You moronic liberal "progressives" don't even understand the difference between a democracy and a republic... and without knowing that, the entire premise of your video is absolute horseshit. Seriously, if you don't wish to live under the liberty of the USA's Constitutional Republic, you are free to leave. What a liberal "progressive" dipshit!
But if its known that Company x that doesnt clean up after themselves, people would start buying less from that company. Because when people really are informed and conscious, always buy the overall better product. And this includes the manufacturing. Such products will eventually cost more, but this is a problem of our world wide money systems which are steered by the Banks all over the world which dictate our buying power.
His example of externalities is FLAWED. Other systems would guard against pollution e.g. example you could SUE polluters in a free country without the EPA. The EPA and ALL govt agencies are all in bed with Big businesses and thus enable them. The EPA slaps a polluter on the hand with a $25K fine when they spill a shipload of oil. If you could sue companies for pollution a court would fine them a billion dollars making them not pollute in the first place the most practical means of manufacturing
you seem to think that pollution would increase in a truly free market, but pollution and other negative external factors are never fixed when government creates regulations. People always find loopholes, and ways to leverage the power of government.
It's the job of the press to blow the whistle on these sorts of things so that people can make better spending decisions. The only true way to vote is with dollars.
You really need to do some reading. You don't understand libertarianism. Free market externalities are not relevant in the sense that you're ignoring the fact that not only does government impose externalities but by its very nature, the costs it imposes are FAR greater than those resulting from the free market. Libertarianism is not about economics per se but is instead a philosophy of nonaggression; all else follows. Btw pollution violates property rights so not allowable to libertarians.
Freedom is about choice and independence. In a constitutional republic, such as waht the US is supposed to be, you have the ultimate power to reduce externalized costs by making your power known at the ballot box and the cash register by making an infrormed decision as to where you purchase from. Point is: the govt. is NOT obligated to reduce these costs at the expense of the US taxpayer.
It seems to me that you do not have any grasp of property rights. If your so-called company (firm, whatever) B is polluting in order to make a cheaper product, there should be more mechanisms in place for them to be sued for damages - your "externalized costs."
Regulation does not provide the economic security that you think it does - it causes it. This is not an idle assertion. There is much empirical evidence to prove it. I suggest that before you make more videos, do some homework.
If person A is polluting, it still doesn't give the right to use violence to person B against person A or C. If some person A has made a car accident, it doesn't give the cop (person B) the right to start harassing me (person C) on the highways. If it does, then all I (person A) have to do in order to establish a legal mafia business, is to steal something from someone (person X) and by doing so, grant my friend (person B) the right to act like a mafia towards persons C+D+E..
I know this is an old video, but you're not actually correct on Libertarian and externalities. If you were to buy widget B, and the pollute the environment, than a Libertarian would say that if they are going to pollute, then company will be liable for damages to their property, and therefore they would have to either clean up the pollution and pay that cost, or most likely pay higher costs in court for violating property rights.
@GivettheGAS I was just about to write down the same thing when I saw your comment. The problem with this from the socialists view I think (because I used to be a socialist myself) is that they believe that for anyone to react to the pollution it would probably have to be too late for it to be reversed.
I have a couple of different ideas of how this would be avoided, but they all depend on what exact expression libertarianism would take in a country. (sorry for my bad english)
Your environment analogy doesn't work. If said company did destroy the environment, Libertarians would argue that the company should be held accountable for the damage.
The BP oil disaster ... Libertarians would argue that BP should paid for the damage the created. IT was GOVERNMENT that passed a law limiting their damages to several millions regardless the cost. Also, Libertarians would say that without the law, insurance companies would held BP in check since BP would want their protect
@lambowolf Nice response. I got half way through this video before shutting it down, it was obvious that he didn't talk about private property. It's kind of the most sacred thing in libertarian philosophy.
Every justification used in this video easily rationalizes the Libertarian and the so called evolution could come to a halt and begin to turn the world back to a simpler and less expensive government by constitution and reform,freedom of the individual and liberty.The government would take orders from the citizen and not the other way around,where there is a breach of a constitution than justice will prevail.
Boy this was confused stuff with no actual alternatives proposed. As to the externality argument, today's clean air laws etc more or less male the argument obselete, but with a bona fide libertarian system that respected property rights, if you were the 'victim' of the externality you could simply bring an action against the polluter (or whatever) thus protecting your rights.
Don't even start me on facts not in evidence ie we are consuming resources at an exponential rate ~ your source?
What you miss in your explanation of free trade is that you and other consumers value having a clean enviroment and therefore will seek to purchase from comanies that work to keep the enviroment clean and that competition will force the not so responsible companies to do the same or go out of business.People need to learn to understand how to use peoples greed to their advantage.If you want a clean enviroment let those companies you purchase from know it's very important to you.
You should really do your homework before trying to sound smart on youtube videos. People far more intelligent than yourself wander round the interwebs looking for morons to correct, and this is just a goldmine of a video you've dropped here.
Uncle milt, freedom to choose answers just about every argument you presented with a better outcome.
So no freedom to trade says this guy. So then who decides what is traded, what is sold and bought? Some nameless, faceless bureaucrat who neither knows what people want nor cares?
"Externalities" are a product government regulation and a lack of property rights. The most often cited "externality" is pollution. The libertarian view is that if company B pollutes air on my land, they are liable, and must provide compensation. Unfortunately, property law and the EPA forbid those types of lawsuits, and so pollution continues.
Libertarians understand "externalities" (also called neighborhood effects or 3rd party effects). What you don't understand is that using government to deal with 3rd party effects ALSO has 3rd party effects. And often these government-caused 3rd party effects are WORSE than the problem they were attempting to correct. So the answer is to deal with 3rd party effects in a much more "conservative" way than we are presently doing. Example: no need for government to run the schools.
There is actually no such thing as an externality. When you polute and violate the rights of others then that is a valid reason for a lawsuit. Typically people who harp on externalities I find, they either can't understand or refuse to understand that the concept of externaties is really silly. Everything has a cost. Everything is amarket. You just may not see it.
your arguement makes some ground environmentally, and to a lesser extent in financial regulation. you would need to present an alternative that is better before i could take your critque of libertarianism seriously. should the charge of government be protecting people(non-libertarian) or empowering people(libertarian)? how much protection do you need and how much freedom would you like? the more locally we can answer these two questions the better off we will be. look forward to hearing from you
2: you suggest we can no longer afford freedom because of increasing externalities. no side of any arguement is immune to externalities. a perfect example would be the issue of abortion. i am affected by whichever decision the mother makes. limiting the choice of the mother does not limit the impact on me. this leads to the question of which way would i prefer to be affected, then to which way would society as a whole prefer to be affected. right back to concensus it seems.
1: evolution in any example has to be presented as a reactive force not proactive. evolution doesnt think, and it doesnt solve a problem by a species going extinct. the lack of evolution, or at least rapid evolution, causes extinctions. your point would be better made if you suggested that hamans stimulate an environment at a greater rate than evolution can react to a stimulus. the affinity for evolution is what makes a a group more fit than another. survival of the most likely evolved.
Libertarians are not about Democracy, we are about the Constitution and our presidential constitutional republic. We are classical liberal (not progressive marxists), but what our founders were, libertarians.
@Aryaba Open and Fair markets, ie, Equal Opportunity. Natural monopolies are run by the government (roads, internet, insurance). Regulation that provides economy security rather than wild volatility.
@j0hnwi11iams Why do I get the feeling when you say "open and fair markets" you are advocating economic justice by stealing from some to give to others? Roads, internet and insurance run by the government is terrible, the last thing I want the government doing is getting involved in insurance or the internet and take the roads out of their hands. Regulating economic security? Exactly what would you suggest to do this?
@j0hnwi11iams The Phone company was a monopoly, costs were high and the government actually made it illegal to plug in "foreign" devices, like answering machines. Since then the costs have dropped dramatically. As has internet service, while quality has increased. As for roads, have you ever been to central Florida? The best roads are the private ones that Disney owns and maintains.
@j0hnwi11iams So, what about the consumer? It seems every Socialist avoids this. With Monopolies if there is a problem, e.g., health insurance claim, there's nothing you can do! You are forced to use the gov't run system. And since these people are getting paid regardless., they end up not caring about the individual consumer. Also with individual freedom, we the people are given the ability to fix the environment, by voting with our dollar.
Indeed,externalities are not only a form of coercive defacto taxation if there ever were one,but they're properly speaking a form of double taxation.Precisely because external parties are forced to pay the true cost of supply with their health as well as through future taxation to help fund 'green' reforms.
Indeed,even Milton Friedman in his seminal Libertarian text 'Capitalism & Freedom' describes individual externalities,or what he calls 'neighborhood effects'.
@thirdshift47 Any time where you allow the group to take actions without on explicit consent or explicit cooperation of the minority it is mob rule. In all real cases democracy = mob rule.
The idea that democ' equates to mob rule is the oldest ruling class cliche in the book(generally supported by those that aspire to be apart of that group,yet show an abysmal misreading of democratic principles.)
Democracy is best at securing the rights of individuals because it isn't democracy without EQUALITY OF INDIVIDUALS!
Indeed,In a democracy the minority is a "concurrent majority"(the minority party in the US Congress being a perfect example.)
The founders of the Republic based our system of government on the ideas laid out by the French political scientist Montesquieu,the founding father of the idea of the modern Republic.
According to Montesquieu Republics appear in two forms--democratic(rule by majority)and aristocratic(rule by minority)--determined by how many in a given society have voting power.
A Republic is the primacy of law combined with representation.
Rule by minority made sense for a slave-owning class.
@rossmcg The word democracy is a term that describes many different things. True the US is not a "direct democracy" but it has democratic institutions, ie. voting. A Democratic Republic.
Consistent support for property rights eliminates externalities and incentivizes conservation of scarce resources, preventing the extinctions you strangly attribute to to production under a free market. Certainly, the extinction of inefficient firms brought by the competion markets demand is beneficial to all.
Search for "free market environmentalism by Walter Block".
@kjorg27 So who do you suppose owns the air we breathe? The oceans? The climate? The economy? The government? What is it that prevents you from understanding the basic fact that we can not privatize everything?
@kjorg27 ) Libertarians have no sence for distinction in economic issues.In case of the term ‘planning’,that Hayek-Rothbard etc.missuses .The concept it self needs to be more precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
@kjorg27 ) These are the two basic ways of allocating resources, and they are fundamentally different from each other – even if they can on occasion be combined in precarious and hybrid transitional forms, which will not be automatically self-reproducing. Essentially they have a different internal logic.They generate distinct laws of motion. They diffuse divergent motivations among producers and organizers of production, and find expression in discrepant social values.
@kjorg27 Both basic kinds of labour allocation have existed on the widest possible scale throughout history. Both are therefore quite ‘feasible’. Both have also been applied in the most variegated fashions, and with most diverse results. You can have ‘despotic’ planning and ‘democratic’ planning .You can have ‘rational’ planning and ‘irrational’ planning.
@kjorg27 ‘You can have planning based on routine, custom, tradition, magic, religion, ignorance – planning rules by rain-makers,shamans, fakirs and illiterates of all kinds. Worst of all, you can have planning directed by generals; for every army is based on an a priori allocation of resources. You can have planning organized in a semi-rational way by technocrats or, at the highest level of scientific intelligence, by workers and disinterested specialists
@kjorg27 ) Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long periods
@kjorg27 Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long run
@kjorg27 Markets can also coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living.
@kjorg27 Markets can coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living.
@j0hnwi11iams WHAT? That was an entirely unrelated argument. Kjork27 is DEAD ON-- private property gives people incentive to take care of the environment; there are no externalities because it's their property. And, of course, private property is the cornerstone of libertarianism, because it provides a way for environmentalism to coincide with self-interest.
@j0hnwi11iams You seem to have answered a question that Kjorg didn't ask (where did socialist neocons enter the topic?) In your externalize example you , and you seem to ignore the right of the affected 3rd party to sue for damages to life & property.
The other concept that you ignore is capture theory. Good intentions are fine but history teaches that if an industry is to be regulated that industry inevitably will control the regulation to the detriment of still other 3rd parties.
@wtfjaftw Republic = Representative Democracy. The republicans have been repeating the libertarian mantra for decades so how come they continue to steal from the poor to give to the wealthy?
Your case falls down because Libertarians favour private property rights which prevent the enviromental damage you speak of.Thats the States ligitimate function...protecting individual rights.It was the socialist countries that caused the greatest enviromental damage....not the Capitalist ones which are far cleaner...mainly because the people are richer and have the time and ability to look after their surrondings.Poor people trying to get by are the biggest danger to the enviroment.
The externalities case is a poor argument against Libertarianism as its easy to turn about on the Statist whos making it by showing him that its actually HIS prefered system that causes the most damage to non-involved third parties.
Externalities are dealt with in a free market by the use of property rights.Its only is a state controlled society with "public" ownership that benefits can be privatised while costs are socialised.You can't get away with that in a true free market.
You missed an important component in your widget~pollution example. Society does not bear the cost of fixing the pollution. That's a communist way of running things, so of course it won't work. The pollutor is responsible for the costs of fixing the damage because they've damaged someone else's property or even harmed people. This necessarily will drive up the cost of the widgets. The current system, created by the government, limits the amount of damage the corp owners are responsible for.
These externalities you talk about in the first half of your video are actually to the benefit of the libertarian argument. In libertarian philosophy, an individual or a corporation is free and held accountable for it's decisions and actions. In our current society, all that we do is slap the hand of the responsible party (usually subsidized by the taxpayer) and we leave these problems often without resolve.
In libertarian philosophy, that corporation would be held accountable for all damage done to property and the environment and would have to find a way to restore what has been done.
The "overpopulation" of the world is that way because of human progress and ingenuity. If we did away with a lot of our modern technologies developed by the free market, you would be forced to kill about half of the planet. I doubt you would want to make the decision of which half would go.
And even with today's population, you could actually fit the entire population of the world fairly comfortably within the state of California. We are HARDLY taking up
and most resources are renewable. Things we need for food and shelter are renewable and not being consumed at a rate faster than we can restore. The resources we have to worry about eventually running out of are typically not necessary for sustaining life on this planet and if we promote competition and academia, I predict within a hundred years, we will be totally free from non-renewable resources. We actually have more trees now than we did 100 years ago.
And finally... I'm a little confused over your analogy with extinction in the marketplace. If you mean like the extinction of 8 track tapes, well... Boo-Hoo... If you mean like the extinction of our entire major lending system during the housing bust, well I say please just let it die.
the state does not govern with the consent of ALL the people, only a small minority-the bourgeois ruling class. The state is a product of the irreconcilibility (spell chec) of class antagonisms. The state is a weapon of oppression-it has to be wiped out. Freedom will exist when there is no state: V Lenin, "State and Revolution" (1918)
Polluting the environment is a violation of the individual rights of those who live in the environment. Libertarianism is against this. What you oppose is anarchy, not Libertarianism.
evolution produces good im sure glad that out here in Oregon where its always raining i have the ability to stay warm while wearing nothing more then boxers and send messages about a ONLINE VIDEO to someone potentially in another country from my COMPETITIVELY priced computer. yes extinction can happen but I believe that can be GOOD nature has a way of making everything work out like the lack of T-Rex i have to hide from or eventually the lack of people.
I think your forgetting that people still vote with there money, other wise organic isles and trader joes wouldn't exist and nobody would drive hybrids there has been a push as a society that goes above and beyond what the government is calling for and a good percentage of people are willing to pay more for it or be slightly inconvenienced by bring there own shopping bags in. so if the people wanted change change would happen.
Because Libertarians believe in responsibilty, the harm to the environment you speak of are legally remedied. The problem is the government 'excuses' blocs of special interests not the Libertarian concepts. You have obviously not studied Libertarian thought very deeply, because such issues and their remedies are often commented on by Libertarians. Can you honestly say you do not not price shop? Or that you study all of the externalities of a price before you make a trade (purchase)?
Libertarians oppose democracy because it violates individual rights as surely as Communism and fascism do.....just with a velvet glove covering the iron fist of state control.
Libertarians DO oppose democracy...for good reason.It violates individual freedom and rights."Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for diner". Answer this....if majority rule is the ideal why is gangrape still a crime? Surely the "right" of the majority should be respected in this regard,if not why not? Is it because the victim has rights regardless of the no. of those who would violate them? If that is obvious in the case of rape why is it not in others?
Your criticisms of Libertarianism does not really hold much ground for me. For example, you claim that the Libertarian belief in trade does not work because if it goes wrong, it would affect the 3rd party. Problem with your criticism of this is that you do not take into account that Libertarians would not engage in that kind of trade if they know that it would negatively affect third parties. (cont)
@shumrock: Still holding onto that Teddy Bear called the "Republic" are you? The last remnants of the republic are dissolving, and we are well into an oligarchy, mainly run by Wall Street.
I disagree with your first argument. I, as a libertarian do not just believe in consent. Consent as you describe it is a great way of explaining part of an ideal government, but that is only half of the picture. Libertarians believe that you should be able to do what you wish with your life and your property, unless you are infringing on the rights of another. So if you are making something cheap by destroying the country by polluting then you are infringing on other people rights.
By consent, I mean informed consent, and certainly people do not willingly consent to having their rights violated. I believe in social contracts in order for society to act in the best interests of its citizens in cases where the free market can not provide a solution that does not degenerate because of defectors.
Hey, Commie John! Stay focused on subject. You are bouncing around to unrelated subjects. You're definitions are skewed, you views are nothing short of communist. Go to China and tell me how well it works there buddy!
A decent vocabulary does not quantify intelligence and in your circumstance especially.
China doesn't seem to be doing all that bad by the looks of things. They are approaching the economic problem from a different direction, but I think the best economy is a combination of private and public interests.
@j0hnwi11iams, I agree with some of your points, democracy being a less then desirable method of indirectly appointing consent through reps., but China is doing horrible. GDP grows even when they build their empty office buildings in empty cities. Not to mention, third parties have absolutely no say in matters within communist China.
@j0hnwi11iams ROFLMAO, China?!! Did you miss the story about their groundwater being contaminated by all the old electronic and computer devices going there to be destroyed? How about the fact that they have run out of females for their males so young women are now being kidnapped and held hostage in other villages so the young men will have a wife? YEAH... they're great, just peachy. *eye roll*
Libertarians have taken into account externalities for decades. The Libertarian Manifesto covers them in great detail. It is perfectly within the Libertarian limits on government to allow it to keep us from abusing the property rights of others by preventing or fining externalities. Rothbard was telling us to tax pollution DECADES before global warming became an issue. Same thing for limited resources, this is all covered in the Libertarian Manifesto.
In the case of limited resources examine the case for copper ore. We have used that ore for millennia but we never ran out, why? Because as copper becomes more scarce the market reacts by raising the price of copper. When this happens people conserve their use of copper, start recycling it, and even find replacement resources for it. The market does not cause resource depletion, but govt often has by maintaining price ceilings which prevents conservation and innovation efforts.
In the case the market relating to evolution you are looking at that wrong. The market isnt the evolution of a single species it is the evolution of all life. Things may become extinct like typewriters but the whole system continues to go forward. Competition ensures that even in hard times when SOME things die off the most effective and competitive ones will be able to keep us going. By reducing competition you in effect tie the fate of the Dodos to the more competitive ensuring mutual death.
To continue: In the oil industry (where I work) we leave about 2/3 of the retrievable oil in every well since it isn't cost effective to bring it out.
Saying we are overcrowded, running out of resources, or that a small elite can better manage such issues if they DID exist than the systemic knowledge of the market, including the input of hundreds of millions of people, is patently absurd.
Externalities used to be solved by suits against the polluters. Then government stepped in and said the products were so important to 'society' that the suits couldn't be brought. So there's central control at work.
95% of the land mass of the US is undeveloped. Every human on earth coud be moved into my home state of TX and have a lower population density than my birth state of NJ.
8)Friedman wrote:"The Austrian Method also tends to make people intolerant.If you and I we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct how do we resolve that disagreement? We can argue,we can yell,but to what use?But we can also go out and observe the facts.That's how science progresses.Milton the fact is that fifty,sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory...so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn't been any progress "F.A Hayek .A Biography
7)Milton Friedman wrote -"The Austrian methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. If you're always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another's shoulders?" in "Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Paperback)
6)In 1969,Milton Friedman,after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions.
(M.Friedman "The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261284. " and
M.Friedman "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisit"
5)That Hayeks Buisness Cycle allready in 1930s was harshly criticised by such as John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa and Nicholas Kaldor and a lot other is wellknown.But also fare out rightwing economist as Milton Friedman and Gordon Tullock from the University of Chicago and right wing libertarian Bryan Caplan, an Scholar of the Cato Institute also totally discretited Hayek is not so known.
4)Paul Samuelson writes "There were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity. In 1931, Hayeks Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success. In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 19271931 (and the 19312007) historical scene."
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp 14
3)Paul Samuelson continue " So you might say Hayek as an economist fell into what physicists call a black hole. Wisely, libertarian Hayek turned away to weighty constitutional and philosophical interests." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization No.69, pp. 14:
2)Paul Samuelson writes further "Hayeks (1941) The Pure Theory of Capital was not stillborn. But it was a pebble thrown into the pool of economic science that seemingly left nary a ripple.
Hayeks grave defeats in the early 1930s predisposed him in the World War II years to write what he entitled, The Road to Serfdom (1944). I will postpone my take on that bestseller."
1)US post war most credited economist Paul Samueleson writes " Hayek himself, naively, diagnosed the fall of his 1931 opus as due to the fact that his period-of-production mutterings there did not do full justice to the not-yet-completed Austrian theory of capital (Menger, Böhm et al.). Therefore, heroically but hopelessly, he wasted years on a task that he was grossly under-equipped to handle."
The fact is that Libetarian Hayek was not taken serouis among Economists since early 1930-tees.His "Nobel-Prize" 1974 was considered as a "scandal" among a large majority of economist,from Right to Left in political view.Higly credited economist Richard Kahns allready 1932 statet:
"If Hayek believes that the spending of newly printed currency on employment and consumption will worsen our current terrible depression, then Hayek is a nut."
a truly free market capitalist nation, with the honest enforcement of property rights, would resolve the environmental problems you posed. if a plant fills the air that you breathe with smog, or the river where your home is, or the soil where your kids play, it's also your property and you can resolve that within the law. *
*and even if there are hidden interests that conspire, the public will not want to buy from the company that spoils its air and its water. it will either go out of business through property rights or through the descredit between the public. *
i really would like to have someone like ron paul in my country, because here the state runs everything, and the european union runs every state. so, i would try liberty for a change. if liberty turns out to be that bad, we are always free to change.
There are so many ways today to trade ideas and information, that kind of public scrutiny is possible. you could influence a person on the other side of the world to not buy that company's products. as an example, I am from portugal, a small european country with a large, corrupt state, and i first got introduced to - or at least excited by - austrian economics and libertarian thought through ron paul, so his ideas inspired me even though i was on the other side of the atlantic.
We're not a democracy , we're a republic. The only thing we do democratly on the federal level is elect our executive.
You may not be a libertarian but i would hope you are a constitutionalist . Our system of govenment worked brilliantly , until it's powers were abused and distorted.
"trade between consenting parties" is not a form of government. it is not a government of consent. it is literally just trade between consenting parties. government is the vehicle by which men exert power——sanctioned by the authority of the state——over other men. have you ever considered the "externalities" of excessive government meddling?
Power can entail more than just physical force. Libertarians mistaken believe that government is the only entity that can take away freedom or coerce others to do their bidding. Remember that next time you look for a job. Yes, I have considered externalities of excessive government - I think it is more a matter of qualifying what government is good at and what the private sector is good at and never mixing the two.
well, i dont think anyone believes that government is the only source of coercion. however—& this is important—govt is the only source of monopolistic, legally sanctioned coercion. i agree that some govt is necessary (im not a kooky anarcho-capitalist), but the role of govt should be strictly & explicitly limited (constitution anyone?).
That is not true. It may be true that no INDIVIDUAL corporation has sanctioned coercion, but operating TOGETHER they shape the market, and the market is a source of coercion.
to say that many corporations together shape the market is, of course, no revelation. it would be equally true to state that many individuals or markets together shape corporations——they are two sides of the same coin. but lets be clear: the govt is the only entity that has a monopoly on the "legal" use of PHYSICAL coercion. the private sector has no such power. it is at least constrained by the realities of the market (ie the desires of consumers).
your video seems to castigate the private market and simultaneously presume that the govt could do better——u never address the repercussions of govt intrusion. it seems to me, considering the nature of human history, that govt has the explaining to do. it should certainly never be PRESUMED that govt is going to be the solution to any particular problem. our liberty should never be so comfortably relinquished.
I am not painting things black and white. I am not in favor of the free market in all cases, and I am not blind to it's failures. Neither am I blind about the failures of government, but this video is about why I am not a libertarian, not why I am not a fascist.
fair enough.. but when you say that the private sector creates certain externalities, you imply that the govt is the necessary remedy. however, you never explain how or why the govt would be any better suited than the private sector in dealing with said externalities. for example, it would be like me pointing out govt failures in the military while implying that the private sector is the solution. other than that, i dont mind your video. it isnt wrong, it just isnt entirely right.
Certainly there are market based solutions people have proposed, such as cap and trade. By far the most important decisions for the government is what is private and what is public. I am of the opinion that the problem with the military is that they are too privatized, that the military industrial complex has too much sway over politics.
also, libertarians (most) do understand externalities and generally allow for a number of specific and limited government actions. if you have been sincere in what you have told me so far, then I think you might be confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. In any case, I think your next video should be "Why I am not a Socialist". I would hope that you have plenty to say about the immense failures of government. yea?
Can you give me an example of a govt where externalities are limited? Seems to me externalities are going to be present no matter what the form of govt.
Based on your position, can I then assume that you are not a consumer of gasoline, or any products that are made from metals or resources that are mined for which there are often huge externalities? I doubt this is the case, so where do you draw the line?
The main drift of the twentieth century has revealed is that the economy has become concentrated and incorporated in the great hierarchies, the military has become enlarged and decisive to the shape of the entire economic structure;and moreover the economic and the military have become structurally and deeply interrelated,as economy has become a seemingly permanent war economy;and military men and policies have increasingly penetrated the corporate economy
Pro-marketeers may ask,is equality and generosity sustainable in the context of the world market?The irrefutable answer is Yes.For many years, the Scandinavian countries have also been at the very top of the Global Competitiveness Reports by World Economic Forum at Davos. Denmark,was ranked third in global competitiveness in 2008,and Sweden fourth in 2007-08.Britain (under New Labour)had slipped from second in 2007 to ninth in 2008 The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-08 World Economic Forum
The evidence that unequal societies inflict great damage on the lives and health of their citizens is clear.Why does it matter and what can be done?"Asks Göran Therborn professor of sociology at Cambridge University.Editor, Inequal.ities of the World:New Theoretical Frameworks,Multiple Empirical Approaches Verso,2006).
"There are at least three quite different kinds of inequality,and they are all destructive of human lives and of human societies.The first is inequality of health and death "
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Within the first 10 seconds you have already shown why you wouldn't like Libertarian party. Stating that you don't approve of Democracy.
Basically you would do better with fascism, communism? Or if those don't work, Socialism?
Thanks for sharing your ideas. However our country was founded on the ideals of Libertarians, now we have the most government control we have ever seen, something needs to change, going in the so called "progressive" direction won't get it done in the long run.
Hi IG: Liberal Natural Law, to be precise. The U.S. is the oldest & most successful free & open society founded on these liberal or "libertarian" principles, if you will. Rights here precede Government when properly observed, ie., they are not bestowed or delegated by politicians, apparatchiks, & "groups". Nation of Laws not of men.
Apparatchiks will pile mounds of vituperation on top of what I said. This is because their ideas are weak. I can be concise because I've stated strong ideas.
The country was not founded on 'libertarian' ideals. there was no such thing as 'libertarian' when the country was founded. As IGnossos has pointed out the ideals were liberal not 'libertarian'. As a matter of fact the word ''libertarian' in its original usage meant a syndicalism, a type of socialism. 'Libertarian' in its current usage did not appear until after WWII. And Paine and Hamilton and others were certainly not libertarians.
Libertarians merely like to quote mine the founders like creationists, to find false support.
Secondly it is amusing that you claim that the current usage of 'Libertarianism' is democracy when almost every hard core libertarian has videos or has made comments attacking democracy. Check the comments here, Libertarians only believe in a republic which they somehow don't recognize as a democracy.
Third, Socialism IS a democracy. Socialism and democracy are intertwined and socialism is a workers democracy. And finally, we already have seen the results of libertarian policies. The more a market is 'unregulated' the greater the gap in wealth and the worse off the people are. Chile and the Chicago boys showed he horrendous extent of libertarian ideals. And the closest the US came to a unattainable 'free-market' was the Gilded Age, a terrible time for the people.
Socialism has nothing to do with the form of government - it appears to me as a request for common welfare. That explains, why Socialism becomes popular in times of economic crisis - and is only considered by intellectuals in times of prosperity.
Plato described the decline of a republic into tyranny - and I daubt, that You can name a socialist country, which was not ruled by a dictator or an oligarchy. Such a government can be popular - but that does not mean, that the people participate.
Granted, it is a political economy position; that is, will determine the economic and property ownership position for the gov't. In that respect it is a form of gov't. But it has also always been intrinsically associated with a workers democracy, especially through the writings of Marx. Most would consider that many countries in Europe have a Socialist form, or at least a partly socialist form to varying degrees of gov't, and they certainly are not ruled by dictators or oligarchs.
The entanglement of business and politics seems to me the mess we are in already.
The supremacy of economics was also practiced in Soviet-Russia - by the few hundred intellectuals who ruled the councels.
The common people had no way to participate - therefore I call it an oligarchy.
Maybe You mean 'Social Democracy', when You refer to the Old World. While public opinion is not tightly manipulated - it is still rather a bureaucracy. Property remains accumulated.
Additionally, no matter who you feel about him, Hugo Chavez was democratically and popularly elected many times over in well certified elections. Nepal is a democratic Maoist gov't, Evo Morales was elected in Bolivia. A greater percentage of the populations of those countries participate in the elections than here. So those gov'ts are both popular and participatory.
Comment removed
ken71671 5 months ago
You moronic liberal "progressives" don't even understand the difference between a democracy and a republic... and without knowing that, the entire premise of your video is absolute horseshit. Seriously, if you don't wish to live under the liberty of the USA's Constitutional Republic, you are free to leave. What a liberal "progressive" dipshit!
joebaseball17 6 months ago
But if its known that Company x that doesnt clean up after themselves, people would start buying less from that company. Because when people really are informed and conscious, always buy the overall better product. And this includes the manufacturing. Such products will eventually cost more, but this is a problem of our world wide money systems which are steered by the Banks all over the world which dictate our buying power.
gozxdesastros 6 months ago
His example of externalities is FLAWED. Other systems would guard against pollution e.g. example you could SUE polluters in a free country without the EPA. The EPA and ALL govt agencies are all in bed with Big businesses and thus enable them. The EPA slaps a polluter on the hand with a $25K fine when they spill a shipload of oil. If you could sue companies for pollution a court would fine them a billion dollars making them not pollute in the first place the most practical means of manufacturing
Libertyrider 7 months ago 3
you seem to think that pollution would increase in a truly free market, but pollution and other negative external factors are never fixed when government creates regulations. People always find loopholes, and ways to leverage the power of government.
It's the job of the press to blow the whistle on these sorts of things so that people can make better spending decisions. The only true way to vote is with dollars.
Fictionshow 8 months ago
You really need to do some reading. You don't understand libertarianism. Free market externalities are not relevant in the sense that you're ignoring the fact that not only does government impose externalities but by its very nature, the costs it imposes are FAR greater than those resulting from the free market. Libertarianism is not about economics per se but is instead a philosophy of nonaggression; all else follows. Btw pollution violates property rights so not allowable to libertarians.
pak88xbl 8 months ago 2
Why I am an imbecile
alistairproductions 8 months ago
Freedom is about choice and independence. In a constitutional republic, such as waht the US is supposed to be, you have the ultimate power to reduce externalized costs by making your power known at the ballot box and the cash register by making an infrormed decision as to where you purchase from. Point is: the govt. is NOT obligated to reduce these costs at the expense of the US taxpayer.
jrzckr 8 months ago
It seems to me that you do not have any grasp of property rights. If your so-called company (firm, whatever) B is polluting in order to make a cheaper product, there should be more mechanisms in place for them to be sued for damages - your "externalized costs."
Regulation does not provide the economic security that you think it does - it causes it. This is not an idle assertion. There is much empirical evidence to prove it. I suggest that before you make more videos, do some homework.
deliriousdan637 9 months ago
If person A is polluting, it still doesn't give the right to use violence to person B against person A or C. If some person A has made a car accident, it doesn't give the cop (person B) the right to start harassing me (person C) on the highways. If it does, then all I (person A) have to do in order to establish a legal mafia business, is to steal something from someone (person X) and by doing so, grant my friend (person B) the right to act like a mafia towards persons C+D+E..
startxxx1991 9 months ago
Boo.
SuliLeon 11 months ago
I know this is an old video, but you're not actually correct on Libertarian and externalities. If you were to buy widget B, and the pollute the environment, than a Libertarian would say that if they are going to pollute, then company will be liable for damages to their property, and therefore they would have to either clean up the pollution and pay that cost, or most likely pay higher costs in court for violating property rights.
GivettheGAS 11 months ago
@GivettheGAS I was just about to write down the same thing when I saw your comment. The problem with this from the socialists view I think (because I used to be a socialist myself) is that they believe that for anyone to react to the pollution it would probably have to be too late for it to be reversed.
I have a couple of different ideas of how this would be avoided, but they all depend on what exact expression libertarianism would take in a country. (sorry for my bad english)
ToxinalX 10 months ago
Comment removed
thirdshift47 10 months ago
He didn't address private property ownership at the start before the bashing. Conclusion, he doesn't understand economics... Next video please.
Johnbinvegas 1 year ago
Your environment analogy doesn't work. If said company did destroy the environment, Libertarians would argue that the company should be held accountable for the damage.
The BP oil disaster ... Libertarians would argue that BP should paid for the damage the created. IT was GOVERNMENT that passed a law limiting their damages to several millions regardless the cost. Also, Libertarians would say that without the law, insurance companies would held BP in check since BP would want their protect
lambowolf 1 year ago
@lambowolf Nice response. I got half way through this video before shutting it down, it was obvious that he didn't talk about private property. It's kind of the most sacred thing in libertarian philosophy.
GivettheGAS 11 months ago
Every justification used in this video easily rationalizes the Libertarian and the so called evolution could come to a halt and begin to turn the world back to a simpler and less expensive government by constitution and reform,freedom of the individual and liberty.The government would take orders from the citizen and not the other way around,where there is a breach of a constitution than justice will prevail.
teed60 1 year ago
Boy this was confused stuff with no actual alternatives proposed. As to the externality argument, today's clean air laws etc more or less male the argument obselete, but with a bona fide libertarian system that respected property rights, if you were the 'victim' of the externality you could simply bring an action against the polluter (or whatever) thus protecting your rights.
Don't even start me on facts not in evidence ie we are consuming resources at an exponential rate ~ your source?
Stussy88776655 1 year ago
What you miss in your explanation of free trade is that you and other consumers value having a clean enviroment and therefore will seek to purchase from comanies that work to keep the enviroment clean and that competition will force the not so responsible companies to do the same or go out of business.People need to learn to understand how to use peoples greed to their advantage.If you want a clean enviroment let those companies you purchase from know it's very important to you.
dirtbagstatus 1 year ago
Nice try asshole.
apstenzel07 1 year ago
WE THE PEOPLE are suppose to be the government. Not have daddy take care of us. Socialism has never worked and thats where we have been going.
ALPHAandOMEGA44 1 year ago 2
You should really do your homework before trying to sound smart on youtube videos. People far more intelligent than yourself wander round the interwebs looking for morons to correct, and this is just a goldmine of a video you've dropped here.
Uncle milt, freedom to choose answers just about every argument you presented with a better outcome.
daPlumber702 1 year ago 2
So no freedom to trade says this guy. So then who decides what is traded, what is sold and bought? Some nameless, faceless bureaucrat who neither knows what people want nor cares?
Welcome to dictatorship 101!
qlaw04 1 year ago 2
"Externalities" are a product government regulation and a lack of property rights. The most often cited "externality" is pollution. The libertarian view is that if company B pollutes air on my land, they are liable, and must provide compensation. Unfortunately, property law and the EPA forbid those types of lawsuits, and so pollution continues.
007brendan007 1 year ago
Libertarians understand "externalities" (also called neighborhood effects or 3rd party effects). What you don't understand is that using government to deal with 3rd party effects ALSO has 3rd party effects. And often these government-caused 3rd party effects are WORSE than the problem they were attempting to correct. So the answer is to deal with 3rd party effects in a much more "conservative" way than we are presently doing. Example: no need for government to run the schools.
jscottupton 1 year ago
There is actually no such thing as an externality. When you polute and violate the rights of others then that is a valid reason for a lawsuit. Typically people who harp on externalities I find, they either can't understand or refuse to understand that the concept of externaties is really silly. Everything has a cost. Everything is amarket. You just may not see it.
LibertyandEconomics 1 year ago
your arguement makes some ground environmentally, and to a lesser extent in financial regulation. you would need to present an alternative that is better before i could take your critque of libertarianism seriously. should the charge of government be protecting people(non-libertarian) or empowering people(libertarian)? how much protection do you need and how much freedom would you like? the more locally we can answer these two questions the better off we will be. look forward to hearing from you
gcoxumw 1 year ago
2: you suggest we can no longer afford freedom because of increasing externalities. no side of any arguement is immune to externalities. a perfect example would be the issue of abortion. i am affected by whichever decision the mother makes. limiting the choice of the mother does not limit the impact on me. this leads to the question of which way would i prefer to be affected, then to which way would society as a whole prefer to be affected. right back to concensus it seems.
gcoxumw 1 year ago
1: evolution in any example has to be presented as a reactive force not proactive. evolution doesnt think, and it doesnt solve a problem by a species going extinct. the lack of evolution, or at least rapid evolution, causes extinctions. your point would be better made if you suggested that hamans stimulate an environment at a greater rate than evolution can react to a stimulus. the affinity for evolution is what makes a a group more fit than another. survival of the most likely evolved.
gcoxumw 1 year ago
gotta read rothbard
CommSense 1 year ago
Libertarians are not about Democracy, we are about the Constitution and our presidential constitutional republic. We are classical liberal (not progressive marxists), but what our founders were, libertarians.
LordoftheKaty 1 year ago
The free market isn't perfect, it is just more perfect than all the other systems.
Aryaba 1 year ago 22
@Aryaba Better than the other systems YOU can think of, perhaps.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams Give me an example of one YOU can think of that is better.
Aryaba 1 year ago 6
@Aryaba Open and Fair markets, ie, Equal Opportunity. Natural monopolies are run by the government (roads, internet, insurance). Regulation that provides economy security rather than wild volatility.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams Why do I get the feeling when you say "open and fair markets" you are advocating economic justice by stealing from some to give to others? Roads, internet and insurance run by the government is terrible, the last thing I want the government doing is getting involved in insurance or the internet and take the roads out of their hands. Regulating economic security? Exactly what would you suggest to do this?
Aryaba 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams The Phone company was a monopoly, costs were high and the government actually made it illegal to plug in "foreign" devices, like answering machines. Since then the costs have dropped dramatically. As has internet service, while quality has increased. As for roads, have you ever been to central Florida? The best roads are the private ones that Disney owns and maintains.
kev3d 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams you make it sound like the market doesn't fix itself.. well, let me tell you that it does.
sniped101 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams So, what about the consumer? It seems every Socialist avoids this. With Monopolies if there is a problem, e.g., health insurance claim, there's nothing you can do! You are forced to use the gov't run system. And since these people are getting paid regardless., they end up not caring about the individual consumer. Also with individual freedom, we the people are given the ability to fix the environment, by voting with our dollar.
OhmgrownCron 6 months ago
@j0hnwi11iams Yeah i can think of a system better than the free market...
Utopia, Heaven, Paradise...
Dream on!
qlaw04 1 year ago 2
@j0hn
Excellent analysis.
Indeed,externalities are not only a form of coercive defacto taxation if there ever were one,but they're properly speaking a form of double taxation.Precisely because external parties are forced to pay the true cost of supply with their health as well as through future taxation to help fund 'green' reforms.
Indeed,even Milton Friedman in his seminal Libertarian text 'Capitalism & Freedom' describes individual externalities,or what he calls 'neighborhood effects'.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@Aryaba
Democracy isn't perfect,it is just more perfect than all the other systems.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 Anarchy > Democracy
Aryaba 10 months ago
@Aryaba
Left-wing Libertarianism=Anarchy(pure democracy)
Right-wing Libertarianism=Heirarchy(anarchy for ownership;authoritarinism for the owned)
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 Pure democracy = mob rule and no room for freedom.
Aryaba 10 months ago
@Aryaba
1.)Privileging the group over the individual=mob rule.
2.)Privileging the individual over the group=dictatorship.
3.)Equating the individual with the group=democracy.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 Any time where you allow the group to take actions without on explicit consent or explicit cooperation of the minority it is mob rule. In all real cases democracy = mob rule.
Aryaba 10 months ago
The idea that democ' equates to mob rule is the oldest ruling class cliche in the book(generally supported by those that aspire to be apart of that group,yet show an abysmal misreading of democratic principles.)
Democracy is best at securing the rights of individuals because it isn't democracy without EQUALITY OF INDIVIDUALS!
Indeed,In a democracy the minority is a "concurrent majority"(the minority party in the US Congress being a perfect example.)
Mob rule provides NO minority rights.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 You cannot equate the system we have in America to Democracy, it is a Republic.
Aryaba 10 months ago
@Aryaba
The founders of the Republic based our system of government on the ideas laid out by the French political scientist Montesquieu,the founding father of the idea of the modern Republic.
According to Montesquieu Republics appear in two forms--democratic(rule by majority)and aristocratic(rule by minority)--determined by how many in a given society have voting power.
A Republic is the primacy of law combined with representation.
Rule by minority made sense for a slave-owning class.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
rossmcg 1 year ago 24
@rossmcg thats what they say but I believe we are a corporatist nation now.
sniped101 1 year ago
@rossmcg
We're a 'Democratic-Republic' in theory.
We're an Aristocratic-Republic in practice.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@rossmcg The word democracy is a term that describes many different things. True the US is not a "direct democracy" but it has democratic institutions, ie. voting. A Democratic Republic.
njanovic1980 4 weeks ago
Consistent support for property rights eliminates externalities and incentivizes conservation of scarce resources, preventing the extinctions you strangly attribute to to production under a free market. Certainly, the extinction of inefficient firms brought by the competion markets demand is beneficial to all.
Search for "free market environmentalism by Walter Block".
kjorg27 1 year ago 7
@kjorg27 So who do you suppose owns the air we breathe? The oceans? The climate? The economy? The government? What is it that prevents you from understanding the basic fact that we can not privatize everything?
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams So you'd rather the state owns the air and water? They trie that already in the USSR.
nebraskastatepatriot 1 year ago
@kjorg27 ) Libertarians have no sence for distinction in economic issues.In case of the term ‘planning’,that Hayek-Rothbard etc.missuses .The concept it self needs to be more precisely defined. Planning is not equivalent to ‘perfect’ allocation of resources, nor ‘scientific’ allocation, nor even ‘more humane’ allocation. It simply means ‘direct’ allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@kjorg27 ) These are the two basic ways of allocating resources, and they are fundamentally different from each other – even if they can on occasion be combined in precarious and hybrid transitional forms, which will not be automatically self-reproducing. Essentially they have a different internal logic.They generate distinct laws of motion. They diffuse divergent motivations among producers and organizers of production, and find expression in discrepant social values.
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kjorg27 Both basic kinds of labour allocation have existed on the widest possible scale throughout history. Both are therefore quite ‘feasible’. Both have also been applied in the most variegated fashions, and with most diverse results. You can have ‘despotic’ planning and ‘democratic’ planning .You can have ‘rational’ planning and ‘irrational’ planning.
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
@kjorg27 ‘You can have planning based on routine, custom, tradition, magic, religion, ignorance – planning rules by rain-makers,shamans, fakirs and illiterates of all kinds. Worst of all, you can have planning directed by generals; for every army is based on an a priori allocation of resources. You can have planning organized in a semi-rational way by technocrats or, at the highest level of scientific intelligence, by workers and disinterested specialists
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kjorg27 ) Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long periods
zsylvana 1 year ago
Comment removed
zsylvana 1 year ago
@kjorg27 Similarly, market economies in the sense of ex post allocations of resources have historically existed in the most variegated forms. In principle, there could be market economies with ‘perfect’ free competition: though in practice this has hardly ever been realized. There can be market economies skewed by the dominance of powerful monopolies able to control large sectors of activity and so to fix prices over long run
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kjorg27 Markets can also coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@kjorg27 Markets can coexist with drastic forms of autocracy and despotism – as they did under eighteenth-century absolutism, not to speak of various sorts of military junta or fascist dictatorship in the twentieth century. But they can also be combined with advanced forms of parliamentary democracy. Market economies could also worsen the misery of broad masses, by an absolute lowering of their standard of living.
zsylvana 1 year ago
@kjorg27 Neocons are socialist (in the worst sense) in their desire to bomb the world into a better place.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams WHAT? That was an entirely unrelated argument. Kjork27 is DEAD ON-- private property gives people incentive to take care of the environment; there are no externalities because it's their property. And, of course, private property is the cornerstone of libertarianism, because it provides a way for environmentalism to coincide with self-interest.
Trimbler00 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams You seem to have answered a question that Kjorg didn't ask (where did socialist neocons enter the topic?) In your externalize example you , and you seem to ignore the right of the affected 3rd party to sue for damages to life & property.
The other concept that you ignore is capture theory. Good intentions are fine but history teaches that if an industry is to be regulated that industry inevitably will control the regulation to the detriment of still other 3rd parties.
032125 1 year ago
@wtfjaftw Republic = Representative Democracy. The republicans have been repeating the libertarian mantra for decades so how come they continue to steal from the poor to give to the wealthy?
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
not a coherent argument
razerfish 1 year ago
Most horrible argument against Libertarianism ever? Since when do Libertarians not understand externalities? So many contradictions in this video.
bttalbot 1 year ago
Your case falls down because Libertarians favour private property rights which prevent the enviromental damage you speak of.Thats the States ligitimate function...protecting individual rights.It was the socialist countries that caused the greatest enviromental damage....not the Capitalist ones which are far cleaner...mainly because the people are richer and have the time and ability to look after their surrondings.Poor people trying to get by are the biggest danger to the enviroment.
Riellysdad 1 year ago
The externalities case is a poor argument against Libertarianism as its easy to turn about on the Statist whos making it by showing him that its actually HIS prefered system that causes the most damage to non-involved third parties.
Externalities are dealt with in a free market by the use of property rights.Its only is a state controlled society with "public" ownership that benefits can be privatised while costs are socialised.You can't get away with that in a true free market.
Riellysdad 1 year ago
You missed an important component in your widget~pollution example. Society does not bear the cost of fixing the pollution. That's a communist way of running things, so of course it won't work. The pollutor is responsible for the costs of fixing the damage because they've damaged someone else's property or even harmed people. This necessarily will drive up the cost of the widgets. The current system, created by the government, limits the amount of damage the corp owners are responsible for.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
These externalities you talk about in the first half of your video are actually to the benefit of the libertarian argument. In libertarian philosophy, an individual or a corporation is free and held accountable for it's decisions and actions. In our current society, all that we do is slap the hand of the responsible party (usually subsidized by the taxpayer) and we leave these problems often without resolve.
timtim885 1 year ago
In libertarian philosophy, that corporation would be held accountable for all damage done to property and the environment and would have to find a way to restore what has been done.
timtim885 1 year ago
The "overpopulation" of the world is that way because of human progress and ingenuity. If we did away with a lot of our modern technologies developed by the free market, you would be forced to kill about half of the planet. I doubt you would want to make the decision of which half would go.
And even with today's population, you could actually fit the entire population of the world fairly comfortably within the state of California. We are HARDLY taking up
timtim885 1 year ago
too much space on this earth.
timtim885 1 year ago
and most resources are renewable. Things we need for food and shelter are renewable and not being consumed at a rate faster than we can restore. The resources we have to worry about eventually running out of are typically not necessary for sustaining life on this planet and if we promote competition and academia, I predict within a hundred years, we will be totally free from non-renewable resources. We actually have more trees now than we did 100 years ago.
timtim885 1 year ago
And finally... I'm a little confused over your analogy with extinction in the marketplace. If you mean like the extinction of 8 track tapes, well... Boo-Hoo... If you mean like the extinction of our entire major lending system during the housing bust, well I say please just let it die.
timtim885 1 year ago
Why can't you just pass a law that polluting the environment is a crime?
soliveirajr 1 year ago
the state does not govern with the consent of ALL the people, only a small minority-the bourgeois ruling class. The state is a product of the irreconcilibility (spell chec) of class antagonisms. The state is a weapon of oppression-it has to be wiped out. Freedom will exist when there is no state: V Lenin, "State and Revolution" (1918)
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
Polluting the environment is a violation of the individual rights of those who live in the environment. Libertarianism is against this. What you oppose is anarchy, not Libertarianism.
HackCausality 1 year ago
externalization isn't at all unique to capitalism.
kylratix 1 year ago
To the Poster: Name one country that has ever successfully taxed-and-spent itself back to prosperity.
MasterZenStorm 1 year ago
evolution produces good im sure glad that out here in Oregon where its always raining i have the ability to stay warm while wearing nothing more then boxers and send messages about a ONLINE VIDEO to someone potentially in another country from my COMPETITIVELY priced computer. yes extinction can happen but I believe that can be GOOD nature has a way of making everything work out like the lack of T-Rex i have to hide from or eventually the lack of people.
esfreerider 1 year ago
I think your forgetting that people still vote with there money, other wise organic isles and trader joes wouldn't exist and nobody would drive hybrids there has been a push as a society that goes above and beyond what the government is calling for and a good percentage of people are willing to pay more for it or be slightly inconvenienced by bring there own shopping bags in. so if the people wanted change change would happen.
esfreerider 1 year ago
Because Libertarians believe in responsibilty, the harm to the environment you speak of are legally remedied. The problem is the government 'excuses' blocs of special interests not the Libertarian concepts. You have obviously not studied Libertarian thought very deeply, because such issues and their remedies are often commented on by Libertarians. Can you honestly say you do not not price shop? Or that you study all of the externalities of a price before you make a trade (purchase)?
DLBeatty 1 year ago
Right of the bat, you start bashing Democracy. I wish I could rate lower than one star.
seanThree16 2 years ago
@seanThree16
Democracy is not freedom,Its mob rule.
Libertarians oppose democracy because it violates individual rights as surely as Communism and fascism do.....just with a velvet glove covering the iron fist of state control.
Riellysdad 1 year ago
Sound like you've got it all figured out. Libertarians opposing Democracy...thanks. I needed a good laugh.
seanThree16 1 year ago
@seanThree16
Libertarians DO oppose democracy...for good reason.It violates individual freedom and rights."Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for diner". Answer this....if majority rule is the ideal why is gangrape still a crime? Surely the "right" of the majority should be respected in this regard,if not why not? Is it because the victim has rights regardless of the no. of those who would violate them? If that is obvious in the case of rape why is it not in others?
Riellysdad 1 year ago
this guy scares the living shit out of me.
skibiskit 2 years ago
Your criticisms of Libertarianism does not really hold much ground for me. For example, you claim that the Libertarian belief in trade does not work because if it goes wrong, it would affect the 3rd party. Problem with your criticism of this is that you do not take into account that Libertarians would not engage in that kind of trade if they know that it would negatively affect third parties. (cont)
thunderbolt94 2 years ago
Corporations do it a matter of routine. It's called externalization. As long as they make a profit, they do not care what else happens. PERIOD.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@shumrock: Still holding onto that Teddy Bear called the "Republic" are you? The last remnants of the republic are dissolving, and we are well into an oligarchy, mainly run by Wall Street.
globbo100 2 years ago
last time I checked I thought we were a republic?
skumrock 2 years ago
I disagree with your first argument. I, as a libertarian do not just believe in consent. Consent as you describe it is a great way of explaining part of an ideal government, but that is only half of the picture. Libertarians believe that you should be able to do what you wish with your life and your property, unless you are infringing on the rights of another. So if you are making something cheap by destroying the country by polluting then you are infringing on other people rights.
templersstorms 2 years ago
By consent, I mean informed consent, and certainly people do not willingly consent to having their rights violated. I believe in social contracts in order for society to act in the best interests of its citizens in cases where the free market can not provide a solution that does not degenerate because of defectors.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Hey, Commie John! Stay focused on subject. You are bouncing around to unrelated subjects. You're definitions are skewed, you views are nothing short of communist. Go to China and tell me how well it works there buddy!
A decent vocabulary does not quantify intelligence and in your circumstance especially.
Gabbishes 2 years ago
China doesn't seem to be doing all that bad by the looks of things. They are approaching the economic problem from a different direction, but I think the best economy is a combination of private and public interests.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams, I agree with some of your points, democracy being a less then desirable method of indirectly appointing consent through reps., but China is doing horrible. GDP grows even when they build their empty office buildings in empty cities. Not to mention, third parties have absolutely no say in matters within communist China.
ADONISindeed 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams ROFLMAO, China?!! Did you miss the story about their groundwater being contaminated by all the old electronic and computer devices going there to be destroyed? How about the fact that they have run out of females for their males so young women are now being kidnapped and held hostage in other villages so the young men will have a wife? YEAH... they're great, just peachy. *eye roll*
capagrl 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams
DUDE china destroyed povery and saved countless lives after embracing capitalism just a little bit.
You know it to be true.
Quit whining.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago
@Gabbishes Communism Rules Long Live Communism!
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY
100 million dead in the 20th century thanks to govenment matter not a jot to you eh killer?
Riellysdad 1 year ago
Libertarians have taken into account externalities for decades. The Libertarian Manifesto covers them in great detail. It is perfectly within the Libertarian limits on government to allow it to keep us from abusing the property rights of others by preventing or fining externalities. Rothbard was telling us to tax pollution DECADES before global warming became an issue. Same thing for limited resources, this is all covered in the Libertarian Manifesto.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
In the case of limited resources examine the case for copper ore. We have used that ore for millennia but we never ran out, why? Because as copper becomes more scarce the market reacts by raising the price of copper. When this happens people conserve their use of copper, start recycling it, and even find replacement resources for it. The market does not cause resource depletion, but govt often has by maintaining price ceilings which prevents conservation and innovation efforts.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
In the case the market relating to evolution you are looking at that wrong. The market isnt the evolution of a single species it is the evolution of all life. Things may become extinct like typewriters but the whole system continues to go forward. Competition ensures that even in hard times when SOME things die off the most effective and competitive ones will be able to keep us going. By reducing competition you in effect tie the fate of the Dodos to the more competitive ensuring mutual death.
Aliothemage 2 years ago
@Aliothemage, well put.
ADONISindeed 2 years ago
Your thinking of Milton Friedman, Rothbard preferred tort.
mythrail 2 years ago
To continue: In the oil industry (where I work) we leave about 2/3 of the retrievable oil in every well since it isn't cost effective to bring it out.
Saying we are overcrowded, running out of resources, or that a small elite can better manage such issues if they DID exist than the systemic knowledge of the market, including the input of hundreds of millions of people, is patently absurd.
etxteapartymovement 2 years ago
Externalities used to be solved by suits against the polluters. Then government stepped in and said the products were so important to 'society' that the suits couldn't be brought. So there's central control at work.
95% of the land mass of the US is undeveloped. Every human on earth coud be moved into my home state of TX and have a lower population density than my birth state of NJ.
etxteapartymovement 2 years ago
8)Friedman wrote:"The Austrian Method also tends to make people intolerant.If you and I we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct how do we resolve that disagreement? We can argue,we can yell,but to what use?But we can also go out and observe the facts.That's how science progresses.Milton the fact is that fifty,sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory...so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn't been any progress "F.A Hayek .A Biography
zsylvana 2 years ago
7)Milton Friedman wrote -"The Austrian methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind. If you're always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another's shoulders?" in "Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (Paperback)
by Alan Ebenstein p.174"
zsylvana 2 years ago
6)In 1969,Milton Friedman,after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusions.
(M.Friedman "The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261284. " and
M.Friedman "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisit"
zsylvana 2 years ago
5)That Hayeks Buisness Cycle allready in 1930s was harshly criticised by such as John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa and Nicholas Kaldor and a lot other is wellknown.But also fare out rightwing economist as Milton Friedman and Gordon Tullock from the University of Chicago and right wing libertarian Bryan Caplan, an Scholar of the Cato Institute also totally discretited Hayek is not so known.
zsylvana 2 years ago
4)Paul Samuelson writes "There were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity. In 1931, Hayeks Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success. In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 19271931 (and the 19312007) historical scene."
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69, pp 14
zsylvana 2 years ago
3)Paul Samuelson continue " So you might say Hayek as an economist fell into what physicists call a black hole. Wisely, libertarian Hayek turned away to weighty constitutional and philosophical interests." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization No.69, pp. 14:
zsylvana 2 years ago
2)Paul Samuelson writes further "Hayeks (1941) The Pure Theory of Capital was not stillborn. But it was a pebble thrown into the pool of economic science that seemingly left nary a ripple.
Hayeks grave defeats in the early 1930s predisposed him in the World War II years to write what he entitled, The Road to Serfdom (1944). I will postpone my take on that bestseller."
zsylvana 2 years ago
1)US post war most credited economist Paul Samueleson writes " Hayek himself, naively, diagnosed the fall of his 1931 opus as due to the fact that his period-of-production mutterings there did not do full justice to the not-yet-completed Austrian theory of capital (Menger, Böhm et al.). Therefore, heroically but hopelessly, he wasted years on a task that he was grossly under-equipped to handle."
zsylvana 2 years ago
The fact is that Libetarian Hayek was not taken serouis among Economists since early 1930-tees.His "Nobel-Prize" 1974 was considered as a "scandal" among a large majority of economist,from Right to Left in political view.Higly credited economist Richard Kahns allready 1932 statet:
"If Hayek believes that the spending of newly printed currency on employment and consumption will worsen our current terrible depression, then Hayek is a nut."
zsylvana 2 years ago
a truly free market capitalist nation, with the honest enforcement of property rights, would resolve the environmental problems you posed. if a plant fills the air that you breathe with smog, or the river where your home is, or the soil where your kids play, it's also your property and you can resolve that within the law. *
eclipsedawn 2 years ago
*and even if there are hidden interests that conspire, the public will not want to buy from the company that spoils its air and its water. it will either go out of business through property rights or through the descredit between the public. *
eclipsedawn 2 years ago
i really would like to have someone like ron paul in my country, because here the state runs everything, and the european union runs every state. so, i would try liberty for a change. if liberty turns out to be that bad, we are always free to change.
eclipsedawn 2 years ago
There are so many ways today to trade ideas and information, that kind of public scrutiny is possible. you could influence a person on the other side of the world to not buy that company's products. as an example, I am from portugal, a small european country with a large, corrupt state, and i first got introduced to - or at least excited by - austrian economics and libertarian thought through ron paul, so his ideas inspired me even though i was on the other side of the atlantic.
eclipsedawn 2 years ago
I totally agree
violetta3333 2 years ago
We're not a democracy , we're a republic. The only thing we do democratly on the federal level is elect our executive.
You may not be a libertarian but i would hope you are a constitutionalist . Our system of govenment worked brilliantly , until it's powers were abused and distorted.
bucjason 2 years ago
there already doing this.
h23a1player 2 years ago
"trade between consenting parties" is not a form of government. it is not a government of consent. it is literally just trade between consenting parties. government is the vehicle by which men exert power——sanctioned by the authority of the state——over other men. have you ever considered the "externalities" of excessive government meddling?
Weeth 2 years ago
Power can entail more than just physical force. Libertarians mistaken believe that government is the only entity that can take away freedom or coerce others to do their bidding. Remember that next time you look for a job. Yes, I have considered externalities of excessive government - I think it is more a matter of qualifying what government is good at and what the private sector is good at and never mixing the two.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
well, i dont think anyone believes that government is the only source of coercion. however—& this is important—govt is the only source of monopolistic, legally sanctioned coercion. i agree that some govt is necessary (im not a kooky anarcho-capitalist), but the role of govt should be strictly & explicitly limited (constitution anyone?).
Weeth 2 years ago
That is not true. It may be true that no INDIVIDUAL corporation has sanctioned coercion, but operating TOGETHER they shape the market, and the market is a source of coercion.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
to say that many corporations together shape the market is, of course, no revelation. it would be equally true to state that many individuals or markets together shape corporations——they are two sides of the same coin. but lets be clear: the govt is the only entity that has a monopoly on the "legal" use of PHYSICAL coercion. the private sector has no such power. it is at least constrained by the realities of the market (ie the desires of consumers).
Weeth 2 years ago
your video seems to castigate the private market and simultaneously presume that the govt could do better——u never address the repercussions of govt intrusion. it seems to me, considering the nature of human history, that govt has the explaining to do. it should certainly never be PRESUMED that govt is going to be the solution to any particular problem. our liberty should never be so comfortably relinquished.
Weeth 2 years ago
I am not painting things black and white. I am not in favor of the free market in all cases, and I am not blind to it's failures. Neither am I blind about the failures of government, but this video is about why I am not a libertarian, not why I am not a fascist.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
fair enough.. but when you say that the private sector creates certain externalities, you imply that the govt is the necessary remedy. however, you never explain how or why the govt would be any better suited than the private sector in dealing with said externalities. for example, it would be like me pointing out govt failures in the military while implying that the private sector is the solution. other than that, i dont mind your video. it isnt wrong, it just isnt entirely right.
Weeth 2 years ago
Certainly there are market based solutions people have proposed, such as cap and trade. By far the most important decisions for the government is what is private and what is public. I am of the opinion that the problem with the military is that they are too privatized, that the military industrial complex has too much sway over politics.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
also, libertarians (most) do understand externalities and generally allow for a number of specific and limited government actions. if you have been sincere in what you have told me so far, then I think you might be confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. In any case, I think your next video should be "Why I am not a Socialist". I would hope that you have plenty to say about the immense failures of government. yea?
Weeth 2 years ago
That side of the argument is already overrepresented.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
aesopstruth is a capitalist troll who spammed my channel. Do not be fooled him and his wacko conspiracy junk. He is clearly off the deep-end.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
Can you give me an example of a govt where externalities are limited? Seems to me externalities are going to be present no matter what the form of govt.
Based on your position, can I then assume that you are not a consumer of gasoline, or any products that are made from metals or resources that are mined for which there are often huge externalities? I doubt this is the case, so where do you draw the line?
limitedgovt999 2 years ago
The main drift of the twentieth century has revealed is that the economy has become concentrated and incorporated in the great hierarchies, the military has become enlarged and decisive to the shape of the entire economic structure;and moreover the economic and the military have become structurally and deeply interrelated,as economy has become a seemingly permanent war economy;and military men and policies have increasingly penetrated the corporate economy
C.Wright Mills,The Power Elite1956
zsylvana 2 years ago 2
You're dumb
AndyMH182 2 years ago
Pro-marketeers may ask,is equality and generosity sustainable in the context of the world market?The irrefutable answer is Yes.For many years, the Scandinavian countries have also been at the very top of the Global Competitiveness Reports by World Economic Forum at Davos. Denmark,was ranked third in global competitiveness in 2008,and Sweden fourth in 2007-08.Britain (under New Labour)had slipped from second in 2007 to ninth in 2008 The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-08 World Economic Forum
zsylvana 2 years ago 7
The evidence that unequal societies inflict great damage on the lives and health of their citizens is clear.Why does it matter and what can be done?"Asks Göran Therborn professor of sociology at Cambridge University.Editor, Inequal.ities of the World:New Theoretical Frameworks,Multiple Empirical Approaches Verso,2006).
"There are at least three quite different kinds of inequality,and they are all destructive of human lives and of human societies.The first is inequality of health and death "
zsylvana 2 years ago 6
aesopstruth is a capitalist troll who spammed my channel. Do not be fooled him.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 11
Comment removed
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Within the first 10 seconds you have already shown why you wouldn't like Libertarian party. Stating that you don't approve of Democracy.
Basically you would do better with fascism, communism? Or if those don't work, Socialism?
Thanks for sharing your ideas. However our country was founded on the ideals of Libertarians, now we have the most government control we have ever seen, something needs to change, going in the so called "progressive" direction won't get it done in the long run.
threepeice 2 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but the word is liberal. The country was founded by liberals :P
lGnossos 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi IG: Liberal Natural Law, to be precise. The U.S. is the oldest & most successful free & open society founded on these liberal or "libertarian" principles, if you will. Rights here precede Government when properly observed, ie., they are not bestowed or delegated by politicians, apparatchiks, & "groups". Nation of Laws not of men.
Apparatchiks will pile mounds of vituperation on top of what I said. This is because their ideas are weak. I can be concise because I've stated strong ideas.
marcusbarr 2 years ago
The country was not founded on 'libertarian' ideals. there was no such thing as 'libertarian' when the country was founded. As IGnossos has pointed out the ideals were liberal not 'libertarian'. As a matter of fact the word ''libertarian' in its original usage meant a syndicalism, a type of socialism. 'Libertarian' in its current usage did not appear until after WWII. And Paine and Hamilton and others were certainly not libertarians.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 4
Libertarians merely like to quote mine the founders like creationists, to find false support.
Secondly it is amusing that you claim that the current usage of 'Libertarianism' is democracy when almost every hard core libertarian has videos or has made comments attacking democracy. Check the comments here, Libertarians only believe in a republic which they somehow don't recognize as a democracy.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 3
Third, Socialism IS a democracy. Socialism and democracy are intertwined and socialism is a workers democracy. And finally, we already have seen the results of libertarian policies. The more a market is 'unregulated' the greater the gap in wealth and the worse off the people are. Chile and the Chicago boys showed he horrendous extent of libertarian ideals. And the closest the US came to a unattainable 'free-market' was the Gilded Age, a terrible time for the people.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago 2
No.
Socialism has nothing to do with the form of government - it appears to me as a request for common welfare. That explains, why Socialism becomes popular in times of economic crisis - and is only considered by intellectuals in times of prosperity.
Plato described the decline of a republic into tyranny - and I daubt, that You can name a socialist country, which was not ruled by a dictator or an oligarchy. Such a government can be popular - but that does not mean, that the people participate.
christophmahler 2 years ago
Granted, it is a political economy position; that is, will determine the economic and property ownership position for the gov't. In that respect it is a form of gov't. But it has also always been intrinsically associated with a workers democracy, especially through the writings of Marx. Most would consider that many countries in Europe have a Socialist form, or at least a partly socialist form to varying degrees of gov't, and they certainly are not ruled by dictators or oligarchs.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
The entanglement of business and politics seems to me the mess we are in already.
The supremacy of economics was also practiced in Soviet-Russia - by the few hundred intellectuals who ruled the councels.
The common people had no way to participate - therefore I call it an oligarchy.
Maybe You mean 'Social Democracy', when You refer to the Old World. While public opinion is not tightly manipulated - it is still rather a bureaucracy. Property remains accumulated.
christophmahler 2 years ago
Additionally, no matter who you feel about him, Hugo Chavez was democratically and popularly elected many times over in well certified elections. Nepal is a democratic Maoist gov't, Evo Morales was elected in Bolivia. A greater percentage of the populations of those countries participate in the elections than here. So those gov'ts are both popular and participatory.
Rundstedt1 2 years ago
I agree, that Venezuela has a popular and legitimate government.
My point is, that the common people cannot participate in actual decessions. Therefore it appears to me as a tyranny.
I do not want to demonize it, but I insist on this formal difference.
Fasci