@jackbenway He breaks the general stuff down in a way that is more compelling that almost any other figure associated with libertarianism in my opinion.
It's not too late. It's easy to be pessimistic, but a quick look at the past few years shows that more and more people are coming around to libertarian ideas, and if not supporting people like Ron Paul, then at least leaning toward his position.
Changing people's minds is very difficult, as there is alot of misinformation and deception regarding capitalism and government alike, but it can be done. It's a constant struggle however, and we will have to struggle on to preserve and promote freedom.
But also the increase in Productivity and automation since this speech was given by Friedman has change enormously. So now that took 100 workers to do back then take 1 person today what happens to those 99% that got put in the gutter. How long can we keep raising productivity or automation that we then become like the horse when the automobile was made. Something needs to be balanced here, or we're all doomed by the flood of unemployment, as well as the earth, we can't buy and throw away 4ever.
@Budvb Part 2, My solution would be to reduce the work week to 30 hour work week so more could be employed and have a more shared economy, as well this would allow families to raise their children again, then work all the time while their children run around the streets without any over sight by their families. Also this would would raise our social interactions with each other by have more time to do what we want then slave away to provide a world of garbage/land fills. Something new must come
What do you mean it may already be too late? After accounting for inflation / ei / product&service taxes / business taxes passed onto the consumer / paying for enforcement of millions of regulations through increased prices... ETC... The gov is already taking 80% of my income in canada.
Back to the Dark Ages ... and its not about religion .... it was never about religion .... unless govt philosophy is religion. ... It's about HAVES taking and keeping what they want and leaving the HAVE NOTS to share what's left.
@mallardhead no, it's about doers doing and wanters complaining that the doers haven't done enough for them while sitting around on their asses doing nothing. The dark ages are gone boy-0... Welcome to the age of the socialist bum and the capitalist success.
you're right about doers, wanters and sitters IN PART ... but I am TOTALLY right about how govt is manipulating itself to take full advantage in a Dark Ages kind of way. Not all wanters/sitters want to be sitting/wanting. Govt has made them sit and stay in want. The new term for socialism is State Capitalism.
@mallardhead I can agree there. We today have feudalism run by a president, senate, and house rather than a king. I may have misinterpreted before, sry bout that.
those are new words that represent the same sort of govt ... Their nobles are our elites, etc., etc., etc. ... Its all the same essence of oppression and control via laws and claims on resources- water, food, shelter, etc. The difference is our tech allows the elites much greater control and oppression.
It's easy to see what's going to happen, but they think by tricking people alone will mean we can avoid this disaster. This is untrue, we are still heading at 70 mph toward a cliff, they just won't let us be aware there is a cliff coming so we can make the appropriate moves to adjust our course.
Now if only most of the people that will comment on this video knew we are a lot closer in proximity to corporatism than socialism, we might actually get somewhere.
I have tried to find holes in any of his arguements and theories and so far I can only say he appears to have been 100% right, 100% of the time. he had an icredible amount of common sense which I believe trumps intelligence, education, experience and charisma.
@H1TMANactual Pathetic comment. Deal with Rothbard's arguments, not his academic achievements. It has nothing to do with envy. Chicago is quite close to Austrian School, but they do give into evil (the State) when it comes to money.
I couldn't care less who gets a prize from Swedish central bank.
@rumco Hmm NO. Anyone can make arguments and theories, but it has to be backed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Monetarism is, none of Rothbard bs anarcho-capitalism theories are. Hell even Marxism and communism works in theory, but empirical evidence says otherwise. Try again.
@H1TMANactual Some people spend a lifetime doing things wrong. Are they experienced? yes. They have experience at being wrong and thinking they were right.
@H1TMANactual Experience has its place alongside education, sometimes they are co-equal, sometimes one outweighs the other, however, common sense trumps them both. Without common sense, education and experience can move in the wrong direction and become destructive or worthless. Without common sense some people do not learn from their negative experiences and therefore learn nothing. Case in point; Custer at the Little BigHorn, 1876.
@H1TMANactual Agreed. And no amount of experience can trump common sense. Common sense tells me that. My point was that Custer was an experienced, educated fool, of which there are many in the world. Friedman, on the other hand, was an educated, experienced man who possessed a great deal of common sense. Ciao.
Liberals have been teaching our children for 40 years. The news media is primarily liberal. Millions receive money from their neighbors pockets via government programs. Conservatives are either inept at explaining the truth, unwilling, or blocked from getting the message out.
@cristoballs Have to say I agree slightly.. But I am still holding on to the belief that the sheep in this country will get some sense knocked into their heads by the next election. I don't expect Ron Paul to change everything, but at least be the proverbial rock thrown in the pond, that will create enough ripples of real change, for the better, that things will improve from their.
@bweazel Well you commented 70 years later it's still with us and we have to get rid of state, thus implying Friedman was arguing to get rid of state.
@H1TMANactual I think you need to reread my post. what it says is "we have to get rid of "statISM". I never said anything about getting rid of the state. As I think we need one. What I want to get rid of is people that favor the state over personal liberty.
statism
n.
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
@bweazel How is claiming that we need the State not being statist. State is the enemy of mankind. Institution of coercion and violence is not the solution to social problems.
@rumco You can read definitions, can't you? It's a couple posts down if you need a refresher. If you can't understand how statism is different from anarchism, I don't want to waste my time with you. No, it is not, it serves an important purpose and at times, can be more efficient than the private market. Take roads for example. The private market couldn't get it off the ground. Exactly, that's why I said I'm against statism, we need a very small government, but we still need a government.
@bweazel Everyone uses different definitions. I fail to see how a monopoly in police, army, judicial services, roads, trains, utility companies, schools etc. is necessary or more efficient than voluntary arrangements.
@rumco No, everyone does not use different definitions, I have a feeling you didn't really know what statism is, because even in this reply of yours, you're still trying to talk about it in terms of anarchy. Haha, you actually agree with me, bro. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on most any of those either, but I don't believe that we don't need a government though. As for roads, go read up on those. Sometimes government intervention is needed. Sorry.
@rumco Police and military are a given, bro. Judicial services? Come on, man. How the hell would you even privatize these things? I'm sorry, I simply don't agree with you that you should not be bound to law and that no one should be able to have authority over you. I think you should be bound to the law, and that if you break those laws, we the public should be able to have our tax funded enforcers of those laws arrest you. Military, same thing. How would you privatize that and still control it?
@bweazel For private police, courts or military look up Molinari, Rothbard, Hoppe, Bob Murphy, David Friedman, Molyneaux or even Bastiat. For private roads - Walter Block. And the list goes on.
Some base their anarchism on natural rights(Rothbard), some on utilitarianism (David Friedman).
@rumco No, you don't seem to understand what I'm asking. You cannot have private individuals that have the authority to detain and hold people, or enforce the law. You seriously think we should have competing police agencies? Competing court houses? Competing military? And how would you pay for them? You want no law, you want private security. That's not police, friend. That's lawless private security. Old West. No thanks. Lawlessness is not something any civilized people should tolerate.
@bweazel You can't seriously expect me to give you a full case for private courts, police or military in a 400 characters Youtube comment.
Everyone owns themselves. Property is justly acquired only through homesteading or voluntary exchange. State requires taxes and restricts competition - it's violating property rights.
Private law existed way before the State as we know it. Kings did not provide law, they taxed and lived off their subjects.
@rumco I expect you to summarize your idea you learned from those men. If you truly understand the idea, 500 chars should be plenty.
Exactly my point, sir. "the state as we know it" I am not happy with the modern State either, and it's clear that our predecessors had way more liberty, but that doesn't mean I think anarchism is a better alternative. That's why I made the distinction earlier about statism.
"Private law existed way before the State as we know it." Example please.
@rumco What's your point? We still have private law today. There are still plenty of crimes you can't go to jail for, or that the state could have little or nothing to do with at all. Sorry, bro. This isn't the middle ages, we live in a different world now. Also, stop being so narrow minded. Commercial law is not the only law we should have. You have no right to take another person's life, period. That has nothing to do with commercial or private law, it's simply not your right.
@bweazel I am an anarchist. Not only because I don't want to be a laughing-stock because of minarchist theoretical inconsistencies (monopoly good in X but not in Y yet economic theory works the same way for both) and moral relativism, but mainly because I am against coercion and aggression of the State, and for property rights that are the essence of a civilization.
I don't smoke pot or take "drugs". I drink occasionally though.
@rumco No one has a monopoly on these things though, sir. If you have law, you need to have people that have authority to enforce those laws. You cannot have separate private individuals that are granted the ability to enforce the laws over other private individuals. Roads were not being built privately because no one could see the bigger picture or didn't want to pay for it. You don't believe coercion or aggression should be used by those who use coercion and aggression on others?
@bweazel Private roads existed before the State nationalized them or made them unprofitable by private property rights violation. Private roads exist even today.
I believe that use of violence or coercion is only allowed in self-defence, that is when defending property rights. You're putting the cart before the horse - taxes were first, not State "services."
@rumco It cost a bit more money to pave a road than it does to drag some logs behind a horse. I'm talking about highways, sometimes a central authority is needed especially when the problem is a transcontinental highway. They simply weren't being built, bro, and the demand was definitely there, increasing every year.
So wait, if someone kills someone, you believe society has no right to detain that person simply because he hasn't harmed the rest of society? Is that what you're saying?
@bweazel Railroads, for example, were private before the State screwed them up with subsidies, bailouts, regulation. There is nothing magical about roads or motorways, they can easily be build by private companies. Technology makes it now even easier - electronic payments etc.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Society is not an entity. Society does not act or detains people, individuals do. The victim or their heir have the right to demand reimbursement or punishment.
@rumco It is my understanding that the State chartered the railroad companies to build the rails, just like the roads. No one wanted to make such a large investment, because alone it would have been a poor investment for any one company to make. Therefor, after lobbying, the state taxed and gave money to these companies. I don't think they were ever private railroads. And private companies do build the roads, it's never been a question of ability, it's a question of cost and risk.
@rumco So then only the family members can petition your private police force to arrest a murderer? You don't think it is for the public good to get lawless people or murderers off the streets? You seriously believe the only people that are affected by murder are family members? What about employees? What about places you did business with? A person affects more people than just his direct family. Broaden your mind a bit, sir
I don't want to live in your utopia. It sounds like a shit hole.
@bweazel Look up the Lincoln Highway.. Conceived and built by a PRIVATE industrialist and a PRIVATE group that was sucked into the government at a later date. Also the first highway to go across the United states. In other words, you are wrong. Dead wrong in fact. It wasn't until the worst president we've ever had Franklin D. Roosevelt that people even thought of the government taking over the road systems as a whole. Do research before spouting off at the mouth.
@daPlumber702 No, it wasn't. They tried, and almost put themselves out of business trying. They didn't even start paving the road before they had run out of money, they had just gotten to plotting a route. It was the Good Roads Movement that helped these men build their roads. Actually, no. The Lincoln Highway Association is still around today, although the road is not still around.
@daPlumber702 If you look into this stuff, you'll find there wasn't a single highway built and paved without government assistance of some kind. Look up the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Before 1916 most routes were unpaved and unsuitable for automobiles, whose thin tires would leave huge ruts in the dirt roads.
Actually, it was under Eisenhower, 1956 I believe when the federal government renumbered the highways.
Funny you tell people to research, but clearly know nothing about the topic.
@daPlumber702 I enjoy the fact that private individuals tried first and failed, before requiring government assistance. Which takes me back to my point though, as much as I cheer for the government to stay out of business and economic matters, some times it's just worth the investment. Tell me, do you think we would be where we are at today with space exploration if not for government intervention? Sometimes the largest and craziest ideas need a central authority of some kind.
@bweazel As I already said above roads built before FDR were built faster, cheaper, better, kept cleaner, and went straight. Where as the government had their heads so far up their asses you get highways that zig zag.
I think we might actually have or be very close to terraform and colonization of space had government stayed the hell away from it. From the time we landed on the moon till now what has happened involving space?
@daPlumber702 FDR has next to nothing to do with the roads, so I have no idea why you keep bringing him up. Did you go read the acts that were passed to fund road construction like I posted? The roads built before FDR were government funded roads. Ok? Please go read up on the history of this.
Lots has happened, and much of it is not funded by the government. The government just got it kick started. If not the NASA, what private company do you think would have taken us to the moon? Hmmm?
@bweazel Private industry right now with the decline of Nasa is BOOMING. More people are seeing outer space then ever before. It's gone from a hobby to a business. Something that now instead of costing multiple billions of dollars MAKES a PROFIT. And it's only the beginning of privatized space travel too!
@daPlumber702 That's travel. Which has nothing to do with exploration. I could give a shit about someone wanting to spend 20 minutes in zero gravity. The government is not interfering with this industry at all hardly. Nor is their funding of NASA making it harder for these venture capitalists to make their prototypes. There's hardly any profit in space exploration, I'm glad we have hubble and a numbe rof other satellites that would probably never have been made if our only objective was profit
@daPlumber702 Are you glad the roads were built? I sure am. To act like it did not increase the productivity and mobility of the country is just ridiculous. Of course it did. So again, sometimes government is needed, especially when a project is beyond peoples scope of realization. That's why I say we still need a very small government, and that's why I'm against anarchy. Sometimes a government is necessary and useful, even if the people don't see how something will help them or their country.
@bweazel Being glad about it isn't the point. The government STEALING money from the people to waste (it cost a great deal more for the greatly inefficient government to build the roads not to mention upkeep then it would for a private industry ) IS the point. They didn't need to do it, because it WAS already being done, better, cheaper, faster. In fact that's why the gov. got into the racket, it was good money.
@daPlumber702 Not when they give the people value for the taxes they take. That should be our main point here. Are we getting value for the money government takes from us? Today, I would say no on pretty much every single tax. But to deny that government has never given the people of this country value for their tax dollars is just ridiculous. Of course they have.
The government does not build roads, they just provide the money.
You didn't read up on roads did you? Yes, they needed to do it.
@bweazel They could keep 2 out of every 4 dollars that moved from American pockets to the pockets of the construction companies that were in the pocket of the government officials that gave them the contracts that were being filled by private industry. It's the same communist scheme as the Trabant. A government is useful for enforcing laws and defense of the homeland, Nearly everything else they fail at again and again and again and again and again, and people continue to overlook it.
@daPlumber702 Please don't mistake my stance. I am against the way our government operates now. I'm just trying to bring a bit of realism into this argument, because so many of you are so upset with the way things are today, that you forget things were once better. There is a use for government, so I'm on here posting against you people that have become so angry that you've lost all your critical thinking skills. I'm trying to reignite that critical thinking. Go do some reading, sir.
@agent008t We are all aggressed against in some way by the State. Theft and violence of the State is viewed legitimate because the State as an organization is viewed as legitimate. We should resist it and abolish the State.
If you mean thieves and murderers, decentralised society based on property rights (anarchism), is best positioned to deal with them. They would become outcasts if they did not wish to peacefully integrate, they would also not rise to the top by political action.
@rumco But your argument is, "if all people were good, the world would be a great place with no need for government".
I am all for a minimal state, preferably no state, but the very fact of the state existing is evidence of the impossibility of such a society existing in the long term.
Someone will always offer "protection", and people will side with them. There will be a war between these mafia clans, until one rises to the top and becomes "the government".
I'm a libertarian, but i'm not exactly sure how private roads would work.
If i'm driving on road "A" that has one set of rules and laws, then when I make a turn onto road "B" the owner of that road would have different laws of his own???
@TimeWarp66 Yes, most likely different rules would apply. Uniformity of rules does not equal efficiency. There are variety of standards, policies, rules among private companies producing goods and services. Consumer choices determine the fittest/most efficient suppliers. In a private road market, good rules would be emulated, bad rules would be avoided. Consumers, not the State, would dictate what should be provided - based on cost, safety, speed, complexity of rules etc.
But how would that work with something like bridges? I live in San Francisco and the golden gate bridge is the only bridge that allows commute into the city where millions work. What if only 1 company controlled that bridge and charged a $30 toll. What choices would people have? Could you have competing bridges running next to eachother?
And that would take years to build. What would people do in the mean time?
@TimeWarp66 That wouldn't be a concern IMO, spontaneous order will allow cooperation on intersections. It's not like the governing forces of road A will require you to drive on the left side and vice versa for B. the only thing that may change is speedlimites realistically. That's a none issue.
@rumco You and I are pretty close together on our beliefs. Although, I think we need a minimal government where you think none should exist. We need law. You may not agree with the law, I don't either most of the time, but that means we should change laws, not abolish government.
@rumco Statism is pretty much supporting centralization under the State. You can be against centralization and still support a government. There is no reason the government should be privy to this data, which no one else has access to. The easier it is for them to manipulate things the more pissed I get. It shouldn't be easy for them at all. People that want it to be easier for the government to do whatever they want (through centralization or federal regulations) are statists. You understand?
@bweazel I really hate to say this, because I agree with you, but it's going to take millennia to get rid of statism. This is because, like it or not, people generally equate the government with their country, and they think that somebody has to be in charge. And in part, this is true, but it's going to take a lot of time and effort to change the mindset so that people begin to take more responsibility for themselves and consider government more of a harm than a benefit.
@WyldeMax Haha, why do you hate to say it? Have we crossed words on another video before? Well, if they keep pushing us down this path, they'll find out faster than a millennium that socialism does not work and is unsustainable. The market will stop them before long. I really can't decide if this was the market beginning to stop them here, or if this has all been a sham to centralize the West on a global scale. I'm thinking it's the latter.
@bweazel No, I hate to say that because I'm generally an optimist, and I'd like to think that people are capable of understanding the problems of statism. However, the issue is clouded by too many people with their hands in the trough, each perhaps willing to see others get cut off if it meant more swill for them. This is going to take a lot of time and effort to correct.
@WyldeMax Hell.... statism is bad enough, now it looks like we have to fight globalists. Their game is no longer sustainable at the national level, so they want to expand it to the global level. A wider demographic allows you to manipulate markets much easier. Tell the US the markets are bad today for this reason, tell Europeans it's bad for another reason. Which is happening right now... how quickly could we communicate in meaningful ways to other cultures? Should we? Just blabbin now... hah
Friedman calls it like he sees it.
flyinbry 1 month ago 2
Why do you continue to use Friedman as a spokesperson, when his insistence on monetarist policies undermine his credibility?
jackbenway 1 month ago
@jackbenway He breaks the general stuff down in a way that is more compelling that almost any other figure associated with libertarianism in my opinion.
dubified89 1 month ago
WE NEED PHILOLOGOS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AND GRIEVANCES IN THE U.S.A.
KEVLANEW80 2 months ago
PHILOLOGOS.
KEVLANEW80 2 months ago
the real freedom tyrants -> /watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM
diogotomediogo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
extra income?
Try it FREE for 90 days!
check it out! * amazingautosystem.weebly.com *
MultiAhka 2 months ago
It's not too late. It's easy to be pessimistic, but a quick look at the past few years shows that more and more people are coming around to libertarian ideas, and if not supporting people like Ron Paul, then at least leaning toward his position.
Changing people's minds is very difficult, as there is alot of misinformation and deception regarding capitalism and government alike, but it can be done. It's a constant struggle however, and we will have to struggle on to preserve and promote freedom.
DanWithACunningPlan 2 months ago 27
But also the increase in Productivity and automation since this speech was given by Friedman has change enormously. So now that took 100 workers to do back then take 1 person today what happens to those 99% that got put in the gutter. How long can we keep raising productivity or automation that we then become like the horse when the automobile was made. Something needs to be balanced here, or we're all doomed by the flood of unemployment, as well as the earth, we can't buy and throw away 4ever.
Budvb 2 months ago
@Budvb Part 2, My solution would be to reduce the work week to 30 hour work week so more could be employed and have a more shared economy, as well this would allow families to raise their children again, then work all the time while their children run around the streets without any over sight by their families. Also this would would raise our social interactions with each other by have more time to do what we want then slave away to provide a world of garbage/land fills. Something new must come
Budvb 2 months ago
Friedman is a genius
willden15 2 months ago
What do you mean it may already be too late? After accounting for inflation / ei / product&service taxes / business taxes passed onto the consumer / paying for enforcement of millions of regulations through increased prices... ETC... The gov is already taking 80% of my income in canada.
ritherz 2 months ago
No reason to lose hope.
Mydashkey 2 months ago
I'm tired of socialism and statism, we need free markets and individual liberty.
raptors11111 2 months ago
Back to the Dark Ages ... and its not about religion .... it was never about religion .... unless govt philosophy is religion. ... It's about HAVES taking and keeping what they want and leaving the HAVE NOTS to share what's left.
mallardhead 2 months ago
@mallardhead no, it's about doers doing and wanters complaining that the doers haven't done enough for them while sitting around on their asses doing nothing. The dark ages are gone boy-0... Welcome to the age of the socialist bum and the capitalist success.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702
you're right about doers, wanters and sitters IN PART ... but I am TOTALLY right about how govt is manipulating itself to take full advantage in a Dark Ages kind of way. Not all wanters/sitters want to be sitting/wanting. Govt has made them sit and stay in want. The new term for socialism is State Capitalism.
mallardhead 2 months ago
@mallardhead I can agree there. We today have feudalism run by a president, senate, and house rather than a king. I may have misinterpreted before, sry bout that.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702
those are new words that represent the same sort of govt ... Their nobles are our elites, etc., etc., etc. ... Its all the same essence of oppression and control via laws and claims on resources- water, food, shelter, etc. The difference is our tech allows the elites much greater control and oppression.
mallardhead 2 months ago
The interstates are still built and maintained with lots of waste and graft.
dd00hli 2 months ago
It's too late
Mythicist 2 months ago
Hopefully the Ron Paul campaign and the libertarian movement is growing and winning over more Americans to freedom over collectivism and statism.
dubified89 2 months ago
It's amazing how resilient capitalism is. The state has only grown since this Milton said these words and Atlas has not yet shrugged.
Though his knees are buckling.
TimeWarp66 2 months ago
This country is finished. The communists will take total control without any fight.
agumon12 2 months ago
It's easy to see what's going to happen, but they think by tricking people alone will mean we can avoid this disaster. This is untrue, we are still heading at 70 mph toward a cliff, they just won't let us be aware there is a cliff coming so we can make the appropriate moves to adjust our course.
Rcwatson83 2 months ago
Now if only most of the people that will comment on this video knew we are a lot closer in proximity to corporatism than socialism, we might actually get somewhere.
bungerman1000 2 months ago
I have tried to find holes in any of his arguements and theories and so far I can only say he appears to have been 100% right, 100% of the time. he had an icredible amount of common sense which I believe trumps intelligence, education, experience and charisma.
xlucim 2 months ago
@xlucim You have not searched or thought hard enough. Friedman was good, but lacked consistency and radicalism. Watch this:
watch?v=wr-_rUYsEIw
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco Pfhaha Rothbard. Friedman = Nobel laureate, Rothbard = nobody. Austrian jealousy of monetarism and Chicago school is pretty well known.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Pathetic comment. Deal with Rothbard's arguments, not his academic achievements. It has nothing to do with envy. Chicago is quite close to Austrian School, but they do give into evil (the State) when it comes to money.
I couldn't care less who gets a prize from Swedish central bank.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco Hmm NO. Anyone can make arguments and theories, but it has to be backed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Monetarism is, none of Rothbard bs anarcho-capitalism theories are. Hell even Marxism and communism works in theory, but empirical evidence says otherwise. Try again.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@xlucim Nothing trumps experience.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Theory does.
rumco 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Some people spend a lifetime doing things wrong. Are they experienced? yes. They have experience at being wrong and thinking they were right.
Example: Hitler. Napolean. Custer. etc.
xlucim 2 months ago
@xlucim LOL *applause*
bweazel 2 months ago
@xlucim Experience isn't about right or wrong, it's about learning. Can any education replace what Hitler and Napoleon learned from experience? Nope.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Experience has its place alongside education, sometimes they are co-equal, sometimes one outweighs the other, however, common sense trumps them both. Without common sense, education and experience can move in the wrong direction and become destructive or worthless. Without common sense some people do not learn from their negative experiences and therefore learn nothing. Case in point; Custer at the Little BigHorn, 1876.
xlucim 2 months ago
@xlucim No amount of education can trump experience. Experience has taught me that :) Ciao
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Agreed. And no amount of experience can trump common sense. Common sense tells me that. My point was that Custer was an experienced, educated fool, of which there are many in the world. Friedman, on the other hand, was an educated, experienced man who possessed a great deal of common sense. Ciao.
xlucim 2 months ago
Liberals have been teaching our children for 40 years. The news media is primarily liberal. Millions receive money from their neighbors pockets via government programs. Conservatives are either inept at explaining the truth, unwilling, or blocked from getting the message out.
Yes, it's too late.
deezynar 2 months ago 4
@deezynar, it's not too late as it is a never ending battle.
You can't assume that once the whole thing collapses, people finally understand that liberty is the better choice.
Before this whole thing falls apart, more people need to be made aware of the importance of individual choice.
LibertyDownUnder 2 months ago
Ron Paul can overcome that inertia!
WalkProp 2 months ago
i'm becoming more and more convinced that it's already too late.
cristoballs 2 months ago 29
@cristoballs Same my friend. And you know capitalism will get the blame when it all comes falling down
Tracywithafacey 2 months ago
@cristoballs Have to say I agree slightly.. But I am still holding on to the belief that the sheep in this country will get some sense knocked into their heads by the next election. I don't expect Ron Paul to change everything, but at least be the proverbial rock thrown in the pond, that will create enough ripples of real change, for the better, that things will improve from their.
MRSketch09 2 months ago
i hope it's not too late already
nanoJanno 2 months ago
Totally agree!
zyonche 2 months ago
70 years later and it's still with us, we have to get rid of statism. Or this country is done for.
bweazel 2 months ago 30
@bweazel Friedman was NOT an anarchist.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual Who said he was?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Well you commented 70 years later it's still with us and we have to get rid of state, thus implying Friedman was arguing to get rid of state.
H1TMANactual 2 months ago
@H1TMANactual I think you need to reread my post. what it says is "we have to get rid of "statISM". I never said anything about getting rid of the state. As I think we need one. What I want to get rid of is people that favor the state over personal liberty.
statism
n.
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
We clear?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel How is claiming that we need the State not being statist. State is the enemy of mankind. Institution of coercion and violence is not the solution to social problems.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco You can read definitions, can't you? It's a couple posts down if you need a refresher. If you can't understand how statism is different from anarchism, I don't want to waste my time with you. No, it is not, it serves an important purpose and at times, can be more efficient than the private market. Take roads for example. The private market couldn't get it off the ground. Exactly, that's why I said I'm against statism, we need a very small government, but we still need a government.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Everyone uses different definitions. I fail to see how a monopoly in police, army, judicial services, roads, trains, utility companies, schools etc. is necessary or more efficient than voluntary arrangements.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco No, everyone does not use different definitions, I have a feeling you didn't really know what statism is, because even in this reply of yours, you're still trying to talk about it in terms of anarchy. Haha, you actually agree with me, bro. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on most any of those either, but I don't believe that we don't need a government though. As for roads, go read up on those. Sometimes government intervention is needed. Sorry.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco Police and military are a given, bro. Judicial services? Come on, man. How the hell would you even privatize these things? I'm sorry, I simply don't agree with you that you should not be bound to law and that no one should be able to have authority over you. I think you should be bound to the law, and that if you break those laws, we the public should be able to have our tax funded enforcers of those laws arrest you. Military, same thing. How would you privatize that and still control it?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel For private police, courts or military look up Molinari, Rothbard, Hoppe, Bob Murphy, David Friedman, Molyneaux or even Bastiat. For private roads - Walter Block. And the list goes on.
Some base their anarchism on natural rights(Rothbard), some on utilitarianism (David Friedman).
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco No, you don't seem to understand what I'm asking. You cannot have private individuals that have the authority to detain and hold people, or enforce the law. You seriously think we should have competing police agencies? Competing court houses? Competing military? And how would you pay for them? You want no law, you want private security. That's not police, friend. That's lawless private security. Old West. No thanks. Lawlessness is not something any civilized people should tolerate.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco No, I'm not going to read their work if you won't even summarize how their writings relate to our discussion.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel You can't seriously expect me to give you a full case for private courts, police or military in a 400 characters Youtube comment.
Everyone owns themselves. Property is justly acquired only through homesteading or voluntary exchange. State requires taxes and restricts competition - it's violating property rights.
Private law existed way before the State as we know it. Kings did not provide law, they taxed and lived off their subjects.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco I expect you to summarize your idea you learned from those men. If you truly understand the idea, 500 chars should be plenty.
Exactly my point, sir. "the state as we know it" I am not happy with the modern State either, and it's clear that our predecessors had way more liberty, but that doesn't mean I think anarchism is a better alternative. That's why I made the distinction earlier about statism.
"Private law existed way before the State as we know it." Example please.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Lex mercatoria (merchant law). Early Icelandic law. Not so wild west - private law and private enforcement agencies.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco What's your point? We still have private law today. There are still plenty of crimes you can't go to jail for, or that the state could have little or nothing to do with at all. Sorry, bro. This isn't the middle ages, we live in a different world now. Also, stop being so narrow minded. Commercial law is not the only law we should have. You have no right to take another person's life, period. That has nothing to do with commercial or private law, it's simply not your right.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco I take it your an anarchist?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel I am an anarchist. Not only because I don't want to be a laughing-stock because of minarchist theoretical inconsistencies (monopoly good in X but not in Y yet economic theory works the same way for both) and moral relativism, but mainly because I am against coercion and aggression of the State, and for property rights that are the essence of a civilization.
I don't smoke pot or take "drugs". I drink occasionally though.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco No one has a monopoly on these things though, sir. If you have law, you need to have people that have authority to enforce those laws. You cannot have separate private individuals that are granted the ability to enforce the laws over other private individuals. Roads were not being built privately because no one could see the bigger picture or didn't want to pay for it. You don't believe coercion or aggression should be used by those who use coercion and aggression on others?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Private roads existed before the State nationalized them or made them unprofitable by private property rights violation. Private roads exist even today.
I believe that use of violence or coercion is only allowed in self-defence, that is when defending property rights. You're putting the cart before the horse - taxes were first, not State "services."
rumco 2 months ago 20
@rumco It cost a bit more money to pave a road than it does to drag some logs behind a horse. I'm talking about highways, sometimes a central authority is needed especially when the problem is a transcontinental highway. They simply weren't being built, bro, and the demand was definitely there, increasing every year.
So wait, if someone kills someone, you believe society has no right to detain that person simply because he hasn't harmed the rest of society? Is that what you're saying?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Railroads, for example, were private before the State screwed them up with subsidies, bailouts, regulation. There is nothing magical about roads or motorways, they can easily be build by private companies. Technology makes it now even easier - electronic payments etc.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Society is not an entity. Society does not act or detains people, individuals do. The victim or their heir have the right to demand reimbursement or punishment.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco It is my understanding that the State chartered the railroad companies to build the rails, just like the roads. No one wanted to make such a large investment, because alone it would have been a poor investment for any one company to make. Therefor, after lobbying, the state taxed and gave money to these companies. I don't think they were ever private railroads. And private companies do build the roads, it's never been a question of ability, it's a question of cost and risk.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco So then only the family members can petition your private police force to arrest a murderer? You don't think it is for the public good to get lawless people or murderers off the streets? You seriously believe the only people that are affected by murder are family members? What about employees? What about places you did business with? A person affects more people than just his direct family. Broaden your mind a bit, sir
I don't want to live in your utopia. It sounds like a shit hole.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Look up the Lincoln Highway.. Conceived and built by a PRIVATE industrialist and a PRIVATE group that was sucked into the government at a later date. Also the first highway to go across the United states. In other words, you are wrong. Dead wrong in fact. It wasn't until the worst president we've ever had Franklin D. Roosevelt that people even thought of the government taking over the road systems as a whole. Do research before spouting off at the mouth.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 No, it wasn't. They tried, and almost put themselves out of business trying. They didn't even start paving the road before they had run out of money, they had just gotten to plotting a route. It was the Good Roads Movement that helped these men build their roads. Actually, no. The Lincoln Highway Association is still around today, although the road is not still around.
I could keep going. What was that about research?
bweazel 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 If you look into this stuff, you'll find there wasn't a single highway built and paved without government assistance of some kind. Look up the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Before 1916 most routes were unpaved and unsuitable for automobiles, whose thin tires would leave huge ruts in the dirt roads.
Actually, it was under Eisenhower, 1956 I believe when the federal government renumbered the highways.
Funny you tell people to research, but clearly know nothing about the topic.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Someone's been to wikipedia. Tip: Wiki isn't always teh way to go.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Huh?
bweazel 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 I enjoy the fact that private individuals tried first and failed, before requiring government assistance. Which takes me back to my point though, as much as I cheer for the government to stay out of business and economic matters, some times it's just worth the investment. Tell me, do you think we would be where we are at today with space exploration if not for government intervention? Sometimes the largest and craziest ideas need a central authority of some kind.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel As I already said above roads built before FDR were built faster, cheaper, better, kept cleaner, and went straight. Where as the government had their heads so far up their asses you get highways that zig zag.
I think we might actually have or be very close to terraform and colonization of space had government stayed the hell away from it. From the time we landed on the moon till now what has happened involving space?
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 FDR has next to nothing to do with the roads, so I have no idea why you keep bringing him up. Did you go read the acts that were passed to fund road construction like I posted? The roads built before FDR were government funded roads. Ok? Please go read up on the history of this.
Lots has happened, and much of it is not funded by the government. The government just got it kick started. If not the NASA, what private company do you think would have taken us to the moon? Hmmm?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Private industry right now with the decline of Nasa is BOOMING. More people are seeing outer space then ever before. It's gone from a hobby to a business. Something that now instead of costing multiple billions of dollars MAKES a PROFIT. And it's only the beginning of privatized space travel too!
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 That's travel. Which has nothing to do with exploration. I could give a shit about someone wanting to spend 20 minutes in zero gravity. The government is not interfering with this industry at all hardly. Nor is their funding of NASA making it harder for these venture capitalists to make their prototypes. There's hardly any profit in space exploration, I'm glad we have hubble and a numbe rof other satellites that would probably never have been made if our only objective was profit
bweazel 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Are you glad the roads were built? I sure am. To act like it did not increase the productivity and mobility of the country is just ridiculous. Of course it did. So again, sometimes government is needed, especially when a project is beyond peoples scope of realization. That's why I say we still need a very small government, and that's why I'm against anarchy. Sometimes a government is necessary and useful, even if the people don't see how something will help them or their country.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel Being glad about it isn't the point. The government STEALING money from the people to waste (it cost a great deal more for the greatly inefficient government to build the roads not to mention upkeep then it would for a private industry ) IS the point. They didn't need to do it, because it WAS already being done, better, cheaper, faster. In fact that's why the gov. got into the racket, it was good money.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Not when they give the people value for the taxes they take. That should be our main point here. Are we getting value for the money government takes from us? Today, I would say no on pretty much every single tax. But to deny that government has never given the people of this country value for their tax dollars is just ridiculous. Of course they have.
The government does not build roads, they just provide the money.
You didn't read up on roads did you? Yes, they needed to do it.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel They could keep 2 out of every 4 dollars that moved from American pockets to the pockets of the construction companies that were in the pocket of the government officials that gave them the contracts that were being filled by private industry. It's the same communist scheme as the Trabant. A government is useful for enforcing laws and defense of the homeland, Nearly everything else they fail at again and again and again and again and again, and people continue to overlook it.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 Please don't mistake my stance. I am against the way our government operates now. I'm just trying to bring a bit of realism into this argument, because so many of you are so upset with the way things are today, that you forget things were once better. There is a use for government, so I'm on here posting against you people that have become so angry that you've lost all your critical thinking skills. I'm trying to reignite that critical thinking. Go do some reading, sir.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco And if someone uses force for other reasons, like the government is doing today, who's to stop them?
Can there truly exist a political theory, at least in theory, where the wrong people are encouraged to do the right thing?
agent008t 2 months ago
@agent008t We are all aggressed against in some way by the State. Theft and violence of the State is viewed legitimate because the State as an organization is viewed as legitimate. We should resist it and abolish the State.
If you mean thieves and murderers, decentralised society based on property rights (anarchism), is best positioned to deal with them. They would become outcasts if they did not wish to peacefully integrate, they would also not rise to the top by political action.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco But your argument is, "if all people were good, the world would be a great place with no need for government".
I am all for a minimal state, preferably no state, but the very fact of the state existing is evidence of the impossibility of such a society existing in the long term.
Someone will always offer "protection", and people will side with them. There will be a war between these mafia clans, until one rises to the top and becomes "the government".
agent008t 2 months ago
@rumco
I'm a libertarian, but i'm not exactly sure how private roads would work.
If i'm driving on road "A" that has one set of rules and laws, then when I make a turn onto road "B" the owner of that road would have different laws of his own???
This seems inefficient.
TimeWarp66 2 months ago
@TimeWarp66 Yes, most likely different rules would apply. Uniformity of rules does not equal efficiency. There are variety of standards, policies, rules among private companies producing goods and services. Consumer choices determine the fittest/most efficient suppliers. In a private road market, good rules would be emulated, bad rules would be avoided. Consumers, not the State, would dictate what should be provided - based on cost, safety, speed, complexity of rules etc.
rumco 2 months ago
@rumco
But how would that work with something like bridges? I live in San Francisco and the golden gate bridge is the only bridge that allows commute into the city where millions work. What if only 1 company controlled that bridge and charged a $30 toll. What choices would people have? Could you have competing bridges running next to eachother?
And that would take years to build. What would people do in the mean time?
TimeWarp66 2 months ago
@TimeWarp66 That wouldn't be a concern IMO, spontaneous order will allow cooperation on intersections. It's not like the governing forces of road A will require you to drive on the left side and vice versa for B. the only thing that may change is speedlimites realistically. That's a none issue.
pbfrank13 2 months ago
@rumco You and I are pretty close together on our beliefs. Although, I think we need a minimal government where you think none should exist. We need law. You may not agree with the law, I don't either most of the time, but that means we should change laws, not abolish government.
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco A pot smoking anarchist? Be honest. ;)
bweazel 2 months ago
@rumco Statism is pretty much supporting centralization under the State. You can be against centralization and still support a government. There is no reason the government should be privy to this data, which no one else has access to. The easier it is for them to manipulate things the more pissed I get. It shouldn't be easy for them at all. People that want it to be easier for the government to do whatever they want (through centralization or federal regulations) are statists. You understand?
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel I really hate to say this, because I agree with you, but it's going to take millennia to get rid of statism. This is because, like it or not, people generally equate the government with their country, and they think that somebody has to be in charge. And in part, this is true, but it's going to take a lot of time and effort to change the mindset so that people begin to take more responsibility for themselves and consider government more of a harm than a benefit.
WyldeMax 2 months ago
@WyldeMax Haha, why do you hate to say it? Have we crossed words on another video before? Well, if they keep pushing us down this path, they'll find out faster than a millennium that socialism does not work and is unsustainable. The market will stop them before long. I really can't decide if this was the market beginning to stop them here, or if this has all been a sham to centralize the West on a global scale. I'm thinking it's the latter.
bweazel 2 months ago
@bweazel No, I hate to say that because I'm generally an optimist, and I'd like to think that people are capable of understanding the problems of statism. However, the issue is clouded by too many people with their hands in the trough, each perhaps willing to see others get cut off if it meant more swill for them. This is going to take a lot of time and effort to correct.
WyldeMax 2 months ago
@WyldeMax Hell.... statism is bad enough, now it looks like we have to fight globalists. Their game is no longer sustainable at the national level, so they want to expand it to the global level. A wider demographic allows you to manipulate markets much easier. Tell the US the markets are bad today for this reason, tell Europeans it's bad for another reason. Which is happening right now... how quickly could we communicate in meaningful ways to other cultures? Should we? Just blabbin now... hah
bweazel 2 months ago