Government Bailouts: Picking Winners | Walter Block

[NonAggressionist]

That was smooth at 33:03

[vince33x]

Fantastic! Walter Block gives a very lucid explanation of Austrian Theory.

[stockleeroy]

@DanielRl02, The two words are etymologically unrelated. "Niggardly" is not dervied from the word "nigger." Look it up. I agree that it doesn't really matter either way.

[pretorious700]

Millionaire Nancy Pelosi villifies "greed" while shuttling around the world in brand new jumbo jets funded by the taxpayer, while dining at 5 star restaurants and staying in expensve hotels.

Who does she think she is kidding?

[atrickpay11]

Cough drops. I think he mentions it in his 10-part Berger seminar.

[chokin2]

8:55 I almost fell off the chair! LMAO

[taubstumm]

Did he say niggerdly? lol

[stockleeroy]

"niggardly"

Unrelated to the word "nigger"

[taubstumm]

Thanks.

[DanielRI02]

@stockleeroy

That is not true. Niggardly would be the adjective of "niggard," from which "nigger" is derived. That's not to say I disagree with his use of the term. I encourage his, or anyone's, use of a controversial, yet legitimate, word. Stop bastardizing English, people.

[latewire]

He freezes giblets from baby seals and uses them as breath mints

[Jaycephus01]

I don't think Libertarians are equidistant between Conservatives and Liberals. That statement implies a two-dimensional 'spectrum'. Yet there are at least two axes in attempting to describe where an individual lies in the political landscape. There is, of course, a traditional left-right axis, but there is also a statist vs. anarchist axis as well. Hence we have neo-cons who love increasing the power of the State almost as much as the most hardcore Socialist.

[d3th2u]

You can still be equidistant from 2 points in 3-dimensional space ...

Also, if there are two axises, as u say, that is still a 2-dimensional spectrum.

A pure Left/Right paradigm would be a One-Dimensional spectrum.

But i know what you're trying to say, lol.

[grraadd]

30:00 "buy [inefficient country's name]" - happens every time when socialists meddle into an economy...

[grraadd]

good speaker - great lecture :-)

[scatpornpooboy]

Fantastic!

[fluff125]

I can't stand his voice. Don't call me racist but I think he has a bad case of "jewspeak".

[GreedyGreddy]

Hey! I'm in the video! The guy in the black shirt!

[jonnniefivemiles]

Ugh, I can't stand Block.. I mean, I agree with most of what he says but he seems to constantly apologize for the results and problems caused by state monopoly capitalism while simultaneously arguing against state monopoly capitalism in favor of free markets.

The corporatist-statist "capitalism" of the world today is NOT reflective of free markets and its progeny (corporations) should not be defended as such.

[stealthswimmer]

Actually, no. It's certainly possible, and likely probable, that we have more corporations than we otherwhise would have if we were to have a laissez-faire society, but that's not an indication that they wouldn't exist at all in a laissez-faire society.

He's not being an apologist; he's correctly saying they're simply not the source of the problem. Much in the same way, I dislike the state, but I don't say they're the reason that it rained yesterday.

[jonnniefivemiles]

I suggest you look up exactly what a "corporation" is.. they are creations of the state, by definition.

In an actual free market society, there will be 0 corporations as they exist today.

..and if you want an objective free market analysis of modern society and the fake "capitalism" of history, I strongly suggest "The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand" by Kevin Carson or Carson's scathing rejoinder to Block in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

[stealthswimmer]

I don't need a free market analysis of modern society. It's pretty clear that we don't have capitalism, lol.

As for corporations, depends on which definition you go by. The first definition in merriam-webster online dictionary is what i was goin by and that doesn't need a state to exist. However, we have what's called "corporate personhood" so as to enforce property rights.

[stealthswimmer]

(continued) just because we don't have a state does not mean corporations wouldn't exist since you still need to enforce property rights. If you had private courts and such, corporations would still be allowed to exist since you'd need to enforce property rights like if something from "the company" was stolen. It would need to be returned to "the company" or the main person in charge or whatever.

So no it doesn't require a state. It requires laws, but you can have laws without a state.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Corporate personhood exists to protect property rights?

Are you joking?

No, 'incorporation' vis a vis limited liability and so forth is a state subsidy of specific human endeavors at the expense of everyone else. Without the state, corporations do not exist.

And, of course, "property rights" are subjective and without the state will be enforced by intersubjective consensus, not "laws" in the modern sense.

See Murray Rothbard, Kevin Carson, Benjamin Tucker, etc.

[stealthswimmer]

Corporate personhood does exist to protect property rights, that doesn't mean it's always used for that. However, if a corporation has something that is stolen from it, then obviously it needs to be returned. However, on the other side there are things that are NOT part of corporate personhood that cause damage...things like subsidies etc. However, those things can also be given to other people yet should not be. Nobody should be receiving subsidies.

[jonnniefivemiles]

No, no, no.. corporate personhood *is* a subsidy and does cause "damage."

Corporate personhood is not collective ownership, which is what you're describing.

[stealthswimmer]

ah ok. Well that's how corporate personhood was described to me, lol. I thought it was simply treating a corporation in court the same way a person would be treated.

[stealthswimmer]

(continued)

as for the intersubjective consensus on property rights, all you're saying there is "democracy" is the solution....which is incorrect. Yes, there will be some sort of intersubjective consensus, but that consensus is not what makes it right. If you own something, then you have property rights. As for laws, yes they could exist even in the modern sense. They might not, necessarily, but they could and we could have private courts and police.

See Walter Block.

[jonnniefivemiles]

Uhh no I am not saying that anything is a "solution." I am pointing out how reality works - you "own" something because of intersubjective consensus, because an imperfect consensus of human beings around you acknowledge that you own it. This doesn't change when it becomes codified under statist "laws."

"Right" and wrong are subjective moral applications and not part of the discussion.

If "laws exist in the modern sense," it's the statist sense and you have no free market.

[stealthswimmer]

No you don't own something because of a consensus. You own something because you have a claim on it by being a first-comer and have homesteaded it or have obtained it through voluntary exchange. This has been the intersubjective consensus on the meaning of ownership, or at least legitimate ownership and thus is pretty much the definition of ownership.

And no laws in the modern sense mean rules that people generally abide by....it's simply that they are currently enforced by the state.

[jonnniefivemiles]

"This has been the intersubjective consensus on the meaning of ownership"

Right... but that does not = legitimate "objective ownership." It is based on the minds of those around you, on the intersubjective consensus.

That's my whole point there.

[stealthswimmer]

It's not based on the minds of those around you, it's based on the definition of "ownership" which there was long ago an intersubjective consensus on what the definition of.

Can that definition change? Sure, and then someone could just make a new word for it since the concept still exists.

Intersubjective consensus exists but that's not what makes something legitimate, and i'm not saying I know what exactly makes something legitimate, lol.

[stealthswimmer]

(continued) at least what I mean when I say "laws in the modern sense"

Kind of like how there's "natural law" and those exist without a state. They've generally been devised by people to avoid conflict and allow cooperation with one another.

Hans-Herman Hoppe has nice audio file of this on the mises site

mises(d0t)org/MultiMedia/mp3/M­U2009/MU2009_Hoppe1_07-29-2009­(d0t))mp3

replace the d0t's in parentheses with periods and remove the parantheses, obviously

[jonnniefivemiles]

HHH is interesting as always, but "laws" in the modern sense are not common law or natural law, but state laws enforced by threat of death and imprisonment. And it seems ridiculous to me to expect that the latter will be the same as the former when the threat is removed.

[stealthswimmer]

Well by your definition of "laws in the modern sense" then I'd agree with you. However, without a state you could still possibly be put to death if you murder someone. Furthermore, there might be other laws that punish through imprisonment even without the state (though more likely, the probably punishment would be compensation and other people refusing to do business with you)

[SK3Nives]

Our Governments in EVERY country seem to agree with a dictator or oligarch may be the more appropriate word...

"Gold is not necessary. I have no interest in gold. We will build a

solid state, without an ounce of gold behind it. Anyone who sells above

the set prices, let him be marched off to a concentration camp. That's

the bastion of money." -Adolf Hitler

[RakeRocter]

suggestion: 

put the speaker's name, subject of speech, and date of speech in the title.

thanks for all the great videos.

[Slampropp]

Agreed! I wouldn't want to accidentally skip a speech by Block.

[Deoptics8]

Was this in the future? Should I assume 29 August 2009? Great Speech by Dr. Block, thanks!