True News 58: Stop Defending Freedom! Part 2 - Freedomain Radio

[TheDestroyerCrom]

@RevolutionaryJam: Generally, in a free market prices reflect a balance between supply and demand; i.e. how much of the thing is available and how badly people want it, how many people want it.

Now, suppose that in a free market we have an easy job that pays a lot, and a hard job that doesn't. People would catch on, more people would try doing the easy job, supply would rise, and the pay would decrease. So, in a free market, pay *does* go up with skill and hard work.

[sniped101]

how would the government run out of money when they can print more of it?

[Richman6625]

Stefan, stop trying to be so politically correct, IT IS a bunch of men in smokey room. IT IS a conspiracy. Read Charolette Iserbyt's book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America"

[Sklujan]

@Richman6625 That's not Stefan being politically correct, that is Stefan making a point about innate biological drives. Stefan is anything but politically correct.

[WDeet]

The government will never run out of money, it will merely inflate away the value of the money causing the poor and elderly to receive, in nominal terms, a constantly decreasing value in their check. We can see this already happening with the denial of a cost of living increase in Social Security. At some point, the "check" the poor receive will buy next to nothing and we will be right back were we started, with the poor "needing help", except they will now be dependent, helpless and will riot!

[vspqbd]

Best question ever: "What happens to the poor when the government runs out of money?"

[tannagra]

Regarding Poor People, I think it was Winston Churchill, in the 50's who said something along the lines that people in debt was very good for the government.

[bioshock909]

humanist555: you would be raising a human being that thinks that the rules of society do not aply to them. no to be offencive but that child would become a spoiled brat

[DecassyJake]

Guys, when the money runs out..the American Empire will evaporate...what comes next? I hope it will not be an orgy of EVEN more violence and theft. Seriously, we should stop excusing State Violence..in any form.

[Grindermetalhead]

Yes, the welfare is the world's biggest problem...

Holy crap, man.

How about saying a word or two about injustices of capitalism?

All hierarchical structures depend on coercion and violence to preserve order, not just the state. It is simply mind-blowing how none of you free market capitalists are able to see the inherent violence of other hierarchical structures such as capitalist corporations.

If you wish to fight injustice, welfare is probably the last place you should start from.

[oucanemailme]

Define capitalism. Give an example of this inherent violence of capitalist corporations.

List these injustices.

Then we can proceed, otherwise your statement is pretty much empty...

[Grindermetalhead]

Without the nation state corporation becomes the state and not just any kind of state but the worst kind of tyranny. In a nation state at least there is some sort of democratic participation through elections while in corporations workers have absolutely no saying in decisions.

They have to take orders from above and execute them without question or else they get fired.

This crap you're advocating is not free market but a total tyranny. Inequality, wage slavery and subjugation are not freedom.

[nurbSoldier]

@Grindermetalhead, no, without the nation state, corporations do not exist either, as they are private organizations that are granted a special license by government.

[Grindermetalhead]

I know that, but do you really think corporations that exist today will just disappear into thin air if we abolish the state? They will still own huge portions of land and means of production.

Keeping that in mind, I don't see any scenario possible other than existing corporations turning into some sort of privately owned state like structures in the absence of nation states?

I see existing multinational corporations as a main obstacle to an effective free market economy in post statist society.

[RevolutionaryJam]

Is it not true that the way a free market will bring people out of poverty is by making them eat everyone elses sh*t.... IE. say we have a very poor community, the rich community will say "I know we will pay you if you let us use land x which is near you as a landfill site" and the poorest community will be the one willing to give up the landfill space for cheapest so they will get the least amount of money for the service of eating everyone elses sh*t?

[RevolutionaryJam]

please note, if the criticisms I raise happen to be legitimate, I am not promoting socialistic and less so statist solutions to these problems.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

And the poor community has no other options for the use of that land?

Obviously if there was a demand for that land for it's use as anything and it was community owned, then the community could sell to the highest bidder.

This all operates under the assumption that both communities are run collectively. If it was simply: trash firm wants land X, so land owner sells land to them, and the landfill causes harm to the residents nearby then they can sue the trash firm.

[RevolutionaryJam]

my point is a rich community won't need to sell their spare land as landfill under any circumstances, it's only a poor community that would ever have to do that.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

Yes but the poor community doesn't have to do so. They can use the land for whatever purposes, or sell it to whomever. Also, don't forget that welfare programs can be voluntary, and that state actions like the drug war and the welfare state perpetuate poverty.

[RevolutionaryJam]

Is it not true that in a completely free market the people who do the most work (ie. sweatshop labourers that work for 16 hours a day in Indonesia where there are NO labour laws etc.) get the least money, and those who do the least work ie. earn all their money by owning lots of capital already earn more money?

[stefbot]

Indonesia is not a free market.

[RevolutionaryJam]

tell me more.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

No labor laws=/=free market

Most sweatshops use the state to enforce a local monopoly, preventing any new places that workers can sell their labor to from setting up. They also bribe local police to keep workers in line. They are often excluded from taxes. And, sadly, sweatshops are the best option for many workers. Their other options are mainly subsistence farming(starving, infanticide, plague), or working on a giant rice farm, both of which suck. This is the same sadly for child laborers...

[ThePintsizeslasher]

cont

...There were 3 documented cases during the 90s of Western activists shutting down clothing plants that employed children. The children then turned to prostitution, hustling, or starved to death, as they were unable to find work elsewhere.

The US had sweatshops, so did Britain and Europe. Lbaor laws didn't get rid of them, they just became unnecessary. They may be part of growing an economy.

Introducing actual competition would improve workers lives dramatically

[marjan15]

So which country is?

[nabuco00]

@stefbot There never has been a Free Market in any place or in any time. Self organising anarchys are a contradiction in terms.The free market is an invention just like the american dream, and it is installed by the capitalist elites to preserve their dominant position. We the people are condemned to oppose this system to survive. As for you defending the abollishment of minimum wages you are dead right if everybody was willing to work for litteraly peanuts there should not be jobless people

[MigDanskeren]

In many much more extensive welfare states the government is not about to run out of money, they just tax productive people more. So unfortunately his particular argument is not very effective over there.

[Humanist555]

You can PREFER all the non-violent methods you like but unless EVERYONE is on board it is completely impractical. Try talking to the jihadist who are only interested in establishing Sharia law throughout the world. They're not interested in cooperation, their interested in control. Need a case study, WWII. Talk to Hitler and Hirohito and speak in real flowery terms and impress them w/your accumen...and then watch them destroy you. Appeasement doesn't work.

[DecassyJake]

Is this the excuse you give to all the other people who use violence to impose on you " well I'd prefer not to beat my child but until EVERYBODY decides not to, I think I'll keep on doing it."! Appeasement is not the same as self defence..WE appease our govs all of the time..and our only reasonable defence is usually non violent , oui?

[Humanist555]

I'll address your points in reverse order:

Who said violence is ALWAYS the solution? Yes, there are other methods that are apporpriate or possible at different times.

Again, the word beat implies an extreme, which does happen and is wrong. However, applying every method of diplomacy but not having an implicit or even real risk to back it means nothing to someone who is not interested in what YOU want. Not every worldview is equally valid. If diplomacy does not work...what then?

[Humanist555]

While the child is intrinsically your equal as a human being, experientially and intellectually they are not your equal. Sometimes you have to impose your will on them. If they refuse redirection, distraction, figure out how to work around your "toddler-proofing"...what then? Do you allow them to run the show and impose their will? No, they do not know what is best for them and you have to teach them that there are rules. A semi-fixed body of rules like our Constitution.

[regresseur]

Can you give some examples of imposing your will on a child? Can you give some examples of a child imposing their will on their parents? What does it mean for a child to "run the show"? "They do not know what is best for them." Expound? "... and you have to teach them that there are rules." Like what?

[Humanist555]

You are in the grocery checkout and you child wants some chocolate. You tell them, "No, we are going to eat dinner when we get home" They insist and start to throw a fit. Do you: A) stand there like a dope and hope it stops B) Order them to cease the negative behavior C) Buy it to shut them up or D) Tell them if they stop, and they eat all their dinner then they can have a snack....

[Humanist555]

I hope you picked D. Then, if their behavior continues, take away the snack. They throw a fit, give then the alternative...at that point the negotiating is over and options narrow. Now some parents would threaten no dinner, but I'm not going to deny my child nutrition and the threat of a swat on the bottome is the only substantive alternative until they reach the age where say hanging out w/friends or watching a certain program is a substantive threat of something they do not want taken.

[Humanist555]

I think that satisfies the clash of wills and knowing what is best for them and they do not. They do not realize that nutritious food is more important than a candy bar and you can't give in to to their demands. It also teaches them that society has rules and unforturnately we do have to give up some freedoms in lieu of our responsibilities to society but it is a delicate balance. Now, if I were to follow pure anarchy and allow my child to do whatever...what kind of person am I rearing?

[61shirley]

I love the way Stefbot lays things out its almost like he defrags the brain. Fantast!!!!

[erdal0]

hmmz

if the government runs out of money like stef said:

charity would help the poor people out

[KraljevicPavle]

Unless whatever is left is taken by the state to preserve the system, ie the imposition of a classless, government-ownership, planned society. THEN you're screwed, for at least 50-odd years while people gather their wits and start trying to trade and make money.

[watcherjohnny]

Good stuff. Valid points. Well reasoned arguments. But I always try to envision human events and activity from the perspective of the bell curve. What is the distribution of individual attitude and intelligence, and how does that affect "positive" change? My conclusion is almost always not optimistic.

[MasterCrumbles]

day gunna pile up to da sky,dat wut

[modelmark]

I think they will do something like sell the roads for money and then regulate it to death, so they can jump in as rescuers and confiscate it again. Like they did with gold in the past:confiscate,sell, confiscate,sell. Banks is he same thing: make it mandatory to sell mortgages to the non credit worthy borrowers and when they fail, take them over, inflate and sell.

[ukkonoa]

Hey check this out:

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?

watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

Its really great!

[RogueSwordThesco]

Shit's going to hit the fan, probably in three years or so.

2012 doomsday theories... coincidence?

[D3mi4n]

right, because mayan's calendar predicts economic collapse :rolleyes:

[Weezzuul]

Well stef, can you answer your own question? what will happen when then government runs out of money?

[gosmokesome]

Its out of money, its when they are unable to steal enough money to cover their debt that you should be worried about.

[Gromitdog1]

it will never run out of money, the money will just become valueless, you will be offered 100 000 units for X. it won't mean anything and people will realize it, i think communism will develop and it will be even far worse than it is today.

[KraljevicPavle]

At which point, under hyperinflation, people will begin to barter and develop their own economies and refuse to give faith to their own governments. They may even begin using foreign governments' money and no government likes that. The mafia will create a pseudo-voluntaristic society with an enormous black market. If this goes on that government will fall, guaranteed. I'm ex-Yugo, my friend, I saw it first-hand.

[caltrop69]

Running out of money and devaluing money to worthlessness are mathematically equivalent. They mean the same thing.

I agree, however, that some form of totalitarian regime usually picks up the pieces of a fallen government. Not sure if it would, necessarily, be communist in structure though.

[MigDanskeren]

Sadly I think you are right.

What we experience at the moment is either the last death throes of government or it is the beginning of a totalitarian nightmare.

[thebeartaxes]

The cynical argument seems entirely reasonable...I think I might be cynical.

[antropoloscar]

Its simple..its the fault of the powerfull people ultimately..they keep people ignorant and poor so they can live their lifestyles and the final response will be a revolution against them..can u say dejavu

[Fetchdafish]

They'll just say: "Oh we'll cut this, we'll cut that, everything will be fine. We'll always have money for the poor."

[galikazoid]

good question

[reason285]

As former addict, I can say that this is a great analogy, The justifications for continuing something that is so clearly not working are just mind blowing.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

I don't agree with the cynic point of view.

I think those people are attributing to malice what can be far more easily accounted for with incompetence.

But that's just me. :P

Outstanding video, 5 *s and favorited. :)

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

You know what they say, "Nothing says you care quite like a gun to the head."

[DreadLaw2]

Well, only for as long as they are thinking, nothing says you care quite like a gun to someone elses head.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

Even better. :)

[derekcrozier1]

Way to go Stefbot, we are going to see Michael Moores Capitalism a love story and im going to try to get our class to watch your response video

[RPFS2008]

Good luck with that!