"or the humanitarian value of Socialism or **any of its many shades."You need to wake up. Socialism in its most technical definition is something that almost *everyone in America has lived in.Socialism in the most technical sense is much like a family.Did it kill you to share with your mom,or your sister, or your dad???Of course not!The Socialist systems of today have become corrupt (just as capitalism has) and are so far from the actual definition of the term.
Capitalism and slavery fit hand in glove. Violence and whips are not antithetical to capitalism. Neither is man-made famine. Capitalism is capitalizing off of someone else's sweat, strain, sacrifice, loss. The system of empire we live under is systemized thievery. It can only be maintained by brutality.
Ian Rand Enough Said :-( more repulican propaganda! rich get richer poor stay and get poorer! stop big oil tax subsidies and loopholes for corporations. we the PEOPLE not we with the most money!
Because other companies cannot compete with gov't-backed businesses these business can increase prices because the consumer has no other choice but to buy their product. Democracy is mob rule. We have a Constitution to limit the power of the majority so it cannot harm the Republic. We see many problems now because we are ignoring the Constitution and substituting pure Democracy, which will lead to socialism as described by Marx.
A pure free market is the only viable solution for society. We would most likely not see lead paint because you forget that businesses serve the consumer. If the consumer does not approve of the product, the consumer does not buy it and the business fails. When gov't makes special rules it creates a system where businesses can operate not serving the consumer, such as the creation of monopolies and limiting competition through regulation and tariffs. Because other companies cannot compete w
if it is impossible in a capitalistic society to gain wealth then how did Gates and Jobs get rich and donate to charity. In a free society where people have their God given rights not taken away by a dictorial government where bread is expensive enough to take a day's wage like in soviet russia. in america people are living in better conditions and are living longer with better medical treatment than most other countries.
@thaDaniroy "are living in better conditions and are living longer with better medical treatment than most other countries." It depends on which countries you are referring to. At the rate of things in this country, life-expectancy in America will continue to go down. Countries like Japan, Denmark, Finland, and several other European countries all have higher life-expectancy than the US.
Fools. Fools. Fools. There was extreme poverty and slavery before capitalism. Some philosopher waltzes along and you believe government wants to solve your problems? Government has a history of wanting power over as many peasants as possible.
If you people actually read history books, you'd know that land ownership is a solution to serfdom. You have a few gripes about greed, and then wish to return to the middle ages. The public schools failed at teaching you history.
Well the way i see it the value of money is only if it brings benefit to all men, it is clear this does not happen it has always been a tool, a weapon used by those who have it and control it, against those who do not.
One day those who run the money system will find out that they finally pushed those who do not to far and then get ready for real change. One day it will come about.
@thaDaniroy Not at all true, in a Capitalist system it is unusual for those at the bottom to reach the top whereas those at the top pass their wealth on forever, proof of that is the Aristocrat families of Europe, In a Communist country a poor man can reach the top, mao Zedong proved that Ho Chi Minh, Stalin all from humble backgrounds. Do you really expect the leader of any country to not live a different life than of the common man, China is a far more equal country than most western ones.
To become wealthy take a very high degree of risk, be it money-wise or a huge sacrifice in a sort of way. Why would you want to live in a world were hard work is not rewarded. Not every rich person inherits their wealth most are 1st gen. Be the master of your own destiny and do something with your life instead of looking at others end result. Wealth and leadership is not for everybody.
I never said anything about Communism. But there are only two options: to use force, or not to use force. Laissez-faire requires that force never be initiated. Every other system requires force to one degree or another. The only real differences between them are when, who, and how much.
Like I said, you think in extremes which is simple minded. Force or no force. Yeah, no regulation *at all* or a gun to your head. Those are the only 2 options you can think off? Seriously?
Capitalism is a good system because it works on the greed we humans inherently have. However unlimited greed can become very harmful. Too much is never good. Too much regulation is bad, just like too much unregulation is as well.
The answer often lies in the middle, not in your extremely simplefied view.
Force or no force is not two extremes. It is simply the two alternatives that exist. There is no "middle ground" between force and no force. You either force people to do things against their will or your don't. The "middle ground" you speak of is merely using "a little" force. But it is still using force.
You're missing the point. Force is force. "Regulation" is just a word meaning somebody tells you that you have to do X or else. Even in the most mild example, that means if you fail to do X, you're fined, and if you assert your right not to do X by refusing to pay the fine, you are arrested, and if you further assert your rights by resisting, violence will be used. It all ultimately rests upon the threat of violence.
Now most of the time, people are too intimidated by such a threat to ever shirk the regulation, or if they do and are caught, they'll pay the fine, or if they fail to pay the fine, they submit to arrest. This does not change the principle of the threatening act. In similar manner, if most people in a mafia-controlled city comply and pay their "protection money" and therefore never get their legs broken, it doesn't change the moral status of the threat which underlies the racket.
Punchey, ANY extreme has the potential to cause harm, both over-regulated and unregulated measures.
Mafia? Protection money? Violence?
Your last two replies prove my point that you think only in black and white. All you do is depict a situation gone totally out of control in order to try and win your argument. One of the weakest forms of debate.
Regulation happens everywhere, it's PART of a democracy --> **You do what the MAJORITY wants/votes for**.
This is not about slippery slopes. It's about moral principles. If the difference is only one of degree, then the principle still applies, even in the case where the degree is low.
And, BTW, majority-rule is not the be-all, end-all of political ethics. A lynch mob is an example of democracy in action, so obviously the will of the majority is not, in itself, a justification for any given political action. What matters is the moral status of an action.
And who will judge that moral status? You? A democracy isn't the most effecient system but it's the most reliable system available.
Example: a good dictator can potentially be many times more effecient than a senate. But we don't use that system because you risk having a bad dictator, with catastrophic results.
The same applies to capitalism. In its purest form, it's great but there is a real threat that greed ruins it for the majority. That's why we have and need certain regulations.
The moral status is quite easy for anyone to ascertain - threatening others with violence who have not first threatened you is immoral.
Absent force or fraud (which SHOULD be punished), "greed" has no power to harm anyone.
I do not agree with ANY regulations, as they are an example of prior restraint, which violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. Rather than government having to demonstrate guilt, the regulated entity must demonstrate its innocence with regard to regulations.
- How about illegal price agreements between companies? (This alone destroys your argument single handedly)
- How about monopoly prevention?
- How about the illegal firing of a pregnant woman when she tells her boss she's pregnant?
- How about led paint in child toys?
You've talked about 'morals' before yet you're against many basic regulations that ensure a healthy moral standard. Unregulated Capitalism = Money > people/ethics/morals.
It's funny how you're in favor of no regulations while it's a fact that the free market doesn't work with monopolies and secret price agreements.
The problem with capitalism is also that MANY of the costs are not factored into the price of products. Environmental damage, ethical/moral issues for example. Yeah you can choose not to buy led paint toys when you find out but without regulations chances are high you'll find out too late and your kid is hurt for life.
On top of that, in order for capitalism to work it needs *transparency*. Guess what, there more regulations to ensure this as well and with good reason as big companies become more and more obscure.
Look, the bottom line is this:
Capitalism works great in a Utopia, where everyone has all the information and acts logical. Unfortunately... by definition, a Utopia doesn't exist.
Have you read Utopia? Utopia was a socialist paradise - not a Capitalist one. Utopia is a place where society intervenes, via government, in the lives of every person so as to create a "perfect" society, free of every ill. THAT is Utopia, and I submit that this is precisely what people of your ilk are trying to do with your various interventions via government in the form of regulations, etc. I do not propose a perfect world, only a just one.
The only true monopolies that have ever existed were made monopolies by government. There are sound economic reasons why monopolies would never arise in a free market. I have neither time, space, nor patience to delve into this deeply, but I suggest you read some economic material, such as Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".
This ammount of regulations however may vary and is subject to discussion.
But one thing is for sure: the moment you claim -none- are needed you're thinking only in extremes which is extremely simple minded.
There is always a middle ground. But hey, stick with your ideology. I bet it's much easier to just say no to everything and never having to think about a beneficial exception at all anymore. Afterall, thinking takes so much energy.
Regarding Utopia, the word entered the English language by its coinage in a book by Sir Thomas Moore. My point is that it is ironic to me that the folly Moore intended to point out with his fictional island of Utopia more closely mirrors your own view than my own. And my point stands that you are the one attempting to do away with all ills through intervention.
As for "giving up", you have reached an issue that requires a discussion that cannot properly take place in the space of 500 characters
I'm sorry but if you need more than 500 characters to argue why lead paint in child toys should be allowed then your argument isn't that strong to begin with.
Anyway, good talking to you.
In a world of so many variables and uncertainties, against all statistical odds, I'm glad you think you've actually found a perfect *yet* extremely simple system where no further improvements are possible.
Ah.. Perfection. Utopia. You've found it! It's almost like it's too easy and too good to be true..
I never said it was perfect, only that it is just.
As for lead paint in toys, it is not I who am being simple minded for you are the one who is unable to conceive of any way that such problems might be solved without adding a gun to the equation. I have spent over half of my life studying and thinking through these issues. You might want to try at least reading a few books written by laissez-faire philosophers and economists before being so smugly dismissive.
Smugly dismissive? How about your assertion that I haven't read anything about the subject? You spend half a year "studying" this subject and this discussion I've had with you represents your best arguments? Wow, talk about time wasted.
You also appearantly don't get the irony in my last statement. Because you *do* claim you've found perfection: The perfect example of a "just" economic system. And when asked for arguments you suddenly don't have the time. What a joke.
You see, this isn't even about capitalism itself anymore. It's about how you claim to have found an absolute truth. Something that can not be improved any further anymore, by anyone, anywhere.
You don't care for arguments anymore. Cost-benefit analyses means nothing to you. You have formulated an opinion and will stubbornly stick by it no matter what.
This not only makes you simple minded, it makes you -close- minded.
I have been presenting arguments. What I decline to do is get into the details of macro and micro economics and Austrian theory to explain, in detail, why you are wrong - all in a forum that limits responses to 500 characters. I have already referred you to an excellent source that can explain these things much more efficiently.
I have already indulged you enough, so with that, I'll let you have the last word.
@Phyrexious I know I am VERY late jumping in on this argument, but I thought I would throw in my two cents because I believe your argument is deeply flawed.
In terms of dealing with the lead paint dilemma in a free market society, you failed to realize that by poisoning people with this product, the company is completely liable for harming an individual.
In terms of a pregnant woman being fired, yes a private company should have freedom of association and therefore has the right to fire her...
@zentonil Should it not be the values and culture of the community to protect and defend this woman? Does she have no friends and family to help support her while she transitions, and would it not harm the businesses reputation for such an action?
"Moral status" is judged by the Law of the Land, Republics are guided by Constitutions which ought to protect our Negative Freedoms (ie freedom of movement, of action, of association), the freedoms we are born with naturally. This is the Silver Rule.
Excuse me, how does a company that is reliable make any difference for the possibly thousands of kids that now have lead poisoning? The company will go bankrupt, kids die or have a misserable life, and THAT's your sollution? The government primary role is to protect people, including from immoral corporations.
And nothing is stopping smaller (local) companies from starting all over again under a new name, doing the same poisoning again.
@Phyrexious You've confused the two scenarios I gave you. No laissez fare capitalist would disagree that the function of government should be to protect our Individual RIghts. These include our LIFE, fruits of our labour, and our property. Therefore, in terms of a company poisoning people with lead, they would be held accountable for knowingly using a harmful substance.
You're talking about AFTER the damage has already been done. I'm talking about *prevention*. Your idea allows for much harm to be done, especially by new starting companies (that will cut corners to compete with the big corporations) and they have no important image they can lose.
If we KNOW something is harmful, like lead paint on child toys, then the most logical sollution is to prevent companies from using it *before* it causes any harm.
@Phyrexious There's no reason that consumer advocacy groups couldn't exist in a free market society, but it would function in a different manner.
One possibility is to create a strong brand for an inspection agency. They could market themselves to companies as a means to bolster consumer confidence, which would appeal greatly to start-up companies. Paired with media support, a headline of RANDOM BRAND REFUSES SAFETY INSPECTION would be a powerful motivation.
Why so much trouble for a system that is much more prone to corruption ("pay us or you won't get to use our label"). And it STILL doesn't adress the issue that new companies/products can be unhealthy and make people sick or even kill them.
Basically you come up with a worse system, to do the same, all because you have a laissez faire fetisch. It's the same with Republicans, no matter how good the idea, they're always against more government influence. It's a simplistic position.
@Phyrexious haha why so much trouble? This was an example I created off the top of my head as a means to show you that potentials exist to protect consumers in a free market society. I apologize if I haven't worked out all the checks and balances to make it an effective system.
The reason I would go through so much trouble is because it is a method to avoid COERCION. If you don't think "pay us or you won't get to [sell your product]" doesn't exist in our current system, you are in denial.
I'm not really interested in hypothetical’s that are worse even on paper. Of course it can be done in a free market, I can also put hot chili sauce up my buttocks, but just because I can doesn't necessarily make it a good idea now does it?
You can also make police security a free market thing. Mafia days, protection money or you're dead. Yes it works... just WORSE
@Phyrexious The fact of the matter is the system that you prefer self-evidently relies on the COERCION of individuals to exist. It cannot function without a MONOPOLY of force. Your example of free market security is actually amusing, because where I live I fear police brutality more than I have ever feared a Hells Angel. If the police brutalize you, there is no recourse, you can file a complaint, which are usually dismissed, so you are SOL.
Living in a society always brings along rules that are favored and/or required to live together. Yes, the government also coheres you into not-Murdering anyone. They have a monopoly on that too. Big deal? You're making a problem purely because you have a laissez faire fetish. Somehow it's rooted so deep in your brain that you must apply it to every principle even when the outcome isn't necessarily better.
@Phyrexious The government "coheres" (coerces?) me into not-murdering anyone? Are you suggesting that if the average person wasn't worried about jail we would all be killing people at whim? That's completely insane, what is your opinion of human nature??
I'm making a problem because I want to live free. I want freedom. I want to choose how I live and under what conditions. I can't even opt out and choose my "laisse faire fetish" yet under laisse faire you can consent to the coersion you love!!
My non-murder example was to illustrate that you are never 100% free to do whatever you want. There is no total freedom because you are living in a SOCIETY that has countless other people in it as well, each with their own set of idea's. Living in large groups requires certain group rules. Anarchy doesn't work too well. Your idea of freedom is an illusion.
@Phyrexious I'm sorry but I can't continue this conversation right now. You are utterly irrational and delusional about what you actually believe. If you could do me just ONE favour, please re-read your argument with Punchey, and what you have said to me here. Sit on it and think about it. Please. Give it some time to settle.
This conversation was already over a year ago. I don't see why you thought you had some new insights when all you do is repeat the same laissez faire fetish bullshit.
Your quest for total freedom is an illusion as long as you live in a society where people have needs/idea's that are different than your own. Luckily your idea's belong to the minority.
@Phyrexious "Your quest for total freedom is an illusion as long as you live in a society where people have needs/idea's that are different than your own."
That is the most ironic statement you could have possibly made.
I didn't repeat anything, I THOUGHT that *maybe* you would be willing to understand the perspective of an ideology you clearly don't understand. I tried to elaborate and answer your arguments that he was unwilling to give you the day of day for.
You seem to equate me rejecting your flawed ideology with me not understanding it. Perhaps this is why you're so stuck on this bullshit idea of yours.
Lets try the pragmatic approach; name me a couple civilized countries that actually have your laissez faire nonsense.
@Phyrexious Hotsauce in your buttocks would be terrible, but working out systems to live in a free society where you can live as you please without having ideologies forced on you looks alot better on paper to me than relying on a Nanny State to make tough decisions for me, where critical thinking is dulled because we accept the wisdom of bureaucrats.
Nice rhetoric. Nanny state? You mean whatever the Democratic majority wants.
And wisdom of bureaucrats? If you mean scientists and experts on the subject then yes, I trust those who study a subject their whole lives more than my limited knowledge regarding certain subjects. Perhaps you think you're an expert in every field, but that's called self-delusion.
@Phyrexious So if the democratic majority wanted to burn books I should accept that? If the majority wanted to teach the earth was flat I must comply?
I never suggested I was an expert in ANY field, what I have been saying is that I would rather trust the experts that I CHOOSE than what is given to me. Nanny State is a welfare state that thinks it knows best.
Regarding your first two over-the-top examples: Yes, in a democracy you can't always have it your way. If a MAJORITY agrees on X then you either comply with X or you immigrate to another country. Of course your examples are silly. Raising taxes would be a better, more realistic example.
A democratic state behaves in what the majority thinks is best. When that's not you, what do you expect? Get your way despite what the majority want?
@Phyrexious haha it's not about getting my way, it's about protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. America is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. My examples are silly why?? These actions existed because of mob mentalities. What if the majority decided only Christians or Islamics were fully human and took away the rights of heretics? Is democracy really a better system then?
I never said a democracy always produces the best rules as a whole, but it does produce the things the majority wants, as opposed to a minority. I'm sure we can agree on that a minority shouldn't have more influence than a majority...?
Individual rights are great and all, but often they conflict with other rights. Like how you do NOT have the freedom to steal from someone else because it conflicts with their rights.
Same with environmental issues. You do not have the freedom to dump thousands of gallons of toxic waste on your piece of property because it will contaminate the surroundings. You don't live in a bubble, we all have to deal with eachother and sometimes that means you can't do shit that a majority doesn't want.
@Phyrexious Both the examples you just gave are protected in a free market society. The entire argument that Punchey and I have made is that the governments SOLE RESPONSIBILITY is to protect our life, liberty, the fruits of our labour, and property. It protects from theft, slavery, fraud.
What if the majority decided my city was a shithole so they were going to make it a garbage dump, your entire Majority argument is DEEPLY FLAWED.
Government to protect lives. YES, and how does that not include preventing toxins from entering our food? A sick person can't work, can't contribute to society and a dead person doesn't have any life/liberty/labour and property at all. Seems to me you don't understand your own argument.
Btw, I'm done explaining to you how a democracy works. You live in a society where there are group rules. If you don't like them vote differently, if the majority doesn't agree with you: TOO BAD!
Maybe the reason why I love a democracy so much is that it prevents people like you from inserting their retarded ideologies. And with idea's as batshit crazy as yours I luckily don't have to worry about you ever becoming part of the majority.
@Phyrexious You are completely lost. No individual has more influence than any other in a free society, but no number, regardless of their size, has more power than the Constitution which protects those individuals.
Stealing is not a right, it is inherently harmful. The irony of this statement is that coercive, democratic taxation is THEFT. It is not consentual. IT CONFLICTS WITH MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
@zentonil Don't dress me up. It is not a "laissez faire fetish." It is a freedom fetish. I want to live free. I want to exist in a world where respect is our highest value, and so long as we respect eachother we can live in peace.
Earlier you accused Punchey of a binary mentality, only seeing two extremes, yet a year later all you see is a world controlled by governments or by corporations. You have succumbed to the prejudices of your worldview. You fear freedom because you fear human nature.
Haha I fear freedom? Oh please don't resort to those kinds of sentences.. It makes you sound like Bush.
I don't fear human nature, I understand it. Greed drives capitalism, and it's an OK motor. The only thing needed are some ground rules to guide that greed into something productive instead of something potentially destructive.
Like how America choose to use the healthcare system The Netherlands also uses: a few guidelines to create a healthy free market foundation.
@Phyrexious Another possibility is that a strong COMMUNITY may desire more of a local market instead of embracing globalization, there are strong trends of regionalism today. The consequence would be a more personal relationship between consumers and business, this would increase accountability and decrease the desirability to harm people. I would prefer to find options in a free society, instead of accepting your logic that we must FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY.
The only difference is that you are forcing people to comply to corporations that take over the food inspection business (if you had your way). Without any food rules, it's extremely risky to buy random stuff, thus hurting new starter companies and giving too much power to big corporations.
@Phyrexious If I had my way? How would I be forcing people to do anything with my example? If people don't trust corporate products, they are free to buy local, or through companies they trust. Risk is a fact of life, no consumer protection law even existed before 1872, do you think people found ways to protect themselves before the government got involved?
Also, I don't think corporate rights would exist in a real free market society, giving corporations the rights of an individual is wrong.
How? Because without food regulations people will NEED some sort of food inspection agency/corporation. You're just shifting the burden from a centralized democratic institution to a amoral corporation who's sole goal is money. Luckily most people agree this is a horrible idea.
Besides, there are already many company "health" labels out there. And if you really want to be allowed to use some harmful chemical in your products then you can always lobby it through the democratic process.
@Phyrexious How what? I already stated that corporations shouldn't have unlimited liability, if that was the case they would have more at stake than money. And you made a good point, companies lobby through our coercive "democracy" and do actually use harmful chemicals, but because we trust our government (!!) people don't have a strong faculty to critically think about what they're buying and who they're trusting.
I'm glad you agree. Yes, corporations also misuse lobby powers to do bad things. I don't however see how this strengthens your argument to let them run the whole show by themselves.
@Phyrexious Corporations wouldn't run the whole show by themselves. You are obsessed with this whole CORPORATE DOMINATION idea without even giving a thought to the idea that free individuals might be able to make their own decisions which protect themselves. It seems totally incomprehensible to you that a free society might organize itself in such a way to reduce the possibility of fraudulent trade, all you see is giant name brands ramming poison down peoples throats, while eating their wallets.
Perhaps stick with what you know about yourself and don't make a caricature of someone else. I don't think it's incomprehensible, I just understand that it's not a better system. You want to achieve the same goals but you favor your pet ideology at the cost of a higher potential for corruption.
I agree with a democratic system. If you want to change something you either run yourself or vote for someone with similar ideas.
@Phyrexious I think a better example might be a supermarket that refuses to stock your product unless you accept a safety inspection, this would be more desirable to consumers and people would prefer to shop with that confidence in mind. If the store is corrupted as you assume would happen, and people get sick from a product, than people would be liable, go to jail, and no one would trust that store anymore.
Yes if that happened people wern't prevented from being sick, but...
Liable and go to jail huh? So the laws will be against lead-paint on child toys but no government inspections, only by corporations...
It's funny how you rant on this freedom so much yet you apparently still want there to be rules against it so people can be "liable and go to jail". That's like banning murder but having no police to prevent it. Seems like a big hole in your utopian ideology, which doesn't surprise me to be honest. If it was well thought out you wouldn't have this position.
@Phyrexious On the flipside, the FDA has been accused of banning alternative medical treatments of cancer, which, if I can recall, focused on lymph node stimulation and didn't require any radiation therapy. This could potentially save lives and reduce the pain of kemotherapy for thousands of people, but the theory will never see the light of day because vested interests buried the program through regulation. Where power markets exist, there is potential for corruption.
And you think corporations don't have worse vested interests? Their goal is to make MONEY. That objective is much more susceptible to corruption than an organization who's only goal is to make sure the food is safe.
@Phyrexious If corporations didn't have total liability exemptions, and the executives and investors were responsible for their products, maybe they would have a vested interest to stay out of jail, instead of just making money. Crony capitalism exists BECAUSE of government involvement, as Punchey said, research the development of historical monopolies, they existed because the corporations influenced the politicians (which have a market of power) who crushed competition.
@Phyrexious We still bought lead toys which caused this whole disaster didn't we? We already knew lead was banned, we have an inspection agency, yet all this bureaucracy in your coercive system still didn't protect our children. It happens.
We have a fascist safety board called Workers Compensation, which have more power than the police, yet people still die at work, people get hurt, and yes, WCB still denies peoples compensation claims. Risk is inherent in life. I prefer freedom.
Dude lead paint in child's toys should be allowed because people want them. How can you argue that what you think is more important than what they think when you aren't even involved?
Look again, it is not an American soldier, it is a South Vietnamese soldier executing a Vietnamese Communist. But that's immaterial since neither the South Vietnamese, nor the Americans, were capitalist. They are actually a mix of socialist and fascist.
I view the United States as a form of State-Monopoly Capitalism; I suppose you can call it Fascism, or Social Democracy if you're into theatrics.
So, why show a Communist being executed @1:50? Wouldn't it make more sense to show Czarist collaborators being shot by Bolsheviks, or something like that?
Laissez Faire, huh? And what would happen if we eliminated all taxes? And removed all federal laws? And removed all government programs? Yes, 300+ million people in perfect harmony?
Why is everyone here bashing greed? What's wrong with wanting something, and being completely willing to get it? I'm with Gordon Gekko - Greed...is good.
slavery. pretty good example of free trade don't you think? or maybe you think the 13th amendment was unjust "force", "by the point of a gun", on the poor white majority who were just tying to make a buck?
slavery is also a good example of trade agreements affecting more than the parties in agreement. every agreement or "trade" has consequences affecting other people, land, animals, etc, etc.
why did you put "freedom is slavery" in quotes? i certainly didn't say that, or even convey it. you completely miss the point. slavery was a product of pure capitalism.
you say in the vid, "trade that each of us finds beneficial, trade that is the concern ONLY of those involved in the trade". but this is almost NEVER true. every trade has consequences to everything around them. directly or indirectly. it was government "intervention", that put an end to slavery. not free trade!
I put it in quotes because it's a quote from the book. You did convey it, however, by insisting that free exchange (freedom) creates slavery.
Slavery was not an invention of Capitalism. Slavery had existed since the dawn of Man. Indeed, it was the more Capitalist countries (though none of the purely so) that eradicated slavery first.
That quote is from 1984. The "Ministry of Truth" put it everywhere in Orwell's story. It sounds frighteningly like "freedom isn't free". The great part about corporate propaganda is that it's profitable. And people even create it themselves. You believe it too. At least I think you fall for that stuff. Universalizing the values of the rich and powerful. Making their interests look like they are for the good of society, when in fact, their interests are against the interests of most citizens.
Did you know that the Federal Reserve is a private company? It's not federally owned.
Business elites pay the majority of any politicians campaign funding. Normal folk are too in debt to pick candidates. The politicians are just a front. They give you the illusion of control and democracy. They're so in the pockets of big business it's not even funny. Hell, most of them had, and will have, careers in big business when they're not in office. Same country clubs, yachts, dinner parties, operas etc
well no, i didn't know the federal reserve was a private enterprise.
you know... the reserve is the bedrock culprit for libertarians concerning our current financial crisis. that the gov't forced private enterprise to become greedy rotten crooks. which ultimately brought capitalism to it's knees.
so if what your saying is true, their whole argument is based in fallacy.
yeah i've never liked, "freedom isn't free", it's a vague cliche. i like to say "freedom" is about $3 a gallon.
Government didn't force business to be greedy. In fact, we're lucky here in the US that the gov. has always been smaller than business. I think it was the other way around. Big business caused government to be corrupt most of the time. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, the founding fathers didn't encourage private greed. Jefferson warned of an "aristocracy of manufacturers" who would enjoy privileges and $ far beyond the scope of regular citizens. He believed in the farmers (yeoman) democracy
what's dangerous and funny at the same time is american private enterprise owns our government. it's getting hard to tell the two apart.
the nra, ama, insurance, wall street, oil, drugs, etc. capitalism has no rules... other than ones they impose. fill the government with business people and what do you get?
boom then bust, boom then bust, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
according to daddy war bucks, rules are socialism and that's evil to profit and compensation.
"Big business" could not have caused government to be corrupt. It could only appeal to the corrupt already in the government. This isn't to say that all big businesses are ran sensibly, but it is only when government stops doing its job (protecting individual rights by eliminating the initiatory use of force) that any business can force anyone else to do anything (that they haven't already agreed to or undertaken).
The Federal Reserve may be "Independent" of the federal government, however, every position is filled with a government appointment. For example, Ben Burnanke was appointed by the Federal Government.
this is idiotic, it's capitalism that's failing and somehow the central government is the "evil doer" for propping up the greedy fucks who brought this failed ideology to it's knees. we just keep propping it up so it will fail again and again and again.
so while capitalism is failing again, let's blame everyone and everything else. how fucking logical!
libertarians are idiots. it's deregulation that caused this mess and they-you somehow see gov't oversight as the problem?!
Deregulation did not cause our problems. Our current problems are the predictable (and indeed, libertarians DID predict it) result of our interventionist policies and the Fed's monetary policy. In other words, the Fed and the government's policies encouraged mal-investments (and in some cases, DEMANDED them). The current bailouts are just more of the same, making businesses exempt from the consequences of their bad decisions. Get the government out and the problem would have fixed itself.
Sure, big businessmen are always rational. And government is always irrational. Those are some fairly huge generalizations my friend. And they are easily disproven. Then again, the religion of "moneytheism" will blind even the best and the brightest to how abusive big business has been to the individual liberties of US citizens. How much debt do you have? What kind of interest rates do you pay on that?
It's not that businesses are always rational, it's that when they ARE irrational, they pay the natural consequences. Only government can temporarily suspend reality by shielding businesses from the consequences of their bad decisions, thereby perpetuating the irrationality. But that suspension is only temporary, and the crash will be all the worse in the end. A free market naturally disciplines the irresponsible.
i.e. If you spend more money then you have, you go broke, so you learn to economize before you do, or someone who knows better takes the place of your business. But when you government intervenes, they can prop up a firm that is making foolish decisions, thereby giving them no reason to correct their mistakes, leading to the destruction of capital, which eventually leads to economic ruin for everyone. As I said, this whole thing was predicted by free-market economists, not caused by them.
you libertarians can't see the forest for the trees. stop blaming the government for corporate melt downs. it's top heavy greed. even alan greenspan has admitted "supply and demand" is not enough to fix everything, let alone anything. corporations are too big to fail! you want them to take down the whole economy with them? because that's what will happen. they have trillions of dollars in capitalist ventures that will sink the whole damn boat. it's what the bailout is preventing!!!
Your assertions are not based on any sort of economic facts and reflect a complete lack of understanding of how economics work. I'm not your economics teacher so I won't go into it in detail, but briefly, firms that are allowed to fail will not drag the entire economy down, but instead will lead to rebirth in the economy. What allows them to drag it all down is to keep them afloat artificially.
what do you mean my "assertions"? i'm discussing direct quotes from you. you know, the video. btw, you really don't address any economic facts either, so what are you talking about? this video's like a 40's propaganda film for WWII.
What direct quotes from me? By assertions, I'm referring to your assertion that the bailout is somehow preventing the crisis from becoming worse.
The purpose of my video was not to outline any economic facts, but rather to outline the moral nature of freedom versus coercion in the sphere of economics.
500 characters is far too few to impart an economic education. For that, google Lew Rockwell and Ludvig von Mises.
i agree, 500 isn't enough. especially when you have to repeat things. i'll say it a 3rd time, the fundamental "assertion" by you, that "free trade" doesn't affect anyone but the people involved in the trade, is pure capitalist bunk. every act by anyone makes an impact on someone else's life. cutting a tree, dumping oil in a sewer, buying a credit card, etc. that's what capitalists just don't get. you can't have unabated capitalism with 6 billion people, it's impractical and insane.
If some jerk off wants to sell me something that's poisonous and I don't know it's poisonous, I'm not going to wait for the "free-market" to punish that company. In fact, I want to be protected. I want clean streams and air. I want good products that aren't falsely advertised.
I don't have time to research every damn product I buy. Nor does anyone else really. Do you know what Consumer Capitalism is? Can you explain how the US went from the largest CREDITOR nation to the largest DEBTOR NATION?
You don't have to research yourself, that's where consumer advocacy firms come in. For example, "Good Housekeeping" used to serve this purpose before FDR decided we needed federal agencies to do it for us through threat of violence instead of through persuasion.
The US went from creditor to debtor largely because of the Fed's monetary policy. I encourage you to do some reading over at mises (dot) org and lewrockwell (dot) com (an anarchist site, no less) to get the details of how this works.
"Natural consequences". Sounds like positivism to me. Wouldn't you say that politicians would pay "natural consequences" if they were to be crooked? I mean, people wouldn't re-elect them. They're accountable at the ballot box, while business is accountable in the marketplace. That's why we need an honest media to expose them when they do get corrupt (business and politicians). It's too bad that business elites own all the media and they bought out our politicians long ago. They're all pals.
Yeah right, this is the BS propaganda that's been around since the 1950s. Most reasonably intelligent people realized that it was bullshit. All LIES. Capitalism demands obedience to those with capital.
That 1950s propaganda crap is resurfacing again. Just so my local factory can be deregulated to pollute my drinking supply. Or the coal burning plant can dump more soot in the air.
All in the name of the almighty buck. It's like God to these people. Jesus was a capitalist? No he was Socialist.
yep, they bring back ayn rand like some libertarian prophet. she had a couple interesting views, but just like libertarian ideology, it's radically impractical for a democratic government.
meanwhile exxon-mobile made more money than any company ever in the entire existence of man. their products pollute the land, air, and water, and on top of that they're spending millions to block, delay, and confuse all attempts to save the planet. they'll sacrifice everything to stay rich.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How about something old? Like pre-capitalism? Instead of the "you can have any color you like as long as it is red or black" message we have here. This is BS propaganda.
Great video, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Also, my compliments on your insightful comments, Punchey. It seems the greatest obstacle for the success of capitalism, is the fact that so many people mistake it for corporatism.
Thanks, you're exactly right. Everyone has been conditioned to associate Capitalism with whatever the US practices - but the US is a solidly corporatist/fascist system.
Awesome video. I remember seeing a series on capitalism, is that still around? ...also seen a clip acting out the bar scene in Atlas Shrugged, where did that go?
I know that if nobody worked we would all starve, you don't have to repeat that point. I'm saying people are not free "to produce as much or as little as [they] like," in this system. Say I am a factory worker that produces yachts that gets sustenance wage.
In that sense, you are also not able to produce as little as you like on a desert island - you must produce enough to survive. That is reality, which you want to suspend. That is irrational.
Did you design the yacht? Do you make the entire yacht yourself without any help at all? Do you market the yachts too? Distribute them? Sell them? Maintain them? Etc? You get paid according to the value you contribute to the process. Which is why highly-skilled laborers make much more than unskilled.
Ok, again, I know we have to produce enough to survive, what I'm saying is, take the deserted island example. Say the man has a friend who is deserted with him. Let's say this friend realizes that his grandfather actually owned the island and because of inheritance, he owns the land, it is his property. Because of this capitalism, the original man is forced to produce enough for both of their survivals and produce luxuries for his friend to pay rent. Like "The Take" (documentary on Google vid).
Assuming the man is free to go elsewhere (as people are in normal society), then there is competition for labor, and the owner cannot simply dictate arbitrary terms to the other man.
I am not free to produce as little or as much as I want, because if I do not work away my life laboring far more than the amount of labor needed for my sustenance, than I do not get my sustenance wage and I therefore die. That's the use of the threat of starvation I'm talking about.
And saying that a person is a slave because of a lack of private property is meaningless (just labeling a belief with an emotionally charged word) and hypocritical.
It's hypocritical because, as in the previous example, one does not receive the fruit of their labor under lassez-faire capitalism. If I work for a business that survives by making the most profit, than the market value of the fruit of my labor is far more than the amount I receive. So if I'm a common laborer, I don't get the fruit of my labor, and my master gets it.
That is false. First, a laborer in a factory is not the sole source of value that is put into the final product. Part of the value also results from the means of production, the mental work which designed it, the distribution of the product, and the coordination of all of these together to deliver it. The labor I may put into it is only one part of its total value, so I am therefore only entitled to that part which I contributed.
The value of the labor has nothing to do with pay. The owner of the company that survives will always pay the common laborer the lowest possible wage in the worst possible conditions that are economically viable and legal. That is the reality of making a profit.
That is false. "Common laborers" make very little because they are so common. Water is really cheap too. Why? Because it is so readily available - just like unskilled labor. High supply relative to demand results in a low price. But highly-skilled laborers make far more. Why? Because they are more scarce, and they offer greater value.
Low-skilled labor need unions to have bargaining power, while the highly-skilled do not, because employers want to keep them. It's all about scarcity and value.
Also, I never mentioned appropriating the property to a third party, I said sharing, which means I, keyword: I, and everybody, gets the material, not appropriated to some vague third party.
And the reason I support a lack of private property, to be replaced with sharing, actually has little do with equality. Sharing is, by definition, the least coercive arrangement. Sharing helps give each individual the maximum control over their existence by giving them the maximum ability to interact with their surroundings.
Sharing is fine and dandy if that's what you want to do. But "sharing" does not involve force. If you do not recognize another man's right to enjoy what he has labored to produce, and you take it from him, that is not sharing, that is theft and coercion. If he wants to share it, it is up to him to decide -- not you. To say otherwise is to say you have a right to a share of his labor. Once again, that is a form of slavery. And no, it's not just an emotionally charged term, it is by definition.
Yes, precisely. The "gun" here is not an analogy, it is quite literal. If you do not pay taxes, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest on the grounds you have a right to your liberty, you will be beaten or possibly killed. So in the end, it is the same. It is only a difference of degree.
By the way. This was a really good video when talking about the Fed, FIAT, value....but when you started spouting Randisms. I started to puke.
You don't want to pay taxes. Move to a deserted island. Or you can wait until WWIII and become Madd Maxx! Then you can carry you own gun and fight for your freedom on the open road.
Of course, this boils down into us having different points of view(axioms). The only thing I believe is that each individual have maximum control over their existence. You believe that each person should be allowed to force everyone to not interact with certain material because of past actions (like the hard work involved in inheriting millions) plus whatever social/political beliefs you have.
Isn't property just forcing everyone (at the point of a gun if need be) to not interact as they please (collectively sharing) with resources because of the whims of the owner? And isn't capitalism (particularly lassez-faire) just using this construct of private property to justify forcing the masses to labor endlessly or starve in the streets? Now I understand why you might support capitalism if you inherently think people should be forced to work, but why must this rule be so?
I'm glad you asked these questions. To answer all of them in a word - reality.
What I mean is property is the material shape taken by the fruits of your labor. Without the ability to own the fruits of your labor, you are a slave. As to why people should be "forced" to work, this is a consequence of reality - not of any capitalist dictate. A man on a desert island is forced, by reality, to work if he is to survive. The only way to survive without work of any kind is to enslave your fellow man.
Well of course people need to work in order to survive. What I'm saying is capitalism forces, under the threat of starvation, people to work to produce far more than they may want to produce, and not only that, much of the fruit of that labor goes towards an elite. And the "without private property you are a slave" is very dogmatic. Without private property, I am free to interact with all material along with others (sharing). With private property I have to work away my life to live.
...you do not have a moral right to demand that others be forced to make up for the balance of the labor you choose not to perform.
My views on private property are not dogmatic at all, they are based in reality. If the fruits of your labor, i.e. your property, can be appropriated by a third party without your consent, you are a slave by definition.
"or the humanitarian value of Socialism or **any of its many shades."You need to wake up. Socialism in its most technical definition is something that almost *everyone in America has lived in.Socialism in the most technical sense is much like a family.Did it kill you to share with your mom,or your sister, or your dad???Of course not!The Socialist systems of today have become corrupt (just as capitalism has) and are so far from the actual definition of the term.
esca8652 2 weeks ago
@esca8652
Correction: Families are an example of communism. Socialism is where the State owns (or controls) the means of production.
Punchey 2 weeks ago
Capitalism and slavery fit hand in glove. Violence and whips are not antithetical to capitalism. Neither is man-made famine. Capitalism is capitalizing off of someone else's sweat, strain, sacrifice, loss. The system of empire we live under is systemized thievery. It can only be maintained by brutality.
Cyallaire 1 month ago
Capitalism is the underlying force that drives the neurosis of modern society.
bradleyt1 4 months ago
Ian Rand Enough Said :-( more repulican propaganda! rich get richer poor stay and get poorer! stop big oil tax subsidies and loopholes for corporations. we the PEOPLE not we with the most money!
TheClosestranger00 6 months ago
Why does this feel like another Zeitgeist movie trailer...?????
Kori114 8 months ago
@Kori114 LOL It's the opposite, the ZM want to abolish money!
zentonil 5 months ago
Because other companies cannot compete with gov't-backed businesses these business can increase prices because the consumer has no other choice but to buy their product. Democracy is mob rule. We have a Constitution to limit the power of the majority so it cannot harm the Republic. We see many problems now because we are ignoring the Constitution and substituting pure Democracy, which will lead to socialism as described by Marx.
friedoctorock 8 months ago
A pure free market is the only viable solution for society. We would most likely not see lead paint because you forget that businesses serve the consumer. If the consumer does not approve of the product, the consumer does not buy it and the business fails. When gov't makes special rules it creates a system where businesses can operate not serving the consumer, such as the creation of monopolies and limiting competition through regulation and tariffs. Because other companies cannot compete w
friedoctorock 8 months ago
if it is impossible in a capitalistic society to gain wealth then how did Gates and Jobs get rich and donate to charity. In a free society where people have their God given rights not taken away by a dictorial government where bread is expensive enough to take a day's wage like in soviet russia. in america people are living in better conditions and are living longer with better medical treatment than most other countries.
thaDaniroy 9 months ago
@thaDaniroy "are living in better conditions and are living longer with better medical treatment than most other countries." It depends on which countries you are referring to. At the rate of things in this country, life-expectancy in America will continue to go down. Countries like Japan, Denmark, Finland, and several other European countries all have higher life-expectancy than the US.
esca8652 2 weeks ago
Uggh, the glorifying and dogma of the use of money by associating it with tradition and work. Step outside the box...progress awaits us.
blaziermissy 11 months ago
Fools. Fools. Fools. There was extreme poverty and slavery before capitalism. Some philosopher waltzes along and you believe government wants to solve your problems? Government has a history of wanting power over as many peasants as possible.
If you people actually read history books, you'd know that land ownership is a solution to serfdom. You have a few gripes about greed, and then wish to return to the middle ages. The public schools failed at teaching you history.
riverlioness 1 year ago 2
Well the way i see it the value of money is only if it brings benefit to all men, it is clear this does not happen it has always been a tool, a weapon used by those who have it and control it, against those who do not.
One day those who run the money system will find out that they finally pushed those who do not to far and then get ready for real change. One day it will come about.
cultofmao 1 year ago
@cultofmao anyone in a capitalist society can succeed if they try but the only ones who wins in a communist system is the leaders.
thaDaniroy 11 months ago
@thaDaniroy Not at all true, in a Capitalist system it is unusual for those at the bottom to reach the top whereas those at the top pass their wealth on forever, proof of that is the Aristocrat families of Europe, In a Communist country a poor man can reach the top, mao Zedong proved that Ho Chi Minh, Stalin all from humble backgrounds. Do you really expect the leader of any country to not live a different life than of the common man, China is a far more equal country than most western ones.
cultofmao 9 months ago
Lol @ Ayn rand
yakooza 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To become wealthy take a very high degree of risk, be it money-wise or a huge sacrifice in a sort of way. Why would you want to live in a world were hard work is not rewarded. Not every rich person inherits their wealth most are 1st gen. Be the master of your own destiny and do something with your life instead of looking at others end result. Wealth and leadership is not for everybody.
triangle1990 1 year ago
Ah yes, unregulated capitalism or communism. Those are the only two options.
Capitalism with a few regulations to control the greed doesn't fit in your black & white view of the world I guess.
No middle road, no nothing. Either One's or Zero's. Screw the decimal point right?
Only thinking in extremes is a telltale sign of the simple minded.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
I never said anything about Communism. But there are only two options: to use force, or not to use force. Laissez-faire requires that force never be initiated. Every other system requires force to one degree or another. The only real differences between them are when, who, and how much.
Punchey 2 years ago
Like I said, you think in extremes which is simple minded. Force or no force. Yeah, no regulation *at all* or a gun to your head. Those are the only 2 options you can think off? Seriously?
Capitalism is a good system because it works on the greed we humans inherently have. However unlimited greed can become very harmful. Too much is never good. Too much regulation is bad, just like too much unregulation is as well.
The answer often lies in the middle, not in your extremely simplefied view.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
Force or no force is not two extremes. It is simply the two alternatives that exist. There is no "middle ground" between force and no force. You either force people to do things against their will or your don't. The "middle ground" you speak of is merely using "a little" force. But it is still using force.
Punchey 2 years ago
Yes and that is NOT how you depicted the situation in your video.
Your video is shows the extreme side of force and uses *that* as an argument for capitalism.
This is a weak argument because you know you are using fear tactics. Good debaters don't need such cheap shots to persuade their audience.
Also, you replace regulation with the more negative word: force. Clearly done to appeal to fear as well.
Regulation is a democratic process! This process is nothing like the force you depict.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
You're missing the point. Force is force. "Regulation" is just a word meaning somebody tells you that you have to do X or else. Even in the most mild example, that means if you fail to do X, you're fined, and if you assert your right not to do X by refusing to pay the fine, you are arrested, and if you further assert your rights by resisting, violence will be used. It all ultimately rests upon the threat of violence.
(cont'd)
Punchey 2 years ago
Now most of the time, people are too intimidated by such a threat to ever shirk the regulation, or if they do and are caught, they'll pay the fine, or if they fail to pay the fine, they submit to arrest. This does not change the principle of the threatening act. In similar manner, if most people in a mafia-controlled city comply and pay their "protection money" and therefore never get their legs broken, it doesn't change the moral status of the threat which underlies the racket.
Punchey 2 years ago
Ah the slipper-slope falacy.
Punchey, ANY extreme has the potential to cause harm, both over-regulated and unregulated measures.
Mafia? Protection money? Violence?
Your last two replies prove my point that you think only in black and white. All you do is depict a situation gone totally out of control in order to try and win your argument. One of the weakest forms of debate.
Regulation happens everywhere, it's PART of a democracy --> **You do what the MAJORITY wants/votes for**.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
This is not about slippery slopes. It's about moral principles. If the difference is only one of degree, then the principle still applies, even in the case where the degree is low.
And, BTW, majority-rule is not the be-all, end-all of political ethics. A lynch mob is an example of democracy in action, so obviously the will of the majority is not, in itself, a justification for any given political action. What matters is the moral status of an action.
Punchey 2 years ago
And who will judge that moral status? You? A democracy isn't the most effecient system but it's the most reliable system available.
Example: a good dictator can potentially be many times more effecient than a senate. But we don't use that system because you risk having a bad dictator, with catastrophic results.
The same applies to capitalism. In its purest form, it's great but there is a real threat that greed ruins it for the majority. That's why we have and need certain regulations.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
Let me ask you a simple question: Are there any regulation on capitalism that you agree with?
Please name some examples on which ones you *do* aprove of and which ones you *don't*.
Thank you.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
The moral status is quite easy for anyone to ascertain - threatening others with violence who have not first threatened you is immoral.
Absent force or fraud (which SHOULD be punished), "greed" has no power to harm anyone.
I do not agree with ANY regulations, as they are an example of prior restraint, which violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. Rather than government having to demonstrate guilt, the regulated entity must demonstrate its innocence with regard to regulations.
Punchey 2 years ago
"greed has no power to harm anyone" ? Oh really?
- How about illegal price agreements between companies? (This alone destroys your argument single handedly)
- How about monopoly prevention?
- How about the illegal firing of a pregnant woman when she tells her boss she's pregnant?
- How about led paint in child toys?
You've talked about 'morals' before yet you're against many basic regulations that ensure a healthy moral standard. Unregulated Capitalism = Money > people/ethics/morals.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
It's funny how you're in favor of no regulations while it's a fact that the free market doesn't work with monopolies and secret price agreements.
The problem with capitalism is also that MANY of the costs are not factored into the price of products. Environmental damage, ethical/moral issues for example. Yeah you can choose not to buy led paint toys when you find out but without regulations chances are high you'll find out too late and your kid is hurt for life.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
On top of that, in order for capitalism to work it needs *transparency*. Guess what, there more regulations to ensure this as well and with good reason as big companies become more and more obscure.
Look, the bottom line is this:
Capitalism works great in a Utopia, where everyone has all the information and acts logical. Unfortunately... by definition, a Utopia doesn't exist.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
Have you read Utopia? Utopia was a socialist paradise - not a Capitalist one. Utopia is a place where society intervenes, via government, in the lives of every person so as to create a "perfect" society, free of every ill. THAT is Utopia, and I submit that this is precisely what people of your ilk are trying to do with your various interventions via government in the form of regulations, etc. I do not propose a perfect world, only a just one.
Punchey 2 years ago
The only true monopolies that have ever existed were made monopolies by government. There are sound economic reasons why monopolies would never arise in a free market. I have neither time, space, nor patience to delve into this deeply, but I suggest you read some economic material, such as Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".
Punchey 2 years ago
Utopia is a normal english word. Look it up. The book is totally irrelevant and thus your point about it is moot.
"I have neither time, space, nor patience to delve into this deeply"
Ah yes, just when I list important existing regulations --- some of them even an essesial part for capitalism to work --- you ignore them and give up.
Whether you want to admit it or not, there are and always will be some basic regulations that are needed to keep capitalism under control.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
This ammount of regulations however may vary and is subject to discussion.
But one thing is for sure: the moment you claim -none- are needed you're thinking only in extremes which is extremely simple minded.
There is always a middle ground. But hey, stick with your ideology. I bet it's much easier to just say no to everything and never having to think about a beneficial exception at all anymore. Afterall, thinking takes so much energy.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
Regarding Utopia, the word entered the English language by its coinage in a book by Sir Thomas Moore. My point is that it is ironic to me that the folly Moore intended to point out with his fictional island of Utopia more closely mirrors your own view than my own. And my point stands that you are the one attempting to do away with all ills through intervention.
As for "giving up", you have reached an issue that requires a discussion that cannot properly take place in the space of 500 characters
Punchey 2 years ago
I'm sorry but if you need more than 500 characters to argue why lead paint in child toys should be allowed then your argument isn't that strong to begin with.
Anyway, good talking to you.
In a world of so many variables and uncertainties, against all statistical odds, I'm glad you think you've actually found a perfect *yet* extremely simple system where no further improvements are possible.
Ah.. Perfection. Utopia. You've found it! It's almost like it's too easy and too good to be true..
Phyrexious 2 years ago
I never said it was perfect, only that it is just.
As for lead paint in toys, it is not I who am being simple minded for you are the one who is unable to conceive of any way that such problems might be solved without adding a gun to the equation. I have spent over half of my life studying and thinking through these issues. You might want to try at least reading a few books written by laissez-faire philosophers and economists before being so smugly dismissive.
Punchey 2 years ago
Smugly dismissive? How about your assertion that I haven't read anything about the subject? You spend half a year "studying" this subject and this discussion I've had with you represents your best arguments? Wow, talk about time wasted.
You also appearantly don't get the irony in my last statement. Because you *do* claim you've found perfection: The perfect example of a "just" economic system. And when asked for arguments you suddenly don't have the time. What a joke.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
You see, this isn't even about capitalism itself anymore. It's about how you claim to have found an absolute truth. Something that can not be improved any further anymore, by anyone, anywhere.
You don't care for arguments anymore. Cost-benefit analyses means nothing to you. You have formulated an opinion and will stubbornly stick by it no matter what.
This not only makes you simple minded, it makes you -close- minded.
Phyrexious 2 years ago
I have been presenting arguments. What I decline to do is get into the details of macro and micro economics and Austrian theory to explain, in detail, why you are wrong - all in a forum that limits responses to 500 characters. I have already referred you to an excellent source that can explain these things much more efficiently.
I have already indulged you enough, so with that, I'll let you have the last word.
BTW, I said half my life, not half a year.
Punchey 2 years ago
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
- Oscar Wilde
Phyrexious 2 years ago
@Phyrexious I know I am VERY late jumping in on this argument, but I thought I would throw in my two cents because I believe your argument is deeply flawed.
In terms of dealing with the lead paint dilemma in a free market society, you failed to realize that by poisoning people with this product, the company is completely liable for harming an individual.
In terms of a pregnant woman being fired, yes a private company should have freedom of association and therefore has the right to fire her...
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil Should it not be the values and culture of the community to protect and defend this woman? Does she have no friends and family to help support her while she transitions, and would it not harm the businesses reputation for such an action?
"Moral status" is judged by the Law of the Land, Republics are guided by Constitutions which ought to protect our Negative Freedoms (ie freedom of movement, of action, of association), the freedoms we are born with naturally. This is the Silver Rule.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Excuse me, how does a company that is reliable make any difference for the possibly thousands of kids that now have lead poisoning? The company will go bankrupt, kids die or have a misserable life, and THAT's your sollution? The government primary role is to protect people, including from immoral corporations.
And nothing is stopping smaller (local) companies from starting all over again under a new name, doing the same poisoning again.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious You've confused the two scenarios I gave you. No laissez fare capitalist would disagree that the function of government should be to protect our Individual RIghts. These include our LIFE, fruits of our labour, and our property. Therefore, in terms of a company poisoning people with lead, they would be held accountable for knowingly using a harmful substance.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
You're talking about AFTER the damage has already been done. I'm talking about *prevention*. Your idea allows for much harm to be done, especially by new starting companies (that will cut corners to compete with the big corporations) and they have no important image they can lose.
If we KNOW something is harmful, like lead paint on child toys, then the most logical sollution is to prevent companies from using it *before* it causes any harm.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious There's no reason that consumer advocacy groups couldn't exist in a free market society, but it would function in a different manner.
One possibility is to create a strong brand for an inspection agency. They could market themselves to companies as a means to bolster consumer confidence, which would appeal greatly to start-up companies. Paired with media support, a headline of RANDOM BRAND REFUSES SAFETY INSPECTION would be a powerful motivation.
That is only one option...
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Why so much trouble for a system that is much more prone to corruption ("pay us or you won't get to use our label"). And it STILL doesn't adress the issue that new companies/products can be unhealthy and make people sick or even kill them.
Basically you come up with a worse system, to do the same, all because you have a laissez faire fetisch. It's the same with Republicans, no matter how good the idea, they're always against more government influence. It's a simplistic position.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious haha why so much trouble? This was an example I created off the top of my head as a means to show you that potentials exist to protect consumers in a free market society. I apologize if I haven't worked out all the checks and balances to make it an effective system.
The reason I would go through so much trouble is because it is a method to avoid COERCION. If you don't think "pay us or you won't get to [sell your product]" doesn't exist in our current system, you are in denial.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
I'm not really interested in hypothetical’s that are worse even on paper. Of course it can be done in a free market, I can also put hot chili sauce up my buttocks, but just because I can doesn't necessarily make it a good idea now does it?
You can also make police security a free market thing. Mafia days, protection money or you're dead. Yes it works... just WORSE
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious The fact of the matter is the system that you prefer self-evidently relies on the COERCION of individuals to exist. It cannot function without a MONOPOLY of force. Your example of free market security is actually amusing, because where I live I fear police brutality more than I have ever feared a Hells Angel. If the police brutalize you, there is no recourse, you can file a complaint, which are usually dismissed, so you are SOL.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Living in a society always brings along rules that are favored and/or required to live together. Yes, the government also coheres you into not-Murdering anyone. They have a monopoly on that too. Big deal? You're making a problem purely because you have a laissez faire fetish. Somehow it's rooted so deep in your brain that you must apply it to every principle even when the outcome isn't necessarily better.
Sometimes reality > ideology.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious The government "coheres" (coerces?) me into not-murdering anyone? Are you suggesting that if the average person wasn't worried about jail we would all be killing people at whim? That's completely insane, what is your opinion of human nature??
I'm making a problem because I want to live free. I want freedom. I want to choose how I live and under what conditions. I can't even opt out and choose my "laisse faire fetish" yet under laisse faire you can consent to the coersion you love!!
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
My non-murder example was to illustrate that you are never 100% free to do whatever you want. There is no total freedom because you are living in a SOCIETY that has countless other people in it as well, each with their own set of idea's. Living in large groups requires certain group rules. Anarchy doesn't work too well. Your idea of freedom is an illusion.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious I'm sorry but I can't continue this conversation right now. You are utterly irrational and delusional about what you actually believe. If you could do me just ONE favour, please re-read your argument with Punchey, and what you have said to me here. Sit on it and think about it. Please. Give it some time to settle.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
This conversation was already over a year ago. I don't see why you thought you had some new insights when all you do is repeat the same laissez faire fetish bullshit.
Your quest for total freedom is an illusion as long as you live in a society where people have needs/idea's that are different than your own. Luckily your idea's belong to the minority.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious "Your quest for total freedom is an illusion as long as you live in a society where people have needs/idea's that are different than your own."
That is the most ironic statement you could have possibly made.
I didn't repeat anything, I THOUGHT that *maybe* you would be willing to understand the perspective of an ideology you clearly don't understand. I tried to elaborate and answer your arguments that he was unwilling to give you the day of day for.
Now I understand why he didnt.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
You seem to equate me rejecting your flawed ideology with me not understanding it. Perhaps this is why you're so stuck on this bullshit idea of yours.
Lets try the pragmatic approach; name me a couple civilized countries that actually have your laissez faire nonsense.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious Hotsauce in your buttocks would be terrible, but working out systems to live in a free society where you can live as you please without having ideologies forced on you looks alot better on paper to me than relying on a Nanny State to make tough decisions for me, where critical thinking is dulled because we accept the wisdom of bureaucrats.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Nice rhetoric. Nanny state? You mean whatever the Democratic majority wants.
And wisdom of bureaucrats? If you mean scientists and experts on the subject then yes, I trust those who study a subject their whole lives more than my limited knowledge regarding certain subjects. Perhaps you think you're an expert in every field, but that's called self-delusion.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious So if the democratic majority wanted to burn books I should accept that? If the majority wanted to teach the earth was flat I must comply?
I never suggested I was an expert in ANY field, what I have been saying is that I would rather trust the experts that I CHOOSE than what is given to me. Nanny State is a welfare state that thinks it knows best.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Regarding your first two over-the-top examples: Yes, in a democracy you can't always have it your way. If a MAJORITY agrees on X then you either comply with X or you immigrate to another country. Of course your examples are silly. Raising taxes would be a better, more realistic example.
A democratic state behaves in what the majority thinks is best. When that's not you, what do you expect? Get your way despite what the majority want?
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious haha it's not about getting my way, it's about protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. America is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. My examples are silly why?? These actions existed because of mob mentalities. What if the majority decided only Christians or Islamics were fully human and took away the rights of heretics? Is democracy really a better system then?
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
I never said a democracy always produces the best rules as a whole, but it does produce the things the majority wants, as opposed to a minority. I'm sure we can agree on that a minority shouldn't have more influence than a majority...?
Individual rights are great and all, but often they conflict with other rights. Like how you do NOT have the freedom to steal from someone else because it conflicts with their rights.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
2/2
Same with environmental issues. You do not have the freedom to dump thousands of gallons of toxic waste on your piece of property because it will contaminate the surroundings. You don't live in a bubble, we all have to deal with eachother and sometimes that means you can't do shit that a majority doesn't want.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious Both the examples you just gave are protected in a free market society. The entire argument that Punchey and I have made is that the governments SOLE RESPONSIBILITY is to protect our life, liberty, the fruits of our labour, and property. It protects from theft, slavery, fraud.
What if the majority decided my city was a shithole so they were going to make it a garbage dump, your entire Majority argument is DEEPLY FLAWED.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Government to protect lives. YES, and how does that not include preventing toxins from entering our food? A sick person can't work, can't contribute to society and a dead person doesn't have any life/liberty/labour and property at all. Seems to me you don't understand your own argument.
Btw, I'm done explaining to you how a democracy works. You live in a society where there are group rules. If you don't like them vote differently, if the majority doesn't agree with you: TOO BAD!
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious *time of day
By even suggesting I am an Anarchist shows how fucking pompous and irrevocably deluded you are.
I don't say this much because it doesn't add to a conversation, but it does feel good...
Go Fuck Yourself, Clown.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Maybe the reason why I love a democracy so much is that it prevents people like you from inserting their retarded ideologies. And with idea's as batshit crazy as yours I luckily don't have to worry about you ever becoming part of the majority.
Sweet dreams about your lead-paint toy utopia.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious You are completely lost. No individual has more influence than any other in a free society, but no number, regardless of their size, has more power than the Constitution which protects those individuals.
Stealing is not a right, it is inherently harmful. The irony of this statement is that coercive, democratic taxation is THEFT. It is not consentual. IT CONFLICTS WITH MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Wow, are you one of those Anarchists? Amazing.
Find someone else to argue with you on whether taxes are needed...
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@zentonil Don't dress me up. It is not a "laissez faire fetish." It is a freedom fetish. I want to live free. I want to exist in a world where respect is our highest value, and so long as we respect eachother we can live in peace.
Earlier you accused Punchey of a binary mentality, only seeing two extremes, yet a year later all you see is a world controlled by governments or by corporations. You have succumbed to the prejudices of your worldview. You fear freedom because you fear human nature.
zentonil 10 months ago
Haha I fear freedom? Oh please don't resort to those kinds of sentences.. It makes you sound like Bush.
I don't fear human nature, I understand it. Greed drives capitalism, and it's an OK motor. The only thing needed are some ground rules to guide that greed into something productive instead of something potentially destructive.
Like how America choose to use the healthcare system The Netherlands also uses: a few guidelines to create a healthy free market foundation.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious Another possibility is that a strong COMMUNITY may desire more of a local market instead of embracing globalization, there are strong trends of regionalism today. The consequence would be a more personal relationship between consumers and business, this would increase accountability and decrease the desirability to harm people. I would prefer to find options in a free society, instead of accepting your logic that we must FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
The only difference is that you are forcing people to comply to corporations that take over the food inspection business (if you had your way). Without any food rules, it's extremely risky to buy random stuff, thus hurting new starter companies and giving too much power to big corporations.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious If I had my way? How would I be forcing people to do anything with my example? If people don't trust corporate products, they are free to buy local, or through companies they trust. Risk is a fact of life, no consumer protection law even existed before 1872, do you think people found ways to protect themselves before the government got involved?
Also, I don't think corporate rights would exist in a real free market society, giving corporations the rights of an individual is wrong.
zentonil 10 months ago
How? Because without food regulations people will NEED some sort of food inspection agency/corporation. You're just shifting the burden from a centralized democratic institution to a amoral corporation who's sole goal is money. Luckily most people agree this is a horrible idea.
Besides, there are already many company "health" labels out there. And if you really want to be allowed to use some harmful chemical in your products then you can always lobby it through the democratic process.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious How what? I already stated that corporations shouldn't have unlimited liability, if that was the case they would have more at stake than money. And you made a good point, companies lobby through our coercive "democracy" and do actually use harmful chemicals, but because we trust our government (!!) people don't have a strong faculty to critically think about what they're buying and who they're trusting.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
I'm glad you agree. Yes, corporations also misuse lobby powers to do bad things. I don't however see how this strengthens your argument to let them run the whole show by themselves.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious Corporations wouldn't run the whole show by themselves. You are obsessed with this whole CORPORATE DOMINATION idea without even giving a thought to the idea that free individuals might be able to make their own decisions which protect themselves. It seems totally incomprehensible to you that a free society might organize itself in such a way to reduce the possibility of fraudulent trade, all you see is giant name brands ramming poison down peoples throats, while eating their wallets.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
Perhaps stick with what you know about yourself and don't make a caricature of someone else. I don't think it's incomprehensible, I just understand that it's not a better system. You want to achieve the same goals but you favor your pet ideology at the cost of a higher potential for corruption.
I agree with a democratic system. If you want to change something you either run yourself or vote for someone with similar ideas.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious I think a better example might be a supermarket that refuses to stock your product unless you accept a safety inspection, this would be more desirable to consumers and people would prefer to shop with that confidence in mind. If the store is corrupted as you assume would happen, and people get sick from a product, than people would be liable, go to jail, and no one would trust that store anymore.
Yes if that happened people wern't prevented from being sick, but...
zentonil 10 months ago
Liable and go to jail huh? So the laws will be against lead-paint on child toys but no government inspections, only by corporations...
It's funny how you rant on this freedom so much yet you apparently still want there to be rules against it so people can be "liable and go to jail". That's like banning murder but having no police to prevent it. Seems like a big hole in your utopian ideology, which doesn't surprise me to be honest. If it was well thought out you wouldn't have this position.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious On the flipside, the FDA has been accused of banning alternative medical treatments of cancer, which, if I can recall, focused on lymph node stimulation and didn't require any radiation therapy. This could potentially save lives and reduce the pain of kemotherapy for thousands of people, but the theory will never see the light of day because vested interests buried the program through regulation. Where power markets exist, there is potential for corruption.
zentonil 10 months ago
@zentonil
And you think corporations don't have worse vested interests? Their goal is to make MONEY. That objective is much more susceptible to corruption than an organization who's only goal is to make sure the food is safe.
Phyrexious 10 months ago
@Phyrexious If corporations didn't have total liability exemptions, and the executives and investors were responsible for their products, maybe they would have a vested interest to stay out of jail, instead of just making money. Crony capitalism exists BECAUSE of government involvement, as Punchey said, research the development of historical monopolies, they existed because the corporations influenced the politicians (which have a market of power) who crushed competition.
zentonil 10 months ago
@Phyrexious We still bought lead toys which caused this whole disaster didn't we? We already knew lead was banned, we have an inspection agency, yet all this bureaucracy in your coercive system still didn't protect our children. It happens.
We have a fascist safety board called Workers Compensation, which have more power than the police, yet people still die at work, people get hurt, and yes, WCB still denies peoples compensation claims. Risk is inherent in life. I prefer freedom.
zentonil 10 months ago
Dude lead paint in child's toys should be allowed because people want them. How can you argue that what you think is more important than what they think when you aren't even involved?
lfonzvermeulen 1 year ago
"...With the argument of the gun." 1:50
It is utterly tasteless to show an American soldier executing a Vietnamese Communist while inferring that Socialism is pointing the gun.
timberwulfzero 2 years ago
@timberwulfzero
Look again, it is not an American soldier, it is a South Vietnamese soldier executing a Vietnamese Communist. But that's immaterial since neither the South Vietnamese, nor the Americans, were capitalist. They are actually a mix of socialist and fascist.
Punchey 2 years ago
I view the United States as a form of State-Monopoly Capitalism; I suppose you can call it Fascism, or Social Democracy if you're into theatrics.
So, why show a Communist being executed @1:50? Wouldn't it make more sense to show Czarist collaborators being shot by Bolsheviks, or something like that?
timberwulfzero 2 years ago
Your "gun" analogy is crap.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
@Punchey;
I mis-typed, however, the sentiment of my statement is unaffected.
Neither the United States of America nor South Vietnam were Capitalist? How is this not historical revisionism?
timberwulfzero 2 years ago
Tell me, what is Laissez Faire?
adsgjndfgj 2 years ago
It is French and can be translated in English as, "leave it alone", or "let it be".
Punchey 2 years ago
Laissez Faire, huh? And what would happen if we eliminated all taxes? And removed all federal laws? And removed all government programs? Yes, 300+ million people in perfect harmony?
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Why is everyone here bashing greed? What's wrong with wanting something, and being completely willing to get it? I'm with Gordon Gekko - Greed...is good.
Egoist1957 2 years ago 2
@Egro,
That's not greed. That self-suficientcy. Greed is excessive desire for money or possessions without regard to others and even at the expense of them.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Wonderful Video. Truly inspiring. Laissez Faire has not yet died in the hearts and minds of everyone.
Identityis 2 years ago 2
i see you have a pic of a slave in bondage.
slavery. pretty good example of free trade don't you think? or maybe you think the 13th amendment was unjust "force", "by the point of a gun", on the poor white majority who were just tying to make a buck?
slavery is also a good example of trade agreements affecting more than the parties in agreement. every agreement or "trade" has consequences affecting other people, land, animals, etc, etc.
capitalism is shit without democracy.
tomitstube 2 years ago
Listen to yourself. You sound like a page from 1984. "Freedom is slavery," and all.
Punchey 2 years ago
why did you put "freedom is slavery" in quotes? i certainly didn't say that, or even convey it. you completely miss the point. slavery was a product of pure capitalism.
you say in the vid, "trade that each of us finds beneficial, trade that is the concern ONLY of those involved in the trade". but this is almost NEVER true. every trade has consequences to everything around them. directly or indirectly. it was government "intervention", that put an end to slavery. not free trade!
tomitstube 2 years ago
I put it in quotes because it's a quote from the book. You did convey it, however, by insisting that free exchange (freedom) creates slavery.
Slavery was not an invention of Capitalism. Slavery had existed since the dawn of Man. Indeed, it was the more Capitalist countries (though none of the purely so) that eradicated slavery first.
Punchey 2 years ago
That quote is from 1984. The "Ministry of Truth" put it everywhere in Orwell's story. It sounds frighteningly like "freedom isn't free". The great part about corporate propaganda is that it's profitable. And people even create it themselves. You believe it too. At least I think you fall for that stuff. Universalizing the values of the rich and powerful. Making their interests look like they are for the good of society, when in fact, their interests are against the interests of most citizens.
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
Did you know that the Federal Reserve is a private company? It's not federally owned.
Business elites pay the majority of any politicians campaign funding. Normal folk are too in debt to pick candidates. The politicians are just a front. They give you the illusion of control and democracy. They're so in the pockets of big business it's not even funny. Hell, most of them had, and will have, careers in big business when they're not in office. Same country clubs, yachts, dinner parties, operas etc
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
well no, i didn't know the federal reserve was a private enterprise.
you know... the reserve is the bedrock culprit for libertarians concerning our current financial crisis. that the gov't forced private enterprise to become greedy rotten crooks. which ultimately brought capitalism to it's knees.
so if what your saying is true, their whole argument is based in fallacy.
yeah i've never liked, "freedom isn't free", it's a vague cliche. i like to say "freedom" is about $3 a gallon.
tomitstube 2 years ago
Government didn't force business to be greedy. In fact, we're lucky here in the US that the gov. has always been smaller than business. I think it was the other way around. Big business caused government to be corrupt most of the time. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, the founding fathers didn't encourage private greed. Jefferson warned of an "aristocracy of manufacturers" who would enjoy privileges and $ far beyond the scope of regular citizens. He believed in the farmers (yeoman) democracy
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
what's dangerous and funny at the same time is american private enterprise owns our government. it's getting hard to tell the two apart.
the nra, ama, insurance, wall street, oil, drugs, etc. capitalism has no rules... other than ones they impose. fill the government with business people and what do you get?
boom then bust, boom then bust, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
according to daddy war bucks, rules are socialism and that's evil to profit and compensation.
tomitstube 2 years ago
"Big business" could not have caused government to be corrupt. It could only appeal to the corrupt already in the government. This isn't to say that all big businesses are ran sensibly, but it is only when government stops doing its job (protecting individual rights by eliminating the initiatory use of force) that any business can force anyone else to do anything (that they haven't already agreed to or undertaken).
RobertPFreeman 2 years ago
The Federal Reserve may be "Independent" of the federal government, however, every position is filled with a government appointment. For example, Ben Burnanke was appointed by the Federal Government.
Identityis 2 years ago 2
this is idiotic, it's capitalism that's failing and somehow the central government is the "evil doer" for propping up the greedy fucks who brought this failed ideology to it's knees. we just keep propping it up so it will fail again and again and again.
so while capitalism is failing again, let's blame everyone and everything else. how fucking logical!
libertarians are idiots. it's deregulation that caused this mess and they-you somehow see gov't oversight as the problem?!
tomitstube 2 years ago
Deregulation did not cause our problems. Our current problems are the predictable (and indeed, libertarians DID predict it) result of our interventionist policies and the Fed's monetary policy. In other words, the Fed and the government's policies encouraged mal-investments (and in some cases, DEMANDED them). The current bailouts are just more of the same, making businesses exempt from the consequences of their bad decisions. Get the government out and the problem would have fixed itself.
Punchey 2 years ago
Sure, big businessmen are always rational. And government is always irrational. Those are some fairly huge generalizations my friend. And they are easily disproven. Then again, the religion of "moneytheism" will blind even the best and the brightest to how abusive big business has been to the individual liberties of US citizens. How much debt do you have? What kind of interest rates do you pay on that?
"They got ya by the balls"
-George Carlin
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
It's not that businesses are always rational, it's that when they ARE irrational, they pay the natural consequences. Only government can temporarily suspend reality by shielding businesses from the consequences of their bad decisions, thereby perpetuating the irrationality. But that suspension is only temporary, and the crash will be all the worse in the end. A free market naturally disciplines the irresponsible.
Punchey 2 years ago
i.e. If you spend more money then you have, you go broke, so you learn to economize before you do, or someone who knows better takes the place of your business. But when you government intervenes, they can prop up a firm that is making foolish decisions, thereby giving them no reason to correct their mistakes, leading to the destruction of capital, which eventually leads to economic ruin for everyone. As I said, this whole thing was predicted by free-market economists, not caused by them.
Punchey 2 years ago
you libertarians can't see the forest for the trees. stop blaming the government for corporate melt downs. it's top heavy greed. even alan greenspan has admitted "supply and demand" is not enough to fix everything, let alone anything. corporations are too big to fail! you want them to take down the whole economy with them? because that's what will happen. they have trillions of dollars in capitalist ventures that will sink the whole damn boat. it's what the bailout is preventing!!!
tomitstube 2 years ago
Your assertions are not based on any sort of economic facts and reflect a complete lack of understanding of how economics work. I'm not your economics teacher so I won't go into it in detail, but briefly, firms that are allowed to fail will not drag the entire economy down, but instead will lead to rebirth in the economy. What allows them to drag it all down is to keep them afloat artificially.
Punchey 2 years ago
what do you mean my "assertions"? i'm discussing direct quotes from you. you know, the video. btw, you really don't address any economic facts either, so what are you talking about? this video's like a 40's propaganda film for WWII.
you people need some more material.
tomitstube 2 years ago
What direct quotes from me? By assertions, I'm referring to your assertion that the bailout is somehow preventing the crisis from becoming worse.
The purpose of my video was not to outline any economic facts, but rather to outline the moral nature of freedom versus coercion in the sphere of economics.
500 characters is far too few to impart an economic education. For that, google Lew Rockwell and Ludvig von Mises.
Punchey 2 years ago
i agree, 500 isn't enough. especially when you have to repeat things. i'll say it a 3rd time, the fundamental "assertion" by you, that "free trade" doesn't affect anyone but the people involved in the trade, is pure capitalist bunk. every act by anyone makes an impact on someone else's life. cutting a tree, dumping oil in a sewer, buying a credit card, etc. that's what capitalists just don't get. you can't have unabated capitalism with 6 billion people, it's impractical and insane.
tomitstube 2 years ago
"Get the government out and the problem would have fixed itself."
Trust me. You don't want true capitalism. Let me ask you this. Do you like loans?
gizmo2084 2 years ago
If some jerk off wants to sell me something that's poisonous and I don't know it's poisonous, I'm not going to wait for the "free-market" to punish that company. In fact, I want to be protected. I want clean streams and air. I want good products that aren't falsely advertised.
I don't have time to research every damn product I buy. Nor does anyone else really. Do you know what Consumer Capitalism is? Can you explain how the US went from the largest CREDITOR nation to the largest DEBTOR NATION?
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
You don't have to research yourself, that's where consumer advocacy firms come in. For example, "Good Housekeeping" used to serve this purpose before FDR decided we needed federal agencies to do it for us through threat of violence instead of through persuasion.
The US went from creditor to debtor largely because of the Fed's monetary policy. I encourage you to do some reading over at mises (dot) org and lewrockwell (dot) com (an anarchist site, no less) to get the details of how this works.
Punchey 2 years ago
"Natural consequences". Sounds like positivism to me. Wouldn't you say that politicians would pay "natural consequences" if they were to be crooked? I mean, people wouldn't re-elect them. They're accountable at the ballot box, while business is accountable in the marketplace. That's why we need an honest media to expose them when they do get corrupt (business and politicians). It's too bad that business elites own all the media and they bought out our politicians long ago. They're all pals.
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
Yeah right, this is the BS propaganda that's been around since the 1950s. Most reasonably intelligent people realized that it was bullshit. All LIES. Capitalism demands obedience to those with capital.
That 1950s propaganda crap is resurfacing again. Just so my local factory can be deregulated to pollute my drinking supply. Or the coal burning plant can dump more soot in the air.
All in the name of the almighty buck. It's like God to these people. Jesus was a capitalist? No he was Socialist.
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
yep, they bring back ayn rand like some libertarian prophet. she had a couple interesting views, but just like libertarian ideology, it's radically impractical for a democratic government.
meanwhile exxon-mobile made more money than any company ever in the entire existence of man. their products pollute the land, air, and water, and on top of that they're spending millions to block, delay, and confuse all attempts to save the planet. they'll sacrifice everything to stay rich.
tomitstube 2 years ago
watch?v=nZjlAhHQ-Fo
losheva 2 years ago
Dude, watch Zeitgeist Addendum.
jontenz 2 years ago
Dude, stop drinking Kool Aid.
MrBr3w 2 years ago
Restore Capitalism!
Invirtuo 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How about something old? Like pre-capitalism? Instead of the "you can have any color you like as long as it is red or black" message we have here. This is BS propaganda.
knucklesandwichanarc 2 years ago
yeah, you got that right, what a load of bull shit.
tomitstube 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Money doesnt work...
AzoreanProud 2 years ago
Comment removed
allowambeBOWWAMB 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you mean that peace doesn't work, but coercion and structural violence does?
Good lord...
allowambeBOWWAMB 2 years ago
Great video, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Also, my compliments on your insightful comments, Punchey. It seems the greatest obstacle for the success of capitalism, is the fact that so many people mistake it for corporatism.
ErikMartinsen81 2 years ago 3
Thanks, you're exactly right. Everyone has been conditioned to associate Capitalism with whatever the US practices - but the US is a solidly corporatist/fascist system.
Punchey 2 years ago
Awesome video. I remember seeing a series on capitalism, is that still around? ...also seen a clip acting out the bar scene in Atlas Shrugged, where did that go?
snopro54 2 years ago 5
I know that if nobody worked we would all starve, you don't have to repeat that point. I'm saying people are not free "to produce as much or as little as [they] like," in this system. Say I am a factory worker that produces yachts that gets sustenance wage.
NoECN 2 years ago
In that sense, you are also not able to produce as little as you like on a desert island - you must produce enough to survive. That is reality, which you want to suspend. That is irrational.
Did you design the yacht? Do you make the entire yacht yourself without any help at all? Do you market the yachts too? Distribute them? Sell them? Maintain them? Etc? You get paid according to the value you contribute to the process. Which is why highly-skilled laborers make much more than unskilled.
Punchey 2 years ago
Ok, again, I know we have to produce enough to survive, what I'm saying is, take the deserted island example. Say the man has a friend who is deserted with him. Let's say this friend realizes that his grandfather actually owned the island and because of inheritance, he owns the land, it is his property. Because of this capitalism, the original man is forced to produce enough for both of their survivals and produce luxuries for his friend to pay rent. Like "The Take" (documentary on Google vid).
NoECN 2 years ago
Assuming the man is free to go elsewhere (as people are in normal society), then there is competition for labor, and the owner cannot simply dictate arbitrary terms to the other man.
Punchey 2 years ago
Your ideas work on a micro level. Not macro. I can prove it.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
I am not free to produce as little or as much as I want, because if I do not work away my life laboring far more than the amount of labor needed for my sustenance, than I do not get my sustenance wage and I therefore die. That's the use of the threat of starvation I'm talking about.
And saying that a person is a slave because of a lack of private property is meaningless (just labeling a belief with an emotionally charged word) and hypocritical.
NoECN 2 years ago
It's hypocritical because, as in the previous example, one does not receive the fruit of their labor under lassez-faire capitalism. If I work for a business that survives by making the most profit, than the market value of the fruit of my labor is far more than the amount I receive. So if I'm a common laborer, I don't get the fruit of my labor, and my master gets it.
NoECN 2 years ago
That is false. First, a laborer in a factory is not the sole source of value that is put into the final product. Part of the value also results from the means of production, the mental work which designed it, the distribution of the product, and the coordination of all of these together to deliver it. The labor I may put into it is only one part of its total value, so I am therefore only entitled to that part which I contributed.
Punchey 2 years ago
The value of the labor has nothing to do with pay. The owner of the company that survives will always pay the common laborer the lowest possible wage in the worst possible conditions that are economically viable and legal. That is the reality of making a profit.
NoECN 2 years ago
That is false. "Common laborers" make very little because they are so common. Water is really cheap too. Why? Because it is so readily available - just like unskilled labor. High supply relative to demand results in a low price. But highly-skilled laborers make far more. Why? Because they are more scarce, and they offer greater value.
Low-skilled labor need unions to have bargaining power, while the highly-skilled do not, because employers want to keep them. It's all about scarcity and value.
Punchey 2 years ago
Also, I never mentioned appropriating the property to a third party, I said sharing, which means I, keyword: I, and everybody, gets the material, not appropriated to some vague third party.
NoECN 2 years ago
And the reason I support a lack of private property, to be replaced with sharing, actually has little do with equality. Sharing is, by definition, the least coercive arrangement. Sharing helps give each individual the maximum control over their existence by giving them the maximum ability to interact with their surroundings.
NoECN 2 years ago
Sharing is fine and dandy if that's what you want to do. But "sharing" does not involve force. If you do not recognize another man's right to enjoy what he has labored to produce, and you take it from him, that is not sharing, that is theft and coercion. If he wants to share it, it is up to him to decide -- not you. To say otherwise is to say you have a right to a share of his labor. Once again, that is a form of slavery. And no, it's not just an emotionally charged term, it is by definition.
Punchey 2 years ago
Are taxes a form a slavery? You mean like picking cotton on a farm? And if you don't pick, you get beating until dead slavery? Like that?
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Yes, precisely. The "gun" here is not an analogy, it is quite literal. If you do not pay taxes, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest on the grounds you have a right to your liberty, you will be beaten or possibly killed. So in the end, it is the same. It is only a difference of degree.
Punchey 2 years ago
"So in the end, it is the same. It is only a difference of degree."
It's the SAME, yet there's a difference? :D
Why thanks for noticing. At least your not a crazy Randite!
gizmo2084 2 years ago
The same in principle, different only in degree.
Punchey 2 years ago
By the way. This was a really good video when talking about the Fed, FIAT, value....but when you started spouting Randisms. I started to puke.
You don't want to pay taxes. Move to a deserted island. Or you can wait until WWIII and become Madd Maxx! Then you can carry you own gun and fight for your freedom on the open road.
gizmo2084 2 years ago
Of course, this boils down into us having different points of view(axioms). The only thing I believe is that each individual have maximum control over their existence. You believe that each person should be allowed to force everyone to not interact with certain material because of past actions (like the hard work involved in inheriting millions) plus whatever social/political beliefs you have.
NoECN 2 years ago
Alright, this is going to be very long, I hope I don't run into technical difficulties.
NoECN 2 years ago
Isn't property just forcing everyone (at the point of a gun if need be) to not interact as they please (collectively sharing) with resources because of the whims of the owner? And isn't capitalism (particularly lassez-faire) just using this construct of private property to justify forcing the masses to labor endlessly or starve in the streets? Now I understand why you might support capitalism if you inherently think people should be forced to work, but why must this rule be so?
NoECN 2 years ago
I'm glad you asked these questions. To answer all of them in a word - reality.
What I mean is property is the material shape taken by the fruits of your labor. Without the ability to own the fruits of your labor, you are a slave. As to why people should be "forced" to work, this is a consequence of reality - not of any capitalist dictate. A man on a desert island is forced, by reality, to work if he is to survive. The only way to survive without work of any kind is to enslave your fellow man.
Punchey 2 years ago
Well of course people need to work in order to survive. What I'm saying is capitalism forces, under the threat of starvation, people to work to produce far more than they may want to produce, and not only that, much of the fruit of that labor goes towards an elite. And the "without private property you are a slave" is very dogmatic. Without private property, I am free to interact with all material along with others (sharing). With private property I have to work away my life to live.
NoECN 2 years ago
It is reality which imposes the penalty of starvation for not working, not Capitalism. You are free to produce as much or as little as you like, but
Punchey 2 years ago
...you do not have a moral right to demand that others be forced to make up for the balance of the labor you choose not to perform.
My views on private property are not dogmatic at all, they are based in reality. If the fruits of your labor, i.e. your property, can be appropriated by a third party without your consent, you are a slave by definition.
Punchey 2 years ago
Heheh....anytime I see "fruits of your labor" I know someone has been reading Ayn. It's like a cult. :D
gizmo2084 2 years ago