i find that i cannot stop watching stefans videos, however now because of this one i cannot stop laughing!!! when he slapped his head and made faces at around the 4:36 mark i found myself ROFLMFAO!!!
Explain Stef , How the free market ( unrestricted pursuit of profit) does not result in another 1% of the top players making most of the money and therefore getting most of the power?! I'm not advocating government sticking their nose where it don't belong , but how is that any better? The way I see it free market isn't going to result in a better world anymore than corporatism , cummunism , fascism or any of the past -ism's.
Can't be worse than giving a group outright the moral sanction to initiate force at will. Even if some group planning on taking over managed to amass an army without being noticed by anyone, people will not have been trained early on that it's use of force is a good thing.
Not to mention that without the accepted sanction of taking peoples money by force, any such group would have quite a lot of trouble affording their weapons; the cost is a burden on any company.
Additionally, the "unrestricted pursuit of profit", without the sanctioned initiation of force, is little more than people freely exchanging value (if someone buys a pen for a $1, each person values what the other has more than what he has). Basically, power comes from what you are willing to give up in exchange for something else, and everyone values things differently; wealth will come from effectively bringing what each person wants to them.
i think free market capitalism or laissez faire capitalism should be referred to from now on as the voluntary resource management market in order to shed the image of the robber baron
@phroto13 yes this is perfect. To remove the negativity of capitalism instilled by public schooling history we should redefine the terms such as they have with the constitution.
"You don't solve a single goddamn problem by creating a government.
Saying 'government solves problems' is exactly the same as saying, Oh, I don't know: 'Where'd the world come from?-- *! God made it!' It's a complete non-answer that stultifies and retards our capacity for intelligence and examination. It's an embarassment." Bra'- motherfuckin' -'vo.
My suspicion is that Heinlein would have likely called Stefan and other anti-electoral-politics libertarians "yammerheads". That's why he focused his character based on Le Fevre (ironically an anti-politics-libertarian), on setting up a new constitution that was procedurally more limited than the US constitution. Could a better set of more rigid limitations be drawn up than the US Constitution? Sure. Easily. But this is never the voluntaryist answer. Why not? ...It's work!
Do a youtube search for Matt Fogg LEAP and you'll see what "consent of the governed" means. That's not to say that there aren't some fine ideas in the Bill of Rights, but those ideas are not being followed at all any longer...
Stefan, what is terrific about your videos is too sublime to elucidate, so I will focus on a tiny bit of constructive criticism. If your goal is to convert statists, your patronizing tone will put us on the defensive. Your goal is to illuminate, not mock. Now I must get back to watching your 618 videos.
Everything from the article can be defended. Everything Stef says can be critiqued....and I used to think that was a rational perspective...
....until George Bush started torturing people, with his pack of lawyers giving assurance that torture wasn't actually torture, and was in fact perfectly legal.
In the end, you can't ignore DIRECT and EXPLICIT evidence.
@LoklarYsera Wrong, it always produces the same answer, it just so happens to be two numbers or points. His wording might be a little awkward but the principle is correct.
Run through your equation again and you will get the same answer, twice. Thus no two different answers.
@LoklarYsera "His wording might be a little awkward but the principle is correct."
Did you miss that bit? Your arguing semantics. What he was getting at is that math problems are very rigid and will always produce the same result, whther or not that result is only one number.
About the leg=freedom metaphor: What if a small part of your leg was detrimental to health of the rest. Say it had Gangrene. It would be unfortunate, but necessary to surgically extract/cauterize/whatever that small part of the leg to preserve the whole of the leg. Does cutting or cauterizing your leg for its own health sound paradoxical? Sure. Is it paradoxical in the aforementioned situation? Not at all.
Aggression must be outlawed in order to preserve the health of our other freedoms.
(due to your rich education you tend to marginalize, label, and sometimes insult other people, which comes off as arrogant, which is destructive. I might not be as educated as you, butmy lifestyle asa tradesperson doesn't allow forit, and I didn't chose my lifestyle. Does thatmake my opinion worthless? I don't really think it does, or you would be agreeing withthe elite in their disdain and disregard for the common man. Please beconsiderate of the factthat most people werent onthe debate team
Though I am disturbed by your fairly common tantrums, episodes, and erratic flailings, your metaphor for the protection of liberty via its quashing, versus the protection of a leg via amputation was quite accurate, so much soo that I'd comment on it. If you look at why the amputation of a leg might be bad, it is obvious; "I need my leg!" Well people need their freedom.
You need to take away the liberty of one man to become a dictator to protect the liberty of those they would enslave PURE FREEDOM would include the freedom to shoot anyone you felt like the vary desire to remove the government is the same thing.
Easily your best video so far (35 of 97). THIS is the one that I will recommend to my statist friends and the numerous people that I debate these issues with. It's snappy, funny, direct, concise and points out the many deadly statist paradoxes quite delightfully. MUCH better than your "Intervention" video which was too talky, kinda nebulous and lacking in punch. Love your material, gonna watch them all
A fellow traveller
P.S I find your website a little cumbersome, sorry
Your point about power being addictive is pretty good. Its the reason why restraint in political leaders is impossible especially if they have been their for 20 years.
Most authoritarians will argue why your freedom is destructive and bad while those who love freedom will argue why it is good. Doesn't this sound like the debate between left and right in this country?
If someone does something that is irrational to you that doesn't mean it is irrational to him. We cant possibly know everything about others, their circumstances or motives to judge objectively whether he is acting rationally or not. Therefore definition of rationality is strictly subjective.
If you really want to know how awful, stupid and illogical those naughty "Libertarians" are, visit the one and only web site dedicated16 years to critiquing and debunking everything "Libertarian":
Google "Mike Huban Critiques of Libertarianism" today!
Just make sure you're not eating anything, or you will spew it all over your keyboard.
I notice, and it makes me laugh when people look to Stefan as the Anachist messiah.
"How should we do this?"
"How is done"
"Lead us, Stefan, Lead us."
It's Ironic that he teaches freedom, and emancipation from tyranical leaders. Teaching that we can work things out on our own, and yet people ask to be led, told what to do. Told how to act and think.
You reminded me of this behavour. Because you're right. The sheeple need crave a leader.
Dude, the guy is awesome. It just makes sense, it's like you have a feeling that somthing is wrong all your life and it's like the veil has been lifted, all the pieces come together.
He presents the information in a way that is entertaining and backs up his claims with resoning and refrences.
The only thing I disagree with is his view on Determinism. Everything else... spot on.
I see no problem with mentoring. I see no problem at validating wether the philosophy is consistent or not. Emulation is a perfectly natural way to be, as long as you progress on your own once a certain level of understanding has been reached. I don't see any anarchists on here being "lead".
Indeed, this is the answer to one of the standard objections to voluntary interaction, that people need to be "educated" before they can be trusted to act in their "rational" self interest.
Is there a bigger single subject section of any book store than "self help"? (rhetorical question, of course)
Thanks, that's not something I hear often, it's extremely hard to articulate in the "itty bitty" space they provide for comments! I know some people see it at cohercion, but it will be likely impossible to survive without membership of such an organisation in a free society. Most shops, banks, estate agents and corporations for example will reject customers who aren't insured and within the contract ratings system (Think EBay meets credit rating) which uses social pressure instead of violence.
@andrew7102 like pretending "consumer protection" is anything but consumer prevention of that monopoly laws are actually anti-business etc. Again, you don't have to even vote for a party, BUT you can remove your "vote" (money) at ANY time, not when it suits them, and be able to choose an entirely new system without effort. Also, if you want more domestic issues, how about the 16000000 dead from already existing health care legislation (that is now, before the new reforms come into effect)
@andrew7102 Those are some pretty hefty assumptions. Do you have any reason to back them up? Why would people have to fight for every one of their believes. I wouldn't be interested in setting up an organisation to solve criminal of contractual disputes, I'd join one of the many that would exist. I'm sure you haven't built a computer or written a novel for yourself recently. I doubt you can find anyone who "accepts" more than a fraction of the law (assuming they don't make up reasoning ...(cont)
I do exactly he opposite! I distrust people to the very limit of possibility. Hence I don't want to support an organisation that gives the worst people possible all the violence they wish to use! If people are as bad as you say, then governments can't be anything but unstoppably dangerous. You don't think a piece of paper with "Constitution" written on it is stopping them do you? Indiviiduals would not be alone in anarchy. Just as your neighbours don't murder you now, they won't murder you then.
@andrew7102 I was refering to all moral crime in general. Without the state, even non crime prevention will reduce crime, both state and social to fractional numbers. America's greatest violent crimes are caused by government, either by incentive, public education, poverty subsidisation and destroying economic markets like drugs to the point that violence because economically viable (it's not in a free market). On top of that there is Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and internally? Gitmo!!!
Well said andrew7102! How could we possibly disregard the most important role of government... the violent part! Saying otherwise would be like saying that freedom is most important when applied to important things! Not true, we should be grateful for the scraps of freedom we get and ignore the historical evidence that even at current crime rates, with no prisons, and no non-statist crime prevention, there's be faaaar violence than Statism caused in WW2 alone, nevermind in "peacetime".
You are debating when influenced of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I have to say that this was a step down from a few other videos in which you basically debunk this video on your own.
Statism is a tool of manipulation of the processes of balance in order to advantage a group. Statism delibarately creates balance bubbles to ride to the top, and allows it to burst on the masses, oldest trick in the book of an organised sociopath. The dumbing down of people will lead to an explosion of knowledge to reach the real level humanity was supposed to reach relative to time/experience/technology. Statism is fundamentally prehistoric and hampers our advancement and has come to an end.
Statism caused knowledge, economic, physical (nature) bubbles which are all about to explode. If we wake up as a species we can deflate the bubbles to save as many lives as we can, if we do not , many lives will be lost, and perhaps this explosion might lead to the destruction of our planet.Which will only lead the solar system to "tighten" up to replace the now destroyed planet.Funny how the universe won't even budge to our stupidity as a species. It is up to us to live in symbiosis with nature
The experiment he is talking about with the simulated prison environment is demonstrated in the German film "Das Experiment". I thought it was a pretty good movie.
Hi, I don't know if it has already been pointed out but Jefferson's bit about 'inalienable rights' etc. is from the Declaration of Independence (which TJ wrote) not the Constitution -- arguably not a trivial error for anyone otherwise expecting to be taken seriously.
1st video I've seen, nice work. A little long for newcomers to libertarian ideas, but I'm part of the choir, so I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Man, a libertarian in Canada. . . I don't pretend to know much about Canada, but my uneducated impression of Canadian politics would leave me to believe that you would a part of a smaller minority than I am, and I'm a hockey fan in the Southern US! Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumptions. . . wouldn't be the first time!
I've actually seen people classify their views as "Libertarian-Socialist" in a completely serious way. It doesn't make any sense to me, because as a self-described libertarian, I see economic freedom as a fundamental part of freedom.
Yes, life isn't always rosy, but it's up to you to make it as rosy as you want it, you shouldn't demand your neighbors make it rosy to your blueprints!
Keep fighting for true freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, individuality. These are virtues, not sins!
libertarian socialism is the original form of libertarianism. seriously. the distinction you're missing is that it's anti-statist socialism, so socialism run voluntarily at the community level and the abolition of both capitalism and state.
Libertarian socialism is the original form of libertarianism." Can you give more details on this? As far as the use of the word "libertarian" in the US, my understanding is the views were previously described as liberalism, but the socialists took it to describe themselves, so the term libertarian was used.
As far as voluntary socialism, that's fine: it's called a commune. What happens to those that don't want to be part of your "voluntary" socialist society. Can we freely interact on own?
Yes you are. There have been individualists in anarchist (libertarian socialist) revolutions and societies and a true libertarian society would respect that no authority may rightfully be imposed on those who choose not to involve themselves with the community.
First off,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "STATE".It is a mental construct-a fiction.
Second,to have socialism you have to bring out the guns and compulsory tax-e.g.-use violence to enforce your opinion(Law).Either you have a choice-OR-It's based on violence.
See how long you can go without a state or government if you want to keep private property, or any free and voluntary exchange that results in the amassing of property, out of the realm of liberty. And if one sees it and exiles such a person, there is also a de facto government (initiation of force, after all).
You cannot ABOLISH any voluntary action without force.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. But then again, socialism has never attracted the most logical of minds.
actually, if you'd bother to research the history of the word "Libertarianism" you'd know that it was originall a synonym for political anarchism. In fact libertarian capitalism is the oxymoron because liberty and minority ownership of the means of production are incompatible. as long as a few control everything the many will be slaves.
I'm fully aware of Proudhon, but thanks for the suggestion.
Meanwhile you have entirely failed to see the point that logically, no economical equality can be enforced in a free, stateless society.
It's not a question of ideals, but of logic.
THAT is why "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron.
Even if the starting point is total economic equality, liberty and free will will result in inequal outcome as a result of differences in human action and character. But i'm sure you won't understand.
saying that "logically x happens because of y" isn't a proof that that is indeed the case. Actually I think you'll find that throughout history stateless societies have all been egalitarian ones and that the rise of the nation state is tid very closely to the rise of income inequality. In fact the entire purpose of the state is to - in Madison's words - "protect property from the majority". inequality is violence and requires violence to maintain, and that is the purpose of the State.
Actually collectivistic ethics of cultures like Japan tend to be superior in competitiveness towards individualistic ethics of America. Japan is a well known collectivistic culture.
Companies with devoted employees who worship their executives as father figures is a formidable cohesive organization. I suggest you study Organizational Behavioral models.
neat, we aren't Japanese.. I wasn't raised that way nor was anyone outside of japan. You know collectivization doesn't work in an individualistic society. You really think you could undo 3500 years of European philosophy with some book on organizational behavior?
The things that capitalists depend on, was created by the government itself. For example, the internet itself is based on the development of ARPANET.
I agree that government should be smaller than the large monster it is today, but I would prefer a public road, rather than paying a toll for every street I am on that is owned by somebody else.
I haven't finished this yet but the "paradox" of free markets really stood out to me. "Markets gravitate toward natural monopolies" - this was not the case in free-market United States until industrialism overtook it. Pre-industrial U.S. was what modern entrepreneurs would consider a paradise, and they thrived for it. It was only when the industrialists came along and lobbied for laws protecting them from competition and liability that the monopolies became commercially viable and began to form.
If there ws no government we would be controlled directly by corporations and organized criminals, which would lead to slavery and mass starvation. Atleast a democracy gives people some control over the laws that affect their own lives.
1:We are controlled by corporations on multiple levels 2: The world is full of economic slavery and mass starvation.There has never been a democracy...in a democracy the people vote on EVERYTHING.the design of buildings,the layout of roads,the percentage of tax...EVERYTHING.your given a vote on a range of pre selected candidates that gives you the illusion of so called freedom.realise this...none of us are free
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper. Democracy in any form in no less a system of slavery as any form of government where decisions pertaining to your life are made by others. Why are a majority of fools better equipped to make decisions influencing your life than one, or a select few, of foolish politicians? NOBODY knows better what's good for you than YOU.
There is only one good system of government and that is self-government.
(part 1 of Message to trident movies) You say"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper" and i agree.Democracy int the solution to anything since the incentive is still there for corruption..From reading your other comments i see that you advocate a truly freemarket system...heres a question for you tridentmovies...what do you think is the cause of aberrant behavior with regards to corporations either in a true freemarket system of within the current system?
Part 2 of message to tridentmovies) The system of money creates unethical means of profit gain...and so we have our world today....full of environmental disaster and unbalanced economic ruin by the strive for profit by capitalist means
First of all, what you declare to be "aberrant behavior" may simply be rational self interest, and in that case i couldn't care less how you feel about that, since rational self interest is a right to live for your own sake rather than as a sacrificial lamb to another's needs.
The difference between free market and crony capitalism is voluntarism vs. state force to back up corporate interests..
The word capitalist means nothing unless defined as either free market or state capitalism.
Stop acting as if a free market would somehow eliminate all involuntary and coercive means with an invisible hand. Free markets are simply another restrictive power structure and are not truly free. States cannot be abolished without getting rid of private ownership entirely. Land ownership is one of the key and I would say most important elements in the creation of a "state."
Please tell me how it isn't. Free markets assume all people are informed and free of coercion. I am saying that cannot exist.
Coercion will occur regardless of state existence. In my opinion a true free market cannot exist, and it will always lead to a controlled system. A true free market system is just as Utopian as a true communist society.
If by "aberrant behavior" you mean things like fraud, special interests, profiting from state activities like war, then the obvious solution would be simple: abolition of the political state and contracts that define punishments for defrauding consumers or employees..
Beyond that, and in a free society, nobody has any obligation to "serve" another against his will. Neither business man nor customer or potential employee.
Finally, whatever "aberrant behavior" is and whether or not it is motivated by greed is immaterial, since the only thing that is truly dangerous is power. Power by the threat/use of aggression. Human emotions mean nothing and i reject any thought police that lectures me on the "correct" emotions or motivations when it comes to economics. It is the gun pointed at someone's head that matters. The free market is the only non-violent means capable of breaking and preventing unearned power.
(part 1) (whatever "aberrant behavior" is and whether or not it is motivated by greed is immaterial)
By this statement alone you have demonstrated that you have failed to account for the unethical multinational corporations and monopolies that the free market system propagates. Multinational corporations are the real power of this world, the latest example being the invasion and murder of over one million Iraqis on the pretense of confiscation of weapons of mass destruction..........
(part 2)(WMDs found=0 ) (U.S. Military Industrial Complex Sales=Billions & rising) (Capital gained from Rebuilding Contracts to the U.S.=$billions) (oil Secured as collateral = $billions)an example of evolved aggressive free market practice. These aggressive strategies are born out of rational self interest within a monetary system, stateism is unavoidable.......
(part 3)........ in any free market environment. For as long as a monetary system exists through scarcity and abundance every individual charged with responsibility is corruptible through rational self interest.
Ummm... Doesn't the prison guard experiment warn us against monopolies and oligopolies? That markets, free or otherwise, gravitate to powerful groups of people who own other people? Of course that's an argument against government but isn't it also an argument for being as self-sufficient as possible? (living outside the market free or otherwise). Just a thought. Nice sound.
Ok, this is not real free-market, it's state-capitalism, I agree with you on that. However, you don't seem to realize that we have actually seen a great deal on how the free-market works, we have seen privatization, we have seen competition, we have seen what happens with jobs, we have seen a system VERY CLOSE to the free-market, and this allows us to observe it and criticize it. This provides a 100 times more proof, than what your theories say.
"Unfortunately, markets do not naturally allow entrepreneurs to thrive". Its funny, you disagree every time there's an observation or a critique on the free-market and capitalism because as you say: there has never been a free-market in the world, therefore there is no proof. So if there has never been a free-market, then where is YOUR proof that it works? Is it your books and your theories? Cause there has never been REAL communism either, so some people would still swear that Marxism works.
REAL communism doesn't work in theory, REAL anarcho-capitalism, DOES. The assumption of perfect people is what leads people to believe in socialism/communism, but, under those assumptions, any system can work. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes every one is an individual and has different values structures. Its assumptions are validated by reality, and thus, it works in reality. The only problem is states using violence to halt the natural flow of how the world SHOULD work.
And what about the law? If I must go to a private court and I will be declared guilty can I, instead of going into higher court, go to another privatly ownt court? And can I do that as long as one court declares me not-guilty?
And why should all the courts have the same law? How can they; without the law?
A great book that I would recommend you read is 'Anarchy and the Law'. There are many theories on how your question can be answered, and I'm sure by me answering it, it will lead to many many more questions. The book includes all the answers you might want for those.
Essentially the system would work on the same premises that international law works now, except with different ways to define borders. Is it really that difficult to imagine when it is occuring all around us right now?
Law and justice are both very dangerous words, which, when used incorrectly can result in some very disgusting things happening. (ie, the crusades, coercive governments, etc)
Destroying that guys article is roughly equivalent to destroying Christian values. It doesn't require super level of intellect, but it's always fun anyway.
Stefan Molyneux's condescending arrogance is only exceeded by his intellectual dishonesty and poorly constructed arguments.
5:55 - who said anything about "eliminating" liberty? This is a classic case of Reductio ad Absurdum. Mr. Molyneux is obviously not illiterate - so one can only conclude he is being dishonest.
For Molyneux it is all or nothing and this is of course, patently absurd.
Individuals cede a modicum of personal sovereignty to gain benefits they could not receive themselves.
Because human beings are not self-sufficient they came together into family groups, later villages, cities, nations and national governments precisely because these institutions provided something greater to the citizens that comprised them than if they lived solely in a state of nature.
Has it always worked out perfect? Of course not - but the mere fact that it worked better than what was there before simply means (to use Libertarian lingo) that there was a "market" for such systems to exist.
7:50 - Molyneux is comparing oranges to apples when refuting the theoretical/practical aspects of social sciences versus hard science. I suppose he could defend Communism on the same grounds. However, the refutation falls flat on its face as there are instances in the physical sciences where the laws of nature breakdown - particularly on the quantum level - such as light and electrons exhibiting characteristics of both particles and waves.
8:50 - Molyneux contradicts himself a number of times. He refutes that human beings are irrational - but are "adaptive" - then chides the author for suggesting that people are "squalling children" - then turns around and essentially agrees with the writer in order to conclude since human beings ARE irrational why would you want them running the government? This is further reinforced when he cites the Stanford Experiment.
So which is it Mr. Molyneux? Are human beings rational or not?
Moreover, Lee Hampton, the author isn't saying that human beings are fundamentally irrational - you are distorting his intended meaning - only that human beings are susceptible to irrationality.
He clearly recognizes that government is not composed of "angels of benevolence" - but then again, no one should expect that should be the case. And this is why democratic governments are by their very natures, self-correcting.
Your worldview offers no such mechanism for self-correction.
Self-correction in the Anarcho / Libertarian view comes simply from Market forces. This is of course fantasy that is predicated on your own lofty idealism and certainly not based on reality.
One perfect example is Microsoft. It used its market share monopoly to muzzle its way into a number of other markets, and in effect, destroyed a number of small entrepreneurs and crippled up and coming ventures like Netscape.
Only now, as a result of its own profligacy has it lost some market share.
And despite their profligacy and the presence of superior products like Firefox, Microsoft still owns more than 66 percent of the browser market more than a decade after the fact. This despite IE's notorious security issues.
Where's the accountability that you speak of?
It just isn't there. And this again just underscores the fact that your philosophy works in the abstract but not in practical terms.
Bear in mind that Microsoft is no government-sponsored monopoly - as some might suggest.
Finally at 15:20 Molyneux says "there has never been a free market" therefore one must be talking about "state capitalism" - this is a straw man argument. Also, his refutation that the author cannot prove that monopolies accumulate in a Free Market is reminiscent of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy - i.e. Since 6000 years of human history has had a state in one form or another NO TRUE free market has ever existed. Therefore he maintains his position without having to prove his own thesis.
Microsoft was a monopoly because it owned over 90 percent of the market share of operating systems in the nation (perhaps the world at that point as well). That is why it came under the scrutiny of anti-trust laws because it used its influence in one sector to force its way into the browser market. This is illegal and while Microsoft got away with it here, it's paying for its practices in Europe.
Ten years later and look at all the damage its done. That's not self-correcting in my view.
You are mistaken of the definition of a monopoly. There are/were no barriers to entry into the market- which is what is needed for a company to be considered a monopoly. If a single company could command 90% of the markets clients without using force, they are doing something amazing, and should be commended, not punished!
Exactly. If almost everyone is using theyre system then KUDOS to them. Congrats, you made it. Eventually they will come off theyre pedestal when better things come along. As if the anti trust laws did anything but take some money out of microsoft by pussie companies who were just whining theyre pussies off.
Suing microsoft for being a 'monopoly' is ridiculous- it will come back to bite them in the ass. By reducing microsofts ability to be the best it can be, and forcing them to allow worse competitors a chance, you are sending signals to both competitors and microsoft that they should NOT provide consumers what they want.
I didn't say they were sued for being a monopoly. Being a monopoly in of itself is not illegal. However, using your monopoly power to break into another market IS illegal and subject to anti-trust laws. Microsoft used their monopoly in the OS market to break into the browser market. They used the excuse that they were innovating but it was clear they just wanted to control the market. Their dominance stifled competition. Don't you see the contradiction? This is why regulation is necessary.
"Ten years later and look at all the damage its done"
-Can you give me an example of all the damage it has done? From what I can tell, the cost of computers are a fraction of what they used to cost for a much superior product. Compare this to any coercive monopoly (aka any state service) where competition is excluded, and you will find a much different answer. (ie, the post office, DMV, airport security, etc)
Perhaps you should reread a bit of economics and rethink your position.
I'm not talking about computers and their relative costs, which is mutually exclusive to operating systems (like Windows) and internet browsers (like IE, Firefox, et al).
And if anything you prove my point, since Microsoft was not a coercive state monopoly its behavior demonstrates that markets DO gravitate toward monopolies. And in turn those monopolies will invariably use their influence to leverage into other markets. Stifling the competition that leads to REAL innovation.
Isn't Microsoft protected from competition via patent law?
However at teh same time Governments produce monopolies via progressive tax structures, regulation which leads to political rent seeking etc. It seems like in teh specific and general case the gov is the foundation for monopolies to exist.
it's possible that they had/have patents - but I don't think any of that came into play when it comes to the case I'm talking about.
And owning a patent on something is not akin to having a "government produced monopoly" - these are two very different things. But you bring up an interesting point:
Under an anarcho-libertarian system, who would enforce copyright / patent laws? Are intellectual property rights void? Since there would be no state-run courts - none of this would be enforceable.
Patents do not last forever. Depending on what is patented there is a limited duration of 10-20 years depending on the country.
By your own example, your children are your own. No one else has a right to them. Your ideas are also your own, thus it stands to reason that you should be able to benefit from them.
Without government to protect your ideas, how does one promote innovation if a creator's only profit comes from the time it took to develop that patent? That's almost as bad as communism.
Markets & the economy are - in my view - like a nuclear reactor. Regulate them too much and your generate little or no power. Release the safety valves and the entire operation blows up eventually.
The only choice is enough regulation to generate the most power (growth) possible without it blowing up on you.
Anarcho/Libertarians would release the safety valves in this misguided notion that any and all regulation is bad. This is blind ideological belief that flies in the face of reality.
The market is -self regulating-, not unregulated. It is the way the natural way of things. Attempting to 'regulate' it by the irrational whims of politicians or the masses is the equivelent of attempting to regulate an ecosystem! It is impossible, and nearly every time it is tried ends up with the opposite of its intended consequence.
Is the Stanford experiment a repeatable and consistent one? If power is like a drug ('people gravitate towards it') you would expect so. How would the experiment turn out if you accidentally sampled people with free will for the experiment? Would they have defied this drug and behaved differently? Or is this behavior outside the altering capacities of free will?
The government are democratically elected representatives. Not comparable with a corporate monopoly. Yes it's true that not everybody should have the vote, but that's why the educated representatives can, on occasions, save the people from themselves. It's a balance between representation and controlling the ignorant instincts of the population.
ok if the population are ignorant how could they possibly elect people who arent ignorant as well? save them from themselves is a load of horseshit you can shovel in your own backyard
As I said it is a balance. The people can set the general agenda, but on specific issues sometimes it is necessary for the representatives to push back. It's a great system, i love it.
Actually its' a rather dangerous system that tends to serve the interests of those in power and those that have business interests. This is elucidated in Phil Converses " Belief systems in mass publics" which illustrates how the majority of people, who have no clear understanding of issues and will often switch their opinions arbitrarily, are selecting representatives. Why would an uninformed selection result in the best applicant? And that doesn't other "public choice theory" criticisms
Not comparable with a corporate monopoly? What corporate monopolies have existed that were not enforced/enabled by government? What are the odds that someone besides a democrat or republican will win any election? EXTREMELY slim because they own the system. That is a de facto monopoly.
Actually many share holders vote on internal policy of firms. Essentially there is no difference between a large firm and the government except the government can tax to obtain revenue where a firm must compete, unless the government acts in its' interest in some fashion, via regulation or rent seeking privileges.
I don't believe in absolutes, but I subscribed anyway.
I'm tired of talking with, sanctimonious, Paulian followers who read from there mediphoric "tarot cards" to predict our socioecnomic condition. They're like debating with creationist.
I believe free markets lead to monopolies and nationalized economies lead to financial atrophy. No?
Isn't it the struggle between the two that endows all involved with conditional liberties, ones we can all live with?
Mr. Molyneux, you're brilliant and all, but the problem I have with your philosophy is it depends on blanket statements when in reality it makes sense that on some occasions something is wrong and others it isn't. Maybe violence or whathaveyou is wrong most of the time, but it's all context right? We can all imagine scenarios in which what is normally wrong becomes absolutely vital. Isn't a principled utilitarianism more intuitive? Objective principles don't mean absolute rules.
This has been flagged as spam show
i find that i cannot stop watching stefans videos, however now because of this one i cannot stop laughing!!! when he slapped his head and made faces at around the 4:36 mark i found myself ROFLMFAO!!!
fothinator 1 week ago
Comment removed
fothinator 1 week ago
WHOA, this guy knows whats up
Cortanaisatranny 1 month ago
Explain Stef , How the free market ( unrestricted pursuit of profit) does not result in another 1% of the top players making most of the money and therefore getting most of the power?! I'm not advocating government sticking their nose where it don't belong , but how is that any better? The way I see it free market isn't going to result in a better world anymore than corporatism , cummunism , fascism or any of the past -ism's.
z3r0Projects 2 months ago
@z3r0Projects
Can't be worse than giving a group outright the moral sanction to initiate force at will. Even if some group planning on taking over managed to amass an army without being noticed by anyone, people will not have been trained early on that it's use of force is a good thing.
Not to mention that without the accepted sanction of taking peoples money by force, any such group would have quite a lot of trouble affording their weapons; the cost is a burden on any company.
Silkeyn 3 weeks ago
@z3r0Projects
Additionally, the "unrestricted pursuit of profit", without the sanctioned initiation of force, is little more than people freely exchanging value (if someone buys a pen for a $1, each person values what the other has more than what he has). Basically, power comes from what you are willing to give up in exchange for something else, and everyone values things differently; wealth will come from effectively bringing what each person wants to them.
Silkeyn 3 weeks ago
The US is a good country with mostly good people.
Entropy56 6 months ago
thumbed up just for thumbnail
SecularNumanist 7 months ago
i think free market capitalism or laissez faire capitalism should be referred to from now on as the voluntary resource management market in order to shed the image of the robber baron
phroto13 8 months ago
@phroto13 yes this is perfect. To remove the negativity of capitalism instilled by public schooling history we should redefine the terms such as they have with the constitution.
pSychOAtDawn 7 months ago
"You don't solve a single goddamn problem by creating a government.
Saying 'government solves problems' is exactly the same as saying, Oh, I don't know: 'Where'd the world come from?-- *! God made it!' It's a complete non-answer that stultifies and retards our capacity for intelligence and examination. It's an embarassment." Bra'- motherfuckin' -'vo.
plarfusa 9 months ago 5
@plarfusa word, thanks
stefbot 9 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on to date with sexy girl naneedj.info
darshi48 10 months ago
My suspicion is that Heinlein would have likely called Stefan and other anti-electoral-politics libertarians "yammerheads". That's why he focused his character based on Le Fevre (ironically an anti-politics-libertarian), on setting up a new constitution that was procedurally more limited than the US constitution. Could a better set of more rigid limitations be drawn up than the US Constitution? Sure. Easily. But this is never the voluntaryist answer. Why not? ...It's work!
libertarianjury 11 months ago
Do a youtube search for Matt Fogg LEAP and you'll see what "consent of the governed" means. That's not to say that there aren't some fine ideas in the Bill of Rights, but those ideas are not being followed at all any longer...
libertarianjury 11 months ago
Stefan, what is terrific about your videos is too sublime to elucidate, so I will focus on a tiny bit of constructive criticism. If your goal is to convert statists, your patronizing tone will put us on the defensive. Your goal is to illuminate, not mock. Now I must get back to watching your 618 videos.
joequirk 1 year ago 2
Everything from the article can be defended. Everything Stef says can be critiqued....and I used to think that was a rational perspective...
....until George Bush started torturing people, with his pack of lawyers giving assurance that torture wasn't actually torture, and was in fact perfectly legal.
In the end, you can't ignore DIRECT and EXPLICIT evidence.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Nice thumbnail lmao.
maxiflo 1 year ago 13
Oh so libertarians believe monopolies are good then? Good to know.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok Government creates monopolies.
straydoglogic 1 year ago
Some math equations do produce 2 different answers...
Take x^2= 9
x= 3 and -3
Fail analogy.
LoklarYsera 1 year ago
@LoklarYsera Way to be small minded and nit pick on one bad analogy.
FUZZYisBIG 1 year ago
@LoklarYsera Wrong, it always produces the same answer, it just so happens to be two numbers or points. His wording might be a little awkward but the principle is correct.
Run through your equation again and you will get the same answer, twice. Thus no two different answers.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
Comment removed
LoklarYsera 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
He says "an equation that produces two different answers". In my example the "answer" (or solution) refers to X. And x has two values 3 and -3.
The answer isn't what comes after the equals sign. The answer is solving the unknown. x^2 = 9 has two solutions (aka answers). 3 and -3
LoklarYsera 1 year ago
@LoklarYsera "His wording might be a little awkward but the principle is correct."
Did you miss that bit? Your arguing semantics. What he was getting at is that math problems are very rigid and will always produce the same result, whther or not that result is only one number.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
In regards to the Stanford Prison Experiment, video -
* Philip Zimbardo: Why ordinary people do evil ... or do good
* Philip Zimbardo- The Lucifer Effect
* Stanford Prison Experiment
related -
The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom
floydsgarage 1 year ago
It's so toxic that to repeat it one must shake it out with great force.
floydsgarage 1 year ago
Government is at best a necessary evil
acgeorge654 1 year ago
About the leg=freedom metaphor: What if a small part of your leg was detrimental to health of the rest. Say it had Gangrene. It would be unfortunate, but necessary to surgically extract/cauterize/whatever that small part of the leg to preserve the whole of the leg. Does cutting or cauterizing your leg for its own health sound paradoxical? Sure. Is it paradoxical in the aforementioned situation? Not at all.
Aggression must be outlawed in order to preserve the health of our other freedoms.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
) . So I'll see you next True News!
cLUTz83 1 year ago
(due to your rich education you tend to marginalize, label, and sometimes insult other people, which comes off as arrogant, which is destructive. I might not be as educated as you, butmy lifestyle asa tradesperson doesn't allow forit, and I didn't chose my lifestyle. Does thatmake my opinion worthless? I don't really think it does, or you would be agreeing withthe elite in their disdain and disregard for the common man. Please beconsiderate of the factthat most people werent onthe debate team
cLUTz83 1 year ago
I'll keep on taking the good (your powerful logic, -90% of the time- your constant need to improve society, your thorough education) with the bad...
cLUTz83 1 year ago
Though I am disturbed by your fairly common tantrums, episodes, and erratic flailings, your metaphor for the protection of liberty via its quashing, versus the protection of a leg via amputation was quite accurate, so much soo that I'd comment on it. If you look at why the amputation of a leg might be bad, it is obvious; "I need my leg!" Well people need their freedom.
cLUTz83 1 year ago
I think you meant to say consumers.
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago
The really funny thing about the red vs. blue argument, even if all of that were true, that would be an argument for tyranny, not democracy.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye
Yup!
And we all know how well tyranny has worked, RIIIIGHT!? ;P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome Well tyranny IS the most EFFICIENT form of government :P
leldoryn 1 year ago
@leldoryn
For the parasitical class, maybe. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
On a completely unrelated note, the thumbnail image makes it look like you are singing an opera. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
One of my favorite videos of yours. You cured me of my minarchism. I now tell my friends that I am an Abolishionist. =)
Helionaeic 1 year ago
YES! Dude, you just...GET IT. THANK YOU THANK YOU
I'm posting this everywhere. You're making it so simple! Again
T H A N K Y O U
cucumbersalad2 1 year ago
You need to take away the liberty of one man to become a dictator to protect the liberty of those they would enslave PURE FREEDOM would include the freedom to shoot anyone you felt like the vary desire to remove the government is the same thing.
Thanatos6619 1 year ago
We need to preserve your genius Stefan! So we need to take your brain out to protect it!
lettherebedots 1 year ago
@lettherebedots funny
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
@leavesofliberty i think it was total cheese tbh
lettherebedots 1 year ago
Easily your best video so far (35 of 97). THIS is the one that I will recommend to my statist friends and the numerous people that I debate these issues with. It's snappy, funny, direct, concise and points out the many deadly statist paradoxes quite delightfully. MUCH better than your "Intervention" video which was too talky, kinda nebulous and lacking in punch. Love your material, gonna watch them all
A fellow traveller
P.S I find your website a little cumbersome, sorry
Bemno2 1 year ago
Your point about power being addictive is pretty good. Its the reason why restraint in political leaders is impossible especially if they have been their for 20 years.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
Most authoritarians will argue why your freedom is destructive and bad while those who love freedom will argue why it is good. Doesn't this sound like the debate between left and right in this country?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
If someone does something that is irrational to you that doesn't mean it is irrational to him. We cant possibly know everything about others, their circumstances or motives to judge objectively whether he is acting rationally or not. Therefore definition of rationality is strictly subjective.
zbigniewzapora 2 years ago
> the government does have a role in upholding some liberties.
What liberties does it "uphold"?
Private property? No, taxation, eminent domain, various prohibitions violate property.
Defense? No, people get mugged, robbed and beaten every day and police have no legal requirement what so ever to defend anyone.
Liberty? No, drivers licenses, trade licenses, speech codes, curfews, arbitrary speed limits, all violate simple liberty.
> {in} anarchy what are you suppose to do
What do you do now?
CurtHowland 2 years ago
If you really want to know how awful, stupid and illogical those naughty "Libertarians" are, visit the one and only web site dedicated16 years to critiquing and debunking everything "Libertarian":
Google "Mike Huban Critiques of Libertarianism" today!
Just make sure you're not eating anything, or you will spew it all over your keyboard.
CurtHowland 2 years ago
In my perfect society, Stefan would be the elitist dictator, lol
Sivels 2 years ago
Uhhg. The irony hurts.
DrPhallus 2 years ago
what irony? I was joking
Sivels 2 years ago
I notice, and it makes me laugh when people look to Stefan as the Anachist messiah.
"How should we do this?"
"How is done"
"Lead us, Stefan, Lead us."
It's Ironic that he teaches freedom, and emancipation from tyranical leaders. Teaching that we can work things out on our own, and yet people ask to be led, told what to do. Told how to act and think.
You reminded me of this behavour. Because you're right. The sheeple need crave a leader.
I wasn't making a dig at you, my apologies.
DrPhallus 2 years ago
Well, I'm not like that, I just try to learn from his videos, not a disciple or anything... ;P
But seriously, do you find any faults in his arguments, and logic?
Sivels 2 years ago
Dude, the guy is awesome. It just makes sense, it's like you have a feeling that somthing is wrong all your life and it's like the veil has been lifted, all the pieces come together.
He presents the information in a way that is entertaining and backs up his claims with resoning and refrences.
The only thing I disagree with is his view on Determinism. Everything else... spot on.
DrPhallus 2 years ago
I see no problem with mentoring. I see no problem at validating wether the philosophy is consistent or not. Emulation is a perfectly natural way to be, as long as you progress on your own once a certain level of understanding has been reached. I don't see any anarchists on here being "lead".
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
> no problem with mentoring.
Indeed, this is the answer to one of the standard objections to voluntary interaction, that people need to be "educated" before they can be trusted to act in their "rational" self interest.
Is there a bigger single subject section of any book store than "self help"? (rhetorical question, of course)
CurtHowland 2 years ago
Thanks, that's not something I hear often, it's extremely hard to articulate in the "itty bitty" space they provide for comments! I know some people see it at cohercion, but it will be likely impossible to survive without membership of such an organisation in a free society. Most shops, banks, estate agents and corporations for example will reject customers who aren't insured and within the contract ratings system (Think EBay meets credit rating) which uses social pressure instead of violence.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
@andrew7102 like pretending "consumer protection" is anything but consumer prevention of that monopoly laws are actually anti-business etc. Again, you don't have to even vote for a party, BUT you can remove your "vote" (money) at ANY time, not when it suits them, and be able to choose an entirely new system without effort. Also, if you want more domestic issues, how about the 16000000 dead from already existing health care legislation (that is now, before the new reforms come into effect)
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
@andrew7102 Those are some pretty hefty assumptions. Do you have any reason to back them up? Why would people have to fight for every one of their believes. I wouldn't be interested in setting up an organisation to solve criminal of contractual disputes, I'd join one of the many that would exist. I'm sure you haven't built a computer or written a novel for yourself recently. I doubt you can find anyone who "accepts" more than a fraction of the law (assuming they don't make up reasoning ...(cont)
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
I do exactly he opposite! I distrust people to the very limit of possibility. Hence I don't want to support an organisation that gives the worst people possible all the violence they wish to use! If people are as bad as you say, then governments can't be anything but unstoppably dangerous. You don't think a piece of paper with "Constitution" written on it is stopping them do you? Indiviiduals would not be alone in anarchy. Just as your neighbours don't murder you now, they won't murder you then.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
@andrew7102 I was refering to all moral crime in general. Without the state, even non crime prevention will reduce crime, both state and social to fractional numbers. America's greatest violent crimes are caused by government, either by incentive, public education, poverty subsidisation and destroying economic markets like drugs to the point that violence because economically viable (it's not in a free market). On top of that there is Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and internally? Gitmo!!!
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
the only reason i can justify for having a government, is to prevent having a different government...
Power abhors a vacuum.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
Well said andrew7102! How could we possibly disregard the most important role of government... the violent part! Saying otherwise would be like saying that freedom is most important when applied to important things! Not true, we should be grateful for the scraps of freedom we get and ignore the historical evidence that even at current crime rates, with no prisons, and no non-statist crime prevention, there's be faaaar violence than Statism caused in WW2 alone, nevermind in "peacetime".
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
fasssr less* Heh I missed the most important word.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
You are debating when influenced of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I have to say that this was a step down from a few other videos in which you basically debunk this video on your own.
JemyM 2 years ago
I love when you smack your forehead LOL!!
to prevent monopolies we'll create one and give them more power than all others combined and arm them with law and nukes
Ultramerican1 2 years ago 9
Statism is a tool of manipulation of the processes of balance in order to advantage a group. Statism delibarately creates balance bubbles to ride to the top, and allows it to burst on the masses, oldest trick in the book of an organised sociopath. The dumbing down of people will lead to an explosion of knowledge to reach the real level humanity was supposed to reach relative to time/experience/technology. Statism is fundamentally prehistoric and hampers our advancement and has come to an end.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Statism caused knowledge, economic, physical (nature) bubbles which are all about to explode. If we wake up as a species we can deflate the bubbles to save as many lives as we can, if we do not , many lives will be lost, and perhaps this explosion might lead to the destruction of our planet.Which will only lead the solar system to "tighten" up to replace the now destroyed planet.Funny how the universe won't even budge to our stupidity as a species. It is up to us to live in symbiosis with nature
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
great video
SamuelPeter88 2 years ago
The experiment he is talking about with the simulated prison environment is demonstrated in the German film "Das Experiment". I thought it was a pretty good movie.
ChoasTheory2000 2 years ago
Awesome!
naugler24 2 years ago
Hi, I don't know if it has already been pointed out but Jefferson's bit about 'inalienable rights' etc. is from the Declaration of Independence (which TJ wrote) not the Constitution -- arguably not a trivial error for anyone otherwise expecting to be taken seriously.
banjofiddlee 2 years ago
What's going on with this vid it's skipping in the worst way
OHT53 2 years ago
Comment removed
wPiSdu 2 years ago
1st video I've seen, nice work. A little long for newcomers to libertarian ideas, but I'm part of the choir, so I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Man, a libertarian in Canada. . . I don't pretend to know much about Canada, but my uneducated impression of Canadian politics would leave me to believe that you would a part of a smaller minority than I am, and I'm a hockey fan in the Southern US! Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumptions. . . wouldn't be the first time!
BiggieB99 2 years ago
I've actually seen people classify their views as "Libertarian-Socialist" in a completely serious way. It doesn't make any sense to me, because as a self-described libertarian, I see economic freedom as a fundamental part of freedom.
Yes, life isn't always rosy, but it's up to you to make it as rosy as you want it, you shouldn't demand your neighbors make it rosy to your blueprints!
Keep fighting for true freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, individuality. These are virtues, not sins!
BiggieB99 2 years ago
libertarian socialism is the original form of libertarianism. seriously. the distinction you're missing is that it's anti-statist socialism, so socialism run voluntarily at the community level and the abolition of both capitalism and state.
emceelynx 2 years ago
Libertarian socialism is the original form of libertarianism." Can you give more details on this? As far as the use of the word "libertarian" in the US, my understanding is the views were previously described as liberalism, but the socialists took it to describe themselves, so the term libertarian was used.
As far as voluntary socialism, that's fine: it's called a commune. What happens to those that don't want to be part of your "voluntary" socialist society. Can we freely interact on own?
BiggieB99 2 years ago
Yes you are. There have been individualists in anarchist (libertarian socialist) revolutions and societies and a true libertarian society would respect that no authority may rightfully be imposed on those who choose not to involve themselves with the community.
Ril74 2 years ago
What the FUCK are you talking about?
First off,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "STATE".It is a mental construct-a fiction.
Second,to have socialism you have to bring out the guns and compulsory tax-e.g.-use violence to enforce your opinion(Law).Either you have a choice-OR-It's based on violence.
We don't call that Freedom here.
THAWK3 2 years ago
See how long you can go without a state or government if you want to keep private property, or any free and voluntary exchange that results in the amassing of property, out of the realm of liberty. And if one sees it and exiles such a person, there is also a de facto government (initiation of force, after all).
You cannot ABOLISH any voluntary action without force.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. But then again, socialism has never attracted the most logical of minds.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
actually, if you'd bother to research the history of the word "Libertarianism" you'd know that it was originall a synonym for political anarchism. In fact libertarian capitalism is the oxymoron because liberty and minority ownership of the means of production are incompatible. as long as a few control everything the many will be slaves.
emceelynx 2 years ago
I'm fully aware of Proudhon, but thanks for the suggestion.
Meanwhile you have entirely failed to see the point that logically, no economical equality can be enforced in a free, stateless society.
It's not a question of ideals, but of logic.
THAT is why "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron.
Even if the starting point is total economic equality, liberty and free will will result in inequal outcome as a result of differences in human action and character. But i'm sure you won't understand.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
saying that "logically x happens because of y" isn't a proof that that is indeed the case. Actually I think you'll find that throughout history stateless societies have all been egalitarian ones and that the rise of the nation state is tid very closely to the rise of income inequality. In fact the entire purpose of the state is to - in Madison's words - "protect property from the majority". inequality is violence and requires violence to maintain, and that is the purpose of the State.
emceelynx 2 years ago
Actually collectivistic ethics of cultures like Japan tend to be superior in competitiveness towards individualistic ethics of America. Japan is a well known collectivistic culture.
Companies with devoted employees who worship their executives as father figures is a formidable cohesive organization. I suggest you study Organizational Behavioral models.
veridia 2 years ago
Notice it requires coercion to produce those actual results though.
THAWK3 2 years ago
neat, we aren't Japanese.. I wasn't raised that way nor was anyone outside of japan. You know collectivization doesn't work in an individualistic society. You really think you could undo 3500 years of European philosophy with some book on organizational behavior?
budda10000 2 years ago
Check boxing the post office. Brilliant.
inibo 2 years ago
The things that capitalists depend on, was created by the government itself. For example, the internet itself is based on the development of ARPANET.
I agree that government should be smaller than the large monster it is today, but I would prefer a public road, rather than paying a toll for every street I am on that is owned by somebody else.
adrifts 2 years ago
This issue is slightly more complex than it may seem initially.
Mattprole 2 years ago
agreed
adrifts 2 years ago
fantastic, donated, thank you
ibanezbuyer 2 years ago
I haven't finished this yet but the "paradox" of free markets really stood out to me. "Markets gravitate toward natural monopolies" - this was not the case in free-market United States until industrialism overtook it. Pre-industrial U.S. was what modern entrepreneurs would consider a paradise, and they thrived for it. It was only when the industrialists came along and lobbied for laws protecting them from competition and liability that the monopolies became commercially viable and began to form.
Nphyx 2 years ago
If there ws no government we would be controlled directly by corporations and organized criminals, which would lead to slavery and mass starvation. Atleast a democracy gives people some control over the laws that affect their own lives.
badmuffy 2 years ago
Statements aren't arguments.
hydralisk125 2 years ago
1:We are controlled by corporations on multiple levels 2: The world is full of economic slavery and mass starvation.There has never been a democracy...in a democracy the people vote on EVERYTHING.the design of buildings,the layout of roads,the percentage of tax...EVERYTHING.your given a vote on a range of pre selected candidates that gives you the illusion of so called freedom.realise this...none of us are free
deanjdk 2 years ago
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper. Democracy in any form in no less a system of slavery as any form of government where decisions pertaining to your life are made by others. Why are a majority of fools better equipped to make decisions influencing your life than one, or a select few, of foolish politicians? NOBODY knows better what's good for you than YOU.
There is only one good system of government and that is self-government.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
(part 1 of Message to trident movies) You say"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper" and i agree.Democracy int the solution to anything since the incentive is still there for corruption..From reading your other comments i see that you advocate a truly freemarket system...heres a question for you tridentmovies...what do you think is the cause of aberrant behavior with regards to corporations either in a true freemarket system of within the current system?
deanjdk 2 years ago
Part 2 of message to tridentmovies) The system of money creates unethical means of profit gain...and so we have our world today....full of environmental disaster and unbalanced economic ruin by the strive for profit by capitalist means
deanjdk 2 years ago
First of all, what you declare to be "aberrant behavior" may simply be rational self interest, and in that case i couldn't care less how you feel about that, since rational self interest is a right to live for your own sake rather than as a sacrificial lamb to another's needs.
The difference between free market and crony capitalism is voluntarism vs. state force to back up corporate interests..
The word capitalist means nothing unless defined as either free market or state capitalism.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Stop acting as if a free market would somehow eliminate all involuntary and coercive means with an invisible hand. Free markets are simply another restrictive power structure and are not truly free. States cannot be abolished without getting rid of private ownership entirely. Land ownership is one of the key and I would say most important elements in the creation of a "state."
trehansen 2 years ago
Do you actually believe that?
SeiferothX 2 years ago
Please tell me how it isn't. Free markets assume all people are informed and free of coercion. I am saying that cannot exist.
Coercion will occur regardless of state existence. In my opinion a true free market cannot exist, and it will always lead to a controlled system. A true free market system is just as Utopian as a true communist society.
trehansen 2 years ago
If by "aberrant behavior" you mean things like fraud, special interests, profiting from state activities like war, then the obvious solution would be simple: abolition of the political state and contracts that define punishments for defrauding consumers or employees..
Beyond that, and in a free society, nobody has any obligation to "serve" another against his will. Neither business man nor customer or potential employee.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
Finally, whatever "aberrant behavior" is and whether or not it is motivated by greed is immaterial, since the only thing that is truly dangerous is power. Power by the threat/use of aggression. Human emotions mean nothing and i reject any thought police that lectures me on the "correct" emotions or motivations when it comes to economics. It is the gun pointed at someone's head that matters. The free market is the only non-violent means capable of breaking and preventing unearned power.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
(part 1) (whatever "aberrant behavior" is and whether or not it is motivated by greed is immaterial)
By this statement alone you have demonstrated that you have failed to account for the unethical multinational corporations and monopolies that the free market system propagates. Multinational corporations are the real power of this world, the latest example being the invasion and murder of over one million Iraqis on the pretense of confiscation of weapons of mass destruction..........
deanjdk 2 years ago
(part 2)(WMDs found=0 ) (U.S. Military Industrial Complex Sales=Billions & rising) (Capital gained from Rebuilding Contracts to the U.S.=$billions) (oil Secured as collateral = $billions)an example of evolved aggressive free market practice. These aggressive strategies are born out of rational self interest within a monetary system, stateism is unavoidable.......
deanjdk 2 years ago
(part 3)........ in any free market environment. For as long as a monetary system exists through scarcity and abundance every individual charged with responsibility is corruptible through rational self interest.
deanjdk 2 years ago
Ahaha, Hampton is an idiot.
Thrice13 2 years ago
You are doing great work!
chitch1776 2 years ago
And aren't the people that stopped the experiment the government in this analogy?
newexperiment 2 years ago
No, it was the experimenter...
stefbot 2 years ago
Yea I know this. Notice the word analogy? Also no comment on my preceding post?
newexperiment 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ummm... Doesn't the prison guard experiment warn us against monopolies and oligopolies? That markets, free or otherwise, gravitate to powerful groups of people who own other people? Of course that's an argument against government but isn't it also an argument for being as self-sufficient as possible? (living outside the market free or otherwise). Just a thought. Nice sound.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Comment removed
newexperiment 2 years ago
"Unfortunately" is an adverb not an adjective. Despite this distraction, I thought this video was very enjoyable.
Swimfish08 2 years ago
sorry..I can't watch this because for some reason your video has been throttled to only buffer in like 5kb per min. It's streaming in uber-slow.
qantmrckr 2 years ago
(video.google(dot)com) videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835
Are you familiar with this guy Robert-Arthur Menard. i think that was a pretty interesting lecture about a canadian law and how one can use it.
I wish common law would aply in finland
ukkonoa 2 years ago
HAHA! Love the cartoon faces man! (good points, also) :)
jcastillo81 2 years ago
Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. Nietzsche, Friedrich
amongsttheeIwalk 2 years ago
Ok, this is not real free-market, it's state-capitalism, I agree with you on that. However, you don't seem to realize that we have actually seen a great deal on how the free-market works, we have seen privatization, we have seen competition, we have seen what happens with jobs, we have seen a system VERY CLOSE to the free-market, and this allows us to observe it and criticize it. This provides a 100 times more proof, than what your theories say.
Maximusiusius 2 years ago
"Unfortunately, markets do not naturally allow entrepreneurs to thrive". Its funny, you disagree every time there's an observation or a critique on the free-market and capitalism because as you say: there has never been a free-market in the world, therefore there is no proof. So if there has never been a free-market, then where is YOUR proof that it works? Is it your books and your theories? Cause there has never been REAL communism either, so some people would still swear that Marxism works.
Maximusiusius 2 years ago
REAL communism doesn't work in theory, REAL anarcho-capitalism, DOES. The assumption of perfect people is what leads people to believe in socialism/communism, but, under those assumptions, any system can work. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes every one is an individual and has different values structures. Its assumptions are validated by reality, and thus, it works in reality. The only problem is states using violence to halt the natural flow of how the world SHOULD work.
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
And what about the law? If I must go to a private court and I will be declared guilty can I, instead of going into higher court, go to another privatly ownt court? And can I do that as long as one court declares me not-guilty?
And why should all the courts have the same law? How can they; without the law?
Imre18himself 2 years ago
A great book that I would recommend you read is 'Anarchy and the Law'. There are many theories on how your question can be answered, and I'm sure by me answering it, it will lead to many many more questions. The book includes all the answers you might want for those.
Essentially the system would work on the same premises that international law works now, except with different ways to define borders. Is it really that difficult to imagine when it is occuring all around us right now?
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
Law and justice are both very dangerous words, which, when used incorrectly can result in some very disgusting things happening. (ie, the crusades, coercive governments, etc)
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
Just found your channel. Great vids!
Subscribed
idratherbebowling 2 years ago
Destroying that guys article is roughly equivalent to destroying Christian values. It doesn't require super level of intellect, but it's always fun anyway.
Sepero1 2 years ago
Stefan Molyneux's condescending arrogance is only exceeded by his intellectual dishonesty and poorly constructed arguments.
5:55 - who said anything about "eliminating" liberty? This is a classic case of Reductio ad Absurdum. Mr. Molyneux is obviously not illiterate - so one can only conclude he is being dishonest.
For Molyneux it is all or nothing and this is of course, patently absurd.
Individuals cede a modicum of personal sovereignty to gain benefits they could not receive themselves.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Because human beings are not self-sufficient they came together into family groups, later villages, cities, nations and national governments precisely because these institutions provided something greater to the citizens that comprised them than if they lived solely in a state of nature.
Has it always worked out perfect? Of course not - but the mere fact that it worked better than what was there before simply means (to use Libertarian lingo) that there was a "market" for such systems to exist.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
7:50 - Molyneux is comparing oranges to apples when refuting the theoretical/practical aspects of social sciences versus hard science. I suppose he could defend Communism on the same grounds. However, the refutation falls flat on its face as there are instances in the physical sciences where the laws of nature breakdown - particularly on the quantum level - such as light and electrons exhibiting characteristics of both particles and waves.
Sorry Mr. Molyneux - try again.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
8:50 - Molyneux contradicts himself a number of times. He refutes that human beings are irrational - but are "adaptive" - then chides the author for suggesting that people are "squalling children" - then turns around and essentially agrees with the writer in order to conclude since human beings ARE irrational why would you want them running the government? This is further reinforced when he cites the Stanford Experiment.
So which is it Mr. Molyneux? Are human beings rational or not?
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Moreover, Lee Hampton, the author isn't saying that human beings are fundamentally irrational - you are distorting his intended meaning - only that human beings are susceptible to irrationality.
He clearly recognizes that government is not composed of "angels of benevolence" - but then again, no one should expect that should be the case. And this is why democratic governments are by their very natures, self-correcting.
Your worldview offers no such mechanism for self-correction.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Self-correction in the Anarcho / Libertarian view comes simply from Market forces. This is of course fantasy that is predicated on your own lofty idealism and certainly not based on reality.
One perfect example is Microsoft. It used its market share monopoly to muzzle its way into a number of other markets, and in effect, destroyed a number of small entrepreneurs and crippled up and coming ventures like Netscape.
Only now, as a result of its own profligacy has it lost some market share.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
And despite their profligacy and the presence of superior products like Firefox, Microsoft still owns more than 66 percent of the browser market more than a decade after the fact. This despite IE's notorious security issues.
Where's the accountability that you speak of?
It just isn't there. And this again just underscores the fact that your philosophy works in the abstract but not in practical terms.
Bear in mind that Microsoft is no government-sponsored monopoly - as some might suggest.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Finally at 15:20 Molyneux says "there has never been a free market" therefore one must be talking about "state capitalism" - this is a straw man argument. Also, his refutation that the author cannot prove that monopolies accumulate in a Free Market is reminiscent of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy - i.e. Since 6000 years of human history has had a state in one form or another NO TRUE free market has ever existed. Therefore he maintains his position without having to prove his own thesis.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
I dont understand...
Aren't you proving the anarchist point by your own analogy?
Microsoft is not/was not a monopoly. Meaning other companies were the 'self correcting' forces... right?
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
Microsoft was a monopoly because it owned over 90 percent of the market share of operating systems in the nation (perhaps the world at that point as well). That is why it came under the scrutiny of anti-trust laws because it used its influence in one sector to force its way into the browser market. This is illegal and while Microsoft got away with it here, it's paying for its practices in Europe.
Ten years later and look at all the damage its done. That's not self-correcting in my view.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Time out, time out.
You are mistaken of the definition of a monopoly. There are/were no barriers to entry into the market- which is what is needed for a company to be considered a monopoly. If a single company could command 90% of the markets clients without using force, they are doing something amazing, and should be commended, not punished!
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
Exactly. If almost everyone is using theyre system then KUDOS to them. Congrats, you made it. Eventually they will come off theyre pedestal when better things come along. As if the anti trust laws did anything but take some money out of microsoft by pussie companies who were just whining theyre pussies off.
Butmunch666 2 years ago
Suing microsoft for being a 'monopoly' is ridiculous- it will come back to bite them in the ass. By reducing microsofts ability to be the best it can be, and forcing them to allow worse competitors a chance, you are sending signals to both competitors and microsoft that they should NOT provide consumers what they want.
THE WRONG THING TO DO.
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
I didn't say they were sued for being a monopoly. Being a monopoly in of itself is not illegal. However, using your monopoly power to break into another market IS illegal and subject to anti-trust laws. Microsoft used their monopoly in the OS market to break into the browser market. They used the excuse that they were innovating but it was clear they just wanted to control the market. Their dominance stifled competition. Don't you see the contradiction? This is why regulation is necessary.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
"Ten years later and look at all the damage its done"
-Can you give me an example of all the damage it has done? From what I can tell, the cost of computers are a fraction of what they used to cost for a much superior product. Compare this to any coercive monopoly (aka any state service) where competition is excluded, and you will find a much different answer. (ie, the post office, DMV, airport security, etc)
Perhaps you should reread a bit of economics and rethink your position.
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
I'm not talking about computers and their relative costs, which is mutually exclusive to operating systems (like Windows) and internet browsers (like IE, Firefox, et al).
And if anything you prove my point, since Microsoft was not a coercive state monopoly its behavior demonstrates that markets DO gravitate toward monopolies. And in turn those monopolies will invariably use their influence to leverage into other markets. Stifling the competition that leads to REAL innovation.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Isn't Microsoft protected from competition via patent law?
However at teh same time Governments produce monopolies via progressive tax structures, regulation which leads to political rent seeking etc. It seems like in teh specific and general case the gov is the foundation for monopolies to exist.
rayyf69 2 years ago
it's possible that they had/have patents - but I don't think any of that came into play when it comes to the case I'm talking about.
And owning a patent on something is not akin to having a "government produced monopoly" - these are two very different things. But you bring up an interesting point:
Under an anarcho-libertarian system, who would enforce copyright / patent laws? Are intellectual property rights void? Since there would be no state-run courts - none of this would be enforceable.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Great question,how do you reward innovation with no patents?.
usernameted1 2 years ago
Sorry by my english. When I see my children grow, my reward is seeing them grow.
When I develop a work, I charge by the time I spend developing it.
The patent makes you to earn money without producing and hinders others to continue producing, from that work.
yennae 2 years ago
Patents do not last forever. Depending on what is patented there is a limited duration of 10-20 years depending on the country.
By your own example, your children are your own. No one else has a right to them. Your ideas are also your own, thus it stands to reason that you should be able to benefit from them.
Without government to protect your ideas, how does one promote innovation if a creator's only profit comes from the time it took to develop that patent? That's almost as bad as communism.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
Markets & the economy are - in my view - like a nuclear reactor. Regulate them too much and your generate little or no power. Release the safety valves and the entire operation blows up eventually.
The only choice is enough regulation to generate the most power (growth) possible without it blowing up on you.
Anarcho/Libertarians would release the safety valves in this misguided notion that any and all regulation is bad. This is blind ideological belief that flies in the face of reality.
mikepalomino 2 years ago
The market is -self regulating-, not unregulated. It is the way the natural way of things. Attempting to 'regulate' it by the irrational whims of politicians or the masses is the equivelent of attempting to regulate an ecosystem! It is impossible, and nearly every time it is tried ends up with the opposite of its intended consequence.
VoluntaryGov 2 years ago
Is the Stanford experiment a repeatable and consistent one? If power is like a drug ('people gravitate towards it') you would expect so. How would the experiment turn out if you accidentally sampled people with free will for the experiment? Would they have defied this drug and behaved differently? Or is this behavior outside the altering capacities of free will?
modelmark 2 years ago
The government are democratically elected representatives. Not comparable with a corporate monopoly. Yes it's true that not everybody should have the vote, but that's why the educated representatives can, on occasions, save the people from themselves. It's a balance between representation and controlling the ignorant instincts of the population.
Dangerman5 2 years ago
ok if the population are ignorant how could they possibly elect people who arent ignorant as well? save them from themselves is a load of horseshit you can shovel in your own backyard
ekeyra 2 years ago
As I said it is a balance. The people can set the general agenda, but on specific issues sometimes it is necessary for the representatives to push back. It's a great system, i love it.
Dangerman5 2 years ago
Actually its' a rather dangerous system that tends to serve the interests of those in power and those that have business interests. This is elucidated in Phil Converses " Belief systems in mass publics" which illustrates how the majority of people, who have no clear understanding of issues and will often switch their opinions arbitrarily, are selecting representatives. Why would an uninformed selection result in the best applicant? And that doesn't other "public choice theory" criticisms
rayyf69 2 years ago
Not comparable with a corporate monopoly? What corporate monopolies have existed that were not enforced/enabled by government? What are the odds that someone besides a democrat or republican will win any election? EXTREMELY slim because they own the system. That is a de facto monopoly.
theevolatile1 2 years ago
Actually many share holders vote on internal policy of firms. Essentially there is no difference between a large firm and the government except the government can tax to obtain revenue where a firm must compete, unless the government acts in its' interest in some fashion, via regulation or rent seeking privileges.
rayyf69 2 years ago
I only watched about 11 minutes of this. If you are a libertarian, chances are you can state your message in less than 11 minutes.
Although I am pro-libertarian, I think this guy needs to calm down and start loving people before he opens his mouth.
bobreaf 2 years ago
I don't believe in absolutes, but I subscribed anyway.
I'm tired of talking with, sanctimonious, Paulian followers who read from there mediphoric "tarot cards" to predict our socioecnomic condition. They're like debating with creationist.
I believe free markets lead to monopolies and nationalized economies lead to financial atrophy. No?
Isn't it the struggle between the two that endows all involved with conditional liberties, ones we can all live with?
Pleblian 2 years ago
Mr. Molyneux, you're brilliant and all, but the problem I have with your philosophy is it depends on blanket statements when in reality it makes sense that on some occasions something is wrong and others it isn't. Maybe violence or whathaveyou is wrong most of the time, but it's all context right? We can all imagine scenarios in which what is normally wrong becomes absolutely vital. Isn't a principled utilitarianism more intuitive? Objective principles don't mean absolute rules.
Fetchdafish 2 years ago