Yeah, and under private ownership you receive benefits (money for one) for shitty decisions you make that can fuck up many others. Polluting underground water,air, etc. all for a profit. It's not like larger areas aren't affected many times. I like how this video ignores the CORRUPT nature that money oftentime also plays.
tell me, in a free market without the use of initiation of force, and the guns of government, how is it that you can receive a single dollar from anyone else?
good point...a better solution would be insurance. If you get an insurance against air pollution, your insurance company has an incentive to monitor the polluters such as big factories, to avoid paying you whilst keeping your money. The problem with insurance is that it could be somehow impractical to get insured for everything. Like this guy said, it depends on the situation.
@badseed86 An alternative to individual insurance is for the insurance company to make it a requirement for that company to be environmentally friendly, for lack of a better term, to be able to be insured for whatever reason.
and shogue is right, china is a tyrannical dictatorship who skews data on a nationwide scale to their benefit, the average work schedule of a chinaman is nearly double that of an average american for nearly half the pay, their air is nearly 3 times as toxic as chicago or atlanta, and people dont even get to choose their jobs, they take a test when they are young, and placed into a job that "suits" them, if you think thats better than america, then go right ahead and fucking move over there :)
and how do you limit those things? with government, something you all so fervently protest....contradict yourselves some more please, im all for regulating the big money making scum, but dont say regulate them, and then turn around in your next video saying that the government is regulating them and inhibiting freedom...
@stormbreak13 You don't quite understand the concept,libertarianism and classic liberalism is not against government,it stands against regulation which sanctions business and individuals and stops them from exercising their natural rights as a prevention of their bad behavior,and supports sanctions if bad behavior already occurred ie. infringing on other individuals rights.
tl;dr we support government sanctions if the subject did something wrong,not when it could do something wrong
@olhsaoagpaigfbp no i completely understand what this video stands for, and if you read what i said, i actually agree with what this video says, i just disagree with the rest of the videos, that say that all regulation is bad, and that government should have NO say in what the free market does, and that kind of thinking is what allowed the 2008 financial meltdown, and the BP spill in the gulf, smart people don't wait until the bomb explodes to go clean it up, they just dont
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and its seems pretty obvious that it would also be CHEAPER to regulate things before they blew up,with proper safety regulations that would only cost a few million dollars to fully implement, the BP spill would have never happened, and BP would be HUNDREDS of millions of dollars richer, and the gulf would have millions more animals swimming around right now, and with proper financial regulations, the 2008 financial meltdown never would have happened, and all those banks wouldnt
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and all those banks wouldnt have had to pay billions of dollars in compensation fees, regulation not only saves time and trouble, but in the long run, also saves money...
@stormbreak13 BP was heavily regulated,yet their pipe blew up,it's not regulation that prevents bad things from happening it's punishment that follows,what would work better to prevent murders,jailing murderers or forcing everyone fill out 20 forms and wear mittens all the time?As for financial meltdown,you do understand that incentive to sell all those risky mortgages did not come from the market but from the government.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp ...bp ADMITTED to needing more regulation, and that with the proper regulation, the disaster could and WOULD have been prevented, and it would have been much cheaper for everyone and everything involve ..why would you try and argue for someone who admitted themselves that they were wrong...and lol the government put those"safety nets" there because its elected officials were all ex-big bank CEO's who created the ludicrous legislature that said they were"to big"
@stormbreak13 and dont compare apples to elephants please...im talking about logical financial regulation, not sticking a personal investigator inside the office of every businessman, obviously making people in arizona wear mittens all the time would cause more murders than it prevents, and if you didnt get that joke, then you arent SMART enough fill out 20 forms probably, and therefore your idea sucks, however there are subtle actually intelligent ways to subliminally instill
@stormbreak13 non murderous actions in people, the threat of punishment for detestable behavior is one way yes, but the promise of reward for commendable behavior is another, your idiotic proposal had neither, just pointless illogical nonsense.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and dont compare apples to elephants please...im talking about logical financial regulation, not sticking a personal investigator inside the office of every businessman, obviously making people in arizona wear mittens all the time would cause more murders than it prevents, and if you didnt get that joke, then you arent SMART enough fill out 20 forms probably, and therefore your idea sucks, however there are subtle actually intelligent ways to subliminally instill
@olhsaoagpaigfbp non murderous actions in people, the threat of punishment for detestable behavior is one way yes, but the promise of reward for commendable behavior is another, your idiotic proposal had neither, just pointless illogical nonsense.
@stormbreak13 It is utopian to believe that government could make smart,logical regulation,government will always be corrupt and regulation will benefit those who corrupt it and hinder honest people,big corporations use it to prevent small and medium ones to grow and become competition,free market will have it's inefficiency,but not as large as government regulations,only being that would be capable of making sound regulations would be god,and god does not exist.
@shogu666 The idea is not to make everything owned by one group. Capitalism thrives best when multiple sources compete with each other. In a working system, air and water might be privatized, but the fact that many organizations are taking care of them would drive the prices down, and could potentially make them completely free. In the case of air, this would be air rights, and anyone polluting them would be charged a fine, while people get air for free. (Could say more, but out of characters)
@shogu666 I did say in a working system. And for a hundred years this system did work (kinda). Then we got industrialism, and the term "Capitalist" came to mean, in a word, "greedy". I am in no way saying this would be practical, but I also believe Marxism (original communism) would fail as well. The market needs a healthy mix, but the mix is such a pain to try to find, most governments that try end up going one way or the other for various reasons (such as allegiances). (Again, more, but out of
@OmegaVestor "The market needs a healthy mix, but the mix is such a pain to try to find, most governments that try end up going one way or the other for various reasons (such as allegiances)"
I can tell why balance in a free market is impossible to sustain long term.
It creates negative values and bad incentives. Objects on free market that already emerged successful dont want to compete anymore instead they go for total control and they have means to achieve it (money = power)
@shogu666 Monopoly gives incentive to break the monopoly. However, a certain monopoly, called government can't be broken with free market processes because at that point there is no free market. Even if government breaks monopoly, it exchanges it for another monopoly: itself.
@shogu666 "every self respected capitalist's goals is to get a monopoly."
Monopolies don't arise naturally in a free market except by providing the best quality product and the lowest price. They might want a monopoly, but the only way to achieve it is beneficial to the consumer.
@shamgar001 "Monopolies don't arise naturally in a free market except by providing the best quality product and the lowest price"
This is BS. Your theory implies that consumers and producers have equal information available to them and also consumer always make their choices 100% rational which is just aint the case in RL.
Consumers are highly emotional creatures and emotions can be easily manipulated also producers have information advantage.
@shogu666 Consumers and producers will always have equal information as long as the internet exists.
Oh wait, that might not be long because SOPA and PIPA are government monopolies provided to big busyness for free, on behalf of the "99%'s" tax dollars. See the connection? Crony capitalism = RL.
@DMAN123223 Even in an age of Internet information asymmetry is quite high. That is for example why example insider trading is so popular.
That is true that Internet makes some difference but it is not enough. Beside what you expect from people is all the alertness about everything all the time which is just ridiculous approach.
I would rather go on with my life and enjoy it then check at every corner if some company dont want to screw me over.
@darkr0astedblend You have no example of working free market in real life in the first place.
It didnt happen , it doesnt happen and it wont happen.
Its utopia.
The reason why is that objects successful on the market are destroying it.
Competition is only good for small and poor but they have really power of influence while at the same time big and powerful are striving for control and they have a means achieve it
@shogu666 "It didnt happen , it doesnt happen and it wont happen. Its utopia."
Ah, yes, the famous "free markets don't exist" argument. Powerful, powerful stuff. It teaches us that we can't know anything about anything unless there exists an absolutely perfect incarnation of it in the real world. This does not apply to arguments in favor of socialism, communism, statism, fascism, or any other form of tyranny, however. It only applies when discussing economic liberty.
@shogu666 Have you checked the Economic Freedom Index? Why do countries tend to do better when they have a freer economy? Hong Kong is almost as free as you can get, yet it is thriving. You have some historic examples, like Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland, Medieval merchant cities, etc...
How can you have power, if you have no state? Everyone has a gun, and regular ppl will always have more guns than Exxon. you're not happy with them? Go to the competition.
@shogu666 Lolz... Hong Kong has an average standard of living higher than most Western countries. You're just in denial.
lol @ "different reality". Yes you're just dismissing arguments so you continue safe in your bubble.
Are you saying there was someone who first used force to impose a top down rule over other people? So that proves my point that states are based on violence?
@darkr0astedblend "Are you saying there was someone who first used force to impose a top down rule over other people? So that proves my point that states are based on violence?"
Of course they are, yet at the same time the stop much more violence that comes out of anarchy.
@shogu666 Apparently you've never been to Hong Kong. It has a higher standard of living than most Western countries and had the highest middle class explosion in history. You are a fucking moron.
@itachi705 "Apparently you've never been to Hong Kong. It has a higher standard of living than most Western countries and had the highest middle class explosion in history. You are a fucking moron."
Eve if what you said is remotely true As i already told i dont consider working minimum 50 hours a week and living in highly polluted city a higher standard of living.
@shogu666 "Your theory implies that consumers and producers have equal information available to them"
That's interesting. Are they supposed to have "equal information available to them"?
Sorry, but that doesn't exist in the Real World. That's "utopia." I guess this means that your theory is bunk too. So all theories are bunk because we can't know anything about anything unless there are perfect examples of perfect functions in a perfect world of ideas. Bummer.
@MillionthUsername "That's interesting. Are they supposed to have "equal information available to them"?"
If you want the consumers to rule the market then yes it is necessary of course that is not the case which i pointed out. So all theories that bad businesses goes broke or natural monopolies dont form are based on wrong assumption (equal information )
@shogu666 "and also consumer always make their choices 100% rational which is just aint the case in RL."
In case you didn't know, economics is about the real world. There is no school of economic thought which proposes that anything will be either perfect or 100%. This does not mean that we cannot know anything about human action in the real world, however. All economic arguments carry the caveat "all things being equal," but this has never been an appeal to perfection.
Tell what kind of incentives and valuate system promotes where upon your $ depends :
* resource access
* social status
* education
* MUCH,MUCH more up to the point of feeling self-worth
Because i can tell you that those aint positive ones and especially those aint the ones that are required for free market to work or stay in a balance for any longer period of time
Thus corruption and degradation is a matter of time
In a mutualist political economy, there is personal possession of land. In many libertarian socialist and left-libertarian property ownership and economic models, The Tragedy of the Commons wouldn't really be a problem. Individual small-scale private property is a good thing, but absentee ownership is not a good thing. The corporate moguls that own the land can exploit it all they want, it won't affect their posh surroundings where they reside.
German hunters say Ohne Jäger - Kein Wild, that means "No hunters - No game". Who is most interested in the well fare, and robustness of game populations!? Yes, hunters are, cos they don't exisst w o them. Same with cattle ranchers, no pasture no cattle.
This free market jerkoff needs to ask some engineers how many of the ideas they come up with when working for private companies they keep. Answer they same number you get to keep when working for the goverment, none.
Watching these videos reminds me of a die-hard free-marketer laughing at how absurd a pie-in-the-sky communist society seems to them. This is the free-markets fairy version. Let's face it guys- governments do some things better than markets. It is hard to comprehend the libertarian position without first stipulating that.
Well, land is not a good example for capitalism. It's the one flaw that's hard to explain, because really, what makes a certain field or forest yours and not mine? Land is not a product, so dividing it up won't affect its supply; whereas dividing products such as money and wealth will cause them to disappear as people lose their motivation to produce it. The thing is, if parks were allowed to become private property, the owners would eliminate them by fencing them in, keeping YOU out.
@gilbet I said Land is the mother of all product, meaning all we can touch was once produced or mined from a piece of land. And I agree we are custodians of land, thats it.
Libertarian economic theory also is based on the tenants that you: can't hurt other people, you can't steal from other people, and you must respect property rights. Businesses would be regulated to the extent that they follow these tenants. The regulation, of course, would be through proper accountability of those businesses and people running those businesses. This isn't a silver bullet either. The question is whether government involvement makes things more efficient (ha!) or not.
There is no native motive for government to harm the commons. It is, almost always, the profit motive behind despoiled resources. And every single instance of such despoiling happening successfully has been in the absence of effective regulation and or lax enforcement of bans in place.
If you are tracing the problem to "government regulation" then your analytical skills are in need of repair. It is not governmental regulation that is at the root of the problem, it is usually government collusion through institutionalized bribery schemes. Government regulation, when based soundly in reason and enforced fairly, without corporate bribery, is quite effective in protecting commonly held resources.
Well, it looks like we need to give the Earth's air supply to some tycoon or another and he will charge us to breathe! Yeah, that'll solve it!
Frikkin libertarian pipe dreams. How do you propose to sell the ocean? Should we fence it off by the hectare?
Oh, and I am sure Yosemite would be a far finer thing if it were owned by Monsanto and all the riff-raff were kept out by $100 admissions and thug bouncers.
The capacity of libertarians to fantasize around reality amazes me.
@Illyrien We already HAVE functioning systems that address most of the problems of the commons, Illyrien. I say most because if we had ALL, then it would be a perfect system. Such does not actually exist, either in nature or in the affairs of humans. NO system is perfect. There is always a catch, somewhere.
The solution is regulation, not the elimination of the commons entirely, which is what privatization really means. If privatization were really the answer, then you would pay to breathe air.
@Illyrien BTW, I am not demanding answers from libertarians. Libertarians do have a few answers, some of which I support. But their economic theories are childish bunk. Even Adam Smith, the father of the notion of free-market benevolence would recoil in horror at the thought of simply letting markets run wild without regulation, which is the heart of libertarian economic theory.
@axesbowledaslove if you want regulation, why not make smaller communities of likeminded people that demand that regulation? Why do you have to imperialize everything in sight?
@jonescomplete Funny you say this, in a libertarian society they would be perfectly free to do just that as long as the people own the land they are doing it on. If you want to gather in a community and form a minidictatorship you are free to do so. As long as you don't break any of the laws of the country.
My question on this feed is have you explored the incentive system these companies are facing? In my own experience I have found that government regulation is at the root of the problem, placing them in abnormal situations where it is extremely profitable to go against morals and normal practices. I arguing that companies are not to blame; however, there is a shared blame and one that often ORIGINATES with government. Also, in terms of killing civilians, how many people has government killed?
Another one-sided argument by Learn Liberty. Subjecting nature to competitive pressure is a recipe for disaster. What's to stop a private owner from stripping the land bare for coal, developing real estate, opening a toxic dump or worse?
@Magicwillnz What's to stop a government from doing the exact same thing? You're asking all the wrong questions. Furthermore, it would be infinitely easier for a government to do so. What stops private enterprise from doing so mostly comes down to profit & property. There is demand for both dumps and things like parks, forests, etc. Property rights are what PROTECTS forests from the ToC. All of these things are best allocated through supply and demand, not any government agenda.
"What's to stop a government from doing the exact same thing? "
Thing called voting, but since you retards get your info from the say people who have corrupted the entire system to the core, you will never understand that.
@mecher3k Do you think your vote matters when the state agenda has already been decided? Oh I forgot, only corporations are evil and not government! Have you absolutely no clue about the powers and evils of eminent domain?
You statists will never understand that even though this sacred cow of a system might be powerful enough to grant you everything you want, it's also powerful enough to take everything away. And if they ever did decide to do that their "votes" will be the only ones that matter.
@mecher3k Wrong. There is voting in almost all 200 countries that exist on earth, but it only appears to matter in handful of them. Voting alone doesn't stop anyone from anything, but a civil society, or siply put - morals and prejudice.
@HolidayFortnight That is just not how things are observed to work. Democratic government, with oversight and held to account, substantially improved the use of the environment. Private ownership of land doesn't solve this problem because it hasn't been observed to do so. Your economic theories are just wrong when held up to real-world examples. Fuck, do I have to list the environmental disasters of private industry?
@Magicwillnz There is no reason to throw logic out the window just because we're talking about nature. If anything it is especially crucial to think critically and economically when discussing the scarcity of nature's resources.
@HolidayFortnight I'm not throwing logic out the window: what I described happens. If we're going to talk about the tragedy of the commons I want to talk about the tragedy of private ownership.
@Magicwillnz You could certainly talk about it. What I'm hearing so far is hot air and misguided assertions. If you would actually like to discuss these problems substantially I'll be right here waiting.
Corporations put paint thinners, gun powder and other known carcinogens in our toothpaste/mouth wash. These private companies do not give a shit about the pain they cause the consumer. They will continue to add toxin after toxin exploiting all of their consumers until their consumers die. It is not they they do not know they are slowly killing consumers. It is in the private "not free" free market profit must trump life for the corporation to thrive.
@Downfurlife Yes, the corporations are out to get you! They want all their customers dead so they don't ever buy their products again! Makes perfect sense. There is no evidence to back up your claims that they are purposefully poisoning toothpaste in order to kill their customers. Please stay off the internet.
@siftyfour ? It is a fact.... That was one specific product out of hundreds of thousands. See, if I shoot you with a gun I go to jail. But, if I donate enough money to politicians & the FDA I can put poisons in your toothpaste kill you slow and it is legal. I am not really sure what you are talking about? You do not think potassium nitrate or methanol are poison? Those are only 2 examples of tens of thousands
@Downfurlife No I don't buy into this paranoid conspiracy theory that within the dark offices of toothpaste companies the management is secretly planning to put poison in the toothpaste to kill their customers. This is complete nonsense not backed by any evidence. The simple fact that there is potassium nitrate in toothpaste (you can get non-fluoridated toothpaste too), and the idea that it could be bad for your health, does not mean there's conspiracy against the public.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read in weeks.
Corporations are run by PEOPLE and last I checked there is no Affirmative Action plan to put homicidal sociopaths as CEOs. It makes no sense to purposefully put lethal dosages into their products that will EXCLUSIVELY kill their customers, destroying FUTURE profits. It makes less sense they would want to and from a 'greed' standpoint bc publicity and lawsuits would destroy the profits they had ALREADY collected + jail
@realtaveren Do you have any idea what happens when a child starts consuming a tube of toothepaste? A small dosage can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, gastrotestinal pains..ect.
OK, now THIS is the stupidest thing I've heard. 1st, you missed the point. No one said that toxic chemicals weren't present,we said there are not LETHAL dosages put into products soley for the purpose of killing the consumer by the corporation. Not only is this argument not on target, but it is so irrelevant to the question of INTENTION of the company to kill its consumers that its not in the same zip code. Please find an usher, ask for 'the program' and 'get with it'.
2nd, even so, the argument you pose is so ridiculously fallacious that I just pooped my pants a little. You're saying that when you ingest a substance that ISN'T INTENDED to be ingested and bad things happen that it should prove that the corporation is intending to kill you with the ingredients. In inappropriate amounts anything is lethal from water to applesauce, just as is paint thinner, but when you use something inappropriately that suggests NOTHING about the intent of the company. Jeez!
@realt Corporations are fined, usually never criminal charged for killing, injuring or making customers sick all the time. If you are so corrupted by a free market agenda someone shoved up your ass then closed you on all it's wonderful benefits not excluding the hundreds of millions you could potentially make one day, I realize you will be satisfied with 60k as long as the carrot is dipped in honey. I'd suggest glasses and pulling your pants up then squeeze your cheeks tighter - watch that ass
@Downfurlife Nobody is corrupted by any agenda just because they disagree. People just have the common sense to know that killing your customers isn't a sustainable policy. Hence all the fear-mongering that goes into promoting such propaganda it is just absurd.
@WinterXL Funnily enough, actually, corporations don't have that common sense, they are quite willing to have customers die: Ford Pinto, cigarettes, Massey energy, fracking, dead peasant's insurance, the list goes on. I agree it doesn't make sense, question is, why does it happen all the fucking time?
forest fires are good..
bbrianmillerr 2 days ago
@bbrianmillerr They're completely natural too.
2122Hellfire 1 day ago
Yeah, and under private ownership you receive benefits (money for one) for shitty decisions you make that can fuck up many others. Polluting underground water,air, etc. all for a profit. It's not like larger areas aren't affected many times. I like how this video ignores the CORRUPT nature that money oftentime also plays.
ridewave444 3 days ago
@ridewave444
tell me, in a free market without the use of initiation of force, and the guns of government, how is it that you can receive a single dollar from anyone else?
swu880 1 day ago
@swu880
lol i suggest actually reading up on what is corruption before even uttering the word 'corruption'
swu880 1 day ago
Good luck privatizing the air and atmosphere.
SmashActionRemix 1 week ago
@SmashActionRemix so what's your solution?
Cornampoo 1 week ago
@SmashActionRemix
good point...a better solution would be insurance. If you get an insurance against air pollution, your insurance company has an incentive to monitor the polluters such as big factories, to avoid paying you whilst keeping your money. The problem with insurance is that it could be somehow impractical to get insured for everything. Like this guy said, it depends on the situation.
badseed86 1 week ago
@badseed86 An alternative to individual insurance is for the insurance company to make it a requirement for that company to be environmentally friendly, for lack of a better term, to be able to be insured for whatever reason.
leeknivek 1 week ago
@badseed86 The best solution is to just let the EPA do its job. It's much more cost effective and less bureaucratic than an insurance company.
SmashActionRemix 2 days ago
@SmashActionRemix
uh apparently you have NEVER looked at the actual history of the EPA or the history of adjudication of what used to be called 'annoyance cases'.
lol typical statist who merely purports the government labels
swu880 1 day ago
People sure do have a problem owning their own bodies, actions and trade services.
hybridmcgee 2 weeks ago
This video needs to replace one of it's examples. Forest fires are actually good for a forest ecosystem.
Read Jared Daimond, Collapse.
52000rightwing 2 weeks ago
and shogue is right, china is a tyrannical dictatorship who skews data on a nationwide scale to their benefit, the average work schedule of a chinaman is nearly double that of an average american for nearly half the pay, their air is nearly 3 times as toxic as chicago or atlanta, and people dont even get to choose their jobs, they take a test when they are young, and placed into a job that "suits" them, if you think thats better than america, then go right ahead and fucking move over there :)
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
and how do you limit those things? with government, something you all so fervently protest....contradict yourselves some more please, im all for regulating the big money making scum, but dont say regulate them, and then turn around in your next video saying that the government is regulating them and inhibiting freedom...
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@stormbreak13 You don't quite understand the concept,libertarianism and classic liberalism is not against government,it stands against regulation which sanctions business and individuals and stops them from exercising their natural rights as a prevention of their bad behavior,and supports sanctions if bad behavior already occurred ie. infringing on other individuals rights.
tl;dr we support government sanctions if the subject did something wrong,not when it could do something wrong
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 weeks ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp no i completely understand what this video stands for, and if you read what i said, i actually agree with what this video says, i just disagree with the rest of the videos, that say that all regulation is bad, and that government should have NO say in what the free market does, and that kind of thinking is what allowed the 2008 financial meltdown, and the BP spill in the gulf, smart people don't wait until the bomb explodes to go clean it up, they just dont
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and its seems pretty obvious that it would also be CHEAPER to regulate things before they blew up,with proper safety regulations that would only cost a few million dollars to fully implement, the BP spill would have never happened, and BP would be HUNDREDS of millions of dollars richer, and the gulf would have millions more animals swimming around right now, and with proper financial regulations, the 2008 financial meltdown never would have happened, and all those banks wouldnt
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and all those banks wouldnt have had to pay billions of dollars in compensation fees, regulation not only saves time and trouble, but in the long run, also saves money...
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@stormbreak13 BP was heavily regulated,yet their pipe blew up,it's not regulation that prevents bad things from happening it's punishment that follows,what would work better to prevent murders,jailing murderers or forcing everyone fill out 20 forms and wear mittens all the time?As for financial meltdown,you do understand that incentive to sell all those risky mortgages did not come from the market but from the government.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 weeks ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp ...bp ADMITTED to needing more regulation, and that with the proper regulation, the disaster could and WOULD have been prevented, and it would have been much cheaper for everyone and everything involve ..why would you try and argue for someone who admitted themselves that they were wrong...and lol the government put those"safety nets" there because its elected officials were all ex-big bank CEO's who created the ludicrous legislature that said they were"to big"
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@stormbreak13 and dont compare apples to elephants please...im talking about logical financial regulation, not sticking a personal investigator inside the office of every businessman, obviously making people in arizona wear mittens all the time would cause more murders than it prevents, and if you didnt get that joke, then you arent SMART enough fill out 20 forms probably, and therefore your idea sucks, however there are subtle actually intelligent ways to subliminally instill
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@stormbreak13 non murderous actions in people, the threat of punishment for detestable behavior is one way yes, but the promise of reward for commendable behavior is another, your idiotic proposal had neither, just pointless illogical nonsense.
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@olhsaoagpaigfbp and dont compare apples to elephants please...im talking about logical financial regulation, not sticking a personal investigator inside the office of every businessman, obviously making people in arizona wear mittens all the time would cause more murders than it prevents, and if you didnt get that joke, then you arent SMART enough fill out 20 forms probably, and therefore your idea sucks, however there are subtle actually intelligent ways to subliminally instill
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@olhsaoagpaigfbp non murderous actions in people, the threat of punishment for detestable behavior is one way yes, but the promise of reward for commendable behavior is another, your idiotic proposal had neither, just pointless illogical nonsense.
stormbreak13 2 weeks ago
@stormbreak13 It is utopian to believe that government could make smart,logical regulation,government will always be corrupt and regulation will benefit those who corrupt it and hinder honest people,big corporations use it to prevent small and medium ones to grow and become competition,free market will have it's inefficiency,but not as large as government regulations,only being that would be capable of making sound regulations would be god,and god does not exist.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 1 week ago
Fucking Win!
Sexualwendigo 1 month ago
Yes we should make open access resources like air and water private.
Then there would no problem of Tragedy of The Commons.
/end irony.
shogu666 1 month ago in playlist Więcej filmów od użytkownika LearnLiberty
@shogu666 The idea is not to make everything owned by one group. Capitalism thrives best when multiple sources compete with each other. In a working system, air and water might be privatized, but the fact that many organizations are taking care of them would drive the prices down, and could potentially make them completely free. In the case of air, this would be air rights, and anyone polluting them would be charged a fine, while people get air for free. (Could say more, but out of characters)
OmegaVestor 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@OmegaVestor "Capitalism thrives best when multiple sources compete with each other"
While at the same time every self respected capitalist's goals is to get a monopoly.
Free market is based on values and incentive fallacy that creates different behavior then the one needed for it to work.
and could potentially make them completely free.
At the same time every capitalists goal is to limit amount accessible - more profitable. Again values and incentive fallacy.
shogu666 1 month ago
@shogu666 I did say in a working system. And for a hundred years this system did work (kinda). Then we got industrialism, and the term "Capitalist" came to mean, in a word, "greedy". I am in no way saying this would be practical, but I also believe Marxism (original communism) would fail as well. The market needs a healthy mix, but the mix is such a pain to try to find, most governments that try end up going one way or the other for various reasons (such as allegiances). (Again, more, but out of
OmegaVestor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OmegaVestor "The market needs a healthy mix, but the mix is such a pain to try to find, most governments that try end up going one way or the other for various reasons (such as allegiances)"
I can tell why balance in a free market is impossible to sustain long term.
It creates negative values and bad incentives. Objects on free market that already emerged successful dont want to compete anymore instead they go for total control and they have means to achieve it (money = power)
shogu666 1 month ago
@shogu666 Monopoly gives incentive to break the monopoly. However, a certain monopoly, called government can't be broken with free market processes because at that point there is no free market. Even if government breaks monopoly, it exchanges it for another monopoly: itself.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
@DMAN123223 I suggest you disband your government and and lets see how long you will stay governless.
Sorry but in not united globe the governments that you hate are the only way you can enjoy your private property.
shogu666 1 month ago
@shogu666 Civil law does not equal government. Go look up merchant courts.
But thanks for the advice, wish me luck.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMAN123223 "Civil law does not equal government. Go look up merchant courts."
Seriously you are not suggesting medieval invention to transplate into todays reality and expect it to work ???
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 "every self respected capitalist's goals is to get a monopoly."
Monopolies don't arise naturally in a free market except by providing the best quality product and the lowest price. They might want a monopoly, but the only way to achieve it is beneficial to the consumer.
shamgar001 1 month ago
@shamgar001 "Monopolies don't arise naturally in a free market except by providing the best quality product and the lowest price"
This is BS. Your theory implies that consumers and producers have equal information available to them and also consumer always make their choices 100% rational which is just aint the case in RL.
Consumers are highly emotional creatures and emotions can be easily manipulated also producers have information advantage.
Free market utopia != RL
shogu666 1 month ago
@shogu666 Consumers and producers will always have equal information as long as the internet exists.
Oh wait, that might not be long because SOPA and PIPA are government monopolies provided to big busyness for free, on behalf of the "99%'s" tax dollars. See the connection? Crony capitalism = RL.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
@DMAN123223 Even in an age of Internet information asymmetry is quite high. That is for example why example insider trading is so popular.
That is true that Internet makes some difference but it is not enough. Beside what you expect from people is all the alertness about everything all the time which is just ridiculous approach.
I would rather go on with my life and enjoy it then check at every corner if some company dont want to screw me over.
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 Yet have no example of a free market monopoly.
darkr0astedblend 1 month ago
@darkr0astedblend You have no example of working free market in real life in the first place.
It didnt happen , it doesnt happen and it wont happen.
Its utopia.
The reason why is that objects successful on the market are destroying it.
Competition is only good for small and poor but they have really power of influence while at the same time big and powerful are striving for control and they have a means achieve it
Incentives and values fallacy.
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 "It didnt happen , it doesnt happen and it wont happen. Its utopia."
Ah, yes, the famous "free markets don't exist" argument. Powerful, powerful stuff. It teaches us that we can't know anything about anything unless there exists an absolutely perfect incarnation of it in the real world. This does not apply to arguments in favor of socialism, communism, statism, fascism, or any other form of tyranny, however. It only applies when discussing economic liberty.
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 Have you checked the Economic Freedom Index? Why do countries tend to do better when they have a freer economy? Hong Kong is almost as free as you can get, yet it is thriving. You have some historic examples, like Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland, Medieval merchant cities, etc...
How can you have power, if you have no state? Everyone has a gun, and regular ppl will always have more guns than Exxon. you're not happy with them? Go to the competition.
darkr0astedblend 4 weeks ago
@darkr0astedblend Have you ever been to Hong Kong ????
Better is a subjective value i dont consider working 50 hours a week and living in a polluted city being better which is a norm down there.
Please dont give me medieval examples it is 21 century totally different reality.
It is simple the first group of people that form government rules over others that is the reason it emerged in a first place.
Even Adam Smith said paying taxes is a privilege instead of being slave.
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 Lolz... Hong Kong has an average standard of living higher than most Western countries. You're just in denial.
lol @ "different reality". Yes you're just dismissing arguments so you continue safe in your bubble.
Are you saying there was someone who first used force to impose a top down rule over other people? So that proves my point that states are based on violence?
darkr0astedblend 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkr0astedblend "Are you saying there was someone who first used force to impose a top down rule over other people? So that proves my point that states are based on violence?"
Of course they are, yet at the same time the stop much more violence that comes out of anarchy.
shogu666 3 weeks ago
@shogu666 Apparently you've never been to Hong Kong. It has a higher standard of living than most Western countries and had the highest middle class explosion in history. You are a fucking moron.
itachi705 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itachi705 "Apparently you've never been to Hong Kong. It has a higher standard of living than most Western countries and had the highest middle class explosion in history. You are a fucking moron."
Eve if what you said is remotely true As i already told i dont consider working minimum 50 hours a week and living in highly polluted city a higher standard of living.
So FU.
shogu666 3 weeks ago
@shogu666 "Your theory implies that consumers and producers have equal information available to them"
That's interesting. Are they supposed to have "equal information available to them"?
Sorry, but that doesn't exist in the Real World. That's "utopia." I guess this means that your theory is bunk too. So all theories are bunk because we can't know anything about anything unless there are perfect examples of perfect functions in a perfect world of ideas. Bummer.
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername "That's interesting. Are they supposed to have "equal information available to them"?"
If you want the consumers to rule the market then yes it is necessary of course that is not the case which i pointed out. So all theories that bad businesses goes broke or natural monopolies dont form are based on wrong assumption (equal information )
shogu666 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shogu666 "and also consumer always make their choices 100% rational which is just aint the case in RL."
In case you didn't know, economics is about the real world. There is no school of economic thought which proposes that anything will be either perfect or 100%. This does not mean that we cannot know anything about human action in the real world, however. All economic arguments carry the caveat "all things being equal," but this has never been an appeal to perfection.
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 "Free market is based on values and incentive fallacy"
Never heard of that. Explain it.
And what is your alternative to a free market? How will you stop people from freely exchanging goods and services? Why do you want to do this?
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
@MillionthUsername "Never heard of that. Explain it."
Tell what kind of incentives and valuate system promotes where upon your $ depends :
* resource access
* social status
* education
* MUCH,MUCH more up to the point of feeling self-worth
Because i can tell you that those aint positive ones and especially those aint the ones that are required for free market to work or stay in a balance for any longer period of time
Thus corruption and degradation is a matter of time
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 "Tell what kind of incentives and valuate system promotes where upon your $ depends"
I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you are saying.
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername
I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you are saying."
I asked a simple question. What values and incentives are prevalent in a social group where money$ is literally everything
It is a simple question !!!
shogu666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername "How will you stop people from freely exchanging goods and services? Why do you want to do this? "
You see i understand that in order to fix something you need to address cause not a result
You cant stop people from freely exchanging goods and services but you can make this process obsolete.
We can do this via application of technology and reason and produce abundance.
Abundance wont emerge out of monetary market due to supply and demand law
shogu666 4 weeks ago
@shogu666 Also, implying that water wasn't privatise before.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
In a mutualist political economy, there is personal possession of land. In many libertarian socialist and left-libertarian property ownership and economic models, The Tragedy of the Commons wouldn't really be a problem. Individual small-scale private property is a good thing, but absentee ownership is not a good thing. The corporate moguls that own the land can exploit it all they want, it won't affect their posh surroundings where they reside.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago in playlist Featured
German hunters say Ohne Jäger - Kein Wild, that means "No hunters - No game". Who is most interested in the well fare, and robustness of game populations!? Yes, hunters are, cos they don't exisst w o them. Same with cattle ranchers, no pasture no cattle.
Axbent 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
This free market jerkoff needs to ask some engineers how many of the ideas they come up with when working for private companies they keep. Answer they same number you get to keep when working for the goverment, none.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
Watching these videos reminds me of a die-hard free-marketer laughing at how absurd a pie-in-the-sky communist society seems to them. This is the free-markets fairy version. Let's face it guys- governments do some things better than markets. It is hard to comprehend the libertarian position without first stipulating that.
burkash 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@burkash
No actaully, like the current sitaution proves, the state sucks at pretty much everything except the initiation of force.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
Well, land is not a good example for capitalism. It's the one flaw that's hard to explain, because really, what makes a certain field or forest yours and not mine? Land is not a product, so dividing it up won't affect its supply; whereas dividing products such as money and wealth will cause them to disappear as people lose their motivation to produce it. The thing is, if parks were allowed to become private property, the owners would eliminate them by fencing them in, keeping YOU out.
gilbet 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@gilbet There are many parks that are owned privately, many take a fees to enter, but some don't. And, land is the mother of all products.
Axbent 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
Comment removed
gilbet 1 month ago
@gilbet I said Land is the mother of all product, meaning all we can touch was once produced or mined from a piece of land. And I agree we are custodians of land, thats it.
Axbent 1 month ago
So then by all means let us know why LLCs exist if the company is "solely responsible" ?
metsubo 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Libertarian economic theory also is based on the tenants that you: can't hurt other people, you can't steal from other people, and you must respect property rights. Businesses would be regulated to the extent that they follow these tenants. The regulation, of course, would be through proper accountability of those businesses and people running those businesses. This isn't a silver bullet either. The question is whether government involvement makes things more efficient (ha!) or not.
Draanor 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
There is no native motive for government to harm the commons. It is, almost always, the profit motive behind despoiled resources. And every single instance of such despoiling happening successfully has been in the absence of effective regulation and or lax enforcement of bans in place.
axesbowledaslove 2 months ago
If you are tracing the problem to "government regulation" then your analytical skills are in need of repair. It is not governmental regulation that is at the root of the problem, it is usually government collusion through institutionalized bribery schemes. Government regulation, when based soundly in reason and enforced fairly, without corporate bribery, is quite effective in protecting commonly held resources.
axesbowledaslove 2 months ago
Well, it looks like we need to give the Earth's air supply to some tycoon or another and he will charge us to breathe! Yeah, that'll solve it!
Frikkin libertarian pipe dreams. How do you propose to sell the ocean? Should we fence it off by the hectare?
Oh, and I am sure Yosemite would be a far finer thing if it were owned by Monsanto and all the riff-raff were kept out by $100 admissions and thug bouncers.
The capacity of libertarians to fantasize around reality amazes me.
axesbowledaslove 3 months ago
@axesbowledaslove
When demanding solutions from libertarians, how about providing functioning state solutions yourself.
Illyrien 2 months ago
@Illyrien We already HAVE functioning systems that address most of the problems of the commons, Illyrien. I say most because if we had ALL, then it would be a perfect system. Such does not actually exist, either in nature or in the affairs of humans. NO system is perfect. There is always a catch, somewhere.
The solution is regulation, not the elimination of the commons entirely, which is what privatization really means. If privatization were really the answer, then you would pay to breathe air.
axesbowledaslove 2 months ago
@Illyrien BTW, I am not demanding answers from libertarians. Libertarians do have a few answers, some of which I support. But their economic theories are childish bunk. Even Adam Smith, the father of the notion of free-market benevolence would recoil in horror at the thought of simply letting markets run wild without regulation, which is the heart of libertarian economic theory.
axesbowledaslove 2 months ago
@axesbowledaslove
Free markets are not lawless.
Allright you don't like that people are free, I just cannot comprehend why that would be.
Illyrien 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axesbowledaslove do you have any proof that they are childish bunk?
jonescomplete 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
This has been flagged as spam show
@axesbowledaslove if you want regulation, why not make smaller communities of likeminded people that demand that regulation? Why do you have to imperialize everything in sight?
jonescomplete 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
@jonescomplete Funny you say this, in a libertarian society they would be perfectly free to do just that as long as the people own the land they are doing it on. If you want to gather in a community and form a minidictatorship you are free to do so. As long as you don't break any of the laws of the country.
pcgamernum1 2 months ago
My question on this feed is have you explored the incentive system these companies are facing? In my own experience I have found that government regulation is at the root of the problem, placing them in abnormal situations where it is extremely profitable to go against morals and normal practices. I arguing that companies are not to blame; however, there is a shared blame and one that often ORIGINATES with government. Also, in terms of killing civilians, how many people has government killed?
Ibelieveinfreedom1 4 months ago
Another one-sided argument by Learn Liberty. Subjecting nature to competitive pressure is a recipe for disaster. What's to stop a private owner from stripping the land bare for coal, developing real estate, opening a toxic dump or worse?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
@Magicwillnz What's to stop a government from doing the exact same thing? You're asking all the wrong questions. Furthermore, it would be infinitely easier for a government to do so. What stops private enterprise from doing so mostly comes down to profit & property. There is demand for both dumps and things like parks, forests, etc. Property rights are what PROTECTS forests from the ToC. All of these things are best allocated through supply and demand, not any government agenda.
HolidayFortnight 4 months ago
@HolidayFortnight
"What's to stop a government from doing the exact same thing? "
Thing called voting, but since you retards get your info from the say people who have corrupted the entire system to the core, you will never understand that.
mecher3k 4 months ago
@mecher3k Do you think your vote matters when the state agenda has already been decided? Oh I forgot, only corporations are evil and not government! Have you absolutely no clue about the powers and evils of eminent domain?
You statists will never understand that even though this sacred cow of a system might be powerful enough to grant you everything you want, it's also powerful enough to take everything away. And if they ever did decide to do that their "votes" will be the only ones that matter.
HolidayFortnight 4 months ago
@mecher3k Wrong. There is voting in almost all 200 countries that exist on earth, but it only appears to matter in handful of them. Voting alone doesn't stop anyone from anything, but a civil society, or siply put - morals and prejudice.
coturnix19 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
@HolidayFortnight That is just not how things are observed to work. Democratic government, with oversight and held to account, substantially improved the use of the environment. Private ownership of land doesn't solve this problem because it hasn't been observed to do so. Your economic theories are just wrong when held up to real-world examples. Fuck, do I have to list the environmental disasters of private industry?
Magicwillnz 4 months ago
@Magicwillnz There is no reason to throw logic out the window just because we're talking about nature. If anything it is especially crucial to think critically and economically when discussing the scarcity of nature's resources.
HolidayFortnight 4 months ago
@HolidayFortnight I'm not throwing logic out the window: what I described happens. If we're going to talk about the tragedy of the commons I want to talk about the tragedy of private ownership.
Magicwillnz 4 months ago
@Magicwillnz You could certainly talk about it. What I'm hearing so far is hot air and misguided assertions. If you would actually like to discuss these problems substantially I'll be right here waiting.
HolidayFortnight 4 months ago
or the park ranger could do the right thing and just submit the idea and be proactive in improving something...
Dethreid 5 months ago
Comment removed
Downfurlife 7 months ago
Corporations put paint thinners, gun powder and other known carcinogens in our toothpaste/mouth wash. These private companies do not give a shit about the pain they cause the consumer. They will continue to add toxin after toxin exploiting all of their consumers until their consumers die. It is not they they do not know they are slowly killing consumers. It is in the private "not free" free market profit must trump life for the corporation to thrive.
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@Downfurlife Yes, the corporations are out to get you! They want all their customers dead so they don't ever buy their products again! Makes perfect sense. There is no evidence to back up your claims that they are purposefully poisoning toothpaste in order to kill their customers. Please stay off the internet.
siftyfour 7 months ago
@siftyfour ? It is a fact.... That was one specific product out of hundreds of thousands. See, if I shoot you with a gun I go to jail. But, if I donate enough money to politicians & the FDA I can put poisons in your toothpaste kill you slow and it is legal. I am not really sure what you are talking about? You do not think potassium nitrate or methanol are poison? Those are only 2 examples of tens of thousands
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@Downfurlife No I don't buy into this paranoid conspiracy theory that within the dark offices of toothpaste companies the management is secretly planning to put poison in the toothpaste to kill their customers. This is complete nonsense not backed by any evidence. The simple fact that there is potassium nitrate in toothpaste (you can get non-fluoridated toothpaste too), and the idea that it could be bad for your health, does not mean there's conspiracy against the public.
siftyfour 7 months ago
@Downfurlife
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read in weeks.
Corporations are run by PEOPLE and last I checked there is no Affirmative Action plan to put homicidal sociopaths as CEOs. It makes no sense to purposefully put lethal dosages into their products that will EXCLUSIVELY kill their customers, destroying FUTURE profits. It makes less sense they would want to and from a 'greed' standpoint bc publicity and lawsuits would destroy the profits they had ALREADY collected + jail
realtaveren 6 months ago
@realtaveren Do you have any idea what happens when a child starts consuming a tube of toothepaste? A small dosage can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, gastrotestinal pains..ect.
Champraves311 6 months ago
@Champraves311
OK, now THIS is the stupidest thing I've heard. 1st, you missed the point. No one said that toxic chemicals weren't present,we said there are not LETHAL dosages put into products soley for the purpose of killing the consumer by the corporation. Not only is this argument not on target, but it is so irrelevant to the question of INTENTION of the company to kill its consumers that its not in the same zip code. Please find an usher, ask for 'the program' and 'get with it'.
realtaveren 6 months ago
2nd, even so, the argument you pose is so ridiculously fallacious that I just pooped my pants a little. You're saying that when you ingest a substance that ISN'T INTENDED to be ingested and bad things happen that it should prove that the corporation is intending to kill you with the ingredients. In inappropriate amounts anything is lethal from water to applesauce, just as is paint thinner, but when you use something inappropriately that suggests NOTHING about the intent of the company. Jeez!
realtaveren 6 months ago
@realt Corporations are fined, usually never criminal charged for killing, injuring or making customers sick all the time. If you are so corrupted by a free market agenda someone shoved up your ass then closed you on all it's wonderful benefits not excluding the hundreds of millions you could potentially make one day, I realize you will be satisfied with 60k as long as the carrot is dipped in honey. I'd suggest glasses and pulling your pants up then squeeze your cheeks tighter - watch that ass
Downfurlife 6 months ago
@Downfurlife Nobody is corrupted by any agenda just because they disagree. People just have the common sense to know that killing your customers isn't a sustainable policy. Hence all the fear-mongering that goes into promoting such propaganda it is just absurd.
WinterXL 5 months ago
@WinterXL Funnily enough, actually, corporations don't have that common sense, they are quite willing to have customers die: Ford Pinto, cigarettes, Massey energy, fracking, dead peasant's insurance, the list goes on. I agree it doesn't make sense, question is, why does it happen all the fucking time?
Magicwillnz 5 months ago
first
drcooper11 7 months ago