Hell, I'm all for freedom. And I agree with a lot of points Bagge made in this interview. Not all of them, though. I do object to the Libertarian Party, which believes in deëmphasizing federal spending on infrastructure, as well as wrecking our social safety programs.
Besides, Pete: I remember your calling yourself a right-winger back in the 1990s. I imagine a lot of people remember that. I sure do. Anyway, thanks for Hate--and thanks for printing my letter way back when!
Peter Bagge is awesome. A huge influence on my art style, one of the funniest cartoonists ever AND, like me, he's a libertarian. Great guy. Go read his comics now!
Wow... I venture into the comment section of a video on my favorite Seattle cartoonist Peter Bagge and I find myself having to dodge volleys of poo left and right.
Granted, I'm a lefty, but I came here for a rank appreciation of Bagge's body of work, not to righteously crush my self perceived ideological foil.
Hmm...the '80s were bad, the '90s were better and the '00s were bad again. If only I could think of some reason to explain that. Not that Clinton was president in the '90s and Republicans were presidents in the '80s and '00s...nah, couldn't be that...
Peter Bagge's comics are one of my favorite things about Reason. His book, Everybody is Stupid Except Me and Other Astute Observations is definitely worth a purchase if you can find it. Terrific, informative and hilarious comics journalism.
Couldn't help but notice the pro-abortion sign in the video and I know that alot of Libertarians are for legal abortion because it is a woman's decision. I personally think ya'll who think like that like to play double standard. The only time a man gets to decide whether or not he will have an offspring is during or right before sex. The same should be true of women. If you don't wan to have a kid and feel so adimantly about it that you would kill a person... then don't have sex.
Anyone that wants to use government to ram something down someone else's throat is not liberal or progressive. Democrats, liberals and so called progressives are anything, but.
Supporting the growing dependency culture sure is expensive. So much so that politicians also force the unborn to pay their "fair share." Of course they started that scheme generations ago.
"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."
@dlstb Thanks Libertarians don't think killing unborn people is killing. I could have been a Libertarian but, I believe that you don't have the right to kill someone because where they live at a point in time.
@blackbette07 I don't think that it is a universal opinion of Libertarians. I think the ones who think it is okay, like Mr. Gillespe of Reason TV are not true Libertarians because a real Libertarian would never want ot take away another person's right to life and once a cell gains the proper amount of chromosome pairs and starts to divide a new person has started to live. Even one cell is an enitrely new person with a distinct genome sequence that has never been and never will be again.
@dlstb Nobody can define when life really starts, so protection of a life in that stage is extremely vague. The very basis of Libertarianism is the freedom to choose; making abortion illegal is the loss of the liberty to CHOOSE. Nick Gillespie supports choice, you do not. Clearly, you don't understand Libertarianism. Go back to your neo-conservatism...
@liOVERLOADil It is only vague to people who want to have the ability to abort a child if they so please. To the rest of us it is pretty simple. Every time you have sex you are taking the risk that a sperm will penetrate an egg and a complete, self-replicating genetic sequence may form and grow into a unique human being. Part of being a Libertarian is taking responsibilty for the choices and contracts that you make. If you have sex, you should know that you are making a choice and a contract.
@liOVERLOADil The fact that you are making a contract is evident in the fact that father's must pay child support whether or not they wanted to have a child. The fact is that you agree to provide for whatever life you create. People like you are only Libertarian so far as it allows you to do whatever you want and you stop when it means that you may have to do something you don't want to because you obligated yourself to do it with the hope that it wouldn't come to fruition.
@liOVERLOADil By your definition of Libertarian it would be perfectly fine if I decided to stop feeding my child because I didn't want to have a child anymore. Especially during the period of time when that child is not self-sufficient and rely's entirely on the care of its parents. There is effectively no difference between this portion of a person's life and the time in the womb except that during this period the father is able to care for the child's basic needs other than security as well.
@dlstb A pillar of Libertarian beliefs is that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. In other words, if I do something that affects nobody other than myself, then there is no ethical grounds for anyone to dictate laws against it. However, if I have a child, and I fail at the basic needs of that child, then I have committed a crime against that child. There is no definition of the start of life other than birth, so again, it is vague, and NOBODY has the answer to that question.
@liOVERLOADil It is amazing how you "pro-choice" people will contort anything to satisfy your need to be able to kill your developing children as if they were nothing more than a cancerous growth. Face the facts. When you have sex you are making an unwritten contract that states that you will provide for the child that may or may not come from the act. It is the basis of the family and famiy is the basis of government. You people are truly anarchists who want rule of the strongest.
@dlstb Your idea of politics is obviously based on theism, and I'm sure you would have no problem ripping apart the constitution and bill of rights to fit the whims of your interpretation of holy-texts. Abortion is a choice, choice is liberty, forcing a person to give birth to an unwanted child is not a choice -- how do you think an unwanted child's life will be? Libertarianism is limited government. Anarchism is NO government. I'm curious, you are pro-life, are you also pro-execution?
@liOVERLOADil You arrogant son of a BITCH! I am no bible thumping Christian. The only time that I step into a church is for formal events like funerals and weddings that I attend. However, I cannot help but think that some form of God must exist in order for inanimate atoms to arrange in such a complex way as to form sentient life and human conciousness. And to believe that it all just happened by coincidence takes just as much faith. I don't have to be an evangelist to know it is wrong to kill.
@liOVERLOADil Also, there is an extremely large gap between the killing of an innocent life for no other reason than it may inconvenience you and the killing of an adult human being who has shown through his/her own action that they are willing, able, and have violated the RIGHTS of other human beings in such a profound and terrifying way that the continuation of his/her life will undoubtedly lead to the further violation of another person's right to live. Cross that line and I'll pull the trig
@liOVERLOADil I would be remiss if I didn't mention that while you claim that I would rip apart the Constitution I have actually taken a solemn oath to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. I am also a member of the Oathkeepers and I intend on fully keeping the oath that I have made. I'll reiterate the fact that people like you practice a warped sense of Libertarianism in which a person is allowed to renig on any commitment or contract they make, including parenthood.
@dlstb I would also be "remiss" if I didn't mention that I gave that very same oath three times in the last decade, and that the oath that I gave, the defense of our country, has NOTHING to do what what we are talking about. So... you are pro-life, are you also pro-execution?
@liOVERLOADil BULLSHIT! you stated "and I'm sure you would have no problem ripping apart the constitution and bill of rights to fit the whims of your interpretation of holy-texts". You directly imply that I would disavow my oath plain and simple. And if you cannot understand how I am pro- not killing innocent children before they are even born while I feel that it is entirely justifiable to kill a person who is not innocent and violates others rights to life and liberty you are a lost fool.
I lived in San Francisco for a long time and life with liberals is indeed how he claims. If you're fun & crazy they assume you're rabidly liberal --this partly explains them being comfortable mouthing quite a number of statist maxims. If you take sober issue they'll react with genuine hurt and outrage --you DECEIVED them, you see? Rubbish. Then among conservatives Jews (and others) will say you're anti-semitic if you don't support every form of aid in the world to one country in the world.
[sigh] Et tu, peter? No, those who are against Libt'ism aren't against freedom. It's just that they understand that though gov't is often abused to limit freedom, w/o strong gov't there's no freedom at all, save to be oppressed by those more ruthless & callous.
"Reason"? Nonsense. Libertarians are those who fail to appreciate living in a society where we can sit aroun & discuss Libt'ism, rather than spending every minute struggling for survival. Move to a jungle & see how you like "liberty".
I don't believe in labels. I think it is for the immature, to justify their childish attitudes. I don't fit any of those labels, and I resent not being free to express myself. I am not particularly impressed by this guy.
LaRouche is a Libertarian? Ive never heard that insult before, from neither liberals or conservatives. Im always amused on how liberals lump us with conservatives since you can find no shortage of cons who openly hate libertarians.
@chevydriver1123 LaRouche is a far left nut job and a collectivist. He used to teach about Marx! How can any one think he has anything to do with Libertarians is beyond me.
@chevydriver1123 LaRouche is a far left nut job and a collectivist. He used to teach about Marx! How can any one think he has anything to do with Libertarians is beyond me.
@chevydriver1123 Sure. Some of us have not forgotten the occasion when TIME identified David Duke (!) as a "libertarian". Really, there are people who have no idea what "libertarian" means but are sure it is something awful.
@chevydriver1123 I've heard it a million times. Also nowadays you will find enormous numbers of left wingers (including Ralph Nader, google it) who vocally support Ron Paul for his libertarian views. Also google "blue republicans" - Dems registering as Republican this year just to vote for Ron Paul. That doesn't at all sound to me like liberals lumping conservatives and libertarians together. So, no offense, but your statement here sounds uninformed.
If you think in the terms I've outlined below, Keynesian economics makes the most sense for capitalism. Market socialism has been discredited by Stiglitz (Whither Socialism) and neoclassical economics was deconstructed by Keynes, and also by Stiglitz. Markets only operate under a political struture due to contract theory, which necessitates a state. So Keynesian economics makes the most political sense as well: contract rules should favor everybody, not just the propertied elite.
@successfulbuild "Markets only operate under a political struture due to contract theory, which necessitates a state."
I disagree completely. It does require a society which respects contracts, but if the society does not respect contracts no amount of government is going to make any difference.
In fact, respect for contracts is the foundation of all market activity no matter how small.
@successfulbuild To put it bluntly, without a respect for contracts there is only violence.
Even Keynesian bullshit requires some level of respect for contracts, due to the fact that if no one used Keynes' funny money the Keynesians would have no power at all over anyone.
Austrian economics actually teaches that large firms are more "efficient," whereas neoclassical economists teaches that the market will towards an equilibrium with many small firms where profit is eliminated and the goods in any given market being nearly identical to one another, making it harder for firms to set their own price. Few markets (if any) markets resemble this ridiculous assumption. (Source: Anti-Economics Textbook.)
Austrian economics actually teaches that large firms are more "efficient," whereas neoclassical economists teaches that the market will towards an equilibrium with many small firms where profit is eliminated and the goods in any given market being nearly identical to one another, making it harder for firms to set their own price. Few markets (if any) markets resemble this ridiculous assumption. (Source: Anti-Economics Textbook.)
Hence Austrians like Ron Paul favor a gold standard which gives big institutions more control over resources. They will tend support any type of hierarchical institution, such as feudal arrangements (Block, hoppe)
and slavery (Block), as they deal with contract problems better (you can't diverge from slavery). Furthermore, these corporations could use violence against workers and dissidents, as they did in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and you can't move around, as in feudalism.
@successfulbuild "which gives big institutions more control over resources"
Another bald faced lie.
It is fiat currencies which, by inflation, are used to concentrate wealth into favored industries and players, such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric.
Is every post of yours going to be the same useless false statements? So far.
Hence Austrians like Ron Paul favor a gold standard which gives big institutions more control over resources. They will tend support any type of hierarchical institution, such as feudal arrangements (Block, hoppe)
and slavery (Block), as they deal with contract problems better (you can't diverge from slavery). Furthermore, these corporations could use violence against workers and dissidents, as they did in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and you can't move around, as in feudalism.
Leftists would argue that (A) they are not more efficient and (B) they're supported by assumption of a state to protect corporate rights. Political scientists look at the social distribution of resources and interest defined as power, so they don't focus on how "free" hierarchical institutions can practice slavery.
It's easy to see why people would question capitalism: it leads to hierarchical command structures (the capitalist firm) because of transaction costs.
Firms use central agents (planners) to minimize these costs who are given "property rights" over output. Thus, corporations make decisions long before any market disciplne is brought into effect and before consumer choice plays a role. (See also Charles Lindblom.)
@successfulbuild "Thus, corporations make decisions long before any market disciplne is brought into effect and before consumer choice plays a role."
No, that's the entrepreneurial function.
Once a firm is selling a product, consumer choice takes over as the one and only means by which the firm can make a profit.
Central planning is the opposite of market discipline, which is why the big players like Keynesian govt control so much. It lets them be inefficient and still profit.
This theory was modified in the 70s where bond markets monitor managers, but fails to take into account Simon's "bounded ratioanlity." There is no such thing as a full agent contract because of unforseen possibilities. Agents are opportunistic in the sense that they are self-interested and bounded rationality shows contracts cannot be comp
So, ex ante capitalist firms are comptitive but ex post market discipline would simply be too costly because of the notion of "sunk costs," which includes the cost of workers.Thus, firms exhibit hierarchical structures independent of market discipline due to transaction costs.
I once had a date with this art school chick, and Bagge's name came up; me and her cock-blocker friend proceeded to get in an argument about libertarianism, natch...I find out later the chick had The SCUM Manifesto on her favorite books list: Thank you, Bagge, for keeping me from getting involved with this nutcase!
He brings up a good point. What is the libertarian view on methamphetamine? I'm pretty much for legalizing drugs, but people on meth sometimes kill other people.
@blogegog people under the influence of alcohol kill people too. alcochol is legal. my view is legalize it all, but you should not turn around and use it as a get out of jail free card.
@CurtHowland True as far as it goes. But you are significantly more likely to kill on meth than you are to kill while not on drugs. What you're saying about responsibility is fine for seeking justice, but it does not carry an ounce of prevention.
I want to agree with your position, but I don't think I can. I agree that we should have total freedom over our actions as long as it doesn't harm others. But that 'harm others' part is a grayer area than it first seems.
@blogegog "but it does not carry an ounce of prevention"
When has prohibition ever worked?
And seriously, considering how many people govt kills (their own people, not in wars) mere private crime be it drugged or not pales in comparison. Want to prevent death? Prohibit govt!
Harm others is not a gray area. Either someone does harm or they do not. The gray only exists because killing someone is not always murder. Sometimes its accidental, sometimes self defense.
@CurtHowland Well, that depends upon what you mean by prohibition, and what you mean by 'worked'. For example, in the 90s they started to strongly enforce the prohibition of drunk driving, and it certainly lowered the per capita drunks driving and alcohol caused car accidents.
I don't exceed the speed limit by much because of the prohibition of speeding. So that one works to some extent too.
I believe if they removed the prohibition on rape, and theft, there'd be more rape and theft.
@CurtHowland I agree with everything you said in your last comment. I'm only saying that prohibition generally works a lot better than someone looking at America's prohibition of alcohol or our war on drugs would think. Not that I'm a fan of prohibition in general. Think of all of the things that are prohibited in America that have made it all but impossible to obtain them.
Real freon, high flow shower heads, 3 wheeled ATVs, absynthe... Prohibition works far too often :(
Thumbs up if you're a self-taught artist!
CartoonistKing 16 hours ago
I've been buying his comics since 1989 and hope to do so for another 20 years. Dude is awesome.
njudahchronicles 2 months ago
Ron Paul y'all, lets see some real change.
KayCris1128 2 months ago in playlist Reason.tv on Drug and Alcohol Policy
Great video! BTW is that Joe Sacco on Pete's left at 2:19?
Renfro1982 3 months ago
Hell, I'm all for freedom. And I agree with a lot of points Bagge made in this interview. Not all of them, though. I do object to the Libertarian Party, which believes in deëmphasizing federal spending on infrastructure, as well as wrecking our social safety programs.
Besides, Pete: I remember your calling yourself a right-winger back in the 1990s. I imagine a lot of people remember that. I sure do. Anyway, thanks for Hate--and thanks for printing my letter way back when!
trueorbetter 3 months ago
Peter Bagge one of inspirations for my own comics.
Thank you mr Bagge!
Hippyjonnycomics 4 months ago
Peter Bagge is awesome. A huge influence on my art style, one of the funniest cartoonists ever AND, like me, he's a libertarian. Great guy. Go read his comics now!
IsaacBaranoff 4 months ago
Wow... I venture into the comment section of a video on my favorite Seattle cartoonist Peter Bagge and I find myself having to dodge volleys of poo left and right.
Granted, I'm a lefty, but I came here for a rank appreciation of Bagge's body of work, not to righteously crush my self perceived ideological foil.
machinesbreathe 4 months ago
The audio is mostly on the right-hand side. Kind of weird, Reason.
function13 5 months ago
Hmm...the '80s were bad, the '90s were better and the '00s were bad again. If only I could think of some reason to explain that. Not that Clinton was president in the '90s and Republicans were presidents in the '80s and '00s...nah, couldn't be that...
Jeglinski 5 months ago
@Jeglinski 1:55
JMG9519 5 months ago
Nice to meet the person behind the twisted, but oh so dead-on, cartoons. Great cartoons for a great magazine.
cwkyt 5 months ago
Peter Bagge's comics are one of my favorite things about Reason. His book, Everybody is Stupid Except Me and Other Astute Observations is definitely worth a purchase if you can find it. Terrific, informative and hilarious comics journalism.
Thorbie 5 months ago
"I couldn't give you a percentage, but, let's say 90%..." Yup, that's reassuring way to throw out an unconfirmed statistic...
sfinster 5 months ago
Couldn't help but notice the pro-abortion sign in the video and I know that alot of Libertarians are for legal abortion because it is a woman's decision. I personally think ya'll who think like that like to play double standard. The only time a man gets to decide whether or not he will have an offspring is during or right before sex. The same should be true of women. If you don't wan to have a kid and feel so adimantly about it that you would kill a person... then don't have sex.
dlstb 5 months ago
Anyone that wants to use government to ram something down someone else's throat is not liberal or progressive. Democrats, liberals and so called progressives are anything, but.
666sigma 5 months ago
Hey Buddy! Whatever happened to Stinky LOL?
MarkGauvreau 5 months ago
Supporting the growing dependency culture sure is expensive. So much so that politicians also force the unborn to pay their "fair share." Of course they started that scheme generations ago.
"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."
mustang607 5 months ago
@mustang607 Only problem they have with taxing the unborn is that they also allow the mother to kill their future cash cow taxpayer.
dlstb 5 months ago
@dlstb Thanks Libertarians don't think killing unborn people is killing. I could have been a Libertarian but, I believe that you don't have the right to kill someone because where they live at a point in time.
blackbette07 4 months ago
@blackbette07 I don't think that it is a universal opinion of Libertarians. I think the ones who think it is okay, like Mr. Gillespe of Reason TV are not true Libertarians because a real Libertarian would never want ot take away another person's right to life and once a cell gains the proper amount of chromosome pairs and starts to divide a new person has started to live. Even one cell is an enitrely new person with a distinct genome sequence that has never been and never will be again.
dlstb 4 months ago
@dlstb Nobody can define when life really starts, so protection of a life in that stage is extremely vague. The very basis of Libertarianism is the freedom to choose; making abortion illegal is the loss of the liberty to CHOOSE. Nick Gillespie supports choice, you do not. Clearly, you don't understand Libertarianism. Go back to your neo-conservatism...
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil It is only vague to people who want to have the ability to abort a child if they so please. To the rest of us it is pretty simple. Every time you have sex you are taking the risk that a sperm will penetrate an egg and a complete, self-replicating genetic sequence may form and grow into a unique human being. Part of being a Libertarian is taking responsibilty for the choices and contracts that you make. If you have sex, you should know that you are making a choice and a contract.
dlstb 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil The fact that you are making a contract is evident in the fact that father's must pay child support whether or not they wanted to have a child. The fact is that you agree to provide for whatever life you create. People like you are only Libertarian so far as it allows you to do whatever you want and you stop when it means that you may have to do something you don't want to because you obligated yourself to do it with the hope that it wouldn't come to fruition.
dlstb 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil By your definition of Libertarian it would be perfectly fine if I decided to stop feeding my child because I didn't want to have a child anymore. Especially during the period of time when that child is not self-sufficient and rely's entirely on the care of its parents. There is effectively no difference between this portion of a person's life and the time in the womb except that during this period the father is able to care for the child's basic needs other than security as well.
dlstb 4 months ago
@dlstb A pillar of Libertarian beliefs is that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. In other words, if I do something that affects nobody other than myself, then there is no ethical grounds for anyone to dictate laws against it. However, if I have a child, and I fail at the basic needs of that child, then I have committed a crime against that child. There is no definition of the start of life other than birth, so again, it is vague, and NOBODY has the answer to that question.
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil It is amazing how you "pro-choice" people will contort anything to satisfy your need to be able to kill your developing children as if they were nothing more than a cancerous growth. Face the facts. When you have sex you are making an unwritten contract that states that you will provide for the child that may or may not come from the act. It is the basis of the family and famiy is the basis of government. You people are truly anarchists who want rule of the strongest.
dlstb 4 months ago
@dlstb Your idea of politics is obviously based on theism, and I'm sure you would have no problem ripping apart the constitution and bill of rights to fit the whims of your interpretation of holy-texts. Abortion is a choice, choice is liberty, forcing a person to give birth to an unwanted child is not a choice -- how do you think an unwanted child's life will be? Libertarianism is limited government. Anarchism is NO government. I'm curious, you are pro-life, are you also pro-execution?
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil You arrogant son of a BITCH! I am no bible thumping Christian. The only time that I step into a church is for formal events like funerals and weddings that I attend. However, I cannot help but think that some form of God must exist in order for inanimate atoms to arrange in such a complex way as to form sentient life and human conciousness. And to believe that it all just happened by coincidence takes just as much faith. I don't have to be an evangelist to know it is wrong to kill.
dlstb 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil Also, there is an extremely large gap between the killing of an innocent life for no other reason than it may inconvenience you and the killing of an adult human being who has shown through his/her own action that they are willing, able, and have violated the RIGHTS of other human beings in such a profound and terrifying way that the continuation of his/her life will undoubtedly lead to the further violation of another person's right to live. Cross that line and I'll pull the trig
dlstb 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil I would be remiss if I didn't mention that while you claim that I would rip apart the Constitution I have actually taken a solemn oath to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. I am also a member of the Oathkeepers and I intend on fully keeping the oath that I have made. I'll reiterate the fact that people like you practice a warped sense of Libertarianism in which a person is allowed to renig on any commitment or contract they make, including parenthood.
dlstb 4 months ago
@dlstb I would also be "remiss" if I didn't mention that I gave that very same oath three times in the last decade, and that the oath that I gave, the defense of our country, has NOTHING to do what what we are talking about. So... you are pro-life, are you also pro-execution?
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
@liOVERLOADil BULLSHIT! you stated "and I'm sure you would have no problem ripping apart the constitution and bill of rights to fit the whims of your interpretation of holy-texts". You directly imply that I would disavow my oath plain and simple. And if you cannot understand how I am pro- not killing innocent children before they are even born while I feel that it is entirely justifiable to kill a person who is not innocent and violates others rights to life and liberty you are a lost fool.
dlstb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlstb If it were up to you, would you make abortion a federal law, or would you leave it up to the states to decide, individually?
liOVERLOADil 4 months ago
so i wonder what this guy thinks about how the teens will go?
natdavi 5 months ago
Libertarian is not right wing.
IBMeddling 5 months ago
I love when he draws people panicking.
Wargoat6 5 months ago
I lived in San Francisco for a long time and life with liberals is indeed how he claims. If you're fun & crazy they assume you're rabidly liberal --this partly explains them being comfortable mouthing quite a number of statist maxims. If you take sober issue they'll react with genuine hurt and outrage --you DECEIVED them, you see? Rubbish. Then among conservatives Jews (and others) will say you're anti-semitic if you don't support every form of aid in the world to one country in the world.
blondecrazygaijin 5 months ago
@blondecrazygaijin "If you take sober issue they'll react with genuine hurt and outrage --you DECEIVED them"
I'm glad someone else noticed that about California liberals.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
[sigh] Et tu, peter? No, those who are against Libt'ism aren't against freedom. It's just that they understand that though gov't is often abused to limit freedom, w/o strong gov't there's no freedom at all, save to be oppressed by those more ruthless & callous.
"Reason"? Nonsense. Libertarians are those who fail to appreciate living in a society where we can sit aroun & discuss Libt'ism, rather than spending every minute struggling for survival. Move to a jungle & see how you like "liberty".
GuitaristInProgress 5 months ago
I don't believe in labels. I think it is for the immature, to justify their childish attitudes. I don't fit any of those labels, and I resent not being free to express myself. I am not particularly impressed by this guy.
tjttzcspplt 5 months ago
LaRouche is a Libertarian? Ive never heard that insult before, from neither liberals or conservatives. Im always amused on how liberals lump us with conservatives since you can find no shortage of cons who openly hate libertarians.
chevydriver1123 5 months ago
@chevydriver1123 LaRouche is a far left nut job and a collectivist. He used to teach about Marx! How can any one think he has anything to do with Libertarians is beyond me.
XCritonX 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chevydriver1123 LaRouche is a far left nut job and a collectivist. He used to teach about Marx! How can any one think he has anything to do with Libertarians is beyond me.
XCritonX 5 months ago
@chevydriver1123 Sure. Some of us have not forgotten the occasion when TIME identified David Duke (!) as a "libertarian". Really, there are people who have no idea what "libertarian" means but are sure it is something awful.
wlinden 5 months ago
@chevydriver1123 I've heard it a million times. Also nowadays you will find enormous numbers of left wingers (including Ralph Nader, google it) who vocally support Ron Paul for his libertarian views. Also google "blue republicans" - Dems registering as Republican this year just to vote for Ron Paul. That doesn't at all sound to me like liberals lumping conservatives and libertarians together. So, no offense, but your statement here sounds uninformed.
GuitaristInProgress 5 months ago
I am a cartoonist and art student in San Francisco and what he's described is basically my experience.
Thanks for posting this.
noblebearaw 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow. Check out successfulbuild's channel. He thinks Austrian economics and market anarchism is nothing more than a white nationalist movement.
MagnusIan 5 months ago
If you think in the terms I've outlined below, Keynesian economics makes the most sense for capitalism. Market socialism has been discredited by Stiglitz (Whither Socialism) and neoclassical economics was deconstructed by Keynes, and also by Stiglitz. Markets only operate under a political struture due to contract theory, which necessitates a state. So Keynesian economics makes the most political sense as well: contract rules should favor everybody, not just the propertied elite.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild How does that justify the Keynesian business cycle?
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "Markets only operate under a political struture due to contract theory, which necessitates a state."
I disagree completely. It does require a society which respects contracts, but if the society does not respect contracts no amount of government is going to make any difference.
In fact, respect for contracts is the foundation of all market activity no matter how small.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
@successfulbuild To put it bluntly, without a respect for contracts there is only violence.
Even Keynesian bullshit requires some level of respect for contracts, due to the fact that if no one used Keynes' funny money the Keynesians would have no power at all over anyone.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Austrian economics actually teaches that large firms are more "efficient," whereas neoclassical economists teaches that the market will towards an equilibrium with many small firms where profit is eliminated and the goods in any given market being nearly identical to one another, making it harder for firms to set their own price. Few markets (if any) markets resemble this ridiculous assumption. (Source: Anti-Economics Textbook.)
successfulbuild 5 months ago
Austrian economics actually teaches that large firms are more "efficient," whereas neoclassical economists teaches that the market will towards an equilibrium with many small firms where profit is eliminated and the goods in any given market being nearly identical to one another, making it harder for firms to set their own price. Few markets (if any) markets resemble this ridiculous assumption. (Source: Anti-Economics Textbook.)
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "Austrian economics actually teaches that large firms are more "efficient," "
False. You should spend some time actually learning economics.
The Austrians address this fact specifically by pointing out the inefficiencies of bureaucracy. The larger a firm gets, the LESS efficient it becomes.
Austrian analysis leads to smaller, more adaptable businesses.
It is govt regulation that favors large businesses better able to afford legal departments and campaign contributions.
CurtHowland 5 months ago 2
Hence Austrians like Ron Paul favor a gold standard which gives big institutions more control over resources. They will tend support any type of hierarchical institution, such as feudal arrangements (Block, hoppe)
and slavery (Block), as they deal with contract problems better (you can't diverge from slavery). Furthermore, these corporations could use violence against workers and dissidents, as they did in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and you can't move around, as in feudalism.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "which gives big institutions more control over resources"
Another bald faced lie.
It is fiat currencies which, by inflation, are used to concentrate wealth into favored industries and players, such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric.
Is every post of yours going to be the same useless false statements? So far.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
Hence Austrians like Ron Paul favor a gold standard which gives big institutions more control over resources. They will tend support any type of hierarchical institution, such as feudal arrangements (Block, hoppe)
and slavery (Block), as they deal with contract problems better (you can't diverge from slavery). Furthermore, these corporations could use violence against workers and dissidents, as they did in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and you can't move around, as in feudalism.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
Leftists would argue that (A) they are not more efficient and (B) they're supported by assumption of a state to protect corporate rights. Political scientists look at the social distribution of resources and interest defined as power, so they don't focus on how "free" hierarchical institutions can practice slavery.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "they're supported by assumption of a state to protect corporate rights"
You ignore the fact that Austrian economics addresses the inefficiencies introduced by the limited liability inherent in incorporation.
You have obviously never read any Austrian economics.
CurtHowland 5 months ago 2
It's easy to see why people would question capitalism: it leads to hierarchical command structures (the capitalist firm) because of transaction costs.
Firms use central agents (planners) to minimize these costs who are given "property rights" over output. Thus, corporations make decisions long before any market disciplne is brought into effect and before consumer choice plays a role. (See also Charles Lindblom.)
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "Thus, corporations make decisions long before any market disciplne is brought into effect and before consumer choice plays a role."
No, that's the entrepreneurial function.
Once a firm is selling a product, consumer choice takes over as the one and only means by which the firm can make a profit.
Central planning is the opposite of market discipline, which is why the big players like Keynesian govt control so much. It lets them be inefficient and still profit.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
This theory was modified in the 70s where bond markets monitor managers, but fails to take into account Simon's "bounded ratioanlity." There is no such thing as a full agent contract because of unforseen possibilities. Agents are opportunistic in the sense that they are self-interested and bounded rationality shows contracts cannot be comp
successfulbuild 5 months ago
So, ex ante capitalist firms are comptitive but ex post market discipline would simply be too costly because of the notion of "sunk costs," which includes the cost of workers.Thus, firms exhibit hierarchical structures independent of market discipline due to transaction costs.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
@successfulbuild "Thus, firms exhibit hierarchical structures independent of market discipline due to transaction costs."
False.
Only politically benefited firms can avoid market discipline. They get bailed out.
Market discipline is exactly why such systems as you describe fail.
CurtHowland 5 months ago 2
I once had a date with this art school chick, and Bagge's name came up; me and her cock-blocker friend proceeded to get in an argument about libertarianism, natch...I find out later the chick had The SCUM Manifesto on her favorite books list: Thank you, Bagge, for keeping me from getting involved with this nutcase!
lakeviewviking 5 months ago
People who claim to be open minded on the left are just like everyone else. Once they have made a decision on an issue it is difficult to sway them.
AtibbsSPARTAN 5 months ago 2
He brings up a good point. What is the libertarian view on methamphetamine? I'm pretty much for legalizing drugs, but people on meth sometimes kill other people.
blogegog 5 months ago
@blogegog people under the influence of alcohol kill people too. alcochol is legal. my view is legalize it all, but you should not turn around and use it as a get out of jail free card.
rabidchevy 5 months ago
@blogegog People under no influence of drugs at all kill each other, too.
The issue is individual responsibility, AND individual liberty.
Being (high, drunk, stoned, hungry) is not an excuse.
CurtHowland 5 months ago 2
@CurtHowland True as far as it goes. But you are significantly more likely to kill on meth than you are to kill while not on drugs. What you're saying about responsibility is fine for seeking justice, but it does not carry an ounce of prevention.
I want to agree with your position, but I don't think I can. I agree that we should have total freedom over our actions as long as it doesn't harm others. But that 'harm others' part is a grayer area than it first seems.
blogegog 5 months ago
@blogegog "but it does not carry an ounce of prevention"
When has prohibition ever worked?
And seriously, considering how many people govt kills (their own people, not in wars) mere private crime be it drugged or not pales in comparison. Want to prevent death? Prohibit govt!
Harm others is not a gray area. Either someone does harm or they do not. The gray only exists because killing someone is not always murder. Sometimes its accidental, sometimes self defense.
That's why people made courts.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
@CurtHowland Well, that depends upon what you mean by prohibition, and what you mean by 'worked'. For example, in the 90s they started to strongly enforce the prohibition of drunk driving, and it certainly lowered the per capita drunks driving and alcohol caused car accidents.
I don't exceed the speed limit by much because of the prohibition of speeding. So that one works to some extent too.
I believe if they removed the prohibition on rape, and theft, there'd be more rape and theft.
blogegog 5 months ago
@blogegog "what you mean by prohibition"
Anything that is illegal merely to do or possess or think, that harms no one else.
"what you mean by 'worked'."
Achieved the goals by which those particular illegalities were foisted upon people who didn't want it.
"I believe if they removed the prohibition on rape, and theft, there'd be more rape and theft"
How very sad you must feel, how terrified every moment of your life thinking such evil of everyone around you.
But those are not prohibitions.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
@blogegog "I believe if they removed the prohibition on rape, and theft, there'd be more rape and theft."
Rape, theft, murder, are all "wrong" because someone is harmed. IS harmed, not might be, not could be, not is more or less likely to be.
Why is lethal self defense not "murder"? Because murder is defined as the wrongful taking of another's life.
The prohibition of guns leads to more rape and theft, because people are less able to protect themselves.
Such prohibitions are sold on lies.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
@CurtHowland I agree with everything you said in your last comment. I'm only saying that prohibition generally works a lot better than someone looking at America's prohibition of alcohol or our war on drugs would think. Not that I'm a fan of prohibition in general. Think of all of the things that are prohibited in America that have made it all but impossible to obtain them.
Real freon, high flow shower heads, 3 wheeled ATVs, absynthe... Prohibition works far too often :(
blogegog 5 months ago
@blogegog "Real freon, high flow shower heads, 3 wheeled ATVs, absynthe..."
Maybe what we disagree upon is more a lack of precision in language than any actual disagreement.
Prohibition makes it harder to acquire something that is prohibited, but it does not solve the problem that the prohibition was supposed to solve.
Prohibiting guns does not stop murders, for example.
Education is far more effective than prohibition IF the goal is to change people's minds.
CurtHowland 5 months ago
he said, "Use the force."
blogegog 5 months ago
Nice video. Bagge does great work. I have a few Hate issues packed away somewhere.
yojimbo81 5 months ago
The audio mixing makes me criiiiiiiiiiiinge
Vitaminous 5 months ago
Comment removed
WorkForYourMoney 5 months ago
Awesome Vid and first!!!!
VanillaRice99 5 months ago
@VanillaRice99 Awesome Comment and first reply!!!!
WorkForYourMoney 5 months ago