Oh and there is an individualistic solution to global warming. Incentives that DO NOT FORCE ANYONE TO TAKE PART IN THE SOLUTION. I am talking about incentives that get even deniers to help. I am talking about tax cut incentives. Doesn't force anything on anyone, doesn't pick winners or losers in the market and it is completely up to the individual.
As a Libertarian I believe that other libertarians should stop yelling at people over their belief in climate change. Even though they have no right to impose their views on you, you have no right to impose yours on them. I believe in climate change, I guess its the country I grew up in, the majority of Australians believe in climate change. However I doubt climate change is a scam, its conspiracy theories like this that make libertarianism look like the new socialism for hippies.
Also, on global warming, what the heck? Yes, the government has failed to solve it. We know this. We're not happy about it. But it was the advances of the industrial revolution that caused it. Those advances are great, and it sucks they had a negative effect. But it's a simple case of a market failure in terms of pollution as an externality. The government is simply the most effective way to allocate costs to externalities that are detrimental to the public interest.
@linkmaster667 Not if they have no way of solving it. And I guarantee you that NOBODY wants to go back to pre-industrial revolution times.
Paying money in to federal coffers with no actual solution, except lowering the average citizen's ability to participate in a petroleum-based economy which is unethical and dishonest.
Actually, there was a common law system of restitution in place, at least in America and in Britain, to deal with pollution. If you spill waste on someone's land or into someone's air, then you've damaged their property, and you owe them money. It existed since pre-Industrial times, and case law built up to establish how it applied to industrial pollution. By all accounts, it worked well.
What happened to it?
The government stepped in, ruled arbitrarily that -
- property law did not apply to the environment, and allowed big firms (hint: the ones with lots of voters employed and lots of money to spend on bribes) to pollute as much as they wanted. The same competitive forces which had previously driven industrialists to limit their pollution, now drives them to disregard it. This has doubtlessly had a profound effect on the development of industrial technology since then. -
@PanzerDivisionBOM It's interesting you should mention this "common law restitution". As a lawyer, I can only presume you are referring to the tort of private nuisance, in which the plaintiff may seek an award for damages resulting from a disruption of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his land. This still exists, but is not usable for large-scale pollution and effects like climate change or ozone layer holes.
Also, I should think libertarians would also disagree with tort law.
Disagree with seeking restitution for damages to one's person and property? Really? : P
That kind of law is the way to go, I think. Bureaucrats are in until next election, private owners are in for life and for their posterity. And anytime there ought to be more of an intelligent give-and-take than an outright prohibition and non-prohibition - you need to weigh costs and benefits where a large number of people are involved - then you need a market process.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Sorry, I mean anarcho-capitalists like Stefan, not libertarians. My mistake. Tort law is identical to criminal law, with the exception that action is taken by the wronged individual. It is still developed, maintained and administered by the State.
You do indeed need a market process. That's is why I've always supported some kind of tax to incorporate the externality of pollution into the market system.
Very, very few people oppose law itself, and those few who do probably don't self-describe as any sort of libertarian. The disagreement is over the form and content of the law - what should the law be, and what system of law will bring about this content, or vice versa? -
- The idea I'm proferring is that all tangible aspects of the environment are property. When you damaging the environment in some tangible way that affects human well-being, you're almost by definition damaging someone's property. So, the law should treat it as property damage, and extract restitution for the victims of that damage, not use it as an opportunity to fund more wars and boondoggles.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Well, any political discussion is about the form and content of the law, surely. Which is why I corrected myself to say "anarcho-capitalists", who do not as part of their ideology believe that laws are beneficial.
Aw, come on, you barely addressed the plague thing. You blamed Spanish flu on the government then just said health insurance. Epidemics can and do occur without government playing any part. The issue was how to stop people dying. Sure, the insurance companies have an incentive to act to prevent epidemics. But they can't exactly quarantine folks without their consent. The government means is simply more effective. But as always the cry will go out for "non-aggression". What a baseless rule.
“… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
- Karl Marx
(“The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
That a "Progressive" or "liberal" says that tyranny helped ward off the plague is shocking.
The gov't is not responsible (yet) to regulate carbon output so you can't really say it's their fault that the free market sells items without the "cost" of the carbon output pollution integrated. I believe people should pay for the entire cost of goods.
the lie starts with stefan claiming hes never read this argument before. Hes well rehearsed his arguments. Clearly a good actor though. didn't he once train in acting? hes putting it to effective use now, conning young minds around the world. Stefan needs start with self honesty before preaching to others what they MUST consider before dying. A white collar wouldn't go a miss either.
The letter was written when the writer was 19(?) The writer did things back to front. The Writer was too naive perhaps to have fully understood Libertarianism through lack of reason and maturity. Marx is for the young and idealistic, some never grow up of course. Heard from Peter Schiff> "If you don't believe in socialism when you're young, you don't have a heart... if you don't believe in Capitalism when you're older... you don't have a brain"
The solution for pollution and global warming is the free-market, since it will allow people to choose between toxic cost-inefficient 20th century oil energy to:
Thorium Reactors, Uranium Reactors, Solar and Wind and even private home reactors.
Did you know that if you wanted to build a private home reactor you'd have to sell at least %25 of the energy you produce to the government? (or at least that's how it is in Canada).
@Arielslopa The problem isn't even "global warming" to begin with.
I can't think of anything more criminal than setting up a brokerage firm scam to funnel millions upon billions of dollars away from taxpaying citizens, and for what?
How does this money legitimately offset the effects of a natural phenomenon aside from creating a reduction in the overall quality of life of aforementioned taxpaying citizens?
It doesn't, thus far green technology has been a lobbyist racket.
@Yourebuying I don't see why are you arguing with me xD
All I am saying is that energy should be left to the market, not be subsidized by our tax-money (this includes the green lobbyist and the oil industries).
The energy industry would have worked much better, if consumers had choice over what industry they wish to invest in, or purchase energy from.
@Yourebuying just so you know all the water on earth adsorbs a VAST amount of the co2 we pump into the atmosphere. even if you don't believe in climate change, carbonic acid destorying poisoning our oceans should be a real concern .
research the carbon cycle, you might learn something.
Your stance on Corporations is dead wrong. Corporations are not a legal shield unless the government is giving specific corporations special favors in the form of not enforcing the law or giving them special tax breaks. When you enforce property rights to the full extent to which they're supposed to be enforced, it doesn't matter if it's a corporation or an individual. If you can prove that the pollution on your land is coming from X Corporation, you've got a lawsuit.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation. Limited liability is a special privilege given to corporations which does indeed shield owners from personal bankruptcy in case of, say, polluting someone else's property. Equity owners can only lose up to the value of their equity, that is the corporation can be bankrupted but the rest of the owner's wealth is shielded by law. Some libertarians are against this (like I'm guessing Molyneaux is) though some are not.
@echatav "LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation. Limited liability is a special privilege given to corporations which does indeed shield owners from personal bankruptcy in case of, say, polluting someone else's property."
I know about LLC, and LLC wouldn't exist (or would only have legal legitimacy in cases where the property owners and the corporation sign a contract) if property rights were enforced like they're supposed to be.
If we had small corporations then a small government could deal with them. Unfortunately we have very very big corporations and only a big government can stand up to them.
So let's say a worker has an idea for a product, but doesn't want to take the massive personal risk to manufacture it. Is it not reasonable to use an existing factory in exchange for giving that factory owner a share of the profit?
That's perfectly possible too, if a group of workers want to get together to share the risk of buying a factory. Then they would become collective owners. But the factory has to come from somewhere, right? If no one ever benefited from creating the means of production, why would anyone do it?
Everyone would benefit except for the original workers who took the risk and put the effort into acquiring the means of production in the first place. Lets say I take out a $1000 loan to acquire a printing press, but everyone in the city can use it without compensating me. How do I repay my debt? Why would I go into debt in the first place? It actually harms me to provide a means of production. Incentive is needed.
Everyone would benefit except for the original workers who took the risk and put the effort into acquiring the means of production in the first place. Lets say I take out a $1000 loan to acquire a printing press, but everyone in the city can use it without compensating me. How do I repay my debt? Why would I go into debt in the first place? It actually harms me to provide a means of production. Incentive is needed.
"Unfortunately we have very very big corporations and only a big government can stand up to them."
As the power of the government grows, so do the corporations. I wonder why that is? No one is incorruptible. Regulations will always serve in the interest of the biggest corporations. And even if it's not, it's always cheaper to bribe a regulator than it is to comply with regulations.
@HelmetBlissta big government made corporations and then the corporations got bigger from even bigger government, so the way of reducing or these thingsor even eliminating corporations entirely is to reduce what caused them, government.
@HelmetBlissta Big buisness never came about before the allowance of states to have monopolies on law including laws pertaining to the economy and exchange. Corporations and the rights given to them can only be afforded by the state to their benefit , as the state has also the monopoly on force which it uses to induce taxation with little resistance. Monopoles other than those reserved by the state for itself have always through history been prodced by the state.
@MirageScience Despite all your lingual gymnastics the fact remains that business exploits people. Returning the means of production into the hands of the workers is far preferable to massive inequalities of wealth like we see today.
@HelmetBlissta It's not gymnastics, its convaying a point clearly from all angles. It may well be more preferable that what we have today but it's not the buisnesses which are exploiting the people as buisness go into transactions and complete exchanges which are entirely voluntary, they have no real leverage against the consumer as does any state. The exploiters are the tax leviers and the interest vampires both of which costs are ultimatly payed by the consumer (or laborer.)
@HelmetBlissta it should be obvious that buisnesses have no power to exploit as tons and tons of them fail, and it's not because they didn't pay their workers too little it's because the workers are the consumers and the consumers where not interested.
@HelmetBlissta obviouly there are exceptions to the rules and there are and should be proceedings for recourse for such events but if I understand you correctly as you are using the word explotation I would assume you hold to some labor theory of value, and therefore belive workers are exploited because profits are made. Most of the profits taken are a result of the monopolies on money being passed down on consumers (including laborers) and guesse who made such monopolies?
@HelmetBlissta Are you seriously going to say big buisness made big government when obviously government and government officials could have said, no we aren't selling laws and regulations?
@MirageScience I was not going to say what you said. I stand for equality, peace and freedom. I see socialism as our best chance of achieving it. I see capitalism as the system of the bosses, favouring those with money. I don't think that can lead to a fair and just world.
@HelmetBlissta and if the majority of people want bosses what would be the point of opposing it? Should people be forced into learning the intricacies of running a buisness for their survival because thats ultimatly what abolishing capitalism would entail if it where to sustain itself, otherwise too few goods would be produced. I hope the system favors those with money as money is afforded in a free market to those which provide the best and most for the cheapest.
War is a free market endeavour. Capitalism drives pollution. I see the problem as how we will wrestle privately owned and hoarded wealth back to the public. Wealth generated during the industrial revolution came from slavery theft and exploitation. The rich keep the poor down that is quite obvious to anyone. Everyone does not have equal access to the means of production, that is not "OK great". One function of government is to protect the weaker members of society from abuse by the stronger ones
"War is a free market endeavour" That makes no sense. Only the government has a military. War can only be profitable because the government bears cost of the war. Only a government can go trillions in debt and continue to spend. A private company cannot, no one would lend to them, because the debt cannot possibly be paid back.
Pretty much everything in your comment is demonstratively wrong. I'll go over the other points in a bit, don't worry.
"Capitalism drives pollution." What has the government done to prevent pollution? Interesting point- In Canada, the government owns every body of water. There is no private water ownership. Yet the waters are polluted.
In a free society, we can sue companies, among other methods, to keep them from polluting. Only a government can decide that the pollution is "for the greater good" and protect these companies from the people.
"Everyone does not have access to the means of production."
I hate to point out the obvious, but the owning the means of production is notoriously unprofitable unless you give workers access.
Factories don't grow on trees. Someone doesn't go around just picking and hoarding them. Someone had to work hard for years, take massive debt and enormous personal risk to provide that factory to the workers.
Means of production is capital. Land is NOT capital.
"God gave the world in common to all mankind.... When the 'sacredness' of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property"--John Locke.
The only defensible basis of private property is the one based on the fruits of ones labor. Land or nature is not the fruit of anyone's labor and so cannot be held as private property by anyone. Locke realized this.
@Jarvy251 "Under a free market, you sell to anyone in the world who wants to buy, you can buy from anyone who wants to sell."
Is that really what a free market is? A "free market" sounds more like a market that is free to do as it chooses. This is a recipe for disaster for profit is the only motive of the market. The "free market" cares not for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "free market" will see big corporations getting bigger.
Unlike the government, which just raises the debt ceiling every time it wants to expand its power, companies under a free market are constrained by having to deal with reality. They cannot print money out of thin air, they have to make us happy. If a company does something you don't like, you stop giving them your money. You tell your friends to stop giving them money. If enough people are unhappy, the company fails. A perfect example of this system working is ebay.
@jarvy251 First off the government does not print money. This is the first problem for when the Can gov DID print its own money it had very little debt. In the U.S. the Fed. Res. prints money(out of thin air) and leases it to the gov at an unpayable interest rate, which compounds till it becomes the ridiculous thing it is. The Fed is owned by the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and other large international banking houses. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy stood up to them and were assassinated.
To say the Federal Reserve is a private entity is silly. It was created by an act of congress, it's board members are appointed by the president, and all alternative forms of currency have been made illegal.
It is a perfect example of a monopoly that can only exist because of the government.
@jarvy251 It was created secretly by an act of a few members of congress during holiday season, much like Obama signing the NDAA on new years eve. Anyway this was done at the behest of the international banking houses. Its board members are people who work for these international banks such as Golman Sachs or BoA. Why do you think Obama bailed out the banks but not main street? Because the banks are in control, it is the Banks who finance all wars. Your suffering is their profit.
@jarvy251 "It is a perfect example of a monopoly that can only exist because of the government"
These banking houses or their families date back to the time of King George and the American Revolution. This has been an ongoing struggle for centuries. Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated for their crossing paths with these banking cartels. Just google who owns Federal reserve. And see what you find about the passing of that act by congress and who the fed res answers to.
Companies can only become massive because of government favouritism. This can come in obvious forms like tax breaks, or less than obvious, like regulations. Big companies always fight in favour of new regulations, because they can afford to comply, and smaller companies cannot. Big companies use government regulations to shut out their competition, taking away our choices.
@jarvy251 That is because they are the wrong regulations. Not all regulations are made equal. The reason it got this way is due to too many people not being involved in their government and not voting. This is due too to much corporate money in politics and media manipulating the message and controlling politicians.
You talk about voting with your dollars, that is what the stock market is. People voting with their $. There is very little virtue in this place for it is all about profit.
There may be very little virtue in a world driven by profit, but there is no virtue at all in a system with a gun to our heads. Can a private company make all other forms of currency illegal? Can a private entity go trillions of dollars in debt and continue to borrow and spend? Can a private company steal our income to spend on policies we don't approve of?
What is it about a government that makes it virtuous?
@Jarvy251 "How do you think you can "take the government back?
Occupy Wall Street has begun that process. It is happening throughout the world. This is a revolutionary movement of the people. It is social and it is democratic and this is evolution at work.
Your ideals contradict the very definition of society, they will never be popular. But don't get me wrong they are noble ideals of self-sufficency . And with the coming depression being self sufficent will be important to one's survival.
I'm not anti-society. I just want a society that I participate in as much or as little as I want, on a voluntary basis. If I like an initiative, like a charity for poor people who need better health care, I donate to it. If the charity becomes corrupt and pockets all the donations, I stop donating. Government is a charity that comes to throw me in a cage if I try to stop donating.
That is where you are wrong. Society has everything to do with it. Society is what it is all about. And when government becomes corrupt, society needs to rise up , put out the corruption and enshrine new safe guards to protect democracy.
We agree that government is corrupt. We just don't agree on the solutions which in the end makes this a good debate.
It is the very nature of humanity to evolve towards a social-democratic government.
We agree that government is corrupt. What I'm trying to explain is that government will always be corrupt, and the best proof is the US itself. George Washington, as first president, gave tax breaks to big distilleries, and raised taxes on small, independent distilleries. He then used military force to quell dissent.
It is impossible to have an incorruptible government. A purely voluntary society is the only answer.
If your looking for solutions for a modern evolved society then your barking up the wrong tree. The solutions for todays problems lies in people waking up and getting involved in their gov. Democratic principles are the solution to the problems we face as a society. And that is where your ideals are misplaced. For libertarian principles are those of an isolationist mindset and therefore innapropriate for a modern evolved society. The keyword here is 'society'.
I don't have to live by myself. I just have to convince people that government monopoly on force is wrong, and that the initiation of violence is wrong. You have to prove that the US government was ever actually "for the people." Which is impossible.
I'm also trying to figure out where the "isolationist" label is coming from. Under a free market, you sell to anyone in the world who wants to buy, you can buy from anyone who wants to sell. How is this isolationist?
jarvy251 he is defending libertarian principles. Minor issue.
There are many places on Earth one can go where there is no government. Its just that it usually involves isolation or living under a tribal warlord mentality. Why is this?
A true libertarian buys himself a piece of forest and homesteads there, and does for himself through the gift of nature, where laziness is counter intuitive to survival. These are true libertarian prinicples.
A warlord tribe is still a government, just not a very fancy one.
He makes these videos because moving into isolation is the lazy answer, if it can even be called an answer as I'm sure the state will discover you eventually, and helps no-one.
@theawesomebeliever , just because someone picks and chooses text to promore their own agenda does not dis-validate the original piece. Its like blaiming the goose for the way the butcher chopped him up.
If by big government, you mean a government that has been co-opted by multi-national corporations and international banking cartels then I would agree with you. But if you think getting rid of ALL government and allowing the free market to solve your problems your absolutely wrong.
Once again Stefan does himself a disservice by selectively reading only those bits he could manipulate so he can create a platform to spew out his own myopic propaganda. The free markets way to solve things is to enslave us with government debt and a fiat currency that is nothing less than a ponzi scheme. Government should be representatives of the people carrying out the will of the people for a better society for all. Unfortunately the inernational banks have bought our government.
@daemonnice Governments will always be bought, Plato already pointed that out about democracy, that it is bound to fall on the hands of the corrupt as they are good to twist the words and therefore bound to fail.
By the way: did you know that Marx never even stepped into a factory? And his best friend Engels even had one!
"The banks have bought our government." If that's true, how is giving the government more power a solution? In turn, that would only give the banks more power.
The problem is that we DON'T have a free market, and never have. As long as there is government, corporations will buy it out to use it as a tool to shut out their competition. This is not a problem that can be regulated away.
@jarvy251 Where did I say giving government more power is the solution? I don't and I didn't, so allready you have only dis-credited yourself.
And the reason we DON'T have a free market is because the "freemarket" is an untrustworthy beast whose only intent is profit at all costs. The proof is in the pudding. The actions of the IMF, WOrld Bank et al, and their forcing of fiat currencies and debt on the peoples of democracies is how the freemarket works on global scale.
But by blaming fiat currency on the free market discredits you. In a system where there is no government, fiat currency is impossible. The only reason why fiat currency has any value is because this monstrous monopoly of violence we know as government says it has value. Banks have no army, no police, they have no ability to force anything on us. It is the government that forces these things on us.
@jarvy251 Where there is no government thuggery moves in..fact. Your overuse of adjectives do not move your arguments forward.
Banks don't need an army, they already control the money system (fiat currency), therefore they own the gov and the army and the police. It is the IMF,World Bank and the military industrial complex that has taken over gov. We need to take gov back not get rid of it. More democratic controls of gov, is what is needed and that requires voting or maybe getting more involved
Yes, exactly, the banks and big corporations own the government, which in turn has a monopoly on violence.
After a revolutionary war against unfair taxation, America`s first President called up the militia to put down states that didn`t agree with new American taxes that favored certain whiskey producers over others. How do you think you can "take the government back?" It never belonged to the people in the first place.
Where there is no government, thuggery moves in. Well, to a certain extent, true. But where there IS government, we have thuggery anyway.
Not to mention that the government is the biggest thug around. I highly recommend stef's video "This is the story of your enslavement." Our government is like a crime family. It lets us work as we choose, but sends thugs around once a month to collect "protection" payments.
@daemonnice: "The free markets way to solve things is to enslave us with government debt and a fiat currency that is nothing less than a ponzi scheme." You haven't seen a single video by this guy, have you?
I think we have to move to a one world "government", but by god let's make sure we put the right type in, we need a world of no aggression. Maybe a totally free market would fill the requirements for a one world government without the government.
Some companies make lots of money by renting out the means of production. Off the top of my head, one can allow Cafepress some portion of the receipts on t-shirts and they will print and sell the shirts you design for you. Amazon has a system where they will print and sell books on demand as well, from any willing author as I understand it, for a portion of the royalties from the sale price.
I do think that people with a lot of property are subsidized if the state hands out free property protection. That is not a reason to not be a libertarian, but a reason to figure out a solution to that problem. I think it is a bad solution to embrace big government. Perhaps no government is a solution, or if you think that could not work, try to find another way to make property protection less re-distributive.
If there's no govt the corporations would just continue to exploit people and there would be corporate rule. There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent that with the absence of govt.
@walthomas Had to have been. No one who was really a libertarian would so fail to understand the principles of libertarian philosophy (of any school of thought within the "umbrella"). Also, I thought it was clear that the Marx referred to was Groucho. =P
So many contradictions in this idiot liberal's comments. He wants access to the means of production, but at the same time appears to support the Marxist socialist position that the government owns them. Sure you can say your tax goes towards it but why on earth that is in any way beneficial i don't know. You want to be controlled less by big corporations, but have no problem being controlled by incredibly larger government. Power corrupts, and that fact is proven so well in terms of government
@Tracywithafacey It's funny how some people (apparently including @stefbot) read the article and automatically assume that the author wants to replace big powerful hierarchical abusive corporations with big powerful hierarchical abusive government. I absolutely agree with you that "power currupts" - do you honestly think the author disagrees? Do you honestly think he's interested in having *any* group of people, whether corruption or government, wield tyrannical power over others?
@JohnCaruso What specific points did you have problems with? There was no real argument against the libertarian philosophy in the first place (other than perhaps against property rights); there was only random examples thrown out.
@RKAddict101 Just taking the first two specific items mentioned in the article:
1) Plague. @stefbot states "the plague was an entirely statist phenomenon ... I'm not really sure how the failure of a plague generated by the state and the failure of certain government agencies to deal with that is somehow a vindication of the government." This does not address the point made in the article. The point is what is the libertarian solution to dealing with a global plague. (cont.)
@RKAddict101@stefbot suggests a libertarian solution: "health insurance is going contain various fine print mechanisms for dealing with plague or dealing with some sort of outbreak because insurance companies don't want people to get sick if they're health insured"
Really? Sorry, but I'm not convinced that short-term focused profit-driven insurance companies would create the infrastructure necessary to deal with the fairly rare occurrence of a global plague. Do you? (cont.)
@RKAddict101 And even if they did have a purely humanitarian, longer term outlook that was not clouded by profit, and created the necessary infrastructure to deal with a global plague, how would this be distinguishable from the very government agencies that @stefbot states failed? How does the invisible hand of the free-market magically solve this very hard problem? (cont.)
@RKAddict101 2) Global warming. @stefbot states "I'm not sure how global warming is a free market created or caused problem." He goes on to talk about other things that don't address the point in the article, which again is what is the libertarian solution to dealing with some type of global issue like global warming.
@stefbot's only suggestion of a solution is to get rid of corporations and get rid of the worst polluter: government. Pretty weak response, don't you think?
@RKAddict101 After posting my response, I decided to read through the comments. Not surprisingly these same points have been raised by others with little if any response. I believe this is because these global problems don't fit into the simple world of non-regulated individuals and businesses (but not corporations) producing and selling goods and services for profit in a free market. The fact is that if no profit is to be made, it is unlikely a service will be offered in libertopia. (cont.)
@JohnCaruso You don't need the invisible hand to solve a dilemma. The point is that you can peacefully cooperate instead.
You made like 30 posts, I'm a bit lazy to reply to them all. Global warming is an unproven phenomena; even if it exists, people can simply boycott companies that produce too many greenhouse gases, etc. As for plagues, yes, I believe insurance companies would be prepared for a plague; sure it would rarely happen, but they would deal with it in similar ways as the government.
@RKAddict101 Bottom line is I feel @stefbot did not make a very good reasoned argument against the points made in the article. I share libertarian and anarchist values and believe in peaceful cooperation, but there are some hard problems that libertarian thinkers have not really answered very well. I respect @stefbot and enjoy many of his videos. I just think he didn't take this article seriously.
@RKAddict101 Also, it doesn't matter whether Global warming exists or not. The point is how to peacefully cooperate and organize humanity globally to solve general global threats to the human race. If you can point me to any resource that offers a serious, in-depth, well-reasoned libertarian/anarchist response to handling such problems, I'd be very interested in reading it.
@JohnCaruso You're right, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not...Stefan didn't debate whether it exists either. He was pointing out that global warming, if it is real, is caused by the state. Corporations are responsible for nearly all greenhouse gas emissions. You have to really immerse yourself to understand how fundamentally different a society like this would be. Who knows, maybe cars never became that big of a deal in a stateless society. Without subsidized roads, why would they?
@munkyusm I think an important thing to keep in mind is that we don't always know that what we're doing might be harmful to ourselves or the environment. Assuming global warming is real, it doesn't matter whether it is caused by the government or corporations or raising too many cows. What matters is how we respond when we find out we're doing something bad. Take out the state and the corporations, and you're still left with people - some good and some bad.
@JohnCaruso I agree, what matters is how we respond when we find out we're doing something bad. Statists tend to think that the answer is a benevolent government. Take for instance - slavery. Government intervened and stopped slavery is the common story, but what really stopped slavery? Was it not a change in the public sentiment that made govt do it? What about women's rights, civil rights, gay rights etc? It's easy to say government fixed it, but the truth is it was inevitable...
@munkyusm I agree - it is people that initiate such changes. Powerful groups like the state and corporations, especially where economics is a factor (like with slavery), are often against such progressive changes. The question is how do people organize themselves to both self-govern their communities and workplaces so that the immense centralized power of the state and corporations is more fairly distributed - so that good people can keep bad people in check.
@JohnCaruso "how do people organize themselves...so that the immense centralized power of the state...is more fairly distributed" There's only one way - get rid of the state. Please name a state in the past 10,000 years that didn't devolve into an immense centralized power that became oppressive to its people? A monopoly on the use of force (i.e. - the state) can only lead in one direction...oppression. We're slowly growing past religion, the next step is growing past statism...FREEDOM!
@JohnCaruso No doubt, it's impossible to achieve it now. But I say as we move forward, just as atheism is growing, so will a-statism. At some point, we win...and achieving it becomes easy.
@munkyusm Totally agree. I've been atheist all my life and have loved to see fellow non-believers come out of the closet these past several years. I see movements like Occupy Wall Street as the first steps towards a-statism - which I'd expand to include any concentration of power in the hands of people that have disproportionate power over other. Self-governance of our society and workplace is where I hope we're headed.
@JohnCaruso "I see movements like Occupy Wall Street as the first steps towards a-statism" How, exactly, does a movement that demands "where's my bailout?" move towards a-statism? Further, what does this have to do with atheism? I say that as a strong Christian believer - and an individual trying to determine between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism (although tentatively, as I do believe that even if anarcho-capitalism is best, minarchism would be a necessary step down due to human nature).
@mtanousable OWS' use of a Direct Democracy process and General Assemblies is what I believe is a step toward a-statism - see anarcho-syndicalism. The atheism comment was in response to @munkysum's prior comment "But I say as we move forward, just as atheism is growing, so will a-statism.?"
@munkyusm BTW, you make an excellent point about subsidized roads. Without the infrastructure to support larger geographical distribution of goods, we may have communities that rely far more on local and more sustainable production.
@JohnCaruso Like you I share many of the concerns regarding big government and corporate corruption of government. Like you I cannot get a reasonable answer from liber/anarchists except peacefull cooperation and free market. Except that it is proponants of free markets on the global sclae that are causing all our problems in the world including gov debt and the recent economic depression that is about to hit us again when the Euro crashes by March 2012.
The problem is that any government can easily be used as a tool for corporations to grow unnaturally large and powerful. Enron, for example, never would have gotten as big as it did without extensive government favoritism.
Everyone seems to be getting cause and effect mixed up.
Thats a very common question, and it only underscores everyone's misunderstanding of the problem. The question everyone should be asking is what mechanisms would be available to a company under a truly free market to grow to an unnatural size? The answer is there wouldn't be any. The mega-corporations we see now got that way through decades of government favouritism, via tax breaks, regulations and subsidies that gave them an unfair, artificial advantage.
@jarvy251 If a company makes more money than others, then wouldn't that allow it to grow? I don't see that you've addressed my question. Or maybe we need to define "unnatural size"?
Of course the company would grow, but it would also have real competition that would keep it in check, it wouldn't have the ability to help pass laws to undercut other companies, or to win contracts from the government, an entity with literally unlimited funds.
Defining unnatural size would probably be difficult, but, as an example, something like Wal-Mart would not be successful without government help.
@jarvy251 I still don't see that you've answered my original question. It was asked in the context of a libertarian economy, so continuing to talk about how govt screws everything up today is beside my point. Simply asserting that "real competition" will keep growth in check begs the question: What will ensure "real competition"? I don't see that the absence of govt intervention will ensure this. Or do I just need to have faith in the free market?
Talking about how government screws everything up is not beside the point, because inevitable government interventionism will always favour one company over another with no regard for what us, the consumers, want. Government removes the "level playing field" that competing companies would otherwise have. So, lack of government does not ensure the presence of competition. But a presence of government WILL ensure that competition will be squashed.
@jarvy251 I agree that discuss current state of affairs is important to understand where problems are introduced. But to remind you my original question was: "What mechanisms would prevent companies from growing unnaturally large and powerful in a libertarian free-market economy?"
You've basically just said without govt intervention there will be "real competition" and that will keep companies growth in check. Could you elaborate? Or do I need faith?
@JohnCaruso For anyone following this thread, I'd recommend googling "How Does a Free Market Prevent a Monopoly?" and read the first result. This is the exact point I'm trying to make - just substitute "monopoly" or "near monopoly" for @jarvy251's description of companies that are "unnaturally large and powerful". For those too lazy to read, the summary is: Monopolies are not prevented by free market economics.
If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.
@JohnCaruso The fact is based on the CIA's own GINI index those countries that have the best quality of life are socialist countries like NOrway, Japan, Canada. Also Stefan is a libertarian living in a socialist country enjoying the benefits of socialism while at the same time disparaging socilaism..what does that say about him? It seems to me that Libertarians use the words "freemarket" and expect us to accept it with the religious zeal of blind faith....a fool's folly at best
You`re calling him a libertarian in a video titled "why I am not a Libertarian." Correction- Stefan is an anarchist living in a semi-socialist country who must either submit to taxes or be subject to state violence. This is not `reaping the benefits` of a socialist society, the society is forced upon him. There`s no where on earth I know of you can go to escape this.
@jarvy251 Just clarifying, this video is *not* about Stefan describing why he is not a libertarian, or why he is an anarchist. It's a (negative) review of an article written by someone else.
@daemonnice Yes, even though many libertarians are atheists, I do find it disturbing that libertarian ideology is clung to in almost the same manner as religious beliefs: Just trust the invisible hand of the free market, and we will have heaven on earth.
@jarvy251 No I don't. Just because I may be critical of libertarian/free-market ideas does not mean I am pro-state. I just think things are a bit more complex than blaming all problems on the state, and saying they'll magically vanish with a "true" free market. It's no different than saying that if I accept Christ, my sins will be forgiven and I'll go to heaven. I'm an atheist. You'll need to make a stronger argument than that.
@jarvy251 Thanks for clarifying. You'll find no dispute from me that the state may contribute to monopolies. I just don't see any evidence that a libertarian economy would prevent them.
Regarding a system of guaranteed competition and choice, I'd be very interested too. Although, I think the real answer is working towards a system that's not based solely on the profit motive, nor one that involves public or private hierarchies where individual rights are sacrificed.
Yeah, that's just it. I see it more as a step in the right direction in comparison to what we have now, rather than a perfect solution.
And I think there would continue to be be non-profit organizations and charities. People don't just stop caring about the poor just because caring for them becomes optional instead of mandatory. At least, I hope they wouldn't
Saying you're not a libertarian is simply saying you don't believe in the concept of liberty. That's the definition of libertarian, not some esoteric political position
Could you please quantify how gov't is the biggest polluter? Thanks.
paullie6719 2 days ago
Karl... not Richard.... I can only wonder how many people got that reference.
FaceTheFacts1776 3 days ago 2
Thank you for talking about limited liability. A lot of people always skip it even though its a very important regulation.
PairoftheSocks 5 days ago
444 likes 44 dislikes. 4 ftw!
sonnybrown 6 days ago
steve has travelled back in time to educate us and save humankind. heed his words!
spankmybishop1 1 week ago
Oh and there is an individualistic solution to global warming. Incentives that DO NOT FORCE ANYONE TO TAKE PART IN THE SOLUTION. I am talking about incentives that get even deniers to help. I am talking about tax cut incentives. Doesn't force anything on anyone, doesn't pick winners or losers in the market and it is completely up to the individual.
Kirkzzy 1 week ago
As a Libertarian I believe that other libertarians should stop yelling at people over their belief in climate change. Even though they have no right to impose their views on you, you have no right to impose yours on them. I believe in climate change, I guess its the country I grew up in, the majority of Australians believe in climate change. However I doubt climate change is a scam, its conspiracy theories like this that make libertarianism look like the new socialism for hippies.
Kirkzzy 1 week ago
reading the top comments in order made me laugh
Z0mbeSlayer 1 week ago
This guys a genius!
MrTitiez 1 week ago
Also, on global warming, what the heck? Yes, the government has failed to solve it. We know this. We're not happy about it. But it was the advances of the industrial revolution that caused it. Those advances are great, and it sucks they had a negative effect. But it's a simple case of a market failure in terms of pollution as an externality. The government is simply the most effective way to allocate costs to externalities that are detrimental to the public interest.
linkmaster667 1 week ago
@linkmaster667 Not if they have no way of solving it. And I guarantee you that NOBODY wants to go back to pre-industrial revolution times.
Paying money in to federal coffers with no actual solution, except lowering the average citizen's ability to participate in a petroleum-based economy which is unethical and dishonest.
Yourebuying 1 week ago
@linkmaster667
Actually, there was a common law system of restitution in place, at least in America and in Britain, to deal with pollution. If you spill waste on someone's land or into someone's air, then you've damaged their property, and you owe them money. It existed since pre-Industrial times, and case law built up to establish how it applied to industrial pollution. By all accounts, it worked well.
What happened to it?
The government stepped in, ruled arbitrarily that -
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
- property law did not apply to the environment, and allowed big firms (hint: the ones with lots of voters employed and lots of money to spend on bribes) to pollute as much as they wanted. The same competitive forces which had previously driven industrialists to limit their pollution, now drives them to disregard it. This has doubtlessly had a profound effect on the development of industrial technology since then. -
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
- There was a functioning system of environmental protection, the government usurped it, and is now trying to sell us one that is tried and failed.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM It's interesting you should mention this "common law restitution". As a lawyer, I can only presume you are referring to the tort of private nuisance, in which the plaintiff may seek an award for damages resulting from a disruption of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his land. This still exists, but is not usable for large-scale pollution and effects like climate change or ozone layer holes.
Also, I should think libertarians would also disagree with tort law.
linkmaster667 1 week ago
@linkmaster667
Disagree with seeking restitution for damages to one's person and property? Really? : P
That kind of law is the way to go, I think. Bureaucrats are in until next election, private owners are in for life and for their posterity. And anytime there ought to be more of an intelligent give-and-take than an outright prohibition and non-prohibition - you need to weigh costs and benefits where a large number of people are involved - then you need a market process.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 week ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Sorry, I mean anarcho-capitalists like Stefan, not libertarians. My mistake. Tort law is identical to criminal law, with the exception that action is taken by the wronged individual. It is still developed, maintained and administered by the State.
You do indeed need a market process. That's is why I've always supported some kind of tax to incorporate the externality of pollution into the market system.
linkmaster667 1 week ago
@linkmaster667
Very, very few people oppose law itself, and those few who do probably don't self-describe as any sort of libertarian. The disagreement is over the form and content of the law - what should the law be, and what system of law will bring about this content, or vice versa? -
PanzerDivisionBOM 6 days ago
- The idea I'm proferring is that all tangible aspects of the environment are property. When you damaging the environment in some tangible way that affects human well-being, you're almost by definition damaging someone's property. So, the law should treat it as property damage, and extract restitution for the victims of that damage, not use it as an opportunity to fund more wars and boondoggles.
PanzerDivisionBOM 6 days ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Well, any political discussion is about the form and content of the law, surely. Which is why I corrected myself to say "anarcho-capitalists", who do not as part of their ideology believe that laws are beneficial.
linkmaster667 6 days ago
Aw, come on, you barely addressed the plague thing. You blamed Spanish flu on the government then just said health insurance. Epidemics can and do occur without government playing any part. The issue was how to stop people dying. Sure, the insurance companies have an incentive to act to prevent epidemics. But they can't exactly quarantine folks without their consent. The government means is simply more effective. But as always the cry will go out for "non-aggression". What a baseless rule.
linkmaster667 1 week ago
“… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
- Karl Marx
(“The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
That a "Progressive" or "liberal" says that tyranny helped ward off the plague is shocking.
amamerc 1 week ago
I also like quoting Karl Marx! It's fun! It shows the hypocrisy of certain leftists!
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
- Karl Marx
(“Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)
amamerc 1 week ago
The issue is not denying Global warming; it's about much more CLEAR environmental issues; such as GMO corn being forced on us.
SvenBenson 2 weeks ago
The gov't is not responsible (yet) to regulate carbon output so you can't really say it's their fault that the free market sells items without the "cost" of the carbon output pollution integrated. I believe people should pay for the entire cost of goods.
chisleu 2 weeks ago
Damn, this guy has a symmetrical face.
BIoodrunk 3 weeks ago 11
the lie starts with stefan claiming hes never read this argument before. Hes well rehearsed his arguments. Clearly a good actor though. didn't he once train in acting? hes putting it to effective use now, conning young minds around the world. Stefan needs start with self honesty before preaching to others what they MUST consider before dying. A white collar wouldn't go a miss either.
Kanashakti 1 month ago
@Kanashakti I used to get mad at people talking shit, but now I smile when they provide no meat and just assertions, like you are now
nurbSoldier 3 weeks ago 2
The letter was written when the writer was 19(?) The writer did things back to front. The Writer was too naive perhaps to have fully understood Libertarianism through lack of reason and maturity. Marx is for the young and idealistic, some never grow up of course. Heard from Peter Schiff> "If you don't believe in socialism when you're young, you don't have a heart... if you don't believe in Capitalism when you're older... you don't have a brain"
Avidcomp 1 month ago
Stefan, by being an Internet personality & public speaker you created your own means of production.
joshuamiller79 1 month ago
The solution for pollution and global warming is the free-market, since it will allow people to choose between toxic cost-inefficient 20th century oil energy to:
Thorium Reactors, Uranium Reactors, Solar and Wind and even private home reactors.
Did you know that if you wanted to build a private home reactor you'd have to sell at least %25 of the energy you produce to the government? (or at least that's how it is in Canada).
Arielslopa 1 month ago
@Arielslopa The problem isn't even "global warming" to begin with.
I can't think of anything more criminal than setting up a brokerage firm scam to funnel millions upon billions of dollars away from taxpaying citizens, and for what?
How does this money legitimately offset the effects of a natural phenomenon aside from creating a reduction in the overall quality of life of aforementioned taxpaying citizens?
It doesn't, thus far green technology has been a lobbyist racket.
Yourebuying 1 month ago 8
@Yourebuying I don't see why are you arguing with me xD
All I am saying is that energy should be left to the market, not be subsidized by our tax-money (this includes the green lobbyist and the oil industries).
The energy industry would have worked much better, if consumers had choice over what industry they wish to invest in, or purchase energy from.
Arielslopa 1 month ago
@Yourebuying just so you know all the water on earth adsorbs a VAST amount of the co2 we pump into the atmosphere. even if you don't believe in climate change, carbonic acid destorying poisoning our oceans should be a real concern .
research the carbon cycle, you might learn something.
KillerWhaleSFl 3 weeks ago
@KillerWhaleSFl Still doesn't justify a carbon tax.
Yourebuying 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kogaKageOokami 2 weeks ago
@Yourebuying the problem is all the issues are either a lobbyist racket or a corporate racket
kogaKageOokami 2 weeks ago
@Arielslopa Don't forget industrial hemp which is illegal!
dubified89 3 weeks ago
Your stance on Corporations is dead wrong. Corporations are not a legal shield unless the government is giving specific corporations special favors in the form of not enforcing the law or giving them special tax breaks. When you enforce property rights to the full extent to which they're supposed to be enforced, it doesn't matter if it's a corporation or an individual. If you can prove that the pollution on your land is coming from X Corporation, you've got a lawsuit.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 month ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation. Limited liability is a special privilege given to corporations which does indeed shield owners from personal bankruptcy in case of, say, polluting someone else's property. Equity owners can only lose up to the value of their equity, that is the corporation can be bankrupted but the rest of the owner's wealth is shielded by law. Some libertarians are against this (like I'm guessing Molyneaux is) though some are not.
echatav 1 month ago
@echatav "LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation. Limited liability is a special privilege given to corporations which does indeed shield owners from personal bankruptcy in case of, say, polluting someone else's property."
I know about LLC, and LLC wouldn't exist (or would only have legal legitimacy in cases where the property owners and the corporation sign a contract) if property rights were enforced like they're supposed to be.
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 month ago
If we had small corporations then a small government could deal with them. Unfortunately we have very very big corporations and only a big government can stand up to them.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
So let's say a worker has an idea for a product, but doesn't want to take the massive personal risk to manufacture it. Is it not reasonable to use an existing factory in exchange for giving that factory owner a share of the profit?
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 Wouldn't it be better if the worker was part of a local co-operative venture where all profits went to the workers rather than "owners".
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
That's perfectly possible too, if a group of workers want to get together to share the risk of buying a factory. Then they would become collective owners. But the factory has to come from somewhere, right? If no one ever benefited from creating the means of production, why would anyone do it?
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 We would all benefit from owning the means of production
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
Everyone would benefit except for the original workers who took the risk and put the effort into acquiring the means of production in the first place. Lets say I take out a $1000 loan to acquire a printing press, but everyone in the city can use it without compensating me. How do I repay my debt? Why would I go into debt in the first place? It actually harms me to provide a means of production. Incentive is needed.
jarvy251 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HelmetBlissta
Everyone would benefit except for the original workers who took the risk and put the effort into acquiring the means of production in the first place. Lets say I take out a $1000 loan to acquire a printing press, but everyone in the city can use it without compensating me. How do I repay my debt? Why would I go into debt in the first place? It actually harms me to provide a means of production. Incentive is needed.
jarvy251 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HelmetBlissta
"Unfortunately we have very very big corporations and only a big government can stand up to them."
As the power of the government grows, so do the corporations. I wonder why that is? No one is incorruptible. Regulations will always serve in the interest of the biggest corporations. And even if it's not, it's always cheaper to bribe a regulator than it is to comply with regulations.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta big government made corporations and then the corporations got bigger from even bigger government, so the way of reducing or these thingsor even eliminating corporations entirely is to reduce what caused them, government.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I could not disagree more. To be honest mate you appear to have the whole thing back to front.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta Big buisness never came about before the allowance of states to have monopolies on law including laws pertaining to the economy and exchange. Corporations and the rights given to them can only be afforded by the state to their benefit , as the state has also the monopoly on force which it uses to induce taxation with little resistance. Monopoles other than those reserved by the state for itself have always through history been prodced by the state.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience Despite all your lingual gymnastics the fact remains that business exploits people. Returning the means of production into the hands of the workers is far preferable to massive inequalities of wealth like we see today.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta It's not gymnastics, its convaying a point clearly from all angles. It may well be more preferable that what we have today but it's not the buisnesses which are exploiting the people as buisness go into transactions and complete exchanges which are entirely voluntary, they have no real leverage against the consumer as does any state. The exploiters are the tax leviers and the interest vampires both of which costs are ultimatly payed by the consumer (or laborer.)
MirageScience 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta it should be obvious that buisnesses have no power to exploit as tons and tons of them fail, and it's not because they didn't pay their workers too little it's because the workers are the consumers and the consumers where not interested.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience Are you seriously going to say that you can't think of a single example of a business taking advantage of people ?
I would love to continue thiis more later , but i have something to do for a while . thanks , and bye for now.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta obviouly there are exceptions to the rules and there are and should be proceedings for recourse for such events but if I understand you correctly as you are using the word explotation I would assume you hold to some labor theory of value, and therefore belive workers are exploited because profits are made. Most of the profits taken are a result of the monopolies on money being passed down on consumers (including laborers) and guesse who made such monopolies?
MirageScience 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta Are you seriously going to say big buisness made big government when obviously government and government officials could have said, no we aren't selling laws and regulations?
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I was not going to say what you said. I stand for equality, peace and freedom. I see socialism as our best chance of achieving it. I see capitalism as the system of the bosses, favouring those with money. I don't think that can lead to a fair and just world.
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta and if the majority of people want bosses what would be the point of opposing it? Should people be forced into learning the intricacies of running a buisness for their survival because thats ultimatly what abolishing capitalism would entail if it where to sustain itself, otherwise too few goods would be produced. I hope the system favors those with money as money is afforded in a free market to those which provide the best and most for the cheapest.
MirageScience 1 month ago
War is a free market endeavour. Capitalism drives pollution. I see the problem as how we will wrestle privately owned and hoarded wealth back to the public. Wealth generated during the industrial revolution came from slavery theft and exploitation. The rich keep the poor down that is quite obvious to anyone. Everyone does not have equal access to the means of production, that is not "OK great". One function of government is to protect the weaker members of society from abuse by the stronger ones
HelmetBlissta 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
"War is a free market endeavour" That makes no sense. Only the government has a military. War can only be profitable because the government bears cost of the war. Only a government can go trillions in debt and continue to spend. A private company cannot, no one would lend to them, because the debt cannot possibly be paid back.
Pretty much everything in your comment is demonstratively wrong. I'll go over the other points in a bit, don't worry.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
"Capitalism drives pollution." What has the government done to prevent pollution? Interesting point- In Canada, the government owns every body of water. There is no private water ownership. Yet the waters are polluted.
In a free society, we can sue companies, among other methods, to keep them from polluting. Only a government can decide that the pollution is "for the greater good" and protect these companies from the people.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@HelmetBlissta
"Everyone does not have access to the means of production."
I hate to point out the obvious, but the owning the means of production is notoriously unprofitable unless you give workers access.
Factories don't grow on trees. Someone doesn't go around just picking and hoarding them. Someone had to work hard for years, take massive debt and enormous personal risk to provide that factory to the workers.
jarvy251 1 month ago
Means of production is capital. Land is NOT capital.
"God gave the world in common to all mankind.... When the 'sacredness' of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property"--John Locke.
The only defensible basis of private property is the one based on the fruits of ones labor. Land or nature is not the fruit of anyone's labor and so cannot be held as private property by anyone. Locke realized this.
a46475 1 month ago
@a46475 Exactly. Henry George explained the difference between land and capital.
Laconophile 1 month ago
@Jarvy251 "Under a free market, you sell to anyone in the world who wants to buy, you can buy from anyone who wants to sell."
Is that really what a free market is? A "free market" sounds more like a market that is free to do as it chooses. This is a recipe for disaster for profit is the only motive of the market. The "free market" cares not for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "free market" will see big corporations getting bigger.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
Unlike the government, which just raises the debt ceiling every time it wants to expand its power, companies under a free market are constrained by having to deal with reality. They cannot print money out of thin air, they have to make us happy. If a company does something you don't like, you stop giving them your money. You tell your friends to stop giving them money. If enough people are unhappy, the company fails. A perfect example of this system working is ebay.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 First off the government does not print money. This is the first problem for when the Can gov DID print its own money it had very little debt. In the U.S. the Fed. Res. prints money(out of thin air) and leases it to the gov at an unpayable interest rate, which compounds till it becomes the ridiculous thing it is. The Fed is owned by the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and other large international banking houses. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy stood up to them and were assassinated.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
To say the Federal Reserve is a private entity is silly. It was created by an act of congress, it's board members are appointed by the president, and all alternative forms of currency have been made illegal.
It is a perfect example of a monopoly that can only exist because of the government.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 It was created secretly by an act of a few members of congress during holiday season, much like Obama signing the NDAA on new years eve. Anyway this was done at the behest of the international banking houses. Its board members are people who work for these international banks such as Golman Sachs or BoA. Why do you think Obama bailed out the banks but not main street? Because the banks are in control, it is the Banks who finance all wars. Your suffering is their profit.
daemonnice 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jarvy251 "It is a perfect example of a monopoly that can only exist because of the government"
These banking houses or their families date back to the time of King George and the American Revolution. This has been an ongoing struggle for centuries. Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated for their crossing paths with these banking cartels. Just google who owns Federal reserve. And see what you find about the passing of that act by congress and who the fed res answers to.
Have fun.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
Companies can only become massive because of government favouritism. This can come in obvious forms like tax breaks, or less than obvious, like regulations. Big companies always fight in favour of new regulations, because they can afford to comply, and smaller companies cannot. Big companies use government regulations to shut out their competition, taking away our choices.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 That is because they are the wrong regulations. Not all regulations are made equal. The reason it got this way is due to too many people not being involved in their government and not voting. This is due too to much corporate money in politics and media manipulating the message and controlling politicians.
You talk about voting with your dollars, that is what the stock market is. People voting with their $. There is very little virtue in this place for it is all about profit.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
There may be very little virtue in a world driven by profit, but there is no virtue at all in a system with a gun to our heads. Can a private company make all other forms of currency illegal? Can a private entity go trillions of dollars in debt and continue to borrow and spend? Can a private company steal our income to spend on policies we don't approve of?
What is it about a government that makes it virtuous?
jarvy251 1 month ago
Comment removed
daemonnice 1 month ago
Comment removed
daemonnice 1 month ago
@Jarvy251 "How do you think you can "take the government back?
Occupy Wall Street has begun that process. It is happening throughout the world. This is a revolutionary movement of the people. It is social and it is democratic and this is evolution at work.
Your ideals contradict the very definition of society, they will never be popular. But don't get me wrong they are noble ideals of self-sufficency . And with the coming depression being self sufficent will be important to one's survival.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
I'm not anti-society. I just want a society that I participate in as much or as little as I want, on a voluntary basis. If I like an initiative, like a charity for poor people who need better health care, I donate to it. If the charity becomes corrupt and pockets all the donations, I stop donating. Government is a charity that comes to throw me in a cage if I try to stop donating.
"Society" has nothing to do with it.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 "Society" has nothing to do with it."
That is where you are wrong. Society has everything to do with it. Society is what it is all about. And when government becomes corrupt, society needs to rise up , put out the corruption and enshrine new safe guards to protect democracy.
We agree that government is corrupt. We just don't agree on the solutions which in the end makes this a good debate.
It is the very nature of humanity to evolve towards a social-democratic government.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
We agree that government is corrupt. What I'm trying to explain is that government will always be corrupt, and the best proof is the US itself. George Washington, as first president, gave tax breaks to big distilleries, and raised taxes on small, independent distilleries. He then used military force to quell dissent.
It is impossible to have an incorruptible government. A purely voluntary society is the only answer.
jarvy251 1 month ago
If your looking for solutions for a modern evolved society then your barking up the wrong tree. The solutions for todays problems lies in people waking up and getting involved in their gov. Democratic principles are the solution to the problems we face as a society. And that is where your ideals are misplaced. For libertarian principles are those of an isolationist mindset and therefore innapropriate for a modern evolved society. The keyword here is 'society'.
Good luck living by yourself.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
I don't have to live by myself. I just have to convince people that government monopoly on force is wrong, and that the initiation of violence is wrong. You have to prove that the US government was ever actually "for the people." Which is impossible.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@daemonnice
I'm also trying to figure out where the "isolationist" label is coming from. Under a free market, you sell to anyone in the world who wants to buy, you can buy from anyone who wants to sell. How is this isolationist?
jarvy251 1 month ago
jarvy251 he is defending libertarian principles. Minor issue.
There are many places on Earth one can go where there is no government. Its just that it usually involves isolation or living under a tribal warlord mentality. Why is this?
A true libertarian buys himself a piece of forest and homesteads there, and does for himself through the gift of nature, where laziness is counter intuitive to survival. These are true libertarian prinicples.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
A warlord tribe is still a government, just not a very fancy one.
He makes these videos because moving into isolation is the lazy answer, if it can even be called an answer as I'm sure the state will discover you eventually, and helps no-one.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@theawesomebeliever , just because someone picks and chooses text to promore their own agenda does not dis-validate the original piece. Its like blaiming the goose for the way the butcher chopped him up.
If by big government, you mean a government that has been co-opted by multi-national corporations and international banking cartels then I would agree with you. But if you think getting rid of ALL government and allowing the free market to solve your problems your absolutely wrong.
daemonnice 1 month ago
Comment removed
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
Once again Stefan does himself a disservice by selectively reading only those bits he could manipulate so he can create a platform to spew out his own myopic propaganda. The free markets way to solve things is to enslave us with government debt and a fiat currency that is nothing less than a ponzi scheme. Government should be representatives of the people carrying out the will of the people for a better society for all. Unfortunately the inernational banks have bought our government.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice if there are bits to be manipulated then the text is not valid to even begin with.
point is: can you deny that all the problems we have today are caused by big government?
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daemonnice Governments will always be bought, Plato already pointed that out about democracy, that it is bound to fall on the hands of the corrupt as they are good to twist the words and therefore bound to fail.
By the way: did you know that Marx never even stepped into a factory? And his best friend Engels even had one!
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@daemonnice
"The banks have bought our government." If that's true, how is giving the government more power a solution? In turn, that would only give the banks more power.
The problem is that we DON'T have a free market, and never have. As long as there is government, corporations will buy it out to use it as a tool to shut out their competition. This is not a problem that can be regulated away.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 Where did I say giving government more power is the solution? I don't and I didn't, so allready you have only dis-credited yourself.
And the reason we DON'T have a free market is because the "freemarket" is an untrustworthy beast whose only intent is profit at all costs. The proof is in the pudding. The actions of the IMF, WOrld Bank et al, and their forcing of fiat currencies and debt on the peoples of democracies is how the freemarket works on global scale.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
But by blaming fiat currency on the free market discredits you. In a system where there is no government, fiat currency is impossible. The only reason why fiat currency has any value is because this monstrous monopoly of violence we know as government says it has value. Banks have no army, no police, they have no ability to force anything on us. It is the government that forces these things on us.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 Where there is no government thuggery moves in..fact. Your overuse of adjectives do not move your arguments forward.
Banks don't need an army, they already control the money system (fiat currency), therefore they own the gov and the army and the police. It is the IMF,World Bank and the military industrial complex that has taken over gov. We need to take gov back not get rid of it. More democratic controls of gov, is what is needed and that requires voting or maybe getting more involved
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
Yes, exactly, the banks and big corporations own the government, which in turn has a monopoly on violence.
After a revolutionary war against unfair taxation, America`s first President called up the militia to put down states that didn`t agree with new American taxes that favored certain whiskey producers over others. How do you think you can "take the government back?" It never belonged to the people in the first place.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@daemonnice
Where there is no government, thuggery moves in. Well, to a certain extent, true. But where there IS government, we have thuggery anyway.
Not to mention that the government is the biggest thug around. I highly recommend stef's video "This is the story of your enslavement." Our government is like a crime family. It lets us work as we choose, but sends thugs around once a month to collect "protection" payments.
jarvy251 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daemonnice: "The free markets way to solve things is to enslave us with government debt and a fiat currency that is nothing less than a ponzi scheme." You haven't seen a single video by this guy, have you?
andyissemicool 1 month ago
Molyneux is a crank on corporations. Limited liability is libertarian.
ThisMachineKillsReds 1 month ago
I think we have to move to a one world "government", but by god let's make sure we put the right type in, we need a world of no aggression. Maybe a totally free market would fill the requirements for a one world government without the government.
jamesregmorris 1 month ago
Some companies make lots of money by renting out the means of production. Off the top of my head, one can allow Cafepress some portion of the receipts on t-shirts and they will print and sell the shirts you design for you. Amazon has a system where they will print and sell books on demand as well, from any willing author as I understand it, for a portion of the royalties from the sale price.
mtanousable 2 months ago
I do think that people with a lot of property are subsidized if the state hands out free property protection. That is not a reason to not be a libertarian, but a reason to figure out a solution to that problem. I think it is a bad solution to embrace big government. Perhaps no government is a solution, or if you think that could not work, try to find another way to make property protection less re-distributive.
mortalisk 2 months ago
If there's no govt the corporations would just continue to exploit people and there would be corporate rule. There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent that with the absence of govt.
RetroTheSkywalker 3 months ago
If this guy was a Libertarian I think he was probably smoking allot of pot at that time in his life.
walthomas 3 months ago
@walthomas Had to have been. No one who was really a libertarian would so fail to understand the principles of libertarian philosophy (of any school of thought within the "umbrella"). Also, I thought it was clear that the Marx referred to was Groucho. =P
mtanousable 2 months ago
the person who wrote this letter doesn't know what they're talking about.
their mind is a dangerous mess.
CRAPCANNONS 4 months ago
So many contradictions in this idiot liberal's comments. He wants access to the means of production, but at the same time appears to support the Marxist socialist position that the government owns them. Sure you can say your tax goes towards it but why on earth that is in any way beneficial i don't know. You want to be controlled less by big corporations, but have no problem being controlled by incredibly larger government. Power corrupts, and that fact is proven so well in terms of government
Tracywithafacey 4 months ago
@Tracywithafacey It's funny how some people (apparently including @stefbot) read the article and automatically assume that the author wants to replace big powerful hierarchical abusive corporations with big powerful hierarchical abusive government. I absolutely agree with you that "power currupts" - do you honestly think the author disagrees? Do you honestly think he's interested in having *any* group of people, whether corruption or government, wield tyrannical power over others?
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso Doh. Just noticed a couple typos. "currupts" -> corrupts. "whether corruption or government" -> whether corporation or government.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
scottblanks 5 months ago
Seriously... why does your accent keep changing???
mckenn25 5 months ago
@stefbot I hope this "review" is not what you consider reasoned argument.
JohnCaruso 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnCaruso "I hope this "review" is not what you consider reasoned argument."
Doesn't a reasoned argument consist of backing up your claims? Anyone can make this accusation about anyone else. Wanna back it up?
nurbSoldier 5 months ago
@JohnCaruso What specific points did you have problems with? There was no real argument against the libertarian philosophy in the first place (other than perhaps against property rights); there was only random examples thrown out.
RKAddict101 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 Just taking the first two specific items mentioned in the article:
1) Plague. @stefbot states "the plague was an entirely statist phenomenon ... I'm not really sure how the failure of a plague generated by the state and the failure of certain government agencies to deal with that is somehow a vindication of the government." This does not address the point made in the article. The point is what is the libertarian solution to dealing with a global plague. (cont.)
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 @stefbot suggests a libertarian solution: "health insurance is going contain various fine print mechanisms for dealing with plague or dealing with some sort of outbreak because insurance companies don't want people to get sick if they're health insured"
Really? Sorry, but I'm not convinced that short-term focused profit-driven insurance companies would create the infrastructure necessary to deal with the fairly rare occurrence of a global plague. Do you? (cont.)
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 And even if they did have a purely humanitarian, longer term outlook that was not clouded by profit, and created the necessary infrastructure to deal with a global plague, how would this be distinguishable from the very government agencies that @stefbot states failed? How does the invisible hand of the free-market magically solve this very hard problem? (cont.)
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 2) Global warming. @stefbot states "I'm not sure how global warming is a free market created or caused problem." He goes on to talk about other things that don't address the point in the article, which again is what is the libertarian solution to dealing with some type of global issue like global warming.
@stefbot's only suggestion of a solution is to get rid of corporations and get rid of the worst polluter: government. Pretty weak response, don't you think?
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 After posting my response, I decided to read through the comments. Not surprisingly these same points have been raised by others with little if any response. I believe this is because these global problems don't fit into the simple world of non-regulated individuals and businesses (but not corporations) producing and selling goods and services for profit in a free market. The fact is that if no profit is to be made, it is unlikely a service will be offered in libertopia. (cont.)
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso You don't need the invisible hand to solve a dilemma. The point is that you can peacefully cooperate instead.
You made like 30 posts, I'm a bit lazy to reply to them all. Global warming is an unproven phenomena; even if it exists, people can simply boycott companies that produce too many greenhouse gases, etc. As for plagues, yes, I believe insurance companies would be prepared for a plague; sure it would rarely happen, but they would deal with it in similar ways as the government.
RKAddict101 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 Bottom line is I feel @stefbot did not make a very good reasoned argument against the points made in the article. I share libertarian and anarchist values and believe in peaceful cooperation, but there are some hard problems that libertarian thinkers have not really answered very well. I respect @stefbot and enjoy many of his videos. I just think he didn't take this article seriously.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@RKAddict101 Also, it doesn't matter whether Global warming exists or not. The point is how to peacefully cooperate and organize humanity globally to solve general global threats to the human race. If you can point me to any resource that offers a serious, in-depth, well-reasoned libertarian/anarchist response to handling such problems, I'd be very interested in reading it.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso You're right, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not...Stefan didn't debate whether it exists either. He was pointing out that global warming, if it is real, is caused by the state. Corporations are responsible for nearly all greenhouse gas emissions. You have to really immerse yourself to understand how fundamentally different a society like this would be. Who knows, maybe cars never became that big of a deal in a stateless society. Without subsidized roads, why would they?
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm I think an important thing to keep in mind is that we don't always know that what we're doing might be harmful to ourselves or the environment. Assuming global warming is real, it doesn't matter whether it is caused by the government or corporations or raising too many cows. What matters is how we respond when we find out we're doing something bad. Take out the state and the corporations, and you're still left with people - some good and some bad.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso I agree, what matters is how we respond when we find out we're doing something bad. Statists tend to think that the answer is a benevolent government. Take for instance - slavery. Government intervened and stopped slavery is the common story, but what really stopped slavery? Was it not a change in the public sentiment that made govt do it? What about women's rights, civil rights, gay rights etc? It's easy to say government fixed it, but the truth is it was inevitable...
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm I agree - it is people that initiate such changes. Powerful groups like the state and corporations, especially where economics is a factor (like with slavery), are often against such progressive changes. The question is how do people organize themselves to both self-govern their communities and workplaces so that the immense centralized power of the state and corporations is more fairly distributed - so that good people can keep bad people in check.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso "how do people organize themselves...so that the immense centralized power of the state...is more fairly distributed" There's only one way - get rid of the state. Please name a state in the past 10,000 years that didn't devolve into an immense centralized power that became oppressive to its people? A monopoly on the use of force (i.e. - the state) can only lead in one direction...oppression. We're slowly growing past religion, the next step is growing past statism...FREEDOM!
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm That's what I meant by "self-govern." It's one thing to have a vision/goal, and another to achieve it.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso No doubt, it's impossible to achieve it now. But I say as we move forward, just as atheism is growing, so will a-statism. At some point, we win...and achieving it becomes easy.
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm Totally agree. I've been atheist all my life and have loved to see fellow non-believers come out of the closet these past several years. I see movements like Occupy Wall Street as the first steps towards a-statism - which I'd expand to include any concentration of power in the hands of people that have disproportionate power over other. Self-governance of our society and workplace is where I hope we're headed.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso We have a looooong way to go...we'll be dead and gone. I have no doubt it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm No doubt. Hopefully as things get worse, though, momentum will build towards making things better.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso "I see movements like Occupy Wall Street as the first steps towards a-statism" How, exactly, does a movement that demands "where's my bailout?" move towards a-statism? Further, what does this have to do with atheism? I say that as a strong Christian believer - and an individual trying to determine between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism (although tentatively, as I do believe that even if anarcho-capitalism is best, minarchism would be a necessary step down due to human nature).
mtanousable 2 months ago
@mtanousable OWS' use of a Direct Democracy process and General Assemblies is what I believe is a step toward a-statism - see anarcho-syndicalism. The atheism comment was in response to @munkysum's prior comment "But I say as we move forward, just as atheism is growing, so will a-statism.?"
JohnCaruso 2 months ago
@munkyusm BTW, you make an excellent point about subsidized roads. Without the infrastructure to support larger geographical distribution of goods, we may have communities that rely far more on local and more sustainable production.
JohnCaruso 4 months ago
@JohnCaruso Like you I share many of the concerns regarding big government and corporate corruption of government. Like you I cannot get a reasonable answer from liber/anarchists except peacefull cooperation and free market. Except that it is proponants of free markets on the global sclae that are causing all our problems in the world including gov debt and the recent economic depression that is about to hit us again when the Euro crashes by March 2012.
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
The problem is that any government can easily be used as a tool for corporations to grow unnaturally large and powerful. Enron, for example, never would have gotten as big as it did without extensive government favoritism.
Everyone seems to be getting cause and effect mixed up.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 What mechanisms would prevent companies from growing unnaturally large and powerful in a libertarian free-market economy?
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
Thats a very common question, and it only underscores everyone's misunderstanding of the problem. The question everyone should be asking is what mechanisms would be available to a company under a truly free market to grow to an unnatural size? The answer is there wouldn't be any. The mega-corporations we see now got that way through decades of government favouritism, via tax breaks, regulations and subsidies that gave them an unfair, artificial advantage.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 If a company makes more money than others, then wouldn't that allow it to grow? I don't see that you've addressed my question. Or maybe we need to define "unnatural size"?
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
Of course the company would grow, but it would also have real competition that would keep it in check, it wouldn't have the ability to help pass laws to undercut other companies, or to win contracts from the government, an entity with literally unlimited funds.
Defining unnatural size would probably be difficult, but, as an example, something like Wal-Mart would not be successful without government help.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 I still don't see that you've answered my original question. It was asked in the context of a libertarian economy, so continuing to talk about how govt screws everything up today is beside my point. Simply asserting that "real competition" will keep growth in check begs the question: What will ensure "real competition"? I don't see that the absence of govt intervention will ensure this. Or do I just need to have faith in the free market?
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
Talking about how government screws everything up is not beside the point, because inevitable government interventionism will always favour one company over another with no regard for what us, the consumers, want. Government removes the "level playing field" that competing companies would otherwise have. So, lack of government does not ensure the presence of competition. But a presence of government WILL ensure that competition will be squashed.
jarvy251 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jarvy251 I agree that discuss current state of affairs is important to understand where problems are introduced. But to remind you my original question was: "What mechanisms would prevent companies from growing unnaturally large and powerful in a libertarian free-market economy?"
You've basically just said without govt intervention there will be "real competition" and that will keep companies growth in check. Could you elaborate? Or do I need faith?
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso For anyone following this thread, I'd recommend googling "How Does a Free Market Prevent a Monopoly?" and read the first result. This is the exact point I'm trying to make - just substitute "monopoly" or "near monopoly" for @jarvy251's description of companies that are "unnaturally large and powerful". For those too lazy to read, the summary is: Monopolies are not prevented by free market economics.
If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso The fact is based on the CIA's own GINI index those countries that have the best quality of life are socialist countries like NOrway, Japan, Canada. Also Stefan is a libertarian living in a socialist country enjoying the benefits of socialism while at the same time disparaging socilaism..what does that say about him? It seems to me that Libertarians use the words "freemarket" and expect us to accept it with the religious zeal of blind faith....a fool's folly at best
daemonnice 1 month ago
@daemonnice
You`re calling him a libertarian in a video titled "why I am not a Libertarian." Correction- Stefan is an anarchist living in a semi-socialist country who must either submit to taxes or be subject to state violence. This is not `reaping the benefits` of a socialist society, the society is forced upon him. There`s no where on earth I know of you can go to escape this.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 Just clarifying, this video is *not* about Stefan describing why he is not a libertarian, or why he is an anarchist. It's a (negative) review of an article written by someone else.
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
Yeah I had three or four videos in tabs at the same time and got a little confused by the titles.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@daemonnice Yes, even though many libertarians are atheists, I do find it disturbing that libertarian ideology is clung to in almost the same manner as religious beliefs: Just trust the invisible hand of the free market, and we will have heaven on earth.
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
But you do the same thing, don't you? You somehow think a government will make it all better, when all the evidence is to the contrary.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 No I don't. Just because I may be critical of libertarian/free-market ideas does not mean I am pro-state. I just think things are a bit more complex than blaming all problems on the state, and saying they'll magically vanish with a "true" free market. It's no different than saying that if I accept Christ, my sins will be forgiven and I'll go to heaven. I'm an atheist. You'll need to make a stronger argument than that.
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
I'm not saying it's a perfect system and all our problems will magically vanish, I'm simply trying to explain how the state helps monopolies occur.
If you can explain a system that guarantees there will always be some kind of competition and choice, I would be very interested.
jarvy251 1 month ago
@jarvy251 Thanks for clarifying. You'll find no dispute from me that the state may contribute to monopolies. I just don't see any evidence that a libertarian economy would prevent them.
Regarding a system of guaranteed competition and choice, I'd be very interested too. Although, I think the real answer is working towards a system that's not based solely on the profit motive, nor one that involves public or private hierarchies where individual rights are sacrificed.
JohnCaruso 1 month ago
@JohnCaruso
Yeah, that's just it. I see it more as a step in the right direction in comparison to what we have now, rather than a perfect solution.
And I think there would continue to be be non-profit organizations and charities. People don't just stop caring about the poor just because caring for them becomes optional instead of mandatory. At least, I hope they wouldn't
jarvy251 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnCaruso
But you do the same thing, don't you? You somehow think a government will make it all better, when all the evidence is to the contrary.
jarvy251 1 month ago
Comment removed
JohnCaruso 5 months ago
Saying you're not a libertarian is simply saying you don't believe in the concept of liberty. That's the definition of libertarian, not some esoteric political position
takadi 5 months ago
Arent oil companies and fossil fuel companies the cause of pollution, not government?
coopmuch56 5 months ago
@coopmuch56 they all are, but government pollutes more
nurbSoldier 5 months ago