Just because someone isn't a laborer (say a factory owner for example), that doesn't mean that he or she is exploiting workers. The tools, the factory (how the tools are configured) and the precise division of labor don't simply appear out of thin air. The entrepreneur is just as vital as the laborers, even moreso if he is able to create wealth. Still, people shouldn't hoard or monopolize resources that they aren't using. Even John Locke, someone that individualists revere, believed as such.
OBJECTIVE morality is looking at the rules binding a group together & recognising that the absence of following them breaks in a measure the integrity or strength of that group i.e. the existence of the group the way it IS depends on the members following rules that OUGHT to keep it together.
Collectives DEMAND rules OR they fail & fall apart UNLESS it is popular to stranger non-associating individuals that have NO RULES but that of random whims; non-communication set-up of private individuals.
Rand did not belive that people who hurt others either directly or indirectly should not be punished. She believed in millitary and police for defense and a justice system to protect our individual rights.
Anarchism isn't freedom. If there were no police and no millitary, there would be gangs. You either elect a government that is accetable to you or it will elect itself. No one would be able to own anything, including their own body! That is NOT freedom.
You don't have a right to property, you have a right to try and obtain property. These are two very different rights. If you had a right to property you would not have to work for it, the property would just be given to you. You are not entitled to property, you have confused the ideas, you have a right to own property that you have earned or has been given to you. As long as you obtain property legally it can not be taken from you, that is what the right to own property is, you are not entitled
Hey man, i really appreciate your videos. I've identified myself as an anarcho-capitalist for a couple years, but am now revising many of my conceptions of economics and ethics in light of your and others' videos. You are very calm and collected and clearly recognize the importance of sound reasoning; top notch. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the Venus Project? Have you made a video about it at all? Peace!
Here is a word for you: "sophomoric" I looked it up in the dictionary and I saw a picture of you. Please spend less time studying vocabulary and more time studying history and economics
@jwbrown1969 if you regard the vocabulary that was used in this clip as oversophisticated i am seriously wondering how you could ever achieve a level of sophistication that enables you to rightfully judge on matters of history, economics, or any other of the academic fields that are anthropologically relevant - although apparently not taken into consideration on your part - to the discussed matters.
@saltysumatrantiger Nice try, but you just proved my point. The fact that you do not see that is further evidence. By the way your prose is awkward and forced which is further proof (as if any were needed) that most of your understanding comes from a thesaurus and not from intellectual rigor. Have a nice day and God bless.
@jwbrown1969 a) is it possible, that you just didn't realize that i'm not the person from this clip? b) my native language is german. i would be surprised, if my english prose wasn't awkward to some extent, as i actually do not only make use of a thesaurus from time to time, but even more frequently of a german-english dictionary. c) you're not too bad in identifying the evidence, i wish you the very best in developing the yet lacking brilliance in analyzing it beyond your personal horizon. ;-)
Having to work and think to survive is not a situation created by humans. It naturally arose because organisms require an intake of energy. The choice between working and starving is not the product of a human being forcing that decision on another human being.
@streetmagicstyle and what exactly is your argument? the organization of the use of resources in order to cover the natural demand of energy intake is a matter of the social structure of a society. even though natural predispositions are basically determining whether or not complex social structures may develop, they do not necessarily restrict the establishment of concepts of socially fair access to available resources.
Even if I was on an isolated island with no other people, I'd still be forced to either work or starve. Would that make me a slave? Of course not. The mere fact that an individual has to work or starve does not make him or her a slave. Surely, coercing someone to deter them from using a limited natural resource may or may not be a reasonable basis for criticizing traditional views of freedom, but the "work or starve" argument (continued)
@streetmagicstyle "Would that make me a slave?" - of course it wouldn't, basically due to the fact that slavery can only be defined through social relations, which definitely aren't present on an island with no other people than you. in case there -were- other people than you, being in total control of the island's resources, your choice between working or starving would have a totally different context and would force you to totally subordinate yourself to the discretion of those people.
cont' but it cannot give selfesteem, worth. one women just sat all day waiting to die. one guy w/ no hands just stubbs paints pictures. he hired people in the village w/ they once look down on him. many lives where changed. the same women that loaned the money started a school for the kids of these lepers. only capitolism can do this..cbn did the documentary...
i watched a doc. of a women that went into a leper colony. these plp. have been beggers for 200+YRS.they had so selfesteem. were look down upon by everyone. she wanted to loan them money to start biz. only 1 went for it. her biz.grew and the family prospered. the plp. in the town began to respect them. more of them started biz. and now nearly the whole village is doing much better. micro loans from cap. lifted one family then the whole village. collectivism would have just kept giving and giving
i will use my freedom of speech to say that you will receive a plot of land in hell reserved just for you. you boss is satan and you will work for him as a tormented spirit for all eternity. your idea that GOD is a myth will be proven as wrong. anyone that thinks like you automatically is a atheist..
Ouch!, looks like previous posters are already letting this stupid non-sensical rant have it. You never finished with your individual vs collective garabge. I was really interested to see you try and pull that out a hat. Instead you went on to rail agaisnt capitalism and ended up all over the map. Try again, this one was a FAIL.
you're not even really worth responding to but its amazing that anybody can be as stupid as you. clearly youve been through institutional schooling and have no analytical mind when it comes to perceiving reality or understanding the nature of it. your vocabulary is as empty as political rhetoric and overloaded with buzz words and catch phrases that appeal to the emotions of like-minded idiots, and not rational thinkers. your vote counts, Einstien(not), so go cast another ballot for Obama. lmao
Everything u said was adhominem, misleading, and ultimately empty(strawman). individualism prevents rapes, murder and slavery because it affords the individual the rights to not be violated(even at the will of the majority). individualism does not extend any privilege to government.(thats left wing collectivism) property is always owned exept left wing collectivists give it all to the political elite under the guise of everyone(the group) owning it. u r an indoctrinated useful idiot 4 the state.
This video forgets that individualism still has a moral structure - just because I'm free to do what I want doesn't mean I won't face consequences if I commit aggression on someone else. Also, just because I own property or resources doesn't mean that you must become a slave. Left-wing anarchy is - up to this point - unable to convince me that it has principled standing. If I eat steak for dinner, I can't call myself a vegetarian.
"The evil Nazis used toilet paper, therefore toilet paper is evil."
The "capitalism is bad" mantra is just as mindless a term as "guns are bad" or "TV is bad". They're merely tools that can be used for good or evil purposes. If people's rights are violated under the cloak of Capitalism, then it's a crime. There's a BIG difference between "Capitalism" and organized crime. Organized criminals have operated as Capitalists just as they've operated as Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, Catholics, etc.
I agree with much of what the poster of the video response had to say. Much of the current criticism of "Capitalism" should rightly be directed at Corporatism... the idea that a man or men can form a legal entity that has the rights of a "person" under the law, while shielding the individual(s) from personal responsibility for their actions, which are too often crimes.
How, exactly, are you any different from a Marxist?
@IAMSatisfied do you not see that people that are indocranated with this garbage also work for corporations. they went in with all intensions of making many corporations appear as greedy. for reference look at GE and the taxes it payed and now this guy is working for obama. same with wall street. what these people did took many yrs and a lot of ploting and planning. all the stuff that was done was done intenically. timed down to the day.
I lost you when you said "my freedoms end where yours begin." Resourses, such as land, energy and food are constanlty being traded. Those in society who have become skilled at gathering these things tend to have more, while less skilled individuals will have less. Regardless, we should all be treated equally weather we're skilled gatherers or not. How can someone find it moral to forcefully take from one to give to another?
He has a nice intro about the fundamental need for law enforcement, as it is the job of such to (try by deterrence) deprive people's right to hurt others. What this has to do with redistribution of wealth is a mystery, though he convinced himself nine seconds into the video, and simply repeated the first premise thereafter.
@depro9 1: If its good stuff, please explain the premise he made in the first 9 seconds (since it's just repeated thereafter). 2: If negativity is proof of quality, then if his video was about the need for Genocide it would have gotten more negative views.
Talk about kool-aid drinker -- That Marx fellow made some strong stuff. WoW! That commentary was worse than listening to a speech by Bush --- your beloved brother in collectivism.
Talk about kool-aid drinker -- That Marx fellow made some strong stuff. WoW! That commentary was worse than listening to a speech by Bush --- your beloved brother in collectivism.
This video is bullshit. My individual right to be unfettered does not interfer with your right to enslave me- you have no right to enslave me. My property does not prevent you from owning property or producing things of value- it simply is my right to defend the fruits of my labor, or to cease laboring to prevent you from benefiting as a thief or parasite.
@matthew00123 You're talking anarcho-capitalism, and there is nothing preventing you from pitching in or buying your own security protection. In fact the're would be many of them competing for your service, eliminating the monopoly making it better and less expensive. In other words, you prefer to have no choice in security providers, prefering instead to have a monopoly provided service that sets it's own price and steals it from you by threat of violence.
Your conclusion that the dichotomy doesn't exist makes no sense. So because one person's freedom to act ends when their actions violate another person's individual freedoms... that means there's no difference between individualism and collectivism? You've said NOTHING about collectivism!
The existence of a world where your choice is to work or starve, is not a creation of capitalism but rather a fact of reality, inherent in all living animals. Capitalism merely makes it much easier to live.
This is a whole lot of non-sense. It didn't really address collectivism vs individualism at all. Your first conclusion didn't prove that this was a false dichotomy... It proved that absolute individual freedom contradicts the absolute individual freedom of others.
"My freedom ends where yours begins" what the hell are you talking about? Rapeing people and killing people are both products of FORCE which ISN"T PART OF FREEDOM!!!
Rape: the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
Its a paradox not a contradiction.Individual rights and the community must both exist.They do at times create tensions but for both to thrive the other must be there.Some anarchist swing to far one way or another, but we much strive for balance.When a society works cooperatively the individual has the liberty to grow and be more creative.I tend to think mutualism is the best balance,but I'm not ridged.I think you could have a community that blends mutualism,collectivism,communism,&syndicalism.
you are right in your thesis "individualism vs. collectivism is a false paradigm" but your logic beleif system and the content of what u say is complete nonsense and irrelevant to the above mentioned statement. and you are extremely naive and clueless about reality. very thing you speak of is false paradigms and hack premises and u are an automaton lemming.nitwit.
@supplanter111 your disagreeing w/ his beliefs is fine, but his extrapolating from social to economic to political philosophy was neither nonsense, incorrect or irrelevant but for YOUR preferences. There is no accounting as to persoal taste, but to say he is wrong here only shows that you cannot grasp very basic philosophic constructs. I do think the title is misleading, and should be " Why I am an Anarcho-syndicalist.", but he is not wrong for it.
So you're a true communist? One which there is no economy or government? Being a slave to bosses is no different than being a slave to the collective.
anarcho-capitalism is the banker-funded false paradigm setup to oppose the other banker-funded paradigm, socialism, so they could institute in a hegelian dialectic for the keynesian system to use the state and monopolism to enslave the people. the classic liberals were right. most everyone today are misdirected by banker propoganda.
Part of the pretense for your entire stance for left-wing anarchism is wrong. For example, people pay the government, society, for the ability to "own property," hence property taxes.
@mr1001nights You mentioned that we live in a world of limited resources. This may be changing. Science has opened up a new vortex in the political arena, and it changes many things. Just some food for thought. Good video.
There is a real ideological dichotomy, but many shades of gray when it comes to details.
Camp A thinks individuals are moral and collective by nature and should be left alone.
Camp B thinks that people are selfish by nature, and need an authority to enforce collectivism.
Almost everybody falls into one of these two camps, so I think there is a real dichotomy. But when you're dealing with 17 dimensions, nothing is ever black and white.
WRONG - Individualists do not believe in taking from others - which means of course rape is not something an individualist would take part of so this just starts of with the wrong premises....you are not thinking very deeply...
Your understanding of property is weak. Property ownership does NOT (with some exceptions) violate the rights of others. Exceptions would be building a fireworks factor in an area that already contains houses and families..that sort of thing.
So in your fanciful world, a global government would universally distribute equal portions of land to individuals based on population concentrations that vary over time to offset this inequality of land rights? What a bunch of mush dude! The cost alone in taxes to administer such nonsense would deprive each person of that very ability in a free market. Please let me know what university taught you and I'll make sure no one I know goes there to have their thinking messed up and muddled.
@GodOfTheInternets anarchists are hypocrits. they believe in taxation. it is called toll roads and rent. it is called hording gold and getting a free lunch through stealing economic growth through monetarization of commodity-based and other free market currency. tax on land good. debt-free greenbacks good. tax on labor and capital (real capital, not land) is bad. usury should be eliminating with non-profit banking (credit unions)/public option banking and public option/non-profit insurance.
I am rather confused by your political stance. Firstly, most anarchists favour the abolition of money, so how can one tax when there is nothing to tax?! Toll roads and rent are opposed by left-anarchists but embraced by laissez-faire capitalists (which anarchists oppose!), for that matter toll roads are not taxation. In fact, most of what you said would be agreed upon by anarchists (anarchists in the sense of market abolitionist libertarian socialists).
You then go on to say that "usury should be eliminating with non-profit banking (credit unions)/public option banking and public option/non-profit insurance" which is proposed by some anarchists, namely mutualists. You sound like an anarchist to me (a mutualist rather than a libertarian socialist, but an anarchist nonetheless), you just don't know it yet, it appears to me.
@jeepndesert There's left wing anarchy, which is socialism, and right wing anarchy which is closer to the anarchy your speaking about. It's really confusing for us in America, but when you hear Anarchism think socialism, and free market anarchism think Anarcho-Capitalist. Many Anarcho-Capitalists will call themselves libertarians or minarchist just to not be confused with the left-wing. Sad but there's a huge difference, there really isn't common ground between the two at all.
Capitalism is really free market cannibalism. In the final analysis Capitalism promoted a form of rhetorical liberty that consumed the liberty of the majority to choose a more humane and equitable alternative to the existing free market distribution of disease war poverty & private profit.. It seems to me that the right wing ideological fixation w/ property is a symptom ot an inablility or unwillingness to recognize the larger public good as a competing interest.
freedom and liberty is in the nature of individuals. it cannot be increased in quantity by the collections of individuals because one individuals freedom CANNOT take away the freedoms of another. Yours comes from what you require to live, the freedom to ACT.
Rights are not a numbers game, a diabolical contradiction.
You cannot force anybody to not take the actions they require to pursue their own lives, that is abhorrent as it is equal to murder.
Individuals comprise a class at the mercy of the economic structures they live under & over which they have no power. The free market is a Utopian pipe dream & the most violent predatory economic dictatorship on this planet. America is & has always represented liberty for business as a form of criminal enterprise, run from day one for the express purpose of the aggrandizement of corporate power. What you are describing is the highly standardized individualism of ideology
this claim is so clearly false its almost embarrassing.
Freedom from force, not the freedom to enforce.
you are free to act so far as you do not impede another individuals life and well being.
the notion of a free man is born the on the idea of what standard is required for an individual to live, then applying these requirements to the political structure in which individuals share a common field of interaction.
Read some John locke, that should clear up some of your misgivings.
I watched just a few seconds before realizing the fallacies you have committed. As I watched the rest of it, you didn't say anything that justified your fallacies. You reduce individualism to anarchy. Its a straw man. Individualism exists when there is a government to prevent and punish the initiation of physical force.
Who said that "individualism means a person can go around violating the rights of others"?? You appear to be debating yourself. Your arguments about property ownership and free markets are way off. While there are "third party effects" or "neighborhood effects", these do not negate the natural right of people to engage in exchanges and these effects CERTAINLY don't justify government control of our lives. They only call for an umpire (courts-police) to deal with claims of trespass.
Raping, murder, pollution, these are examples of the violation of others property rights. I don't know what you were trying to prove with this video, but you missed the mark.
I hear your argument and it has some valid points but the problem is in the absence of a free market, who decides who get's what? who's to say how much we should consume? Since power currupts you leave open the chance, and I'd say certainty that while we live off what we consume, the powers will live off the rest. look @ China, they are running as fast as they can towards capitalism. Communism doesn't work, capitalism doesn't work either, the answer lays some wher in the middle.
Economic theories that propose the existence of a free market have the virtue of being both impossible to prove and yet cannot be disproven. The idea of the free market has a mythic ring to it, like the virgin birth it functions as a religious precept. Recognizing that capitalism does not & cannot regulate itself is a more obvious truth. We have been absorbed into the 'economy' at so many levels it remains hidden but its disastrous social outcomes are impossible to conceal.
@jazzbo66zz that's why I say the answer is some where in the middle. But as far as regulation, the rules should only provide fair business practices like "No defective goods" and such, not how much you or I get. Without the motivation of making a better life for yourself innovation is stifled. We got great through innovation and creativity. That dies once you know your life won't get any better than some set standard of living. u reach that and fall back.
The evidence of my senses is the free market theory of self aggrandizement as adequate motivation to direct human choice is a failed moral ethical and socialsystem in practice if not on paper. Locke Spencer Malthus and Burke really have nothing but bromides to offer this century. The crisis of capitalism is functional and the evidence of its profound failure to progress beyond ideology to face the measurable social consequences is symtomatic.
Missing from the usual suspects are those which operate with the power of state scale resources yet are disguised as free market entities, The state must be recognized in the disguise of corporate power which is both in literal & figurative terms beyond the reach of the law or the unseen hand of the market. Not surprisingly, almost $800 billion of the US annual militrary budget is transfered directly from taxpayers to Fortune 500 conglaomerates like Haliburton & Bechtel
Well, what about if the majority decides to kill all of a certain race(Germany). What about that is fair? You can have a system of punishment for the individuals, but if the majority has power, enough, to kill who they want. Where does the punishment come from?
You really need to elevate your logic. No logic in your first argument. To say our individual rights conflict does not necessity the absence of a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism. Second, to work for a boss or starve is the either-or fallacy and there is no violation of my freedom to choose to work for a boss. The boss made the products with his genius. WIthout the boss, the workers not know how to make things; if they did, the could, should, or would. Capitalism produced good.
You ascribe virtue to power without determining who the power of ownership is being taken from. When a tenant pays rent he is subsidizing the purchase property owned by someone else. Profit is another form of expropriation. If almost any business left the owner alone to do his own labor he would be bankrupt in a matter of days or weeks. Capitalism is a moral as well as social economic and political failure. Its illusions are being exposed & its is loosing its grip on the imagination
You're confusing/misusing the term collectivism. There is dichotomy is correct. Study classic liberalism and please don't buy into the manipulative terminology of the left, which is controlled by the rich.
@highervis : I wasn't implying that they aren't BOTH controlled by the rich. This is a generalisation and only applies 'collectively', not 'individually' :-P
One final point. There is no such thing as "left wing anarchism".
The productive people will ALWAYS have more than the unproductive people. The ONLY mechanism by which wealth can be STOLEN from the productive and given to the unproductive is an all powerful state.
@fluff125: Correct, Anarchism is right wing - it is the absence of government. Noam Chomsky talks about left wing anarchism, but he never defines it as he cannot - such a thing cannot exist - it is an oxymoronic contradiction.
@ostralopithicus Sorry, but left-wing anarchism refers to the work of Mikhail Bakunin. He was involved in the social revolution, but was expelled by the Marxist movement for being "too radical".
He saw communism as abolishing private ownership AND letting the workers manage their economy democratically, while 'normal' Communism has a centralized government and a planned economy; which Bakunin called 'proletarian dictatorship'. He predicted this would lead to what we now know as Stalinism.
If it is anarchy and no centralisation of power at all, then what is the purpose of democracy?
Furthermore, if there is democracy - rule by the majority, then you rarely have consensus and hence you have the condition of tyranny of the majority over the minority. How does any self-respecting anarchist tolerate that?
I would also add, that if you throw in the rule of law - a body of rules or constitution to regulate the tyranny of the majority, then you have a republic.
Also, I'm not clear on what the alternative is to private property. Again, I don't know that any self respecting anarchist would tolerate property being public. How would that work? You must be aware of the problem of the commons. How is that dealt with? Human nature is what it is, we are all greedy.
@ostralopithicus I don't believe we are all greedy, but that it is something we are told to divide us. Just like the catholic church used to tell people they are sinners and carry the root of evil. Off course we will become murderous beasts once we feel threatened, but people are generally good when they trust each other.
That said, I'm not defending Bakunin's ideas. I was just pointing out Chomsky is referring to them when he uses the term anarchism and that they are well defined.
"Work for a boss or starve?" No one forces you to work for a boss, if you want you can live in the forest and grow your own food. However in a Marxist system you ARE forced to work or else you are jailed.
Assuming somebody's money represents their labor, to take money from one person and give it to another is to enslave both.
Communism is enslavement. Communism means no rights, because it centralizes power and gives a few near dictatorial control over the many. Communism is death.
Here's an example: some people kill off a bunch of natives, steal the land they've lived on for years, attribute themselves property rights to it and build a financial empire w/the resources aquired. Their inheritants still maintain this wealth today & are upper class wealthy. That's an example of how capitalism uses force
@highervis But that is illegal in a capitalist system. The DEFINITION of a free market is "free exchange without the use of force". In a free market system, it is illegal to kill someone and steal his car. However it is legal to buy his car for a price you both agree on IF he is willing to sell.
When a set of rules against theft, murder and slavery are instituted these laws form the conditions for capitalism. This is known as The Rule of Law.
@highervis: Capitalism is people trading for profit and has NOTHING to do with murder, enslavement, or theft. The latter are the tools of imperialists, mercantilists, & corporatists/fascists. Yes, the latter do often use capitalism, but they also use socialism and communism - whatever suits them at any point in time - they have no morals or ethics only a desire to control everyone else.
@fluff125 Not true, you have to buy a forest first. If everyone wants to buy the forest, the price goes up so nobody but the richest person can buy it. In the end people are enslaved by the person who had the most to begin with.
Off course, some people can make it big in a capitalist system; but most people are just f*** in the ass. Capitalism means opportunity by making money, Communism means opportunity by studying hard. Most people are screwed in both systems.
@noxure Yes assuming that everyone would want to buy the EXACT SAME plot of land, that would be the case. Of course this is as absurd as saying that all houses are worth a billion dollars because everybody wants to live in a house, therefore they all bid up the price until only the rich can afford them.
Also, consider the fact that the rich person who is spending all of this money on this plot of land would be, after his purchase, no longer a rich person.
If socialism works why is Venezuala poor and experiencing electricity shortages, while the country who (previously) was the least socialist, America, is the richest in the history of the world?
You look at the millions upon millions of bodies that communism (the advanced form of socialism) leaves and ask yourself who cares about the poor.
(BTW, in which society was the electric motor, the internal combustion engine, and virtually all modern technology invented?)
You can't define or put an ecsactly line to what interferes with others freedom and what doesn't. I think it's true: 'my freedom ends where yours begins', but if I smoke I pollute the air and then I interfere with others freedom, or? where should the line be set, and who should set the line, and should it be done by force? I think you can indeed talk about the terms individualism and collectivism then, I think it has to do with how you view freedom, would go on, but not more space to write on..
the system you are seeking is called a constitutional republic, and was established in this country in 1776.
your false dichotomy theory is incorrect. in an individualist society you aren't free to rape and murder because that infringes on another individual's natural rights. here's something else to ponder....an individualistic society allows for it's participants to engage in collectivism if they choose, but in a collectivist society you cannot choose to be an individualist .
@stopeatingpork What? He is speaking of Anarchism, where people have individual rights. However in this society people collectively make decisions in regards to the people as a whole.
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER with anarchy, in theory, people ARE free to excercise their ind. rights. the problem with that is you have no rule of law which is necessary to define and protect these supposed individual rights. anarchy doesn't exist...some group will always fill the void of no government. most of the founding fathers actually leaned heavily toward 'anarchy', but they understood that a free society MUST have central government to ensure ind. rights. we're supposed to keep it in check.
@stopeatingpork "It's to protect the minority of the opulent" your founding fathers.
These things you mention don't happen in Anarchism because people won't allow you to go out and rape over 9000 people. Eventually the people would just kill you
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER to believe in anarchy one must completely reject the reality of human nature. The 'perfection' of man is an impossibility, therefore we cannot trust any group to have total control (socialism, fascism, monarchy), nor can you cannot have zero government because there will always be people who can't just 'live and let live'. the founding fathers created the smallest form of govt possible around the principal of ind. rights. what we need is a restoration of our tiny 1776 govt
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER govt's are the #1 criminals...always have been, always will be. criminals will always be attracted to gov't for obvious reasons...hence why govt's are always filled with corruption. and yes, many of the founding fathers owned slaves. many of them did not. some of them even wanted a monarchy with washington as king. i understand why people might be attracted to anarchy, or zero gov't, but pragmatically it can't and won't work large scale. the constitution is brilliant...
it is far from perfect, but it is best form of government that mankind has yet to conceive. i encourage you to take an unbiased look at the american charters of freedom, and try to figure out what YOU don't like about them. then take a look at history....there are no working examples of anarchy that can be cited in all of history, and only a handful of truly free societies have existed. most societies historically have been ruled by a small group of thugs...kinda like the boat we're in now.
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER it won't work because groups will start to compete for power of rule. the group has the most muscle (or guns and bombs) behind them will end up ruling and conquering the rest. this is the human condition. to think that we will all just start "getting along" is not realistic. any form of anarchy is a temporary void that exists only as a transition from one gov't to the next. therefore, the idea is to limit gov't as much as possible, which is what our constitution does
Neo-Liberalism, sold by International banks and governments, has done extreme damage to the the post-Soviet Baltic states. Financial terrorists sell these wonderful ideas of liberalism, which is just another religion for people to believe in, like socialism/ capatalism. Once these ideas have been used to garner support for a course of action, the looting begins. Are people wrong to collectively assemble in an effort to prevent these internationalists from destroying their nation? Ayn Rand = fool
This attempt to explain oligarchic control of nation states by blaming collectivism is the most retarded bullshit.
The International banksters promote neo-liberalism as a means of raping economies, destroying societies and livelihoods, all in the name of a quick buck.
It's easy to be self absorbed and talk about your own freedoms while ignoring the rights of others to assemble in order to protect themselves.
The individualist vs collectivist arguement is irrelevant, childish crap.
Another thing you fail to understand and falsely state is that 1) capitalism is NOT responsible for the current state of government principles at work in the U.S. for the last 90 years and 2) printing money out of thin air by private banks is NOT capitalism and is NOT real 'money'.
individual freedom is not ANARCHY. individual freedom is utterly abridged if you deny others of their freedom to remain unmolested, untaxed and unharmed.
What a disgusting excuse for an American you are! How COULD you promote socialism when so many have died fighting against such principles in foreign wars, yet you espouse such decrepit principles right here in America!? pathetic.
You assume that toothbrushes, books, and beds automatically exist in the world. That is un-reality. You buy books, toothbrushes, and beds that are produced by men. These items can only exist if they are produced. Who produces? The same men that you claim to be exploiters. By your reasoning, you are exploiting another by using a bed, a toothbrush, and a book. What gives you a right to these items? What if I want the bed that you claim to own?
Anyone who supports Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism, Trotsky-ism, Marxism, Totalitarianism (Corporatism - Fascism) -- supports Gov't and cannot be Anarchist (Self-Rule or No Authority).
Anarchism should be a perfect balance of short-run collectivism and long-run individualism.
You can't have "anarchy" (self-rule) if you have long-run organization that you abdicate any level of self-rule to -- mathematically.
Everything is Voluntarism and there must be Zero Force / Absolutism.
I see my libertarian dream as far-fetched from today's policy. If mine is far-fetched, yours is the moon! I think I'll stick with being a libertarian. get rid of the income tax, entitlements, estate tax, capital gains tax, and stick to a small standing army (like what you are talking about), and stick to the constitution and ammend as needed, it's not a flexible document and Americans don't take amendments lightly. A 'flexible document is a document taken out of context imo... End the fed etc
By way of Counter-Economics and Non-Participation.
You don't "get rid of incometax" you begin to not participate in it -- as much as possible. Work under-the-table, hire under-the-table, backyard permaculture, buy local everything (as much as possible).
There's more of course, but it gives you an idea.
We just need to study "their" revenue stream and remove our participation in it.
We don't ask -- they never "ammend" (they just ignore)
Yea, I see that.. But this is where it fails.. It's not easy to convince the masses to break current laws, especially when a large portion of our population does not and will not ever care. Even when we buy anything from anybody we are paying a tax on it, even if indirectly. The only exception could be homegrown foods and whatever your local economy can provide. The 'brain-washed' are in place, how do does one hope to 'bring the wall down' ???
It's pure mathematics. You tear the system down by reversing our participation. We are 3/3rds of their revenue stream -- as consumers. 1) Work under-the-table (more and more) 2) Hire under-the.... 3) Take all assets our of Fed Banks and Wall Street 4) Develop underground currency and legal local currency 5) Local Permaculture 6) Massive Pond Developments 7) Coordinate buying clubs 8) Farmers Markets 9) Indian Reservations 10) Swap Meets
A large portion of the population think we aren't progressive enough, we don't have enough entitlements, we don't have enough welfare programs, etc.. These people make up a large portion of population, and on the far right we have the religious which oppose opposing the system except when it is in a direct violation of God's word. So between those two large portions alone. I absolutely believe in private property btw
My point is, Libertarians represent the democrats and center on the social issues and republicans on fiscal conservatism (republicans aren't usually this anymore anyway), small government, laissez faire economically. We have a following that is growing, even if disappointingly small currently. But your solution is radical to say the least, and the public doesn't sway on a whim usually.
Counter-Economics is not necessary if government is doesn't intervene in the first place.. That's what libertarianism is, only having government for absolute necessities, like in case of attack, for basic police/fire services. Austrian Economics is what we should be looking to, and cut out this Keynes bull shit. But I do like the idea of shifting rights from individuals to 'consumers' so that the seller would be liable and can't hide behind corporate laws. This could currently be fixed tho.
We get there as Gandhi got India there. Non-Participation - Voluntarism - and Counter-Economics. Counter-Economics: 1) Localism (for as many purchasing areas as possible) 2) Learn to Work under-the-table (as much as possible 3) Work with American Indians to create "underground currencies and trade supply chains" 4) Buy Local Organic Produce, Meats, and Dairy 5) Start 1000's of Local Micro-Farms 6) Use Farmers Markets and Swap Meets as trading hubs 7) Hire under-the-table ...etc
Given that "laws" do not protect you from crime -- We actually live in Anarchy with a "rights-based" taxation blankey protecting us; it's a facade of security.
No, to a point it's actual security... We have just overstepped our duties, with things like the drug war. 'Laws' make others accountable for their crimes, whether to punish, get revenge, or make sure it doesn't happen to another (at least in the short term), is in the eye of the beholder. Some laws are nothing but special interest regulations. We don't lose 80% of our income on direct and indirect taxation, it's closer to 50% with the government claiming around 28-30%.
Laws do not make people "accountable" --they work only when they are applied.
I'm an economist (by training) -- I don't have the time for this type of debate, in a 500 character format.
We do lose 80% -- you are thinking only of a few direct taxes.
Your 28-30% is "direct" tax you are way off as far as inflationary tax, regulatory tax, licensure tax, insurance tax, gas tax, sin tax, fiat credit/cash tax -- The consumer pays everything.
Whatever Mr. economist, you must know best.. I'm fully aware of the taxes we pay, I'm taking them into consideration, and we are talking average. We are all consumers we are all individuals, read Orwells "Politics in the English Language" before? Look it up it's short. Word it how you want, we need minimalistic proportions of government, which is really what you are talking about as far as I can tell. Inflation is about 2% a year currently, probably go up due to bailouts and stimulus...
What about the death/estate tax this year? Did you know there is not one this year? Good year to whack a relative! Just kidding, but while we disagree on the figure approx. 50% vs. 80%, I DO take these things into account, even taxes that your employer matches you and gives to the government (hidden tax passed on to worker). I'm going to school in business and political science, I don't claim to be a know-it-all, but you can't claim everyone you talk to is ignorant.
Let's just agree to disagree, I don't really have time to learn a sort of fringe belief, while I admit I'm interested, as it relates to my fields of study. However if you want to point me in the direction of information to your particular ideology, I will look at it when I have time. A lot of what you talk about has shifted from the wealthy white man, with the 14th and 19th amendments for example. It just seemed like you are offering a different mindset, rather than fixing our current.
Read Mises, Rothbard, Bakunin, Paine-Adams-Jeffersn, and Marx.
Go into it, with the idea - that you are potentially wiser and can come up with a better model.
"....and greater works shall ye perform"
Remember that all of them thought their model benfited the individual the best -- some say benefit the individual by focusing on property (Rothbard and partally Mises) and others on the worker (Bakunin - Marx); however, only Mises focuses on the Consumer (who pays for everything).
I've taken philosophy, and have got my minors in political science, so I'm aware of Marx ideology, as well as a good deal of Paine, Adams, and Jefferson. My ideology is like no one in office, but closest to that of Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. Perhaps you should take a harder look at our current system and how a libertarianism would solve our social as well as our economic issues. The consumer=individual as far as I can tell, we are all individuals and must consume.
If you do not understand consumer-individualism then you are not versed in the work of Mises -- who as Ron Paul's #1 Mentor.
Mises and Paul are not "Libertarians" they are transitionary Minarchists; true libertarians (like Rothbard - who is a Libertarian-Anarchist) do not believe in a transition.
Rothbard was a student of Mises.
There's overlap, but in my opinion without a thourough understanding of consumer-sovereignty you will never get to the bottom of free-market theory.
I've heard of Mises, it doesn't mean I know his works... I'm aware of who he is, and just because I have similar beliefs as Ron Paul doesn't mean I'm studied in HIS favorites. True libertarians? You cannot say what is true libertarianism, you can only say what is libertarianism is and by whose definition. Libertarian today, is a generalized term like that of republican, democrat, green, socialist, etc. There are only varying degrees of any one. Also, Mises isn't the only Austrian authority
I'm currently reading a book by Henry Hazlitt on Austrian economics, and am studying some Hayek for a book report this semester. I enjoy the laissez faire approach rather than Keynesian economics.. I'll definitely check out Mises in detail soon, as he is such a figure head in similar ideologies. Really, though, it sounds like you are for a socialist society classic none to basic government socialism. I am sorry I understand anarcho-capitalism a hell of a lot better
My personal philosophy and path to get their come from Gandhi's Satyagrahi Movement, Ludwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner, and my own long deep meditations.
I've reduced it down, in practical terms to "consumer-sovereignty" (by way of - Zero Rights for Workers and Owners) combined with 100% Voluntarism; zero voting, zero lobbying, and 100% self-defense (on all issues in all areas of ones life).
One last thing, and I won't comment anymore, unless you want to explain in a kind of summary detail what YOUR personal ideology is, and not all the sources they derive from, we could have a much more meaningful discussion. This is daunting sometimes so I'm fine if you don't respond, I'll learn with or without you.
@OctoBox Another terrific, and pretty quick read at only 90 pages or so, is a treatise called 'The Law' by Frederic Bastiat. Truly amazing stuff. Find it free online in text or audio versions.
I agree with you #2 comment below and partially with the capitalism statement.
It's the consumer and individuals fault we are in this mess (here in America). We "abdicate" our authority over to "laws" and "gov't" therefore we reap what we sow.
"We" -- "consumers" are 3/3rds of their revenue stream -- if we become aware of that as individuals we can remove our commitment.
Voting and Lobbying is part of Capitalism and Corporatism
@OctoBox Terrific treatise isn't it? Bastiat was remarkably ahead of his time as was Thomas Jefferson. Anyway, your comment about 3/3rds is incorrect-- the totally fiat monetary system we are suffering under for the last 90 years completely by-passes voter approval of spending and simply provides a printing press to the feds to print money out of thin air and distribute it via blackmail, bribes or kickbacks to states, corporations or international concerns. It's BAD. It's not capitalism either.
Anyusmoon: You are not wrong about the "evil" of the printing press (Fiat Currency) we agree 100% there.
But they don't print money they print debt to "over-ride" consumer demand; however, they simultaneously destroy purchasing power and therefore destroy "real wealth" (that which is derived from market-driven entrepreneurialism).
They (The Fed) "consume" the same goods we do with those fiat dollars, they acquire land, gold, cars, vacations, weaponry (etc etc). However, without "consumers" their "partners" (upper 1% - 3,000,000 people) lose their purchasing power as well.
I just got dumber.
8bitRicky 4 days ago
Negative rights? Non Aggression principle?
jacobvictory 2 weeks ago
Just because someone isn't a laborer (say a factory owner for example), that doesn't mean that he or she is exploiting workers. The tools, the factory (how the tools are configured) and the precise division of labor don't simply appear out of thin air. The entrepreneur is just as vital as the laborers, even moreso if he is able to create wealth. Still, people shouldn't hoard or monopolize resources that they aren't using. Even John Locke, someone that individualists revere, believed as such.
HallmarkJD 4 months ago
OBJECTIVE morality is looking at the rules binding a group together & recognising that the absence of following them breaks in a measure the integrity or strength of that group i.e. the existence of the group the way it IS depends on the members following rules that OUGHT to keep it together.
Collectives DEMAND rules OR they fail & fall apart UNLESS it is popular to stranger non-associating individuals that have NO RULES but that of random whims; non-communication set-up of private individuals.
Adeikov 5 months ago
You got your infomation wrong.
Rand did not belive that people who hurt others either directly or indirectly should not be punished. She believed in millitary and police for defense and a justice system to protect our individual rights.
Anarchism isn't freedom. If there were no police and no millitary, there would be gangs. You either elect a government that is accetable to you or it will elect itself. No one would be able to own anything, including their own body! That is NOT freedom.
jjenson2006 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a fool.
snookblast 6 months ago
You don't have a right to property, you have a right to try and obtain property. These are two very different rights. If you had a right to property you would not have to work for it, the property would just be given to you. You are not entitled to property, you have confused the ideas, you have a right to own property that you have earned or has been given to you. As long as you obtain property legally it can not be taken from you, that is what the right to own property is, you are not entitled
frankiegmh 7 months ago
I like your video, but I think you have a misunderstanding of this viewpoint. Have you read John Stuart Mill's On liberty?
Youtube doesn't allow a long enough message to let me write something interesting, but I encourage you to continue reading and having an open mind!
I think if most people around the world cared about this sort of thing as you seem to, we'd all be better off.
greventlv 7 months ago
Hey man, i really appreciate your videos. I've identified myself as an anarcho-capitalist for a couple years, but am now revising many of my conceptions of economics and ethics in light of your and others' videos. You are very calm and collected and clearly recognize the importance of sound reasoning; top notch. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the Venus Project? Have you made a video about it at all? Peace!
Humpipe 7 months ago
amens to you
dancthegr 7 months ago
are you on Facebook?
amburningbridges 8 months ago
Where was the refuting?
fredianoB 8 months ago
Here is a word for you: "sophomoric" I looked it up in the dictionary and I saw a picture of you. Please spend less time studying vocabulary and more time studying history and economics
jwbrown1969 9 months ago
@jwbrown1969 if you regard the vocabulary that was used in this clip as oversophisticated i am seriously wondering how you could ever achieve a level of sophistication that enables you to rightfully judge on matters of history, economics, or any other of the academic fields that are anthropologically relevant - although apparently not taken into consideration on your part - to the discussed matters.
saltysumatrantiger 8 months ago
@saltysumatrantiger Nice try, but you just proved my point. The fact that you do not see that is further evidence. By the way your prose is awkward and forced which is further proof (as if any were needed) that most of your understanding comes from a thesaurus and not from intellectual rigor. Have a nice day and God bless.
jwbrown1969 8 months ago
@jwbrown1969 a) is it possible, that you just didn't realize that i'm not the person from this clip? b) my native language is german. i would be surprised, if my english prose wasn't awkward to some extent, as i actually do not only make use of a thesaurus from time to time, but even more frequently of a german-english dictionary. c) you're not too bad in identifying the evidence, i wish you the very best in developing the yet lacking brilliance in analyzing it beyond your personal horizon. ;-)
saltysumatrantiger 8 months ago
Having to work and think to survive is not a situation created by humans. It naturally arose because organisms require an intake of energy. The choice between working and starving is not the product of a human being forcing that decision on another human being.
streetmagicstyle 9 months ago
@streetmagicstyle and what exactly is your argument? the organization of the use of resources in order to cover the natural demand of energy intake is a matter of the social structure of a society. even though natural predispositions are basically determining whether or not complex social structures may develop, they do not necessarily restrict the establishment of concepts of socially fair access to available resources.
saltysumatrantiger 8 months ago
@saltysumatrantiger "and what exactly is your argument?"
Even if I was on an isolated island with no other people, I'd still be forced to either work or starve. Would that make me a slave? Of course not. The mere fact that an individual has to work or starve does not make him or her a slave. Surely, coercing someone to deter them from using a limited natural resource may or may not be a reasonable basis for criticizing traditional views of freedom, but the "work or starve" argument (continued)
streetmagicstyle 8 months ago
@streetmagicstyle "Would that make me a slave?" - of course it wouldn't, basically due to the fact that slavery can only be defined through social relations, which definitely aren't present on an island with no other people than you. in case there -were- other people than you, being in total control of the island's resources, your choice between working or starving would have a totally different context and would force you to totally subordinate yourself to the discretion of those people.
saltysumatrantiger 8 months ago
@saltysumatrantiger to claim slavery exists is a totally irrational fantasy.
streetmagicstyle 8 months ago
cont' but it cannot give selfesteem, worth. one women just sat all day waiting to die. one guy w/ no hands just stubbs paints pictures. he hired people in the village w/ they once look down on him. many lives where changed. the same women that loaned the money started a school for the kids of these lepers. only capitolism can do this..cbn did the documentary...
crhoads62 10 months ago
i watched a doc. of a women that went into a leper colony. these plp. have been beggers for 200+YRS.they had so selfesteem. were look down upon by everyone. she wanted to loan them money to start biz. only 1 went for it. her biz.grew and the family prospered. the plp. in the town began to respect them. more of them started biz. and now nearly the whole village is doing much better. micro loans from cap. lifted one family then the whole village. collectivism would have just kept giving and giving
crhoads62 10 months ago
i will use my freedom of speech to say that you will receive a plot of land in hell reserved just for you. you boss is satan and you will work for him as a tormented spirit for all eternity. your idea that GOD is a myth will be proven as wrong. anyone that thinks like you automatically is a atheist..
crhoads62 10 months ago
Podrias traducir este video? gracias
sloor15 10 months ago
You make no sense. Thumbs DOWN!
WJValente 10 months ago
Ouch!, looks like previous posters are already letting this stupid non-sensical rant have it. You never finished with your individual vs collective garabge. I was really interested to see you try and pull that out a hat. Instead you went on to rail agaisnt capitalism and ended up all over the map. Try again, this one was a FAIL.
Malbrojia 10 months ago
How do people get this stupid?
tommyplastino 11 months ago
so much shit said in so little time
mtklaric 11 months ago
you're not even really worth responding to but its amazing that anybody can be as stupid as you. clearly youve been through institutional schooling and have no analytical mind when it comes to perceiving reality or understanding the nature of it. your vocabulary is as empty as political rhetoric and overloaded with buzz words and catch phrases that appeal to the emotions of like-minded idiots, and not rational thinkers. your vote counts, Einstien(not), so go cast another ballot for Obama. lmao
supplanter111 1 year ago
Everything u said was adhominem, misleading, and ultimately empty(strawman). individualism prevents rapes, murder and slavery because it affords the individual the rights to not be violated(even at the will of the majority). individualism does not extend any privilege to government.(thats left wing collectivism) property is always owned exept left wing collectivists give it all to the political elite under the guise of everyone(the group) owning it. u r an indoctrinated useful idiot 4 the state.
supplanter111 1 year ago
Comment removed
supplanter111 1 year ago
This video forgets that individualism still has a moral structure - just because I'm free to do what I want doesn't mean I won't face consequences if I commit aggression on someone else. Also, just because I own property or resources doesn't mean that you must become a slave. Left-wing anarchy is - up to this point - unable to convince me that it has principled standing. If I eat steak for dinner, I can't call myself a vegetarian.
jwinter228 1 year ago
"The evil Nazis used toilet paper, therefore toilet paper is evil."
The "capitalism is bad" mantra is just as mindless a term as "guns are bad" or "TV is bad". They're merely tools that can be used for good or evil purposes. If people's rights are violated under the cloak of Capitalism, then it's a crime. There's a BIG difference between "Capitalism" and organized crime. Organized criminals have operated as Capitalists just as they've operated as Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, Catholics, etc.
IAMSatisfied 1 year ago
@IAMSatisfied or Christianty is bad because it likes western society but islam is good because it hates western society...
crhoads62 10 months ago
I agree with much of what the poster of the video response had to say. Much of the current criticism of "Capitalism" should rightly be directed at Corporatism... the idea that a man or men can form a legal entity that has the rights of a "person" under the law, while shielding the individual(s) from personal responsibility for their actions, which are too often crimes.
How, exactly, are you any different from a Marxist?
IAMSatisfied 1 year ago
@IAMSatisfied do you not see that people that are indocranated with this garbage also work for corporations. they went in with all intensions of making many corporations appear as greedy. for reference look at GE and the taxes it payed and now this guy is working for obama. same with wall street. what these people did took many yrs and a lot of ploting and planning. all the stuff that was done was done intenically. timed down to the day.
crhoads62 10 months ago
I lost you when you said "my freedoms end where yours begin." Resourses, such as land, energy and food are constanlty being traded. Those in society who have become skilled at gathering these things tend to have more, while less skilled individuals will have less. Regardless, we should all be treated equally weather we're skilled gatherers or not. How can someone find it moral to forcefully take from one to give to another?
Torcehorse 1 year ago
Go back to whatever communist country you came from!
xxbobdeexx 1 year ago
He has a nice intro about the fundamental need for law enforcement, as it is the job of such to (try by deterrence) deprive people's right to hurt others. What this has to do with redistribution of wealth is a mystery, though he convinced himself nine seconds into the video, and simply repeated the first premise thereafter.
Holyw4ffl3 1 year ago
work or starve is a human condition not a violation of individual freedom. if the cave man decided to not go out and find some food he starved.
lack76 1 year ago
Dude you didnt do any home work on individualism.
eathis12 1 year ago
Really good stuff, all of the negativity is proof. ;)
depro9 1 year ago
@depro9 1: If its good stuff, please explain the premise he made in the first 9 seconds (since it's just repeated thereafter). 2: If negativity is proof of quality, then if his video was about the need for Genocide it would have gotten more negative views.
Holyw4ffl3 1 year ago
Talk about kool-aid drinker -- That Marx fellow made some strong stuff. WoW! That commentary was worse than listening to a speech by Bush --- your beloved brother in collectivism.
TruckinMike1965 1 year ago
Talk about kool-aid drinker -- That Marx fellow made some strong stuff. WoW! That commentary was worse than listening to a speech by Bush --- your beloved brother in collectivism.
TruckinMike1965 1 year ago
This is the result of an IQ of 95 trying to understand liberty.
nearkolob 1 year ago
This video is bullshit. My individual right to be unfettered does not interfer with your right to enslave me- you have no right to enslave me. My property does not prevent you from owning property or producing things of value- it simply is my right to defend the fruits of my labor, or to cease laboring to prevent you from benefiting as a thief or parasite.
fluffyc4 1 year ago
@matthew00123 You're talking anarcho-capitalism, and there is nothing preventing you from pitching in or buying your own security protection. In fact the're would be many of them competing for your service, eliminating the monopoly making it better and less expensive. In other words, you prefer to have no choice in security providers, prefering instead to have a monopoly provided service that sets it's own price and steals it from you by threat of violence.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
Your conclusion that the dichotomy doesn't exist makes no sense. So because one person's freedom to act ends when their actions violate another person's individual freedoms... that means there's no difference between individualism and collectivism? You've said NOTHING about collectivism!
The existence of a world where your choice is to work or starve, is not a creation of capitalism but rather a fact of reality, inherent in all living animals. Capitalism merely makes it much easier to live.
Hostile 1 year ago
wow...just wow....this is sad.
You people that believe in collectivism, don't you realise that the powers that be will never be equal/like the common man?
dualberettas 1 year ago
This is a whole lot of non-sense. It didn't really address collectivism vs individualism at all. Your first conclusion didn't prove that this was a false dichotomy... It proved that absolute individual freedom contradicts the absolute individual freedom of others.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
Your logic is like swiss cheese....full of holes.
askmieke 1 year ago 2
Hyperbole/Ignorance + Serious face and/or Sincere voice = Douchey Liar
tubeturds 1 year ago
Comment removed
jeffshead 1 year ago
@tubeturds You nailed it!
What a boob!
mr1001nights is someone who thinks he is smarter than he truely is.
jeffshead 1 year ago
This Dumbass is comparing Raping with polluting the environment (IE using your car)
Big difference you dumbass.
Budguy68 1 year ago
"My freedom ends where yours begins" what the hell are you talking about? Rapeing people and killing people are both products of FORCE which ISN"T PART OF FREEDOM!!!
Rape: the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
islamiscrap8888 1 year ago
This guys argument is so bad i don't even know where to begin.But to say that leftist anarchism is silly and unrealistic is good enough.
pablocoon 1 year ago
Its a paradox not a contradiction.Individual rights and the community must both exist.They do at times create tensions but for both to thrive the other must be there.Some anarchist swing to far one way or another, but we much strive for balance.When a society works cooperatively the individual has the liberty to grow and be more creative.I tend to think mutualism is the best balance,but I'm not ridged.I think you could have a community that blends mutualism,collectivism,communism,&syndicalism.
Spillers72 1 year ago
my statement is seen only when you click SEE ALL. youtube you herd of asses
kiltyoposse 1 year ago
you are right in your thesis "individualism vs. collectivism is a false paradigm" but your logic beleif system and the content of what u say is complete nonsense and irrelevant to the above mentioned statement. and you are extremely naive and clueless about reality. very thing you speak of is false paradigms and hack premises and u are an automaton lemming.nitwit.
supplanter111 1 year ago
@supplanter111 your disagreeing w/ his beliefs is fine, but his extrapolating from social to economic to political philosophy was neither nonsense, incorrect or irrelevant but for YOUR preferences. There is no accounting as to persoal taste, but to say he is wrong here only shows that you cannot grasp very basic philosophic constructs. I do think the title is misleading, and should be " Why I am an Anarcho-syndicalist.", but he is not wrong for it.
kiltyoposse 1 year ago
So you're a true communist? One which there is no economy or government? Being a slave to bosses is no different than being a slave to the collective.
N33DL3R 1 year ago
What an idiot !!! Is he on drugs?
howser12 1 year ago
anarcho-capitalism is the banker-funded false paradigm setup to oppose the other banker-funded paradigm, socialism, so they could institute in a hegelian dialectic for the keynesian system to use the state and monopolism to enslave the people. the classic liberals were right. most everyone today are misdirected by banker propoganda.
jeepndesert 1 year ago
left wing and right wing is a false dichotomy as well there fore the whole premise of your account is void
spliffizzle 1 year ago
we must learn to act without leaving consequences
spliffizzle 1 year ago
Part of the pretense for your entire stance for left-wing anarchism is wrong. For example, people pay the government, society, for the ability to "own property," hence property taxes.
aaronkc7 1 year ago
@mr1001nights You mentioned that we live in a world of limited resources. This may be changing. Science has opened up a new vortex in the political arena, and it changes many things. Just some food for thought. Good video.
philnoll 1 year ago
There is a real ideological dichotomy, but many shades of gray when it comes to details.
Camp A thinks individuals are moral and collective by nature and should be left alone.
Camp B thinks that people are selfish by nature, and need an authority to enforce collectivism.
Almost everybody falls into one of these two camps, so I think there is a real dichotomy. But when you're dealing with 17 dimensions, nothing is ever black and white.
philnoll 1 year ago
WRONG - Individualists do not believe in taking from others - which means of course rape is not something an individualist would take part of so this just starts of with the wrong premises....you are not thinking very deeply...
sylvaingallea1 1 year ago
Your understanding of property is weak. Property ownership does NOT (with some exceptions) violate the rights of others. Exceptions would be building a fireworks factor in an area that already contains houses and families..that sort of thing.
jscottupton 1 year ago
So in your fanciful world, a global government would universally distribute equal portions of land to individuals based on population concentrations that vary over time to offset this inequality of land rights? What a bunch of mush dude! The cost alone in taxes to administer such nonsense would deprive each person of that very ability in a free market. Please let me know what university taught you and I'll make sure no one I know goes there to have their thinking messed up and muddled.
nalejbank 1 year ago
@nalejbank
You realize that anarchist oppose governments and taxes rights?
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets anarchists are hypocrits. they believe in taxation. it is called toll roads and rent. it is called hording gold and getting a free lunch through stealing economic growth through monetarization of commodity-based and other free market currency. tax on land good. debt-free greenbacks good. tax on labor and capital (real capital, not land) is bad. usury should be eliminating with non-profit banking (credit unions)/public option banking and public option/non-profit insurance.
jeepndesert 1 year ago
@jeepndesert
I am rather confused by your political stance. Firstly, most anarchists favour the abolition of money, so how can one tax when there is nothing to tax?! Toll roads and rent are opposed by left-anarchists but embraced by laissez-faire capitalists (which anarchists oppose!), for that matter toll roads are not taxation. In fact, most of what you said would be agreed upon by anarchists (anarchists in the sense of market abolitionist libertarian socialists).
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@jeepndesert
You then go on to say that "usury should be eliminating with non-profit banking (credit unions)/public option banking and public option/non-profit insurance" which is proposed by some anarchists, namely mutualists. You sound like an anarchist to me (a mutualist rather than a libertarian socialist, but an anarchist nonetheless), you just don't know it yet, it appears to me.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@jeepndesert There's left wing anarchy, which is socialism, and right wing anarchy which is closer to the anarchy your speaking about. It's really confusing for us in America, but when you hear Anarchism think socialism, and free market anarchism think Anarcho-Capitalist. Many Anarcho-Capitalists will call themselves libertarians or minarchist just to not be confused with the left-wing. Sad but there's a huge difference, there really isn't common ground between the two at all.
brewerscrew 1 year ago
i couldnt resist adding another comment.
i just got to add, who wants the freedom to rape women?
who wants the freedom to imprison another individual?
who wants slaves?
who wants to be bound to everybody else that you work with?
when being considered in a court of law, who wants to be judged by class? sex? or even race?
you do not have the right to kill somebody, to use force in anyway- even withholding.
freedom is the idea that you are free from force, not your own responsibility to think
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations
Capitalism is really free market cannibalism. In the final analysis Capitalism promoted a form of rhetorical liberty that consumed the liberty of the majority to choose a more humane and equitable alternative to the existing free market distribution of disease war poverty & private profit.. It seems to me that the right wing ideological fixation w/ property is a symptom ot an inablility or unwillingness to recognize the larger public good as a competing interest.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz what a bunch of nonsense.
freedom and liberty is in the nature of individuals. it cannot be increased in quantity by the collections of individuals because one individuals freedom CANNOT take away the freedoms of another. Yours comes from what you require to live, the freedom to ACT.
Rights are not a numbers game, a diabolical contradiction.
You cannot force anybody to not take the actions they require to pursue their own lives, that is abhorrent as it is equal to murder.
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations
Individuals comprise a class at the mercy of the economic structures they live under & over which they have no power. The free market is a Utopian pipe dream & the most violent predatory economic dictatorship on this planet. America is & has always represented liberty for business as a form of criminal enterprise, run from day one for the express purpose of the aggrandizement of corporate power. What you are describing is the highly standardized individualism of ideology
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
this claim is so clearly false its almost embarrassing.
Freedom from force, not the freedom to enforce.
you are free to act so far as you do not impede another individuals life and well being.
the notion of a free man is born the on the idea of what standard is required for an individual to live, then applying these requirements to the political structure in which individuals share a common field of interaction.
Read some John locke, that should clear up some of your misgivings.
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
I watched just a few seconds before realizing the fallacies you have committed. As I watched the rest of it, you didn't say anything that justified your fallacies. You reduce individualism to anarchy. Its a straw man. Individualism exists when there is a government to prevent and punish the initiation of physical force.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
Who said that "individualism means a person can go around violating the rights of others"?? You appear to be debating yourself. Your arguments about property ownership and free markets are way off. While there are "third party effects" or "neighborhood effects", these do not negate the natural right of people to engage in exchanges and these effects CERTAINLY don't justify government control of our lives. They only call for an umpire (courts-police) to deal with claims of trespass.
jscottupton 1 year ago
Raping, murder, pollution, these are examples of the violation of others property rights. I don't know what you were trying to prove with this video, but you missed the mark.
tantoi10man 1 year ago
Your very confused. You don't understand the terms your addressing.
jgrimsl1 1 year ago
I hear your argument and it has some valid points but the problem is in the absence of a free market, who decides who get's what? who's to say how much we should consume? Since power currupts you leave open the chance, and I'd say certainty that while we live off what we consume, the powers will live off the rest. look @ China, they are running as fast as they can towards capitalism. Communism doesn't work, capitalism doesn't work either, the answer lays some wher in the middle.
DingDongDixxie 1 year ago
@DingDongDixxie
Economic theories that propose the existence of a free market have the virtue of being both impossible to prove and yet cannot be disproven. The idea of the free market has a mythic ring to it, like the virgin birth it functions as a religious precept. Recognizing that capitalism does not & cannot regulate itself is a more obvious truth. We have been absorbed into the 'economy' at so many levels it remains hidden but its disastrous social outcomes are impossible to conceal.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz that's why I say the answer is some where in the middle. But as far as regulation, the rules should only provide fair business practices like "No defective goods" and such, not how much you or I get. Without the motivation of making a better life for yourself innovation is stifled. We got great through innovation and creativity. That dies once you know your life won't get any better than some set standard of living. u reach that and fall back.
DingDongDixxie 1 year ago
@DingDongDixxie
The evidence of my senses is the free market theory of self aggrandizement as adequate motivation to direct human choice is a failed moral ethical and socialsystem in practice if not on paper. Locke Spencer Malthus and Burke really have nothing but bromides to offer this century. The crisis of capitalism is functional and the evidence of its profound failure to progress beyond ideology to face the measurable social consequences is symtomatic.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@DingDongDixxie
Missing from the usual suspects are those which operate with the power of state scale resources yet are disguised as free market entities, The state must be recognized in the disguise of corporate power which is both in literal & figurative terms beyond the reach of the law or the unseen hand of the market. Not surprisingly, almost $800 billion of the US annual militrary budget is transfered directly from taxpayers to Fortune 500 conglaomerates like Haliburton & Bechtel
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
besides that i don't know what you're arguing.
x00czar00x 1 year ago
Well, what about if the majority decides to kill all of a certain race(Germany). What about that is fair? You can have a system of punishment for the individuals, but if the majority has power, enough, to kill who they want. Where does the punishment come from?
x00czar00x 1 year ago
You really need to elevate your logic. No logic in your first argument. To say our individual rights conflict does not necessity the absence of a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism. Second, to work for a boss or starve is the either-or fallacy and there is no violation of my freedom to choose to work for a boss. The boss made the products with his genius. WIthout the boss, the workers not know how to make things; if they did, the could, should, or would. Capitalism produced good.
ed9s 1 year ago
@ed9s Until the Federal Reserve(a private company which enslaves the population) was formed. You should watch Zeitgeist.
x00czar00x 1 year ago
@ed9s
You ascribe virtue to power without determining who the power of ownership is being taken from. When a tenant pays rent he is subsidizing the purchase property owned by someone else. Profit is another form of expropriation. If almost any business left the owner alone to do his own labor he would be bankrupt in a matter of days or weeks. Capitalism is a moral as well as social economic and political failure. Its illusions are being exposed & its is loosing its grip on the imagination
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
what the fuck did u smoke dude ?!
user098197 1 year ago
Zzzzz
I thought America was idiots free
MiPapiQuerido 1 year ago
Breath or die, Oh the tyranny of mother nature to make me make such a choice...
totheman 1 year ago
You're confusing/misusing the term collectivism. There is dichotomy is correct. Study classic liberalism and please don't buy into the manipulative terminology of the left, which is controlled by the rich.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
Who's the right controlled by then?
highervis 1 year ago
@highervis : I wasn't implying that they aren't BOTH controlled by the rich. This is a generalisation and only applies 'collectively', not 'individually' :-P
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
One final point. There is no such thing as "left wing anarchism".
The productive people will ALWAYS have more than the unproductive people. The ONLY mechanism by which wealth can be STOLEN from the productive and given to the unproductive is an all powerful state.
fluff125 1 year ago
Overgeneralizing
highervis 1 year ago
@fluff125: Correct, Anarchism is right wing - it is the absence of government. Noam Chomsky talks about left wing anarchism, but he never defines it as he cannot - such a thing cannot exist - it is an oxymoronic contradiction.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@ostralopithicus Sorry, but left-wing anarchism refers to the work of Mikhail Bakunin. He was involved in the social revolution, but was expelled by the Marxist movement for being "too radical".
He saw communism as abolishing private ownership AND letting the workers manage their economy democratically, while 'normal' Communism has a centralized government and a planned economy; which Bakunin called 'proletarian dictatorship'. He predicted this would lead to what we now know as Stalinism.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
If it is anarchy and no centralisation of power at all, then what is the purpose of democracy?
Furthermore, if there is democracy - rule by the majority, then you rarely have consensus and hence you have the condition of tyranny of the majority over the minority. How does any self-respecting anarchist tolerate that?
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@noxure
I would also add, that if you throw in the rule of law - a body of rules or constitution to regulate the tyranny of the majority, then you have a republic.
Also, I'm not clear on what the alternative is to private property. Again, I don't know that any self respecting anarchist would tolerate property being public. How would that work? You must be aware of the problem of the commons. How is that dealt with? Human nature is what it is, we are all greedy.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@ostralopithicus I don't believe we are all greedy, but that it is something we are told to divide us. Just like the catholic church used to tell people they are sinners and carry the root of evil. Off course we will become murderous beasts once we feel threatened, but people are generally good when they trust each other.
That said, I'm not defending Bakunin's ideas. I was just pointing out Chomsky is referring to them when he uses the term anarchism and that they are well defined.
noxure 1 year ago
"Work for a boss or starve?" No one forces you to work for a boss, if you want you can live in the forest and grow your own food. However in a Marxist system you ARE forced to work or else you are jailed.
Assuming somebody's money represents their labor, to take money from one person and give it to another is to enslave both.
Communism is enslavement. Communism means no rights, because it centralizes power and gives a few near dictatorial control over the many. Communism is death.
fluff125 1 year ago
Here's an example: some people kill off a bunch of natives, steal the land they've lived on for years, attribute themselves property rights to it and build a financial empire w/the resources aquired. Their inheritants still maintain this wealth today & are upper class wealthy. That's an example of how capitalism uses force
highervis 1 year ago
@highervis But that is illegal in a capitalist system. The DEFINITION of a free market is "free exchange without the use of force". In a free market system, it is illegal to kill someone and steal his car. However it is legal to buy his car for a price you both agree on IF he is willing to sell.
When a set of rules against theft, murder and slavery are instituted these laws form the conditions for capitalism. This is known as The Rule of Law.
fluff125 1 year ago
@highervis: Capitalism is people trading for profit and has NOTHING to do with murder, enslavement, or theft. The latter are the tools of imperialists, mercantilists, & corporatists/fascists. Yes, the latter do often use capitalism, but they also use socialism and communism - whatever suits them at any point in time - they have no morals or ethics only a desire to control everyone else.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@fluff125 Not true, you have to buy a forest first. If everyone wants to buy the forest, the price goes up so nobody but the richest person can buy it. In the end people are enslaved by the person who had the most to begin with.
Off course, some people can make it big in a capitalist system; but most people are just f*** in the ass. Capitalism means opportunity by making money, Communism means opportunity by studying hard. Most people are screwed in both systems.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure Yes assuming that everyone would want to buy the EXACT SAME plot of land, that would be the case. Of course this is as absurd as saying that all houses are worth a billion dollars because everybody wants to live in a house, therefore they all bid up the price until only the rich can afford them.
Also, consider the fact that the rich person who is spending all of this money on this plot of land would be, after his purchase, no longer a rich person.
fluff125 1 year ago
If socialism works why is Venezuala poor and experiencing electricity shortages, while the country who (previously) was the least socialist, America, is the richest in the history of the world?
You look at the millions upon millions of bodies that communism (the advanced form of socialism) leaves and ask yourself who cares about the poor.
(BTW, in which society was the electric motor, the internal combustion engine, and virtually all modern technology invented?)
fluff125 1 year ago
You can't define or put an ecsactly line to what interferes with others freedom and what doesn't. I think it's true: 'my freedom ends where yours begins', but if I smoke I pollute the air and then I interfere with others freedom, or? where should the line be set, and who should set the line, and should it be done by force? I think you can indeed talk about the terms individualism and collectivism then, I think it has to do with how you view freedom, would go on, but not more space to write on..
BearWindAppleyard 1 year ago
hey noam jr--
the system you are seeking is called a constitutional republic, and was established in this country in 1776.
your false dichotomy theory is incorrect. in an individualist society you aren't free to rape and murder because that infringes on another individual's natural rights. here's something else to ponder....an individualistic society allows for it's participants to engage in collectivism if they choose, but in a collectivist society you cannot choose to be an individualist .
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
@stopeatingpork What? He is speaking of Anarchism, where people have individual rights. However in this society people collectively make decisions in regards to the people as a whole.
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER with anarchy, in theory, people ARE free to excercise their ind. rights. the problem with that is you have no rule of law which is necessary to define and protect these supposed individual rights. anarchy doesn't exist...some group will always fill the void of no government. most of the founding fathers actually leaned heavily toward 'anarchy', but they understood that a free society MUST have central government to ensure ind. rights. we're supposed to keep it in check.
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
@stopeatingpork "It's to protect the minority of the opulent" your founding fathers.
These things you mention don't happen in Anarchism because people won't allow you to go out and rape over 9000 people. Eventually the people would just kill you
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER to believe in anarchy one must completely reject the reality of human nature. The 'perfection' of man is an impossibility, therefore we cannot trust any group to have total control (socialism, fascism, monarchy), nor can you cannot have zero government because there will always be people who can't just 'live and let live'. the founding fathers created the smallest form of govt possible around the principal of ind. rights. what we need is a restoration of our tiny 1776 govt
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
@stopeatingpork Right because crimes are not already not happening by governments. Your founding fathers were not but elitist slavemasters
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER govt's are the #1 criminals...always have been, always will be. criminals will always be attracted to gov't for obvious reasons...hence why govt's are always filled with corruption. and yes, many of the founding fathers owned slaves. many of them did not. some of them even wanted a monarchy with washington as king. i understand why people might be attracted to anarchy, or zero gov't, but pragmatically it can't and won't work large scale. the constitution is brilliant...
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
it is far from perfect, but it is best form of government that mankind has yet to conceive. i encourage you to take an unbiased look at the american charters of freedom, and try to figure out what YOU don't like about them. then take a look at history....there are no working examples of anarchy that can be cited in all of history, and only a handful of truly free societies have existed. most societies historically have been ruled by a small group of thugs...kinda like the boat we're in now.
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
@stopeatingpork Why not?
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
@ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER it won't work because groups will start to compete for power of rule. the group has the most muscle (or guns and bombs) behind them will end up ruling and conquering the rest. this is the human condition. to think that we will all just start "getting along" is not realistic. any form of anarchy is a temporary void that exists only as a transition from one gov't to the next. therefore, the idea is to limit gov't as much as possible, which is what our constitution does
stopeatingpork 1 year ago
Neo-Liberalism, sold by International banks and governments, has done extreme damage to the the post-Soviet Baltic states. Financial terrorists sell these wonderful ideas of liberalism, which is just another religion for people to believe in, like socialism/ capatalism. Once these ideas have been used to garner support for a course of action, the looting begins. Are people wrong to collectively assemble in an effort to prevent these internationalists from destroying their nation? Ayn Rand = fool
goatman257 1 year ago
This attempt to explain oligarchic control of nation states by blaming collectivism is the most retarded bullshit.
The International banksters promote neo-liberalism as a means of raping economies, destroying societies and livelihoods, all in the name of a quick buck.
It's easy to be self absorbed and talk about your own freedoms while ignoring the rights of others to assemble in order to protect themselves.
The individualist vs collectivist arguement is irrelevant, childish crap.
goatman257 1 year ago
'We'? Who's we? Creepy.
Another thing you fail to understand and falsely state is that 1) capitalism is NOT responsible for the current state of government principles at work in the U.S. for the last 90 years and 2) printing money out of thin air by private banks is NOT capitalism and is NOT real 'money'.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
individual freedom is not ANARCHY. individual freedom is utterly abridged if you deny others of their freedom to remain unmolested, untaxed and unharmed.
What a disgusting excuse for an American you are! How COULD you promote socialism when so many have died fighting against such principles in foreign wars, yet you espouse such decrepit principles right here in America!? pathetic.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
How could any southron can promote slavery is evil when so many have died fighting against such principles in civil war?
How could any german can promote nonracism is evil whne so many have died fighting agaisnt such principle in ww2 ?
KerickOrland 1 year ago
You assume that toothbrushes, books, and beds automatically exist in the world. That is un-reality. You buy books, toothbrushes, and beds that are produced by men. These items can only exist if they are produced. Who produces? The same men that you claim to be exploiters. By your reasoning, you are exploiting another by using a bed, a toothbrush, and a book. What gives you a right to these items? What if I want the bed that you claim to own?
DannyJPL 1 year ago
Dumb ass...
Aboogleu 1 year ago
Anyone who supports Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism, Trotsky-ism, Marxism, Totalitarianism (Corporatism - Fascism) -- supports Gov't and cannot be Anarchist (Self-Rule or No Authority).
Anarchism should be a perfect balance of short-run collectivism and long-run individualism.
You can't have "anarchy" (self-rule) if you have long-run organization that you abdicate any level of self-rule to -- mathematically.
Everything is Voluntarism and there must be Zero Force / Absolutism.
OctoBox 1 year ago
sounds contradicting to me, lawless really?
How could this be applied to society?
Clyaton 1 year ago
Eliminate all rights to workers and owers (no laws, regulations, or protectionism of any kind).
Eliminate all taxes to Owners and Workers.
Put a small tax on Consumers (say 12% max -- with no authority to increase it).
5% For Seniors and the Infirm (20yrs only)
1% For Navy (our waters only)
3% For Army Air Guard (borders and rescue - managed by the States)
3% To pay off Foreign Debt (till debt is paid off)
No Voting No Lobbying
This is a simple view
OctoBox 1 year ago
I see my libertarian dream as far-fetched from today's policy. If mine is far-fetched, yours is the moon! I think I'll stick with being a libertarian. get rid of the income tax, entitlements, estate tax, capital gains tax, and stick to a small standing army (like what you are talking about), and stick to the constitution and ammend as needed, it's not a flexible document and Americans don't take amendments lightly. A 'flexible document is a document taken out of context imo... End the fed etc
Clyaton 1 year ago
Actually my ideas are very reachable.
By way of Counter-Economics and Non-Participation.
You don't "get rid of incometax" you begin to not participate in it -- as much as possible. Work under-the-table, hire under-the-table, backyard permaculture, buy local everything (as much as possible).
There's more of course, but it gives you an idea.
We just need to study "their" revenue stream and remove our participation in it.
We don't ask -- they never "ammend" (they just ignore)
OctoBox 1 year ago
Yea, I see that.. But this is where it fails.. It's not easy to convince the masses to break current laws, especially when a large portion of our population does not and will not ever care. Even when we buy anything from anybody we are paying a tax on it, even if indirectly. The only exception could be homegrown foods and whatever your local economy can provide. The 'brain-washed' are in place, how do does one hope to 'bring the wall down' ???
Clyaton 1 year ago
OctoBox 1 year ago
A large portion of the population think we aren't progressive enough, we don't have enough entitlements, we don't have enough welfare programs, etc.. These people make up a large portion of population, and on the far right we have the religious which oppose opposing the system except when it is in a direct violation of God's word. So between those two large portions alone. I absolutely believe in private property btw
Clyaton 1 year ago
My point is, Libertarians represent the democrats and center on the social issues and republicans on fiscal conservatism (republicans aren't usually this anymore anyway), small government, laissez faire economically. We have a following that is growing, even if disappointingly small currently. But your solution is radical to say the least, and the public doesn't sway on a whim usually.
Clyaton 1 year ago
You are right -- People are not ready.
We need another year of rising joblessness, war-debt, and another round of massive home foreclosures.
Then Counter-Economics will be easily understood -- not all at once, but it will come on in waves.
Zero Rights to Workers and Owners
The only way to secure liberty as individuals (consumers).
OctoBox 1 year ago
Counter-Economics is not necessary if government is doesn't intervene in the first place.. That's what libertarianism is, only having government for absolute necessities, like in case of attack, for basic police/fire services. Austrian Economics is what we should be looking to, and cut out this Keynes bull shit. But I do like the idea of shifting rights from individuals to 'consumers' so that the seller would be liable and can't hide behind corporate laws. This could currently be fixed tho.
Clyaton 1 year ago
Actually if you had a "constitutional" gov't -- with only constitutional voting, there'd be no need for them to meet more than once per year
In that state of affairs you'd be living the counter econmics model.
Counter-Economics is a "how-to-live" model not a short-term polical effort to gain freedom.
It's actually "how" you maintain a free-society (by definition).
We lose nearly 80% of our income on direct and indrect taxation.
7% to run limited-gov and pay off all debt
OctoBox 1 year ago
OctoBox 1 year ago
Given that "laws" do not protect you from crime -- We actually live in Anarchy with a "rights-based" taxation blankey protecting us; it's a facade of security.
OctoBox 1 year ago
No, to a point it's actual security... We have just overstepped our duties, with things like the drug war. 'Laws' make others accountable for their crimes, whether to punish, get revenge, or make sure it doesn't happen to another (at least in the short term), is in the eye of the beholder. Some laws are nothing but special interest regulations. We don't lose 80% of our income on direct and indirect taxation, it's closer to 50% with the government claiming around 28-30%.
Clyaton 1 year ago
Laws do not make people "accountable" --they work only when they are applied.
I'm an economist (by training) -- I don't have the time for this type of debate, in a 500 character format.
We do lose 80% -- you are thinking only of a few direct taxes.
Your 28-30% is "direct" tax you are way off as far as inflationary tax, regulatory tax, licensure tax, insurance tax, gas tax, sin tax, fiat credit/cash tax -- The consumer pays everything.
OctoBox 1 year ago
Whatever Mr. economist, you must know best.. I'm fully aware of the taxes we pay, I'm taking them into consideration, and we are talking average. We are all consumers we are all individuals, read Orwells "Politics in the English Language" before? Look it up it's short. Word it how you want, we need minimalistic proportions of government, which is really what you are talking about as far as I can tell. Inflation is about 2% a year currently, probably go up due to bailouts and stimulus...
Clyaton 1 year ago
What about the death/estate tax this year? Did you know there is not one this year? Good year to whack a relative! Just kidding, but while we disagree on the figure approx. 50% vs. 80%, I DO take these things into account, even taxes that your employer matches you and gives to the government (hidden tax passed on to worker). I'm going to school in business and political science, I don't claim to be a know-it-all, but you can't claim everyone you talk to is ignorant.
Clyaton 1 year ago
Clyaton: Some how our ships are moving in different directions.
I'm not claiming you are ignorant (as in stupid) -- I'm saying you are ignorant (as in "to not know" a thing).
I can't prove it in a 500 character debate format.
If you want an education on this topic -- what can start out as a debate -- then hit me up via Youtube "e-mail"
Otherwise - what is probably a minor disagreeance might turn into a chat-fight and I'm too old for that non-sense
No offense given - none taken
OctoBox 1 year ago
Let's just agree to disagree, I don't really have time to learn a sort of fringe belief, while I admit I'm interested, as it relates to my fields of study. However if you want to point me in the direction of information to your particular ideology, I will look at it when I have time. A lot of what you talk about has shifted from the wealthy white man, with the 14th and 19th amendments for example. It just seemed like you are offering a different mindset, rather than fixing our current.
Clyaton 1 year ago
Read Mises, Rothbard, Bakunin, Paine-Adams-Jeffersn, and Marx.
Go into it, with the idea - that you are potentially wiser and can come up with a better model.
"....and greater works shall ye perform"
Remember that all of them thought their model benfited the individual the best -- some say benefit the individual by focusing on property (Rothbard and partally Mises) and others on the worker (Bakunin - Marx); however, only Mises focuses on the Consumer (who pays for everything).
OctoBox 1 year ago
I've taken philosophy, and have got my minors in political science, so I'm aware of Marx ideology, as well as a good deal of Paine, Adams, and Jefferson. My ideology is like no one in office, but closest to that of Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. Perhaps you should take a harder look at our current system and how a libertarianism would solve our social as well as our economic issues. The consumer=individual as far as I can tell, we are all individuals and must consume.
Clyaton 1 year ago
If you do not understand consumer-individualism then you are not versed in the work of Mises -- who as Ron Paul's #1 Mentor.
Mises and Paul are not "Libertarians" they are transitionary Minarchists; true libertarians (like Rothbard - who is a Libertarian-Anarchist) do not believe in a transition.
Rothbard was a student of Mises.
There's overlap, but in my opinion without a thourough understanding of consumer-sovereignty you will never get to the bottom of free-market theory.
OctoBox 1 year ago
I've heard of Mises, it doesn't mean I know his works... I'm aware of who he is, and just because I have similar beliefs as Ron Paul doesn't mean I'm studied in HIS favorites. True libertarians? You cannot say what is true libertarianism, you can only say what is libertarianism is and by whose definition. Libertarian today, is a generalized term like that of republican, democrat, green, socialist, etc. There are only varying degrees of any one. Also, Mises isn't the only Austrian authority
Clyaton 1 year ago
I'm currently reading a book by Henry Hazlitt on Austrian economics, and am studying some Hayek for a book report this semester. I enjoy the laissez faire approach rather than Keynesian economics.. I'll definitely check out Mises in detail soon, as he is such a figure head in similar ideologies. Really, though, it sounds like you are for a socialist society classic none to basic government socialism. I am sorry I understand anarcho-capitalism a hell of a lot better
Clyaton 1 year ago
My personal philosophy and path to get their come from Gandhi's Satyagrahi Movement, Ludwig von Mises, Lysander Spooner, and my own long deep meditations.
I've reduced it down, in practical terms to "consumer-sovereignty" (by way of - Zero Rights for Workers and Owners) combined with 100% Voluntarism; zero voting, zero lobbying, and 100% self-defense (on all issues in all areas of ones life).
OctoBox 1 year ago
One last thing, and I won't comment anymore, unless you want to explain in a kind of summary detail what YOUR personal ideology is, and not all the sources they derive from, we could have a much more meaningful discussion. This is daunting sometimes so I'm fine if you don't respond, I'll learn with or without you.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@OctoBox Another terrific, and pretty quick read at only 90 pages or so, is a treatise called 'The Law' by Frederic Bastiat. Truly amazing stuff. Find it free online in text or audio versions.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Anyusmoon: I've read it -- thanks.
I agree with you #2 comment below and partially with the capitalism statement.
It's the consumer and individuals fault we are in this mess (here in America). We "abdicate" our authority over to "laws" and "gov't" therefore we reap what we sow.
"We" -- "consumers" are 3/3rds of their revenue stream -- if we become aware of that as individuals we can remove our commitment.
Voting and Lobbying is part of Capitalism and Corporatism
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox Terrific treatise isn't it? Bastiat was remarkably ahead of his time as was Thomas Jefferson. Anyway, your comment about 3/3rds is incorrect-- the totally fiat monetary system we are suffering under for the last 90 years completely by-passes voter approval of spending and simply provides a printing press to the feds to print money out of thin air and distribute it via blackmail, bribes or kickbacks to states, corporations or international concerns. It's BAD. It's not capitalism either.
anyusmoon1 1 year ago
Anyusmoon: You are not wrong about the "evil" of the printing press (Fiat Currency) we agree 100% there.
But they don't print money they print debt to "over-ride" consumer demand; however, they simultaneously destroy purchasing power and therefore destroy "real wealth" (that which is derived from market-driven entrepreneurialism).
OctoBox 1 year ago
They (The Fed) "consume" the same goods we do with those fiat dollars, they acquire land, gold, cars, vacations, weaponry (etc etc). However, without "consumers" their "partners" (upper 1% - 3,000,000 people) lose their purchasing power as well.
OctoBox 1 year ago
And on my last comment you should read Federalist Papers 10 and 14
Clyaton 1 year ago