And once again Dr. Williams is right on. I don't know when this was made, but it seems like it was some years ago. What is taking place today is sooo far off of the founding fathers' vision, it is mind boggling.
It's a shame Walter is so deeply a minarchist. He's still very much an ally, however, in the endless vigil of keeping back the coercive hand of the big gov't.
Capitalism will produce the most dangerous gov't for its citizen and for the world compared to anything else out there. The reason is simple, because the economics of capitalism works so well, there will be lots of money to tax and once people realize they can afford socialism then the gov't will expand like a cancer until the shit hits the fan. If government is so bad then a gov't with lots of money and resources is even worst. Just look which country is ruling the world right now!
@Thill029 The video was about limited state capitalism and my comments were regarding just that. I'm referring to capitalism in its current form, you're talking about pure capitalism but I'm not really sure what it means by that, do you mean like anarcho-capitalism?
I'm talking about the only correct form of capitalism, which is where government is only responsible for military and law enforcement, which are payed for volunaterly by the citizens. That's not "anarcho-capitalism" (which is also an oxymoron). Capitalism requires government to protect property rights, however your argument presumes that government would have the ability to interfere in the economy-- that's not capitalism.
no, i believe "anarcho-capitalism" calls for private police/army companies competing against each other. Actual capitalism (what I'm talking about) has the government-run police/army.
@Thill029 Walter clearly supported forced taxation in this video, so stop acting like I'm making stuff up. Gov't cannot protect your property rights without violating them in the first place but I guess that argument won't really work on you because you still have faith in the gov't. All they need to do is for the police to stop working as hard or for the military to lose a war then they'll claim there wasn't enough voluntarily donation so now we need to tax people and then the gov't grows!!!
Your entire argument rests on a false assumption, that a capitalist government would have the power to interfere in the economy. That's why you're wrong.
@Thill029 Please don't straw man me. My very first comment was that no set of magic words will be able to limit gov't to only the police and military, so the gov't would slowly start interfering in the economy. Then you said in what you call a pure capitalism there is so forced taxation so my case could not pan out and I simply pointed out that the gov't would find excuses to tax people and then it will start expanding. You're assumption is that a set of words will limit the gov't forever.
@Thill029 Sure, I'm totally with you on that but you have to realize the very same people could also expand the government. Most people think only short term and tend to act on their emotions very often than not. Also collectivist minded people always end up in the government and the free market minded people in the business so that's another reason why the growth of government is almost always inevitable. I highly recommend you read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux, it's a free book.
The same principle that you're referring to would just as easily apply in anarchy. Anarchy is not an answer to the problem of government growth, it results in the same problems as collectivism in the long run. The only thing that can prevent government expansion into the private sector is a constitution that prohibits it (which the american constitution does not) and a population that is educated well enough to want to protect the constitution.
@Thill029 It would certainly not apply AS EASILY in a stateless society! Anarchy is not just an ideology to prevent gov't expansion into the economy, it's an answer to monopoly police, monopoly military and monopoly justice system. Saying a stateless society would results in the same problems as collectivism in the long run is just a meaningless statement. This perfect constitution that you are dreaming about, even if it was possible to create, it would be forgotten after a few generations.
anarchy doesn't prevent monopolies, it would result in even more monopolies than we have today. Note that all monopolies are created by force (in today's society, it's government force). In an anarchist state, anybody can innitiate force on anybody. And there's no such thing as having a "monopoly on justice". Justice cannot exist at all if it is not objective. The fundamental argument of anarchy is that justice is not objective, and everyone has a right to innitiate force on everyone.
@Thill029 Sorry buddy, this is getting really boring with all the blank statements back and forth. Your arguments are really flawed, do yourself a favor and read Practical Anarchy so you know what the real arguments are. As a libertarian you couldn't hate that book even if you tried to.
@Thill029 I would never waste my time trying to convince you of anything, we were having a discussion about my first comment and then it got really boring. I'm sorry you thought otherwise.
The thing that I find most ironic about all this is that these are lessons for children but yet there is a large segment of our society that apparently doesn't grasp what many of us treat as such an absolute truth is that it is like the sun coming up in the morning or grass being green. Just how obvious does this have to be for those that don't already get it?
Is there some sort of gene missing in some people who don't get the most basic of economics?
@kmg501 When you have Professors pushing for their paranoia to their students and textbooks spewing out anti American crap the answer is right in front of us.
@kmg501 Many detach from reality. You need to reconnect them to reality before you can convince them. Logic doesn't work. It's a lot harder than it seems.
@kmg501 - in the great words of ronald reagan, "well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
it seems to me that the difference between us is that some believe you can change reality and some accept it.
Excellent!
Mavrilon 1 year ago
He's just so perfect at summing it all up. Very glad you upload these vids!
zombiechaddy 1 year ago
Wow, from about 3:30 on is so true and a real eye opener!
ricadrew 1 year ago
It's always good the hear Dr. Williams.
rmcc0002 1 year ago 2
Dr Williams is always good.
aussieconservative 1 year ago 5
And once again Dr. Williams is right on. I don't know when this was made, but it seems like it was some years ago. What is taking place today is sooo far off of the founding fathers' vision, it is mind boggling.
melodicdreamer72 1 year ago 3
It's a shame Walter is so deeply a minarchist. He's still very much an ally, however, in the endless vigil of keeping back the coercive hand of the big gov't.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
This guy really knows his stuff!
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
People need to hear that more; that the only reason we can afford a welfare state is that capitalism has already done away with poverty.
CountArtha 1 year ago 2
Capitalism will produce the most dangerous gov't for its citizen and for the world compared to anything else out there. The reason is simple, because the economics of capitalism works so well, there will be lots of money to tax and once people realize they can afford socialism then the gov't will expand like a cancer until the shit hits the fan. If government is so bad then a gov't with lots of money and resources is even worst. Just look which country is ruling the world right now!
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
That is incorrect because forced taxation does not exist in pure capitalism.
Thill029 1 year ago 2
@Thill029 Pure Capitalism, like Pure Communism is a myth.
theredraven 1 year ago
@Thill029 Clearly I was talking about state capitalism and no it's not incorrect.
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
"state capitalism" is not capitalism, so i don't see any relevance in your statement.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 The video was about limited state capitalism and my comments were regarding just that. I'm referring to capitalism in its current form, you're talking about pure capitalism but I'm not really sure what it means by that, do you mean like anarcho-capitalism?
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
I'm talking about the only correct form of capitalism, which is where government is only responsible for military and law enforcement, which are payed for volunaterly by the citizens. That's not "anarcho-capitalism" (which is also an oxymoron). Capitalism requires government to protect property rights, however your argument presumes that government would have the ability to interfere in the economy-- that's not capitalism.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 Wouldn't anarcho-capitalism just assume that the miliatary and law enforcement would be funded privately?
hannel19 1 year ago
@hannel19
no, i believe "anarcho-capitalism" calls for private police/army companies competing against each other. Actual capitalism (what I'm talking about) has the government-run police/army.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 Walter clearly supported forced taxation in this video, so stop acting like I'm making stuff up. Gov't cannot protect your property rights without violating them in the first place but I guess that argument won't really work on you because you still have faith in the gov't. All they need to do is for the police to stop working as hard or for the military to lose a war then they'll claim there wasn't enough voluntarily donation so now we need to tax people and then the gov't grows!!!
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
Your entire argument rests on a false assumption, that a capitalist government would have the power to interfere in the economy. That's why you're wrong.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 Please don't straw man me. My very first comment was that no set of magic words will be able to limit gov't to only the police and military, so the gov't would slowly start interfering in the economy. Then you said in what you call a pure capitalism there is so forced taxation so my case could not pan out and I simply pointed out that the gov't would find excuses to tax people and then it will start expanding. You're assumption is that a set of words will limit the gov't forever.
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
I didn't say a "set of words" could limit government, but people can.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 Sure, I'm totally with you on that but you have to realize the very same people could also expand the government. Most people think only short term and tend to act on their emotions very often than not. Also collectivist minded people always end up in the government and the free market minded people in the business so that's another reason why the growth of government is almost always inevitable. I highly recommend you read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux, it's a free book.
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
The same principle that you're referring to would just as easily apply in anarchy. Anarchy is not an answer to the problem of government growth, it results in the same problems as collectivism in the long run. The only thing that can prevent government expansion into the private sector is a constitution that prohibits it (which the american constitution does not) and a population that is educated well enough to want to protect the constitution.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 It would certainly not apply AS EASILY in a stateless society! Anarchy is not just an ideology to prevent gov't expansion into the economy, it's an answer to monopoly police, monopoly military and monopoly justice system. Saying a stateless society would results in the same problems as collectivism in the long run is just a meaningless statement. This perfect constitution that you are dreaming about, even if it was possible to create, it would be forgotten after a few generations.
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
anarchy doesn't prevent monopolies, it would result in even more monopolies than we have today. Note that all monopolies are created by force (in today's society, it's government force). In an anarchist state, anybody can innitiate force on anybody. And there's no such thing as having a "monopoly on justice". Justice cannot exist at all if it is not objective. The fundamental argument of anarchy is that justice is not objective, and everyone has a right to innitiate force on everyone.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 Sorry buddy, this is getting really boring with all the blank statements back and forth. Your arguments are really flawed, do yourself a favor and read Practical Anarchy so you know what the real arguments are. As a libertarian you couldn't hate that book even if you tried to.
spol07 1 year ago
@spol07
I've ready enough about anarchy to know that it's a dumb theory.
And I'm not libertarian.
You're not going to convince me, and I won't convince you. So we'll leave it at that.
Thill029 1 year ago
@Thill029 I would never waste my time trying to convince you of anything, we were having a discussion about my first comment and then it got really boring. I'm sorry you thought otherwise.
spol07 1 year ago
@Thill029 if you're not a anarcho - capitalist....and you're not a libertarian....then what are you?
AmanJohnK 1 year ago
@spol07 Therefore the state must be abolished as the point in civilization's maturation.
Valamarth 1 year ago
The thing that I find most ironic about all this is that these are lessons for children but yet there is a large segment of our society that apparently doesn't grasp what many of us treat as such an absolute truth is that it is like the sun coming up in the morning or grass being green. Just how obvious does this have to be for those that don't already get it?
Is there some sort of gene missing in some people who don't get the most basic of economics?
kmg501 1 year ago 20
@kmg501 Please, take a look at mises.org / daily / 4700 and also have the public schooling and mass media in mind.
Valamarth 1 year ago
@Valamarth
I'm a fan of Mises but thanks for pointing out that article. =)
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501 When you have Professors pushing for their paranoia to their students and textbooks spewing out anti American crap the answer is right in front of us.
man11withaplan 1 year ago
@kmg501 Many detach from reality. You need to reconnect them to reality before you can convince them. Logic doesn't work. It's a lot harder than it seems.
Public education has a lot to do with it ; )
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
No kidding. We need that awful federal Dept of Education abolished. It has been a terrible downward force since it's inception.
kmg501 1 year ago
@kmg501 - in the great words of ronald reagan, "well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
it seems to me that the difference between us is that some believe you can change reality and some accept it.
keithcasteel9 1 year ago
@kmg501 No, it's called public education. Do you remember your high school teaching economics? Or even critical thinking?
No, because some special interest group might get offended if they did.
lordthawkeye 9 months ago
Good point about capitalism being so productive that socialism takes over. One example - Sweden.
rumco 1 year ago
Government is a failure... We don't need a monopoly on violence/the threat of violence.
Sivels 1 year ago 16
@Sivels and that's the song in the intro?
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels what's*
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
We need as much defensive violence as exigencies call for, and government is one hell of an exigency.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago