we are not living a century ago.
mistoroboto 1 year ago
This introducer is TERRIBLE. He should've just said "Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Thomas Woods, Jr."
jpschubbs 1 year ago
I like the intro music - what is it?
evangrogers 1 year ago
He's got the highest degree on earth (PhD). Why would he "bask in the prestige" of having an MD, which is only considered a bachelor's degree everywhere except the US?
TheUndercoverAthiest 1 year ago
Great lecture as always, Tom !
Mavrilon 1 year ago 2
Btw this is my last and final post to you RPHBs. Thanks for dodging the following: Moral Hazard. Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Broken Window Fallacy, Front Loading, Political Engineering, Hamilton's curse (Mercantilism - Federalists/Whigs/Republicans-present), Merchant Law, Private Law, and Common Law, Fiat Land Claim, Violence at the Margins, Taxation = Theft, Value = Subjective, Corporate person-hood, morality = super powers. And your best attempt is straw-mans, ad hominem, and assertions.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
Leaving your family to live on the Molyneux plantation is not the answer, just so that he can get more drones to go to his website and thus get more ad revenue. One organization calls the development of the Molyneux cult "worrying" - but its certainly not surprising that cults have formed up around capitalism using vague philosophy - both of which no longer exist and should be studied only for amusement. You cult members will be singing the praises of Molyneux when you're living on the street.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
By the way, if you're reading this and you're actually a part of the Stefan Molyneux cult, I hope my conversion with one its cult members - "black ops" - was informative. These cult members hate themselves and hate their lives and that's why they're so angry. They want to make everybody else as miserable as they are by forcing on everybody an economic system that just won't work.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild They are not forcing anything on anybody, it would be a contradiction to Libertarianism then. Yes, Stef has problems with objectivism, he doesn't fully accept it, but has his own lesser problem of upb, however that doesn't discredit his criticism of the State, especially in that video. The part he was talking about human behavior to adapt was spot on. Anyway I just realized you are, RPHBs, AntiAuthoritarian. No wonder you are so dogmatic with the State. This explains a lot.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@cont This explains everything. Lets recap on all the evil you listed here. You called Austrians: Racists, Fascists, Anti-Human, Cult, Corporate Rule, Creationists, Extreme Right Wing, Republicans, illogical, mystical, revisionists, & private tyrannies.
You forget Monarchists, Nazis, Bush lovers, and anything you despise, because you just asserted, lumped, and merged everything stereotypical that the "Left" opposes both in the mainstream and in economics. No wonder you dodged the Mises forums.
BIackOp 1 year ago 11
Anarchism in medieval Iceland actually was not anarcho-capitalism. There was a lot of this "collectivism" that anarcho-capitalists claim never should exist. The other examples of anarcho-capitalism have been debunked as mere revisionist history on the part of the anarcho-capitalists. Somalia was the closest to anarcho-capitalism although it too cannot be said to be perfect. The free-market is something that can't exist.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild A stateless society is more than "capitalism", its a series of experiments that don't coerce people into anything against their will. The real revisionist history comes from public schools.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
According to the international aid organization Médecins Sans Frontières, the violence in Somalia reached catastrophic heights during its period of "anarchy." So the claim that it was a more peaceful society with anarcho-capitalism is just another lie. Furthermore, they are now moving away from anarchism due to the violence and destruction caused by systems that only attempt to recognize private property. The violence was not the UN but kidnapping, warlordism, and so on and so forth.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@BIackOp Actually, evolution does not always work from the bottom up. That would imply that the only forces that affects evolution is natural selection in a static environment. The world is not like that: genetic drift, mass extinctions, outside forces all have their role to play in evolution. Consider the K–T boundary mass extinction. So actually modern society is perhaps more like evolution. And you've failed to explain how natural selection can be explained by your "emergence" philosophy
successfulbuild 1 year ago
This is for you successfulbuild. /watch?v=IKtBaE6Y_ZY
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp That video doesn't address anything. Stefan Molyneux is nothing more than a cult leader. His videos are definitely well done and have a coherent message, often incorporating progressive rhetoric like a belief in freedom from all power structures. Of course, like all propagandists he is overly simplistic. He supports a discredited form of psychology that comes from objectivism. His anarchism - or "Aynarchism" - makes no sense. The only religion he discusses there is his own.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
And by the way Krugman should definitely not debate Robert Murphy. That would be giving that guy and this right-wing extremist religion credibility that it does not merit. Civilized people no longer deal with these kinds of cults, but treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Extreme right wing doesn't define anything. You are using fear as a method to discredit actual economics. When we debunk you, we don't use extreme left wing. In fact, Austrian have been going against both Left and Right often.; so save the non sense.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
@BIackOp Austrians are extreme right-wing because they favor private tyrannies controlling the resources rather than people democratically making decisions over land. However, your kooky religion probably should not be seen as either extreme left or extreme right, but as human versus anti-human. I prefer human.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You just don't understand the ownership claim here. Its not about tyrannies, its about you having the ability to own 100% of your labor, your work, your earnings. All the functions that run laws should not have geographical claims nor have the power to steal to function. Statism is anti-social, how is opposing that anti-human? You treat economics like a hard science, its does not work that way. And for a person of science, you sure are dogmatic in politics.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
So, far from being an example of spontaneous order, language is the result of a top down structure that is innate in the mind. Humans did NOT simply throw out words like "Mama ball give to me," and find out a grammar that makes sense. Rather, the universal grammar is built into the and brain the areas of the brain that deal with this have been found. So, for example, in "The box contains a cat" and "What's in the box?" humans instinctively know to throw verb behind the noun in a question.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild First a proponent of evolution should not be a supporter of a top down order, and neither is a free market. Corporatism is, and so is any other form of a command economy. It just contradictions evolution.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
Language as well does not come from "spontaneous order" - it's been proven with modern computer science that from even a few simple words, thousands of sentences can form. Some of these are even grammatical. To quote from a Chomsky example, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It seems grammatical forwards, not backwards, and yet has no meaning. However, humans naturally and instinctively now the rules of grammar because they are innate and instinctive.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Trade created Language.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp Trade did not create language. As I explained before humans did not just start spouting out words and then ordering them together. Rather, language is actually innate in the mind. As usual, Austrian schoolers just make things up as they go along without citing any evidence. Language was perhaps necessary for trade but NOT created for it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
If it was all just a matter of "spontaneous order" there would be no such natural selection or adaptation, but rather it would all be a matter of chance. This opens up evolution to criticism by creationists and is something that virtually no evolutionist believes. This is the kind of nonsense people like Robert Murphy and other Austrian creationists use to disprove evolution: that such "random chance" could never have occurred. The problem is that that is not how evolution works.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You over generalize and lump Austrian Economics for a religion. Its not, so stop using it. Some people believe in God, but that has nothing to do with the economics they support. They are plenty of Atheists that are also Austrians, like myself.
BIackOp 1 year ago
Also successfulbuild if you are actually looking for a real debate against Austrian Economics, why not sign up on their forums at Mises? Youtube is hardly the place for accurate discussion, plus the forum style is very shitty. One last thing, if you are going to debate. Try not to be so vague and generalize while branching off on different subjects. Yes, material can be related but you have been all over the place, suggesting its more of an attack then a debate, especially on Rothbard.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
@BIackOp I will debate how I want to debate - posting factual information and conclusions that are based off of the logical conclusions of those facts - and you cannot debate how Austrian economists prefer: throwing out random, illogical and contradictory nonsense that makes absolutely no sense and bullshit cosmological religion such as that capitalism is justified by something called "spontaneous order" - misusing science in the process to justify your absurd "beliefs."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You mean you will troll how you want to troll. In here your lucky you are even talking to me, and what good is that? The whole point to posting, or at least making a debate is to have a conversation with the opposing party. But its not often you get a genuine debate on a 3rd party website, especially in an older video where the bulk of the folks represented aren't scaling this comment section to find your responses. Its much more productive to post a thread in there forums.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Youtube creates its comment sections so that people can comment on videos. I know you Libertarians believe that workers do not have freedom of speech and that only private property owners have rights in the anarcho-fascist society, and the workers wouldn't be able to speak for fear of them unionizing, but we're not living in your sick, twisted fascist society yet. Since Austrian economics is mythical religion it doesn't matter where you discuss it.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild This is you asserting again. You cross what Libertarians stand for with what Neo Cons stand for. One says they are for the free market, the other actually means it. Freedom of speech should come from the consent of the property owner. It does not mean workers do not have free speech. They can own property and function. Private property owners are not merely business owners, so you are completely off track here. Especially in your attempt to say workers would be slaves.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
As noted by Dr. Carl Sagan life expectancy didn't rise to 40 years until 1870. It hit 50 in 1950, 60 in 1930, 70 in 1955, and in 1996 approached 80. This is due to the enlightenment thinking and the scientific method (what PIG series authors call "political liberalism"). Through the use of the scientific method science has saved vastly more lives than all the people killed through all the wars in history.
_
Thank goodness they removed from market forces which allowed scientists to do this.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild What you fail to realize is the development of mankind is the result of the market. All productivity and innovation based on the desires of the individuals came from the market, including science. Religion is an age old fallacy where Statism derived from. Its another false assertion of reality and held mankind back from evolving. The market is not utopian, its constantly improving, such is a stateless society. I don't believe it, I know it.
BIackOp 1 year ago 8
@BIackOp You are making logical contradictions left and right. First you say that all violence is only the result of the state - I proved that to be false. Now you're saying that all contributions are the result of "the market," even though you claim that the free-market doesn't exist and that we have a command economy. Since many scientists, about half, or as much as 60% in fields like astronomy, you are actually now claiming that the government IS the market. Austrian economics is illogical
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You mean logical positivism? You mean you have a problem with non-hypothetical statements based on the real world that are true? Something can not be red all over and blue all over at the same time. Two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. When a trade occurs, Person A values Person B's good more than Person A's good and vice versa, otherwise such a transaction would not occur. Value is subjective.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Actually I said the State is a violence, all State action is action of violence, also known as violence at the margins. Its not the same as reactionary force.
I did not say violence can not exist outside the state, I said violence will always exist within the State. Violence outside of Statism will exist but it will be either reactionary (response to a threat which used force first) or some criminal, but this is nothing compared to Statism.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@successfulbuild The mechanism of the free market exists even under a command economy, it doesn't mean the total market is functioning. If there was no mechanism of the free market operating the economy would collapse immediately. Voluntary exchange and free association are products of the free market. Just look at the black market, violence exists vastly because there is no legal means of settling disputes. Law has been taken over by the State and in turn created chaos out of order.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Science does not come from the "result of the market" and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "peoples desires and preferences." You obviously don't even know what science is and, in addition to having never studied economics you have never studied a science, otherwise you wouldn't make such absolutely asinine remarks. Science is based on standards that are objective, not desires. People could desire that the world be flat - and did due to the Bible - but objectively it is not.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild This is you asserting with your blinders on. You haven't defined a fucking thing. Man pursuing his own interest is the market.
BIackOp 1 year ago
Anyway, this shows what a deluded idiot and fascist Murray Rothbard was: When Christianity ruled the world, scientific research came to a standstill. Secular physicians were extinct and reliance on prayer was used. And in place of real science, chants, potions, horoscopes, etc. were used. The life expectancy during Christian rule was about the same as it was during hunter-gatherer societies - 20 to 30 years. People were lying all over the streets in abject poverty in Europe.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Murray Rothbard was no fascist.
BIackOp 1 year ago 21
@BIackOp Third, Rothbard said that he favored Republican administrations to "left-wing" anarchism and encouraged Libertarians to vote for Republicans over the new right. He was a crazy economist, who made no contributions to economics, and he was likely mentally insane.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild He made no contributions according to you, and only to you. He is crazy according to you and only to you. You are a nut job. Have you even read thoroughly any of their books? There is no substance in your posts, I could switch the names and attack any party with your lame ass posts. Get the fuck out.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Second, Rothbard was a racist (much like yourself) who believed that races not only objectively exist, but that some are inferior to others (another hallmark of fascism) and thus the inferior races would always be kept down or as servants to the property owners (rather than racism coming from the environment or lack of education).
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Much like myself? Isn't racism a collectivist fallacy? Fuck you asshole, you have no clue who you are talking to. This is you generalizing and asserting. I told you to go troll else where, and if you want a real debate go to the real forums, but no here you are dodging and making up shit. You are also trying to separate science from the Austrians, trying make them look like witch doctors when modern economics is based of your bullshit Keynesian doctrine.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@successfulbuild - It's clear you're a Leftist. I'd like to take the time to point out to others on this video that no one is THIS stupid. This level of stupidity doesn't happen on accident. This level of stupidity occurs after years of Liberal Indoctrination. Nobody could be so beyond moronic to believe that ANTI-government was somehow Fascist when there isn't a single fascist program that DIDN'T use the government. Beyond stupidity of this level leads to being wrong 100% of the time.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi It's clear you're an absolute idiot. Fascism is when the government transfers power into the hands of elite private industries. The Fascist revolutions were mainly between industrialists and a group of paramilitaries (conservatives) and the working class. Their ideology is that of social Darwinism and defense of the private ownership of land.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild - You haven't given a SINGLE example. Instead, like all indoctrinated Libtards, you read from a textbook. You're so beyond stupid you cannot understand that a textbook isn't an original document. You cannot understand that a textbook isn't an orginal source.The textbook isn't the Nazi Party platform, which included
Green Movement
The Homosexual movement (SA)
Outright ban on Firearms
Welfare State
Yeah, those gay welfare green anti-gun conservatives. Bonhoeffer disagrees.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi Thomas Woods is an AIDS denialist and an absolute moron who wants to return the US to confederacy standards of living - even appearing at places such as the League of the South, which is a white supremacist organization. He wants the government to implement states rights which would transfer power away from the people and into the hands of corporations. He is a coward and why no one takes him seriously except worthless pieces of shit like you.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild - He's a Federalist you indoctrinated Liberal Fascist. He's said it many times. But since you're a useful idiot for the collective, you cannot read anything. Nor can you understand it. How is he a "coward"? You never say. Because he disagrees with a useful idiot hatemonger like yourself he's a coward. A "zionist" coward you Liberal Fascist? He must be a Zionist AIDS denier. More slogans from the indoctrinated. Show one video with TW as LotS. But you can't because you lied.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@successfulbuild "He wants the government to implement states' rights"---that very phrase shows how clueless you are. And putting power closer to the people would take it away from the people? Sure, that makes sense. I also like your implication that power isn't already in the hands of corporations. Where did the bailouts come from? The states? No, from your beloved federal government. What a tool---he thinks the federal government is the voice of the people! Hahahahahaha
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@successfulbuild What the heck is an AIDS denialist? I'm pretty sure Woods isn't one. And you can lay off the p.c. hysterics about the "League of the South" or whatever. Try and focus on the past 15 years, ok? And I'd love to be an "absolute moron" whom "no one takes seriously" if it meant, like Woods, graduating with high honors from Harvard, having a Ph.D. from Columbia, having my books translated into 12 languages and published by Columbia University Press, etc. Your credentials are better?
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@BIackOp Murray Rothbard was indeed a fascist. First of all, Rothbard actually defended the entities known as corporations, which are fascistic institutions where power goes top down, not bottom up like in a democracy. (And with corporations they DICTATE to the market WHAT people want. They assume there are consumers and they sell to them. But people aren't designed to make flippant decisions between two products from corporations, they're designed to reason out production democratically.)
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I need your definition of fascism because you are not explaining anything, or anything accurately. Rothbard has tons of documentation against Corporatism, so this is full of shit. Keywords: Truth about the Robber Barons.
Your last statement suggests people need to only vote on a monopoly for a better product than shopping among a couple businesses which you preemptively assert that were shittier. You are offering even less choices. Voting with your dollars is far superior.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp That's just Rothbard making up excuses for why capitalism failed at its purest stage of existence - with the government mainly existing to protect the private property. Of course he had to make up such excuses because the people hated the robber baron age and because it was even as productive as the US in the twentieth century (the twentieth century also saw better inventions). This just proves you haven't read Rothbard - he did believe corporations should exist.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Mercantilism is not Capitalism. And its obvious you didn't read it, because Government had a huge involvement during those times, so how is that purest form? You do realize the Government steals resources and gives it to certain parties. Your dispute here isn't the stealing but the parties benefiting. You want the workers to have it; while fascist want the businesses to have it, and I don't want the theft in the first place. He wasn't talking about Corporate jurisdiction.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
@BIackOp No kidding. Saying Murray Rothbard is a fascist would be like saying Adolf Hitler is the president of Israel.
terramortim 11 months ago 19
Murray Rothbard actually encouraged Libertarians to support religion since most people were "religious" he felt atheistic elements would turn people off to religion. (See, apparently the only person who actually studies this crap here is me; which makes me the idiot as AE is a waste of time.)
_
successfulbuild 1 year ago
successfulbuild will you please stop arguing against reality, its really fucking annoying when you can't even get the basics right. Let alone your massive propaganda spam. You just keep skipping past the part of what a command economy is, and you seem to be arguing over semantics among your authoritarian comrades (fascists) over what kind of system you what to impose to fuck the people with.
BIackOp 1 year ago 12
@BIackOp I've shown by examples that the modern "command economies" work better than their free-market counterparts - and that the more free-market a country is the less stable it is. Even modern countries like Hong Kong and Taiwan did NOT bring themselves up by the free-market. In the case of Taiwan it was foreign investment and in Hong Kong the cartels were left over from the British empire, the government severely has restricted competition, protecting the monopolies, 60% in govt housing.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild So you are arguing that bureaucrats know how to better manage people's money then the people themselves? That is the foundation of a command economy.
BIackOp 1 year ago 3
@BIackOp Show me where I've gotten a "basic fact" wrong. Like a typical follower of the discredited Austrian school - you make assertions that you can't back up. I've shown why having such mere beliefs about the world is both philosophically and scientifically invalid. I've explained why Austrian praxeology is discredited by 60 years of research in psychology (unconsciousness plays a large part in decision making and action, for example, different areas of the mind reason differently) etc.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You talk about how you debunked praxeology but you haven't explained how. You haven't even accurately explained praxeology. That is where you fail at the basics. What is Austrian Economics? And your response is a Corporate religion which typical of trolls trying act all smart thinking they "pwn" us when Corporate is a State created system.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp Blackops you're pathetic, you're stupid, and you're ignorant. I think you're a good representative of the modern right-wing, however, and I think all right-wingers should become followers of the Austrian philosophy so we on the left can just steamroll over you idiots intellectually.
_
But how do you purpose to achieve the "ancap" society with such ridiculous sounding philosophy/religion? Another event within the mystery cult. How people need to die to the rights of Wal-Mart?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Modern right wing? They are Statist you fucking tool. Again you have no concept of reality. Right wingers are either deluded minarchists or militarist authoritarians who don't respect property, markets, nor even life itself from their assault on civil liberties.
Austrians are Liberals by the traditional definition. They are not even in the paradigm of left and right, because they don't go by politics. To them the political class is nothing but parasites on mankind.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Again, who is Wal-Mart? Its not a person. Someone owns Wal-Mart and he should be liable for its actions, but to transform rights into a Corporate rights is collective bullshit (group rights) turning property rights on its head. Its a complete straw-man to say that we want Corporations to run things, when no you fucktard. They already are running things. They are part of the government. If they are subsidized then they are part of the State. We want nobody running our lives.
BIackOp 1 year ago
"It sounds like a communist utopia, but a basic income program pioneered by German aid workers has helped alleviate poverty in a Namibian village Crime is down and children can finally attend school." The funding for this "basic income" program comes from tax revenues, and is a "constitutional right."
_
So, in Africa, democratic-communities: increasing employment, productivity; capitalism: high unemployment (over 50%), wasting resources. So yet another continent confirms markets don't work.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Permanent unemployment is not a product of capitalism, its a product of Statism outlawing the market. Whether by moral excuse or philosophy, its imposed. All you do is spam the fuck out of this video with no comprehension of our posts. You've already been debunked, yet here you are copying and pasting fallacies and assertions.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Somalia has been "stateless capitalist" for years and has maintained a high unemployment rate. Furthermore, when the US was more free-market during the Gilded Age there was higher unemployment and a greater inequality gap then than even now. So where's your evidence that "permanent unemployment" wouldn't exist in a stateless society?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild That is because there went as many Capitalists then, plus you distort what is free market with Mercantilism often lumping it all together. Actually Somalia's had even more unemployed during the period of their government, and furthermore the illusion of employment didn't answer how productive their workforce was. They are far better off now and still much less violence then the past, even with the UN and Islam problem.
Medieval Ireland and Iceland are good examples.
BIackOp 1 year ago
--Brian Caplan...
So if these Austrians are telling us that all state interventions are equally bad (all government, x, is evil), they can't then say they prefer one over the other. So they would be fine if society moved more and more towards restricting corporate rights and advancing cooperatives, or implementing universal health care, or whatever, because they have nothing to say about it? Anytime Murphy condemns the latest progress in democracy, he's being a hypocrite.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
"By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. This is no logical flaw in Rothbard's theory (although it does reveal a logical flaw in Hoppe's presentation of Rothbard's theory), but it's political implications are rather different than commonly assumed: Rothbard's welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about - not denial of - the benefits of statism. "
successfulbuild 1 year ago
So the way to implement "anarcho"-capitalism - which is neither anarchism nor capitalism, but bizarre nonsense - is to impose their conceptions of property on people by force. This is immoral, and would be disastrous. Capitalism generally functions in either two forms: either democratic-capitalism or fascistic, corporate capitalism. The US is a bit of each, while some European countries are closer to the former. Fascism comes out of failed states and undemocratic states, not democratic ones.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
And how do you purpose to force people into the fascist anarcho-capitalist society when the vast majority of people don't even want it? Most people support property, for example, but they don't support massive inequality or absolutist ownership of property. In the US 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth - yet most people, even the upper class, believe that wealth should be distributed more evenly, and the working class feels the wealthy should only own 30-35% of the wealth.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Brazil now suffers from more inequality than the US - with one-percent of land owners owning 44% of all land. These are the types of societies ultra-conservative reactionaries like Woods, Murphy, would prefer - which is why they're against any attempts at social reform in the US and want to rollback progress. The thing is though this inequality is inherently unstable as I've shown with history. Furthermore, there are mass social democrat movements in Latin America rolling back these reforms.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Mexico went into its worst recession in its history after NAFTA and all of the experiments by neoclassical economists in Latin America failed. Nicaragua was the second poorest region in the hemisphere after Reagan invaded it and overthrew a democratic government that even the World Bank had praised for its progress (I thought democracies don't fight one another?). When the US overthrew Goulart for general Castelo Branco to establish a market friendly it massively increased inequality.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
All modern industries are the result of heavy government intervention because the free-market just does not work. It was one of the most short-lived systems in history and one of America's fastest period of economic growth was during protectionism. Most people even rioted against capitalism and in England the workers gladly testified against their beloved bosses to the Saddler Committee. (If workers are such happy slaves why would they do this?) It failed in the third world as well.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
In fact, this was an argument AGAINST allowing intellectual property with Unix - that so many people contributed towards it that it wasn't fair for AT&T to claim Unix as their intellectual property as not all of Unix was even their own code. They eventually got the property rights - and other companies started making other versions of Unix - and from that competition which prevented progress due to different standards DOS was born. Modern industries have absolutely NOTHING to do with choice.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
In fact, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. actually do advocate this slavery, because they have it in the back of their mind that if a land owner is squatting on land and people have no other choice but to try and access his resources - they should become slaves. This is homesteading. This is absolutely ludicrous in the modern society because nobody can trace out who really owns what due to government intervention, corporate land grabs, and the fact that all modern "tools" are the work of thousands.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
In worker run and democratic communities, there would be problems of free-loaders and how resources should be distributed. But these are normal human problems regardless of the economic system you have. Leftists don't believe in telling people what to do - communities would be free to solve these problems at their discretion. This is in contrast to static systems like capitalism: Wherever there is capitalism there is government as it requires an absolute implementation of property rights.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
So, far from the "profit motive" being the driving factor of human creation, most creations have come from diminishing the profit motive and allowing people the leisure time to freely create (liberation of time). What socialism does is it abolishes the need for govt to have to do this through worker ownership.
_
Most people, and even business, spend all their time trying to get out of market competition - I don't blame them, that's the last place where you want to be for autonomous activity.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Notice how the Miseans can't even make a Youtube post without contradicting themselves (and also notice how daft Miseans from Europe are - a psychologist would likely consider them borderline).
_
First, "few deaths occurred in capitalist countries," and then "the socialist state is failing." Well, is the US a capitalist state or is it an interventionist, socialist dictatorship? And actually, this is not true. The vast majority of deaths from lack of basic care are in weak states.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
Finally, the "free-market" has never invented anything. Everything that exists either was from the state or was done by corporations that were isolated from market forces by the government (such as AT&T with the cell phone and transistors).
_
Transistors, sockets, computers, lasers, fiber optics, game theory, linguistics, programming languages, jet planes all come either from the government directly or from researchers sponsored by the government. That's how the "market" functions.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Youre sure giving a lot of leeway to what counts toward the government aren't you there champ? Corporations who were isolated from market forces huh? I'd get into you about all the innovations that the free market has come up with, but I'm betting they were all "isolated from market forces." in some way or another. Here shortly you will be claiming that corporations who invented something should give the government credit because of the taxes they were paying.
jimbo525SE 1 year ago
Until capitalism is abolished, we will continue to see this behavior. So my generation has Iraq (1 million deaths), prior generation had Reagan's interventions that ruined many Latin American countries perhaps beyond repair, before that Vietnam war and Indochina (6 million deaths including the brutality in Indonesia), and so on and so forth.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild You conflate Capitalism for State Capitalism. All the negatives are products of State. Monopolization of X. A true free market has all functions of society openly able to compete, nothing is monopolized, nor forced upon people. The consumer runs the economy, not the State, nor will there ever be central banking. Your ignorance of the matter is painful. Please stop criticizing Austrians for a subject your know little about.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp you* know little about. Militarism is Statism, the military is a Socialist institution. Destruction does not create wealth. War is the health of State. Taxation is theft. Not all profits are products of a free market, and hardly a case against one in such a command economy. Statism perverts the incentives, look up the term moral hazard.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp If "War is the health only of the state" and "militarism" only exists in statism, why then were people MORE likely to fight when we didn't have a government - you fool. Furthermore, Somalia, which somebody named Yumi Kim claims she "loves," has no government and yet is extremely violent, and based off of principles of the market. And yet other areas of Africa that are implementing more progressive measures are doing great.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild War is the health of the State. Republicans are proof of this. Militarism is Statism. Fiat land claims, please try to read my posts next time. Somalia's main problem is not the market, its called Religion. Islam is a violent religion, like most are. Btw even with the violence going on in Somalia, trend wise it has decrease since the government broke up. The two main sources that create that violence there now are two entities trying to establish States, UN and Islam.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Show me where violence has decreased. Violence has actually gone up. Like a typical Austrian school troll when reality conflicts with your idiotic theories you simply claim there is a problem with reality. And again, if statelessness is more peaceful - why then have all stateless societies been more violent than modern states?
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Now you really are pulling it out of your ass. You are suggesting that all cooperation is more violent without the heavy hand of the State. That people are irrational and they need a Nannie. You can't make that claim without lumping in all those angels running our lives. If man is chaotic, government won't help. You are wrong.
/view_play_list?p=C0AFF38F058C3D16&annotation_id=annotation_342726&feature=iv
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp In ancient Chinese cosmology, there are things such as a "natural equilibrium" that make about as much sense as this "natural emergence." Things tend to balance themselves out in evolution, for example. However, it is a philosophical/religious description of the world, not a scientific one, and doesn't explain things like mass extinctions. It's pointless to argue over and is a religion - much like Austrian economics. That's all Austrian economics is, religion.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Calling it an religion is your attempt to discredit something you haven't even touched the surface on. You haven't debunked the business cycle, nor the broken window fallacy, in fact you have ignored them.
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp Explain to me how the government is a religion. The government is not a religion but a series of laws with influence from the public that the government itself mainly protects. The anarcho-capitalists have no problem with "laws" - it's the fact that the people get to influence the laws that they have trouble with, because they believe their laws come from "god" and some mythical, market cosmology apparently, but everybody knows now rights are social constructs.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild I said you have a problem with reality, not me. Learn to read properly.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp And I said Austrians make up their own reality that is ridiculous religion, not economics or politics. Learn to READ and WRITE - you spell like a third grader. Anyway, classical liberals were far closer to the methodologies of modern economists than Austrians. They were strong believers in the scientific method and believed in looking the world analytically, not philosophically.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild They also did not support anything like "anarcho-capitalism" but they supported what amounts to the democratic-state. The people who sat on the left in the French Parliament blamed private property for the sins of mankind and the liberals basically created modern democracy. Adam Smith said that any regulation for the benefit of the workers would be justified. TH Green was another progressive, as was JS Mill. If Smith were alive today he would be a "progressive extremist."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Also, classical liberals like von Humboldt said that the true owner of the property are the laborers. This is very similar to even Marx on the far left. He clearly implied that it didn't matter who owned the "property" and he believed in free "communities" not in free "market places" where big corporations provide people with limited options due to their monopolistic power, their ability to hold back technology in order to increase profits, and so on.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Nothing is stopping Socialists from forming their own dream in a free market, only the State is standing in your way.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Capitalism is state-capitalism as all capitalism requires a state. There is no such thing as "stateless capitalism" as capital requires a government, universal implementation of property rights, and the ability of businesses to purchase and own good. All of this requires a government to protect the property rights that are necessary for capitalism to function. There has never been anything like pure anarcho-capitalism and there never will be.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Wrong, Capitalism has nothing to do with the State. Capital requires only the individual, no government. This was the original concept. It emerged on its own, by spontaneous order. You don't even have a concept about money, according to your fallacy of a post. There needs to be central banking, because your little mind has been condition to this brainwashing bullshit Statist spoon feeding since you were a little child that command economies are all that exist.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Capitalism did not "emerge on its own" you absolute idiot - capitalism was the result of government intervention and laws, some left over from feudalism etc.. It has never existed otherwise, and in fact most Libertarians do support the government. You google "Libertarian" and the LP party homepage comes up, CATO institute comes up, even Reason Magazine - and all of them support the state.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild The market emerged on its own: roads, courts, trade, language, law. All the necessary functions of society came from spontaneous order and cooperation, not of Statism. Cooperation created laws, not the other way around. Merchant law, Private Law, and Common Law. Medieval Ireland, Iceland, Mild Western America, maybe even Colonial Pennsylvania. Capitalism has been a very inflated word, but when Austrians talk about it. We mean a market economy, created by voluntary exchange.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Claiming that there are some mythical forces such as "spontaneous order" is nothing more than philosophical mumbo jumbo and vague mysticism and weird cosmology. Science does not work on the basis of philosophical descriptions but on the basis of hard facts. There is no evidence for such things as "spontaneous order."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@BIackOp For example, evolution does not work on the basis of something mythical called "spontaneous order" but on the basis of natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, adaptation, and so on. All of this can be explained analytically and has massive evidence supporting it. Natural selection, for example, is when individuals, because of particular inherited characteristics, survive and reproduce at a higher rate than others.
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@BIackOp If everything "emerges" on its own you might as well say that the government "emerged on its own" and is therefore the highest level of human civilization. It is quite possible people believed it would be easier to have one entity do things like protect the laws rather than roaming tribes of thugs or the mob like in anarcho-capitalism. Furthermore, land owners could monopolize all the land and force people into their laws so as to benefit them in anarcho-capitalism. This is "statism."
successfulbuild 1 year ago
@successfulbuild Yes, Statism emerged as well from religion. No, its not the highest level of human civilization. Its fraud, a poser, I already told you, Law came from cooperation, not the other way around. Statism is a fiat land claim, they are a coercive monopoly that tries to impose and consume all functions of society. Last I checked your example is calling dibs, when homesteading is more than that. States claim vast areas of land and make no use of it. Taxes are more than service charges.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@successfulbuild These types of Libertarians have not fully understood the economics of law, they are known as Minarchists. Minimal Statists who either believe the State can be restrained by the Constitution (which it never has), or they are leaning towards a stateless society trying to slowly shift towards anti-statism and they are only held back by a few myths. You, I am afraid, are further up the creek.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp So what you're suggesting is that the Libertarians who believe we should be going around the world fighting for property rights are "minarchists?" War states are never small states - in history the warring state is the largest, most powerful state, since he is conquering other states. Furthermore, a true minarchism would not imply giving property rights to powerful corporations, but rather only doing basic things like protecting the right to life. It would encourage diverse ownership.
successfulbuild 1 year ago