Just playing the devil's advocate here, and I would like to hear what people think about this: Who enforces the contracts if one party decides not to honor the agreement? What happens when one person gains a monopoly? Do laws not play a part in society? If laws still exist who enforces them? Who keeps them from abusing the power to enforce laws? Who pays for this enforcement? Do we go to a mercenary system? What if you can't afford to pay for protection?
Free market is merely a euphemism for GREED. It is the free market (in reality a fixed market) which has caused the economic problems we have today. It is because of free market greed that 55% of areas in the country I live have mortgages/rents at LEAST 35% higher than local people's salaries are able to afford. The world is run by shit.
Do you want to share your love for liberty through video production? Apply for the spring Koch Internship Program to develop your talent! Google Koch Internship Program to learn about this and other great internship opportunities.”
hahaha! srsly? i've got koch bots on my vids now? i guess i can consider myself accomplished! i would NEVER do business with those unscrupulous scumbags! my allegiance lies with human freedom, and there is no force great enough in this universe to divert my course.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Free market is merely a euphemism for GREED. It is the free market (in reality a fixed market) which has caused the economic problems we have today. It is because of free market greed that 55% of areas in the country I live have mortgages/rents at LEAST 35% higher than local people's salaries are able to afford. The world is run by shit.
exactly so stop calling it a free market. what we have now is crony capitalism, and the root of the problem is the State which empowers capitalists to gain special privileges. And you can thank the federal reserve for the housing problems.
indeed. i'd like to see an alliance between the anti-fed elements of the occupy wall street and tea party movements. i think it's time that people set aside less important differences and focus on the FED, something i think most americans can get on board with. we've already gotten a revealing partial audit, if we could get something even close to a full audit then i believe that FED would be in serious trouble.
@junior00bacon00chee - Agree with all you say. Regarding audits - brilliant. I think EVERY person throughout the world should have the right to know EXACTLY who they are apparently indebted to. Only FULL audits are acceptable. I understand many governments are reluctant to do this. WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO HIDE?
@Cornampoo - I said nothing about wanting to cut spending (and by this I mean the essential services that most people rely upon). The Federal Reserve - something has to change if ordinary people are condemned to bailing out the banks for debts the ordinary people have not incurred whilst the banks get off scott free and can just carry on as they did leading up to the mess they created without fear of consequences if they mess up again.
@MrBabies123 bailouts, entitlements, the military industrial complex, obamacare, public schooling... more than enough opportunities to cut spending, I think.
@MrBabies123 The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by built up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases.
Capitalism is a form of government. A way of life which gives each and every individual a chance to get ahead and live his life as he/she wishes. Money empowers every person equaly. It does dot descriminate by race or culture.
Don't like money? Give it all away to someone who does and move to Communist China or Viet Nam.
That is right. Capitalism is about the FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL. No more FEUDAL ORDER where Royals ruled over Peasants. All benefit from Free Market. Better living conditions for all. Better informed citizens. Better health. Longer happier lives!
@Avalon400 Capitalism is feudalism. Capitalism continuously increases the gap between those who have more purchasing power and those who have less. Over time this leads to an ever smaller group of individuals that controls through feudal order, a ruling elite who "owns" the worlds resources.
Capitalism, the monetary system and the fee market does not work with modern technology and an finite planet.
i am so tired of these loaded words. what is important is that one recognizes the causes of the problems. money and the free market are just fine, the problem is the state and its cozy relationship with corporations. they are not at odds with each other, they are like two peas in a pod which work together to screw the rest of us. a "ruling elite" utterly depends upon the state for their power.
@junior00bacon00chee idiots like him don't see the politicians as part of the "ruling elite". They're a wealthier class than ordinary people. And what do they do to enrich our lives? Do they produce products, services? Nope. People like him don't see any mutual benefit to trading. In his twisted view of the world when you fork over money to Apple and in return you get an iPod only apple benefits from such transaction. Funny how he talks about modern tech, it was capitalism that advance tech.
You would just have to ignore ALL of history to believe this simplistic bullshit. Without the state we would still be living in caves, eating bugs. Sure the state can become overbearing, which is why certain smart people set up a little thing called the Constitution, in this country. In other countries most governments are similarly throttled to keep the general welfare of it's people near, if not in, the forefront. Believe it or not WE are the state, as we are part of the government.
actually, civilization arose prior to states. you'd have to ignore history to not see that fact.
the last 250 years should have showed us beyond any doubt that parchment barriers are failures. the constitution has been thoroughly shredded at this point.
"we are the state, we are the government"
this is just false. do you get to extort people with impunity? no. that is just another one liner the democracy drones parrot endlessly b/c they were trained to in school.
@junior00bacon00chee Alright, I'll bite. Show me where I can find evidence of even ONE civilization without a state, or government. I'll have to be able to verify this information, so sources will be required. Just one, mind you.
I sincerely doubt you can even define a civilization without a government or ruling structure, which would then be a "state".
check out my "obliterating myths" videos if you are interested in that information, sources are in the description. my favorite example is medieval ireland, which was stateless for 1000 years, ie, there was no presupposed authority which could levy taxes.
watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
btw, i'm not interested in going back and forth with every last person on the internet. if you are genuinely interested you can ask me questions, or i can direct you to the info you need.
@junior00bacon00chee I used the same kind of argument as you in "Alright, I'll bite. Show me where I can find evidence of even ONE civilization without a state, or government. I'll have to be able to verify this information, so sources will be required. Just one, mind you."
should we assume that intellectuals are any less self-interested?
govt only taxes the productive rich, never the govt-connected rich. the productive rich bankroll production that massively benefits the poor. who do you think advances all that money to the owners of the factors of production?
lastly, the state IS a monopoly. how can you solve a monopoly with a monopoly???
i suggest looking at real economics, ie, austrian economics, not fake adam smith or milton friedman bullshit!
the state is a monopoly on the provision of justice, law, security, defense, etc. moreover, even if i were to agree with your nonsensical definition, who says the majority knows what is "right?" if the majority says we should murder children, does that make it right? majoritarianism is just mob chaos.
and there is no such thing as a monopoly w/o the state.
are you just making things up? monopoly is w/e you want it to be?
@alihaq92 Please don't become an economist...I've never seen a more confusing or nonsensical explanation and rationalization of dictatorship through abuse of majority power. In your grandparent's time we called this "fascism".
think about it. all i can do to express my discontent for a public figure is to vote, even tho i don't have the freedom to remove my financial backing. i get taxed to pay for whomever regardless.
businesses however have to rely upon voluntary patronage. if i don't like a business i have the freedom not to buy their stuff. if i don't like a politician all i can do is hope my meager vote makes a difference, i don't have the freedom not to fund them with taxes!!!
are you saying politicians are interested in morality?? what planet do you live on?
in a free market, profit is an indication that a business is serving consumer needs, so there is nothing wrong with the profit motive! what you are doing is mistaking state capitalism for laissez-faire capitalism.
@alihaq92 You are both trapped in "progressive" thought (i.e. the concept of centralized control over the lives of the proletariat masses etc).
Neither group should "govern". At the founding of our nation we determined not to be governed...but to be served. The people govern, and hire administrative personnel to fulfill the duties required by the citizenry. Most of our problems come from the fact that we have forgotten that simple truth. We are to be represented...not governed.
A free-society must first define "who" the individual is. For the individual is who you protect and the least amount of protectionism is logically the freest society.
Rothbard said it was the Owner
Mises said it was the Consumer
Consumer-Individualism requires the least "protectionism" -- C-I is had when you allow for Zero Rights and Zero Right-Seeking.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardianism) requires "rights" to protect property.
I don't see why it is not possible, for example Camp Nou, FC Barcelona wanted to improve their stadium(adding another layer), the fans own the club, so they decided to build it, they gathered the resoures, planned it and built it. People would have the right to gather resources to build houses, they wouldn't take more than They needed becuase it's not in human nature. If the resources aren't avaible, workers would sell produce to other countries in order to buy them in.
Okay. There is nothing wrong with a group of people voluntarily gathering resources and doing things. im all down for whatever voluntary interaction people want.
but how did the FC Barcelona fans know how much building the add on would cost? How could they possibly calculate that? Money allows for economic calculation as it is a common medium of exchange. it allows for the emergence of prices and thus the possibility of calculating costs.
i know what it sounds like, because the terminology is similar, but the austrian school takes a completely unique approach to economics.
think about corporations, for example. they are fictional legal entities created by the state, and are thus privileged children of it, and from it they derive all sorts of privileges, creating a class with artificial power on labor markets.
hell, milton wanted a central bank! austrians hate the central bank more than anything.
the gap between the rich and the poor is caused by redistribution of wealth, mostly from the central bank who destroys the value of the dollar by counterfeiting and handing the cash to special interests.
a true free market means purely voluntary economic relationships, ie, no state, and therefore people can only make money by providing something people voluntarily want. the "free market" is not the source of the gap.
There is free market anarchism and anarcho-syndacilism, in free market a person needs money if he wants to build a house, therefore must exploit labour to create surplus, and therefore make enough money to build a home. In anarcho-syndicalism it's just simply saying, "i need a home, will you help me build one?", "of course we will because we are human beings", there is no money, you just cater ones needs. Either exploit the labour of another human, or as a community and a friend build your home?
i think maybe you should take a serious look at what you just said and ask yourself if such an economic system is really possible. the global standard of living would fall into fourth world status.
if you are a science oriented person like me then you would want to understand austrian economics, which explains in inordinate detail the workings of a free market system. the labor theory of value is completely unscientific and non-sensical.
what has allways failed is autarchy, it allways ends up with the autarchic state lagging behind the rest of the world.
That's precisely why the few really serious socialists in history (Marx, Engels, Lenin trotsky, and that almost it for the ones who have reached world fame) have always conceived socialism as a world system.
Of course, having a state like today's states the size of the world would be silly, that's why true socialism is about democracy, including workplace democracy.
What you call statism was either an attempt by a bureaucratic clique to steal the revolution of the people (USSR, China....)
Or just a kind of joint-venture created by the wealthiest parts of the capitalists to administrate their common interrests against their foreign competitors. (fascist states like nazi germany or, social-démocratic states, like France in the 50s-80s, etc)
there are a lot of examples. i'd say one of the most interesting and compelling is medieval ireland, for about 1000 years.
but certainly "free market" as it is generally used today only implies light statist intervention rather than what i see as the proper meaning, ie, no statism whatsoever, no taxation funded monopolization of markets.
ok, so you'll admit that no developed capitalist economy has ever had a free market, right? (i.e. no place where any sensible person would want to live.)
not that i can think of, no. sadly, the more recent capitalism means state-capitalism, ie, fascism. the fictional legal entities called corporations dominate and use govt to pass laws which protect them from competition.....it all roots back to the legal extortion.
and agreed, no sensible person would want to live in this manmade hell. stateless capitalism on the other hand would just be a means of satisfying human wants and needs very "efficiently" (from the eyes of the consumer).
1920 right here in the US. there was a not so well known depression in 1920. the government instated a free market and it turned the depression around so fast no one seemed to notice.
I don't consider myself to be much of an anarcho-leftist or anarcho-capitalist but simple things like, and countless others, are undeniable and would most surely occur under a capitalist or "free market" system.
This idea of FR sounds absolutely wonderful here but as we have seen in approximated variations in the past (19th century America), and as we would speculate to happen, things would most likely not be too swell for many. And if people say tough shit than tough shit for them. "FR"
Whatever happens in the "free market" is whatever happens in the "free market".
So if there happens to be gross inequalities of wealth, it's likely that people will be compelled (essentially) to "voluntarily" associate and submit themselves to a boss in order to maintain their own sustenance since their inherent environment, which they were involuntarily born into, essentially leads them with no other choice if they want to maintain their livelihood.
19th century america was not without a state. people often point to that as a failure of the market, when the historical record clearly shows govt intervention leading to cartelization.
monopolies arise as a result of state forced barriers to entry. otherwise, consumers would always have the freedom to choose someone who would provide better quality at a lower price than the monopoly. the state can only function to limit competition and experimentation.
And I never said there wasn't a state in 19th century America, but it was most definitely approximated to be pretty close to "free market" at the very least up until 1890 with the anti-trust act.
And I would agree about the state and monopolies but that is only part of the problem we saw.
It's going to sound like I'm regurgitating leftist talking points but do they not hold some validity?
As I was saying, monopolies were only part of the problems of 19thcA.
Atrocious poverty, child labor, 15 hour work days, dirt cheap wages, no workers benefits, corporate slave towns, terrible working conditions, no health standards, no health care, people couldn't afford education, ridiculous wealth disparities, etc, etc.
Now, I HIGHLY doubt those things were the product of there being an extremely minimal state at that time.
So if it goes back to the free market we come back to the thought that people are free to suffer or not suffer through their own means under FM. And it is no one's responsibility to help or force others to help (I perfectly agree) but I don't see how those conditions would have imrpoved significantly under a totally genuine FM, I mean very gradually, maybe.
It just seems to me that FM, as depicted in your video, is some sort of fantastical idea in theory but when put into approximated practice, it's something quite more horrible.
Ideas of private defense industries and private control of all natural resources and public commodities (roads, parks, w/e) scare the shit out of me out of the shere potential for unchecked tyranny in the hands of the rich.
And I'm not too hot about an-comm either, and most surely not the present system.
well i'd suggest looking into economic science if u are interested. here are some good sites:
lewrockwell (dot) com
mises (dot) com
endless resources there, some great articles on the 19th century too. the free market is only frightening when it isn't properly understood, the first time i started to understand ec. science it blew my mind.
More people should see this. Therefore I shall show this to MORE PEOPLE! Yes, some things could be added but all and all I think this was very well done.
hehehe Seriously though, how many multi-national corporations do you think would survive in a totally unrestricted marketplace? Copyright is a big example of a market restriction. The truth is noone is "stealing" anything. Copyright as it is today is basically a monopoly of ideas.
but how can the only legitimate function of the state be to protect people when it must by definition violate the very people it purports to protect? i did not give my consent to be governed, yet i am forced to pay for others' definition of protection. i cannot opt out. this is slavery.
the root of the problem is the state itself. forced barriers to entry on markets wreak havoc economically. the same limited govt args for a small state can be extended to argue against the state itself.
Something necessary may be user fees to replace taxes. The problem with anarchy is that someone always comes in to replace the old state. It happened in Spain Greece and Russia.
each persons responsibility? lol. each persons RIGHT. there would be less crime. standards of living would be incredibly high. since all property would be private, organizations would hire LEGITIMATE protection/law enforcement and it would be everywhere that there is a demand for it, but it would be courteous and efficient (because business seek to please their customers). currently however, it is hard for any person to defend themselves against the state itself.
Existentialism philosophy. Free market means no regulation or suppressed the individual self-interest for a profit. Because individual human want profit (pleasure).
Historicaly, weren't free markets violently imposed upon nations, like Argentina and South Africa, with results being the already large multinational corporations claiming or destroying the small businesses and systems that had been stripped of government defenses?
Free market sounds nice in theory, but with the government and wealthy corporations, not even in bed together, but a single, disgusting, hard to define entity, it seems like we're going to get screwed either way.
The disconnect is current property rights. I own my land because I bought it from someone and legally own it. Follow the thread backwards and it involves a flag being planted or a musket. From whom could I legally buy a piece of the moon?
Free Market is a tasty cake sitting on a shit pile. We exist in the layers further up and can enjoy the yummy freedom (mostly). No comment besides the fact it always costs someone at the beginning and most try to deny this.Free markets do not magically appear there is always a shit pile somewhere below. I do enjoy free market cake BTW.
free markets follow the principle of homesteading. if you land on the moon and proceed to use it productively, you own the amount that you use for as long as you continue to use it.
Great vid! Although, I think the essential problem with the state is not ineffectiveness but immorality: we should concentrate on pointing out that the "government" is a group of people who tell us that they and only they have a legal and moral right to use violence against other people.
teh stoopid, it hurtz. I love these free market zealots who make this false dichotomy of government vs the people when the government is the people. So either you are for unregulated free markets or you are a thief and an oppressor? LOL Good grief. Excuse me while I still live in reality and can see the effects of unregulated free market bullshit.
Hey thanks man, I will do that. You keep up your corporate toady videos, maybe you will get your plush neo con think tank job. David Rockefeller is proud of you!
David Rockefeller requires the govt and their banking privileges to exert power. The state is the source of illegitimate power, why else would corporations spend untold amounts competing for the favor of the coercive arm of govt?
Sorry for me being an ass, i do that from time to time when my temper gets the best of me. But honestly if you care about freedom let me know your objections and we can debate.
If I care about freedom LOL you are comic gold! No ding dong, the Federal Reserve took the power to print money OUT of government hands (the people) and put that ability into private banking hands. This is right in line with your laissez faire ideology. To you, exploitation goes hand in hand with freedom because you have everything bass ackwards.
Firstly, I agree with you on the federal reserve. Obviously there is nothing free market about an institution predicated on having the sole ability to create debt out of thin air. This privilege is enforced through the state.
You cannot both care about freedom and totally ignore economic science. I will teach you if you want.
Right, you believe that we should just trust private banks and the people should have no involvement in it at all. What could possibly go wrong there? LOL Its shocking how dense you anarcho-capitalists are, not to mention totally oblivious to reality.
these "private" central banks cannot exist without the state, duh. furthermore i am not an anarcho-capitalist (you know what they say about assuming things).
i adhere to economic science and reason. if you want to throw meaningless concepts around without any ability to define the words you are using please go somewhere else.
So banks cannot exist without a state? LOL Riiight, now you are just making shit up. Obviously you have never taken a single economics class because economics itself is based on assumptions.
sure, that's why we can only apply a priori reasoning, the details of value judgments cannot be isolated and studied.
of course banks will exist. it is the state that cartelizes the banking market by enforcing legal tender laws which give the federal reserve a monopoly on the creation of money. this is how they can set the interest rate.
banks in a stateless society would function on profit and loss like any other enterprise. they would compete, and wouldn't be able to set prices.
You said "you know what they say about assuming things", now its 'sure, I use those assumptions they are my reasoning skills'. LOL Good grief. And look, here you go again with the 'just trust the bankers and everything will be rainbows and gumdrops'. I am done with your delusional world that completely ignores reality. Have fun misinforming people.
you were assuming something about me. that is quite a bit different from the systematic formulation of knowledge concerning economics.
competition means that bankers must serve consumer demand efficiently, fraudulent bankers would be weeded out and ostracized from the marketplace. the problems we see today are clearly the result of state enforced privileges. when banks cease to have state enforced privileges their profit will depend upon attracting voluntary consumers.
The consumer demand is getting loans, those are given in a fractional lending policy that is completely unregulated and harmful to society. Banks buy other banks or merge reducing competition. You believe that without 'the state' the greed and collusion between banks will magically disappear? LOL When in human history has your system ever worked? Its been tried, its been promoted, but it always ends in disaster. It does not work and for a ideology that's a pretty big problem.
Medieval Ireland was an anarchist society and they prospered for a 1000 years before England invaded.
There is no magic involved here, only a lack of economic understanding. Truely voluntary arrangements do not lead to centralization of economic resources. If banks colluded to screw the consumer it would give another bank incentive to come in and out compete them. The fractional reserve banking system is enforced through legal tender laws. Who would want to use devalued money??
Your problem is that you blame the free market without realizing that what we have does not even closely resemble a free market. "Deregulation" is often a term to describe legislation that empowers special interests. There is no battle between corporations and the govt, they are one thieving leviathan. The state capitalists require the coercive state to enforce their unilaterally beneficial arrangements onto us.
Excuse me if I don't want to live like they did in Medieval times! I know what we have now is not what you consider to be free markets. I am saying your free market system exists only on paper, its all made up, there is no such thing as a completely free market, never was. Removing laws doesn't stop criminal behavior it makes what criminals do legal, and it compounds the problem. Religious-like worship of free markets should have some relevance to reality or its the exact same bullshit.
This isn't medieval times. You asked for an historical example and I provided you with one. We do not have to revert to the Middle Ages, that is patently absurd.
A world without coercion will probably never exist, but it can be vastly reduced. I never said anything about removing laws, I just don't want statist laws. I'd rather have a realistic, sustainable system of common law and natural law.
Free market economics is backed up by the Austrian methodology. There is no religion here.
You are assuming that anarchy means lawlessness. Like I mentioned before, there have been anarchist societies in the past which were purely voluntary, and yes there is a way to keep order. I will still pay people to protect me, they will just be directly accountable to me b/c I could just as easily pay someone else to do it. Not so with the govt, I MUST use their service.
If you want to live under a direct democracy go for it! I wouldn't stop you. Just don't force me under your system.
You keep contradicting yourself. If businesses are dependent upon voluntary consumers they obviously must compete in order to serve consumer demand. As such consumer demand determines what is produced, or else nothing would be sold!
A revolution only occurs after years of injustice and oppression. It is a crappy check on power. Businesses are directly accountable to the consumers, govt can get away with anything until it gets so bad that people are forced to revolt.
Answerable to the people? Where were you when the bailout passed that 90% of the people calling into their representatives fiercely opposed?
Businesses are directly answerable to their consumers. Without govt favors, they would be fully dependent upon voluntary consumers in order to exist.
The govt does not depend upon voluntary consumers, it forces its way into existence. It steals through taxation to fund itself, so there is no incentive for it to act in a responsible manner.
The judicial branch has its fair share of corruption. They have had just as much a hand as any other branch in the violation of natural rights.
The problem is that there is no way to put a realistic check on the power of the masses. In order to even have a govt, it must be funded. As such, it implies that taxation must exist. For anyone who does not agree with the system, they will be robbed to fund this govt.
Again, liberties are always eroded when there is the power to coerce.
Again, even if a majority of people were to think this is a good idea, it does not necessarily make it so. No majority can rightfully impress their will upon any individual who does not agree with the circumstances under which he is being placed.
Why not just eliminate all corporations by doing away with govt?
Parchment barriers to power have proven time and time again to be worthless. Mob rule can be just as tyrannical as any corporate rule.
The entire problem rests upon trying to legitimize coercion. The problem of corporations is solved with the abolition of govt, why create a new coercive institution which will be just as tyrannical?
My rights are not up for vote by a majority. They are mine and I will defend them.
Corportations are fictional legal entities created by the govt. They spend untold amounts lobbying Washington for the favor of the coercive arm of govt so they can use it to enforce their interests onto society at large.
No surprises here, politicians will always be bribed by those with the big bucks, there is no way around this. The only solution to corporate power is to dissolve the institution which empowers them in the first place.
Hmm... an anarchist who thinks government is necessary? That sounds contradictory.
"Govt only has legitimate authority in so far that the people are DIRECTLY in control that government."
Government is only legitimate if every individual agrees to the circumstances under which they are placed. The second that government steals property w/o permission it becomes illegitimate. What we have in this country is obviously illegitimate. If you cannot see that you are no anarchist.
Again, I did not sign any contract, and I've already made the case that having govt "services" forced upon me in no way implies that I "sign a contract." I find that preposterous.
This country is not collectively owned! What are you talking about? This country was built upon privately owned property.
Just b/c you haven't done any research on anarchism doesn't mean you can pull claims out of your ass like, "Govt has authority b/c we need it."
Look if you want to debate this issue like an adult you can stop telling me to "move" as if you own this country.
So I don't have to accept police "services?" That is nonsense. They are forced upon me. They claim to have authority over me when they have absolutely no legitimate authority.
I'm not forced to pay into social security, that giant ponzi scheme? I won't see a dime of social security and yet Im forced to pay into it. That is BS. The American economy would have to double in size every year for the next 75 years in order to be able to pay off social sec. liabilities. It's impossible.
Our future prosperity has been robbed by the central bank. The dollar is going to collapse. There will be nothing left for my generation. And we are going to be very, very pissed off.
"You don't have to pay taxes. They are voluntary contributions."
If I don't pay my taxes I will be arrested and thrown into a government cage. That is clearly not a voluntary relationship, it is the forced extraction of money. That is called theft.
Don't I have an inalienable right to associate voluntarily with other human beings? I think that is pretty basic, and govt violates it by its very nature.
"You signed it the day you decided to accept all the benefits that our tax dollars pay for."
I don't voluntarily accept these "benefits," I am forced to "use" them. If I don't like govt "protection," too bad for me because they have a badge and a gun. This again is not a voluntary relationship.
If you have any concept of rights you should understand what I am saying.
If you want to slave away for the govt for a quarter of the year go ahead, just dont force me to be a slave with you.
"the people" is a metaphor, a fictional collectivist entity which does not exist beyond individuals.
just because a majority says something is okay, does not make it so. if a majority said we should kill babies, does that make killing babies okay? no, i think you'd say that it wouldnt.
same with the govt. i never signed a contract with them, they force themselves upon me without my permission. they steal my property without my permission, if i dont comply ill be caged like an animal.
individuals in govt do not gain the right to steal just because a majority of people think it is okay.
Also, the market will exist regardless of whether the state exists. are you implying human beings will cease to have wants and needs if govt disappeared?
It's takes a while to explain anarchist law, but suffice to say that medieval Ireland persisted as an anarchy for 1000 years and they had a very sophisticated way of dealing with law and justice through voluntary means.
Here is the problem, the seller is driven to make bad , poorly made product with built in obsolescence. You also ignore the monopoly corporations and banks that manipulate money and products. Eh, the pharmaceutical companies write the legislation for generic drugs, automobile industry writes safety standards etc etc . There is no "general " freedom so this is completely wrong.
Ah I beg to differ my friend. Who empowers bankers and corporations? The govt. In fact, corporations are fictional legal entities created and protected by the state. Monopolies are impossible without the state which cartelizes and protects wealthy corps from competition.
All that legislation you speak of is impossible in an anarchy. Those are corps lobbying the govt to pass laws which benefit their interests, they need the govt in order for this scheme to work.
In an anarchy you cannot have this positivist legislation, where a central body can simply make up laws out of thin air and then enforce them onto the rest of society. It makes no sense. The corps and bankers are dependent upon the govt's monopoly on the provision of law and protection in order to have power over the masses.
It's weird, the supposed solution to potential monopolies is to create the largest, most extravagant and violent monopoly possible: the state.
LUCKILY, just like the end of a bad mafia movie, the state will get so paranoid that their self destructive tendencies will turn against them, and they'll start killing each other off.
Just playing the devil's advocate here, and I would like to hear what people think about this: Who enforces the contracts if one party decides not to honor the agreement? What happens when one person gains a monopoly? Do laws not play a part in society? If laws still exist who enforces them? Who keeps them from abusing the power to enforce laws? Who pays for this enforcement? Do we go to a mercenary system? What if you can't afford to pay for protection?
daninjaj13 2 weeks ago
@daninjaj13
No one can say for sure, but we can speculate based on historical examples.
watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
Watch that and then see if you still have some questions or challenges.
junior00bacon00chee 2 weeks ago
Yeah look utopia!
lethalidiotz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free market is merely a euphemism for GREED. It is the free market (in reality a fixed market) which has caused the economic problems we have today. It is because of free market greed that 55% of areas in the country I live have mortgages/rents at LEAST 35% higher than local people's salaries are able to afford. The world is run by shit.
lethalidiotz 1 month ago
OMG TOO CONFUSING, I WILL JUST VOTE OBAMA AGAIN
Gunnarr123abc 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you want to share your love for liberty through video production? Apply for the spring Koch Internship Program to develop your talent! Google Koch Internship Program to learn about this and other great internship opportunities.”
alissamt1 1 month ago
@alissamt1
hahaha! srsly? i've got koch bots on my vids now? i guess i can consider myself accomplished! i would NEVER do business with those unscrupulous scumbags! my allegiance lies with human freedom, and there is no force great enough in this universe to divert my course.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Free market is merely a euphemism for GREED. It is the free market (in reality a fixed market) which has caused the economic problems we have today. It is because of free market greed that 55% of areas in the country I live have mortgages/rents at LEAST 35% higher than local people's salaries are able to afford. The world is run by shit.
MrBabies123 3 months ago
@MrBabies123
"free market (in reality a fixed market)"
exactly so stop calling it a free market. what we have now is crony capitalism, and the root of the problem is the State which empowers capitalists to gain special privileges. And you can thank the federal reserve for the housing problems.
junior00bacon00chee 3 months ago 5
@junior00bacon00chee - Agree with all you say. If only there was somethng we could DO about the State and the Federal Reserve!!!
MrBabies123 3 months ago
@MrBabies123
indeed. i'd like to see an alliance between the anti-fed elements of the occupy wall street and tea party movements. i think it's time that people set aside less important differences and focus on the FED, something i think most americans can get on board with. we've already gotten a revealing partial audit, if we could get something even close to a full audit then i believe that FED would be in serious trouble.
junior00bacon00chee 3 months ago 5
@junior00bacon00chee - Agree with all you say
MrBabies123 3 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee - Agree with all you say. Regarding audits - brilliant. I think EVERY person throughout the world should have the right to know EXACTLY who they are apparently indebted to. Only FULL audits are acceptable. I understand many governments are reluctant to do this. WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO HIDE?
MrBabies123 2 months ago
@MrBabies123 you want to cut spending and end the Federal Reserve? VOTE RON PAUL 2012!
Cornampoo 2 months ago 2
@Cornampoo - I said nothing about wanting to cut spending (and by this I mean the essential services that most people rely upon). The Federal Reserve - something has to change if ordinary people are condemned to bailing out the banks for debts the ordinary people have not incurred whilst the banks get off scott free and can just carry on as they did leading up to the mess they created without fear of consequences if they mess up again.
MrBabies123 2 months ago
@MrBabies123 bailouts, entitlements, the military industrial complex, obamacare, public schooling... more than enough opportunities to cut spending, I think.
Cornampoo 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBabies123 The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by built up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases.
arzoyan 3 months ago
Obama needs to watch this...
Maker0fRobots 4 months ago 2
Capitalism is a form of government. A way of life which gives each and every individual a chance to get ahead and live his life as he/she wishes. Money empowers every person equaly. It does dot descriminate by race or culture.
Don't like money? Give it all away to someone who does and move to Communist China or Viet Nam.
Avalon400 6 months ago
22 son de la mafia (diputados)
ALFTUBE50 9 months ago
can there be a free market without competition? hehejejejeheheheuhuahajejejajajajajajejeje :D
seigneurvoland666 9 months ago
Yep, that sums it up.
nikolayzou 10 months ago
That is right. Capitalism is about the FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL. No more FEUDAL ORDER where Royals ruled over Peasants. All benefit from Free Market. Better living conditions for all. Better informed citizens. Better health. Longer happier lives!
Avalon400 10 months ago
@Avalon400 Capitalism is feudalism. Capitalism continuously increases the gap between those who have more purchasing power and those who have less. Over time this leads to an ever smaller group of individuals that controls through feudal order, a ruling elite who "owns" the worlds resources.
Capitalism, the monetary system and the fee market does not work with modern technology and an finite planet.
Noxictyz 6 months ago
@Noxictyz
i am so tired of these loaded words. what is important is that one recognizes the causes of the problems. money and the free market are just fine, the problem is the state and its cozy relationship with corporations. they are not at odds with each other, they are like two peas in a pod which work together to screw the rest of us. a "ruling elite" utterly depends upon the state for their power.
junior00bacon00chee 6 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee idiots like him don't see the politicians as part of the "ruling elite". They're a wealthier class than ordinary people. And what do they do to enrich our lives? Do they produce products, services? Nope. People like him don't see any mutual benefit to trading. In his twisted view of the world when you fork over money to Apple and in return you get an iPod only apple benefits from such transaction. Funny how he talks about modern tech, it was capitalism that advance tech.
emp0rizzle 6 months ago
@emp0rizzle
exactly.
junior00bacon00chee 6 months ago
old film ftw!
TheRedWolf080 11 months ago
Great introduction to market anarchism.
vaguelyhumanoid 11 months ago
Good video! I love these animations
vanraizen 1 year ago
Go CAPITALISM!
MrWurzable 1 year ago
Deluded capitalist pig.
shockofgov 1 year ago
@shockofgov
what, is this morrakiu? i'm gettin some morrakiu vibes here.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
How dare you accuse me of being anti-statist scum. If I had my way, you would be put in a hard labor camp.
shockofgov 1 year ago
@shockofgov
Definitely Morrakiu.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Nope.
shockofgov 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Nawww, that ain't me, but I'm loving their trolling.
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@shockofgov LOL I'm a proud capitalist pig and enjoy my life. Enjoy your slavery.
SteinbergRothschild 6 months ago 2
I'll go with the mafia LOL!!!
Anarcho-capitalism FTW
PrimateDynasty 1 year ago
Great video.
Nielsio 1 year ago
@Nielsio
gracias, senior. happy smashing!
cheers.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
You would just have to ignore ALL of history to believe this simplistic bullshit. Without the state we would still be living in caves, eating bugs. Sure the state can become overbearing, which is why certain smart people set up a little thing called the Constitution, in this country. In other countries most governments are similarly throttled to keep the general welfare of it's people near, if not in, the forefront. Believe it or not WE are the state, as we are part of the government.
Cayvmann 1 year ago
@Cayvmann
actually, civilization arose prior to states. you'd have to ignore history to not see that fact.
the last 250 years should have showed us beyond any doubt that parchment barriers are failures. the constitution has been thoroughly shredded at this point.
"we are the state, we are the government"
this is just false. do you get to extort people with impunity? no. that is just another one liner the democracy drones parrot endlessly b/c they were trained to in school.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Alright, I'll bite. Show me where I can find evidence of even ONE civilization without a state, or government. I'll have to be able to verify this information, so sources will be required. Just one, mind you.
I sincerely doubt you can even define a civilization without a government or ruling structure, which would then be a "state".
Wishful thinking will not make it so.
Cayvmann 1 year ago
@Cayvmann
check out my "obliterating myths" videos if you are interested in that information, sources are in the description. my favorite example is medieval ireland, which was stateless for 1000 years, ie, there was no presupposed authority which could levy taxes.
watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
btw, i'm not interested in going back and forth with every last person on the internet. if you are genuinely interested you can ask me questions, or i can direct you to the info you need.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee go back a few hundred years back and claim "show me some society that does not have any slaves!"
k0n14k 1 year ago
@k0n14k
huh?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I used the same kind of argument as you in "Alright, I'll bite. Show me where I can find evidence of even ONE civilization without a state, or government. I'll have to be able to verify this information, so sources will be required. Just one, mind you."
k0n14k 1 year ago
WOW!!!
sanasteve 1 year ago
Intellectuals should govern ,not the business class.
because business class prefer self interest
Government should
Tax the rich subsidize the poor
Should not allow monopolies & cartels in the name of market equilibrium!
alihaq92 1 year ago
@alihaq92
should we assume that intellectuals are any less self-interested?
govt only taxes the productive rich, never the govt-connected rich. the productive rich bankroll production that massively benefits the poor. who do you think advances all that money to the owners of the factors of production?
lastly, the state IS a monopoly. how can you solve a monopoly with a monopoly???
i suggest looking at real economics, ie, austrian economics, not fake adam smith or milton friedman bullshit!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Intellectuals are accountable to public if they are having any public office.In case of business men they are not accountable to public as a whole !
They are interested in money not morality! e.g profiteering
you said,
"govt only taxes the productive rich, never the govt-connected rich."
that's why i was saying that business class should not be given public office.
And there should be strong accountability of Public officials to curb shenanigans & nepotism.
alihaq92 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Monetary & Fiscal policy should be made by keeping in view the problems of majority.
Monopoly of state means Monopoly of majority whereas
Monopoly of Business Class means Monopoly of Minority
Baqir us sadr, is the best economist i had ever studied, because he had practical wisdom of this Practical subject
alihaq92 1 year ago
@alihaq92
what??
the state is a monopoly on the provision of justice, law, security, defense, etc. moreover, even if i were to agree with your nonsensical definition, who says the majority knows what is "right?" if the majority says we should murder children, does that make it right? majoritarianism is just mob chaos.
and there is no such thing as a monopoly w/o the state.
are you just making things up? monopoly is w/e you want it to be?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@alihaq92 Please don't become an economist...I've never seen a more confusing or nonsensical explanation and rationalization of dictatorship through abuse of majority power. In your grandparent's time we called this "fascism".
professorofliberty 1 year ago
@professorofliberty
Dear Pedant Professor read my last comment in a dialogue with "junior00bacon00chee"
"wise men learn more from fools ,than fools from wise men"
alihaq92 1 year ago
@alihaq92
think about it. all i can do to express my discontent for a public figure is to vote, even tho i don't have the freedom to remove my financial backing. i get taxed to pay for whomever regardless.
businesses however have to rely upon voluntary patronage. if i don't like a business i have the freedom not to buy their stuff. if i don't like a politician all i can do is hope my meager vote makes a difference, i don't have the freedom not to fund them with taxes!!!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@alihaq92
are you saying politicians are interested in morality?? what planet do you live on?
in a free market, profit is an indication that a business is serving consumer needs, so there is nothing wrong with the profit motive! what you are doing is mistaking state capitalism for laissez-faire capitalism.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 2
@junior
System of independent autonomous Accountability with punishment & penalty can bridle the politicians or government officials.
Remember the Maxim,
"spare the rod ,spoil the child"
I am analyzing from the perspective of rich & poor & taking monopoly in that sense.
Business men should be given freedom to such extent that their freedom should not infringe the rights of others.
Maxim
"cynic is one who knows the price of everything but don't know the value of anything"
alihaq92 1 year ago
@alihaq92 You are both trapped in "progressive" thought (i.e. the concept of centralized control over the lives of the proletariat masses etc).
Neither group should "govern". At the founding of our nation we determined not to be governed...but to be served. The people govern, and hire administrative personnel to fulfill the duties required by the citizenry. Most of our problems come from the fact that we have forgotten that simple truth. We are to be represented...not governed.
professorofliberty 1 year ago
what program do you use?
Borgerlig64er 1 year ago
@Borgerlig64er
macromedia flash.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Great video.
Very well explained, it's so easy to understand the advantages of a free market over a hegemonic system. Hope to see a change soon.
Federiconoclasta 1 year ago
I like your art. I might ask you to do a guest comic for me sometime. :)
AnarchyInYourHead 1 year ago
hell yeah! i would be honored.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Consumers pay all costs
All People and all Businesses are first Consumers.
In truth there is no such thing as "production"
The definition of consumption is: to waste, to use, to diminish, and to transform.
There was ONE production moment -- The Big Bang or God (in the beginning).
After that we've only ever "transformed" what was made manifest. That is "consumed"
Thus Consumer-Individualism is the "freest" model for liberty.
Essentially Zero Rights for Workers-Owners
OctoBox 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mises was NOT a Rothbardian
A free-society must first define "who" the individual is. For the individual is who you protect and the least amount of protectionism is logically the freest society.
Rothbard said it was the Owner
Mises said it was the Consumer
Consumer-Individualism requires the least "protectionism" -- C-I is had when you allow for Zero Rights and Zero Right-Seeking.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardianism) requires "rights" to protect property.
OctoBox 2 years ago
I don't see why it is not possible, for example Camp Nou, FC Barcelona wanted to improve their stadium(adding another layer), the fans own the club, so they decided to build it, they gathered the resoures, planned it and built it. People would have the right to gather resources to build houses, they wouldn't take more than They needed becuase it's not in human nature. If the resources aren't avaible, workers would sell produce to other countries in order to buy them in.
brennig2 2 years ago
Okay. There is nothing wrong with a group of people voluntarily gathering resources and doing things. im all down for whatever voluntary interaction people want.
but how did the FC Barcelona fans know how much building the add on would cost? How could they possibly calculate that? Money allows for economic calculation as it is a common medium of exchange. it allows for the emergence of prices and thus the possibility of calculating costs.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
i know what it sounds like, because the terminology is similar, but the austrian school takes a completely unique approach to economics.
think about corporations, for example. they are fictional legal entities created by the state, and are thus privileged children of it, and from it they derive all sorts of privileges, creating a class with artificial power on labor markets.
hell, milton wanted a central bank! austrians hate the central bank more than anything.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
you are putting me into a preconceived category. real free markets could not be further from "reaganomics."
no offense but im not going to waste my time here....clearly im going to be associated with the likes of adam smith and milton friedman.
republicans and vulgar libertarians use free market rhetoric to gain political support...
i dont deal in ideologies. well developed economic science (the unique austrian school) illuminates how markets function and why the state fails.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
the gap between the rich and the poor is caused by redistribution of wealth, mostly from the central bank who destroys the value of the dollar by counterfeiting and handing the cash to special interests.
a true free market means purely voluntary economic relationships, ie, no state, and therefore people can only make money by providing something people voluntarily want. the "free market" is not the source of the gap.
research austrian economics if you're interested.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
There is free market anarchism and anarcho-syndacilism, in free market a person needs money if he wants to build a house, therefore must exploit labour to create surplus, and therefore make enough money to build a home. In anarcho-syndicalism it's just simply saying, "i need a home, will you help me build one?", "of course we will because we are human beings", there is no money, you just cater ones needs. Either exploit the labour of another human, or as a community and a friend build your home?
brennig2 2 years ago
i think maybe you should take a serious look at what you just said and ask yourself if such an economic system is really possible. the global standard of living would fall into fourth world status.
if you are a science oriented person like me then you would want to understand austrian economics, which explains in inordinate detail the workings of a free market system. the labor theory of value is completely unscientific and non-sensical.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
statism does not work, that much is incredibly obvious.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
what has allways failed is autarchy, it allways ends up with the autarchic state lagging behind the rest of the world.
That's precisely why the few really serious socialists in history (Marx, Engels, Lenin trotsky, and that almost it for the ones who have reached world fame) have always conceived socialism as a world system.
Of course, having a state like today's states the size of the world would be silly, that's why true socialism is about democracy, including workplace democracy.
Longlivethe4th 2 years ago
What you call statism was either an attempt by a bureaucratic clique to steal the revolution of the people (USSR, China....)
Or just a kind of joint-venture created by the wealthiest parts of the capitalists to administrate their common interrests against their foreign competitors. (fascist states like nazi germany or, social-démocratic states, like France in the 50s-80s, etc)
Longlivethe4th 2 years ago
Only a government by and for the people can establish a truly free market, otherwise it is overpowered by monarchy, theochracy, or aristochracy.
MrSteveSpears 2 years ago 2
I have a serious question for any libertarians/conservatives here. Where and when has a "free market" ever existed?
DonJack1776 2 years ago
there are a lot of examples. i'd say one of the most interesting and compelling is medieval ireland, for about 1000 years.
but certainly "free market" as it is generally used today only implies light statist intervention rather than what i see as the proper meaning, ie, no statism whatsoever, no taxation funded monopolization of markets.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
ok, so you'll admit that no developed capitalist economy has ever had a free market, right? (i.e. no place where any sensible person would want to live.)
DonJack1776 2 years ago
not that i can think of, no. sadly, the more recent capitalism means state-capitalism, ie, fascism. the fictional legal entities called corporations dominate and use govt to pass laws which protect them from competition.....it all roots back to the legal extortion.
and agreed, no sensible person would want to live in this manmade hell. stateless capitalism on the other hand would just be a means of satisfying human wants and needs very "efficiently" (from the eyes of the consumer).
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
1920 right here in the US. there was a not so well known depression in 1920. the government instated a free market and it turned the depression around so fast no one seemed to notice.
mikeoneal22 2 years ago
First 130 seconds destroys communism
Jordan22473 2 years ago
favorited
rudican 2 years ago
what r ur thoughts on haiti
SkankingKyle 2 years ago
dont really know anything about it.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I love the menacing depiction of the state
AaronKilleen 2 years ago
Your voice is great for this JBC
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago 2
why thank you sir.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I don't consider myself to be much of an anarcho-leftist or anarcho-capitalist but simple things like, and countless others, are undeniable and would most surely occur under a capitalist or "free market" system.
This idea of FR sounds absolutely wonderful here but as we have seen in approximated variations in the past (19th century America), and as we would speculate to happen, things would most likely not be too swell for many. And if people say tough shit than tough shit for them. "FR"
NoMorFear 2 years ago
Whatever happens in the "free market" is whatever happens in the "free market".
So if there happens to be gross inequalities of wealth, it's likely that people will be compelled (essentially) to "voluntarily" associate and submit themselves to a boss in order to maintain their own sustenance since their inherent environment, which they were involuntarily born into, essentially leads them with no other choice if they want to maintain their livelihood.
And that is legitimate under "FR".
NoMorFear 2 years ago
19th century america was not without a state. people often point to that as a failure of the market, when the historical record clearly shows govt intervention leading to cartelization.
monopolies arise as a result of state forced barriers to entry. otherwise, consumers would always have the freedom to choose someone who would provide better quality at a lower price than the monopoly. the state can only function to limit competition and experimentation.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"FR" = Free Market (don't know why I put the "R")
And I never said there wasn't a state in 19th century America, but it was most definitely approximated to be pretty close to "free market" at the very least up until 1890 with the anti-trust act.
And I would agree about the state and monopolies but that is only part of the problem we saw.
Continued...
NoMorFear 2 years ago
It's going to sound like I'm regurgitating leftist talking points but do they not hold some validity?
As I was saying, monopolies were only part of the problems of 19thcA.
Atrocious poverty, child labor, 15 hour work days, dirt cheap wages, no workers benefits, corporate slave towns, terrible working conditions, no health standards, no health care, people couldn't afford education, ridiculous wealth disparities, etc, etc.
continued...
NoMorFear 2 years ago
"Atrocious poverty, child labor"
Haha! Isn't it great we got all of those kids out of the workplace so that they could starve on the streets!?
"dirt cheap wages, no workers benefits, corporate slave towns, terrible working conditions"
Well, if it is better on your own, go for it! You could always NOT work for the exploitative boss and work for yourself.
"monopolies were only part of the problems of 19thcA"
Name one monopoly that occurred without government intervention!
DoomHippie 2 years ago 2
3rd:
Now, I HIGHLY doubt those things were the product of there being an extremely minimal state at that time.
So if it goes back to the free market we come back to the thought that people are free to suffer or not suffer through their own means under FM. And it is no one's responsibility to help or force others to help (I perfectly agree) but I don't see how those conditions would have imrpoved significantly under a totally genuine FM, I mean very gradually, maybe.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
4th:
It just seems to me that FM, as depicted in your video, is some sort of fantastical idea in theory but when put into approximated practice, it's something quite more horrible.
Ideas of private defense industries and private control of all natural resources and public commodities (roads, parks, w/e) scare the shit out of me out of the shere potential for unchecked tyranny in the hands of the rich.
And I'm not too hot about an-comm either, and most surely not the present system.
NoMorFear 2 years ago
well i'd suggest looking into economic science if u are interested. here are some good sites:
lewrockwell (dot) com
mises (dot) com
endless resources there, some great articles on the 19th century too. the free market is only frightening when it isn't properly understood, the first time i started to understand ec. science it blew my mind.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Snap!
More people should see this. Therefore I shall show this to MORE PEOPLE! Yes, some things could be added but all and all I think this was very well done.
koreanrobot47 2 years ago
"U FOAKZ PEI YO TAXES?"
hehehe Seriously though, how many multi-national corporations do you think would survive in a totally unrestricted marketplace? Copyright is a big example of a market restriction. The truth is noone is "stealing" anything. Copyright as it is today is basically a monopoly of ideas.
jtorres520 2 years ago
i agree, IP is bullshit, but it's also state enforced.
as for corps....they are fictional legal entities created by the state. they use the state to pass laws which protect them from competition.
as long as the state controls the law corps will run the show methinks.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
this could/should have been better..
sovereignself 2 years ago
haha okay well i'll try harder next time.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
enough missing
sovereignself 2 years ago
lol love it!
Sean2046 2 years ago
We need a state to protect people. It shpuld however be as small as possible so as to prevent tyranny.
Scoforever 2 years ago
but how can the only legitimate function of the state be to protect people when it must by definition violate the very people it purports to protect? i did not give my consent to be governed, yet i am forced to pay for others' definition of protection. i cannot opt out. this is slavery.
the root of the problem is the state itself. forced barriers to entry on markets wreak havoc economically. the same limited govt args for a small state can be extended to argue against the state itself.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Something necessary may be user fees to replace taxes. The problem with anarchy is that someone always comes in to replace the old state. It happened in Spain Greece and Russia.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Only when people don't defend anarchy.
Lamnont 2 years ago
So every man should be his own state! Then in effect it is anarchy where people stand up for themselves.
Lamnont 2 years ago
We should all view the state in these negative terms. However, I would argue for a minimal state to enforce property rights.
jeffmagic32 2 years ago
so your basically saying, you want someone to be able to use force on you to protect you?
DSowns1111 2 years ago
a state that enforces property rights is a contradiction by definition. look it up.
spiggitybap 2 years ago
so in your ideal it would be each person's responsibility to defend him or herself?
jeffmagic32 2 years ago
each persons responsibility? lol. each persons RIGHT. there would be less crime. standards of living would be incredibly high. since all property would be private, organizations would hire LEGITIMATE protection/law enforcement and it would be everywhere that there is a demand for it, but it would be courteous and efficient (because business seek to please their customers). currently however, it is hard for any person to defend themselves against the state itself.
spiggitybap 2 years ago
Yes it is! Just like it's everyone's responsibility to inhale oxygen.
Lamnont 2 years ago
Why? Rednecks don't call the cops, and they seem to enforce property rights.
Lamnont 2 years ago
Existentialism philosophy. Free market means no regulation or suppressed the individual self-interest for a profit. Because individual human want profit (pleasure).
pr0gm3r 2 years ago
Only the government has the power to surpress individual self-interest. No other entity ever has that power.
mashed107 2 years ago 2
Historicaly, weren't free markets violently imposed upon nations, like Argentina and South Africa, with results being the already large multinational corporations claiming or destroying the small businesses and systems that had been stripped of government defenses?
Free market sounds nice in theory, but with the government and wealthy corporations, not even in bed together, but a single, disgusting, hard to define entity, it seems like we're going to get screwed either way.
gotimeyo 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a "violently enforced free market." That is contradictory, by definition free markets are not coercive.
Corps eliminate competition using govt legislation. That is not free market.
Also, a truly free market would have no govt. Criticisms of govt and corporations are not criticisms of a free market.
I agree w/you on the fact that govt and corps are one single leviathan though.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
The disconnect is current property rights. I own my land because I bought it from someone and legally own it. Follow the thread backwards and it involves a flag being planted or a musket. From whom could I legally buy a piece of the moon?
SaintCog 2 years ago
What are you trying to ask? Who would enforce property rights?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Free Market is a tasty cake sitting on a shit pile. We exist in the layers further up and can enjoy the yummy freedom (mostly). No comment besides the fact it always costs someone at the beginning and most try to deny this.Free markets do not magically appear there is always a shit pile somewhere below. I do enjoy free market cake BTW.
SaintCog 2 years ago
Do you have anything substantial, like perhaps a point to make?
Anything besides vague ramblings and metaphors?
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
free markets follow the principle of homesteading. if you land on the moon and proceed to use it productively, you own the amount that you use for as long as you continue to use it.
spiggitybap 2 years ago
Great vid! Although, I think the essential problem with the state is not ineffectiveness but immorality: we should concentrate on pointing out that the "government" is a group of people who tell us that they and only they have a legal and moral right to use violence against other people.
Dethcrush 3 years ago
teh stoopid, it hurtz. I love these free market zealots who make this false dichotomy of government vs the people when the government is the people. So either you are for unregulated free markets or you are a thief and an oppressor? LOL Good grief. Excuse me while I still live in reality and can see the effects of unregulated free market bullshit.
erkd1 3 years ago
what free market?
go read a book.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Hey thanks man, I will do that. You keep up your corporate toady videos, maybe you will get your plush neo con think tank job. David Rockefeller is proud of you!
erkd1 3 years ago
David Rockefeller requires the govt and their banking privileges to exert power. The state is the source of illegitimate power, why else would corporations spend untold amounts competing for the favor of the coercive arm of govt?
Sorry for me being an ass, i do that from time to time when my temper gets the best of me. But honestly if you care about freedom let me know your objections and we can debate.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
If I care about freedom LOL you are comic gold! No ding dong, the Federal Reserve took the power to print money OUT of government hands (the people) and put that ability into private banking hands. This is right in line with your laissez faire ideology. To you, exploitation goes hand in hand with freedom because you have everything bass ackwards.
erkd1 3 years ago
Firstly, I agree with you on the federal reserve. Obviously there is nothing free market about an institution predicated on having the sole ability to create debt out of thin air. This privilege is enforced through the state.
You cannot both care about freedom and totally ignore economic science. I will teach you if you want.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Right, you believe that we should just trust private banks and the people should have no involvement in it at all. What could possibly go wrong there? LOL Its shocking how dense you anarcho-capitalists are, not to mention totally oblivious to reality.
erkd1 3 years ago
these "private" central banks cannot exist without the state, duh. furthermore i am not an anarcho-capitalist (you know what they say about assuming things).
i adhere to economic science and reason. if you want to throw meaningless concepts around without any ability to define the words you are using please go somewhere else.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
So banks cannot exist without a state? LOL Riiight, now you are just making shit up. Obviously you have never taken a single economics class because economics itself is based on assumptions.
erkd1 3 years ago
sure, that's why we can only apply a priori reasoning, the details of value judgments cannot be isolated and studied.
of course banks will exist. it is the state that cartelizes the banking market by enforcing legal tender laws which give the federal reserve a monopoly on the creation of money. this is how they can set the interest rate.
banks in a stateless society would function on profit and loss like any other enterprise. they would compete, and wouldn't be able to set prices.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
You said "you know what they say about assuming things", now its 'sure, I use those assumptions they are my reasoning skills'. LOL Good grief. And look, here you go again with the 'just trust the bankers and everything will be rainbows and gumdrops'. I am done with your delusional world that completely ignores reality. Have fun misinforming people.
erkd1 3 years ago
you were assuming something about me. that is quite a bit different from the systematic formulation of knowledge concerning economics.
competition means that bankers must serve consumer demand efficiently, fraudulent bankers would be weeded out and ostracized from the marketplace. the problems we see today are clearly the result of state enforced privileges. when banks cease to have state enforced privileges their profit will depend upon attracting voluntary consumers.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
The consumer demand is getting loans, those are given in a fractional lending policy that is completely unregulated and harmful to society. Banks buy other banks or merge reducing competition. You believe that without 'the state' the greed and collusion between banks will magically disappear? LOL When in human history has your system ever worked? Its been tried, its been promoted, but it always ends in disaster. It does not work and for a ideology that's a pretty big problem.
erkd1 3 years ago
Medieval Ireland was an anarchist society and they prospered for a 1000 years before England invaded.
There is no magic involved here, only a lack of economic understanding. Truely voluntary arrangements do not lead to centralization of economic resources. If banks colluded to screw the consumer it would give another bank incentive to come in and out compete them. The fractional reserve banking system is enforced through legal tender laws. Who would want to use devalued money??
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Your problem is that you blame the free market without realizing that what we have does not even closely resemble a free market. "Deregulation" is often a term to describe legislation that empowers special interests. There is no battle between corporations and the govt, they are one thieving leviathan. The state capitalists require the coercive state to enforce their unilaterally beneficial arrangements onto us.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Its ok when you make assumptions about me. What a hypocrite!
erkd1 3 years ago
Bring back the Dark Ages! Now there is a rallying cry! You are comic gold LMAO
erkd1 3 years ago
okay if you are literally unable to debate like a normal person then this is pointless.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Excuse me if I don't want to live like they did in Medieval times! I know what we have now is not what you consider to be free markets. I am saying your free market system exists only on paper, its all made up, there is no such thing as a completely free market, never was. Removing laws doesn't stop criminal behavior it makes what criminals do legal, and it compounds the problem. Religious-like worship of free markets should have some relevance to reality or its the exact same bullshit.
erkd1 3 years ago
This isn't medieval times. You asked for an historical example and I provided you with one. We do not have to revert to the Middle Ages, that is patently absurd.
A world without coercion will probably never exist, but it can be vastly reduced. I never said anything about removing laws, I just don't want statist laws. I'd rather have a realistic, sustainable system of common law and natural law.
Free market economics is backed up by the Austrian methodology. There is no religion here.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Awesome!
MORECOWB3LL 3 years ago
You are assuming that anarchy means lawlessness. Like I mentioned before, there have been anarchist societies in the past which were purely voluntary, and yes there is a way to keep order. I will still pay people to protect me, they will just be directly accountable to me b/c I could just as easily pay someone else to do it. Not so with the govt, I MUST use their service.
If you want to live under a direct democracy go for it! I wouldn't stop you. Just don't force me under your system.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
You keep contradicting yourself. If businesses are dependent upon voluntary consumers they obviously must compete in order to serve consumer demand. As such consumer demand determines what is produced, or else nothing would be sold!
A revolution only occurs after years of injustice and oppression. It is a crappy check on power. Businesses are directly accountable to the consumers, govt can get away with anything until it gets so bad that people are forced to revolt.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Answerable to the people? Where were you when the bailout passed that 90% of the people calling into their representatives fiercely opposed?
Businesses are directly answerable to their consumers. Without govt favors, they would be fully dependent upon voluntary consumers in order to exist.
The govt does not depend upon voluntary consumers, it forces its way into existence. It steals through taxation to fund itself, so there is no incentive for it to act in a responsible manner.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
The judicial branch has its fair share of corruption. They have had just as much a hand as any other branch in the violation of natural rights.
The problem is that there is no way to put a realistic check on the power of the masses. In order to even have a govt, it must be funded. As such, it implies that taxation must exist. For anyone who does not agree with the system, they will be robbed to fund this govt.
Again, liberties are always eroded when there is the power to coerce.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Again, even if a majority of people were to think this is a good idea, it does not necessarily make it so. No majority can rightfully impress their will upon any individual who does not agree with the circumstances under which he is being placed.
Why not just eliminate all corporations by doing away with govt?
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Parchment barriers to power have proven time and time again to be worthless. Mob rule can be just as tyrannical as any corporate rule.
The entire problem rests upon trying to legitimize coercion. The problem of corporations is solved with the abolition of govt, why create a new coercive institution which will be just as tyrannical?
My rights are not up for vote by a majority. They are mine and I will defend them.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Corportations are fictional legal entities created by the govt. They spend untold amounts lobbying Washington for the favor of the coercive arm of govt so they can use it to enforce their interests onto society at large.
No surprises here, politicians will always be bribed by those with the big bucks, there is no way around this. The only solution to corporate power is to dissolve the institution which empowers them in the first place.
To think govt is the solution is backwards.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Hmm... an anarchist who thinks government is necessary? That sounds contradictory.
"Govt only has legitimate authority in so far that the people are DIRECTLY in control that government."
Government is only legitimate if every individual agrees to the circumstances under which they are placed. The second that government steals property w/o permission it becomes illegitimate. What we have in this country is obviously illegitimate. If you cannot see that you are no anarchist.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Again, I did not sign any contract, and I've already made the case that having govt "services" forced upon me in no way implies that I "sign a contract." I find that preposterous.
This country is not collectively owned! What are you talking about? This country was built upon privately owned property.
Just b/c you haven't done any research on anarchism doesn't mean you can pull claims out of your ass like, "Govt has authority b/c we need it."
Go read a book.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Now you are just being intellectually dishonest.
Look if you want to debate this issue like an adult you can stop telling me to "move" as if you own this country.
So I don't have to accept police "services?" That is nonsense. They are forced upon me. They claim to have authority over me when they have absolutely no legitimate authority.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
I'm not forced to pay into social security, that giant ponzi scheme? I won't see a dime of social security and yet Im forced to pay into it. That is BS. The American economy would have to double in size every year for the next 75 years in order to be able to pay off social sec. liabilities. It's impossible.
Our future prosperity has been robbed by the central bank. The dollar is going to collapse. There will be nothing left for my generation. And we are going to be very, very pissed off.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
"You don't have to pay taxes. They are voluntary contributions."
If I don't pay my taxes I will be arrested and thrown into a government cage. That is clearly not a voluntary relationship, it is the forced extraction of money. That is called theft.
Don't I have an inalienable right to associate voluntarily with other human beings? I think that is pretty basic, and govt violates it by its very nature.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
"You signed it the day you decided to accept all the benefits that our tax dollars pay for."
I don't voluntarily accept these "benefits," I am forced to "use" them. If I don't like govt "protection," too bad for me because they have a badge and a gun. This again is not a voluntary relationship.
If you have any concept of rights you should understand what I am saying.
If you want to slave away for the govt for a quarter of the year go ahead, just dont force me to be a slave with you.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
"the people" is a metaphor, a fictional collectivist entity which does not exist beyond individuals.
just because a majority says something is okay, does not make it so. if a majority said we should kill babies, does that make killing babies okay? no, i think you'd say that it wouldnt.
same with the govt. i never signed a contract with them, they force themselves upon me without my permission. they steal my property without my permission, if i dont comply ill be caged like an animal.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
individuals in govt do not gain the right to steal just because a majority of people think it is okay.
Also, the market will exist regardless of whether the state exists. are you implying human beings will cease to have wants and needs if govt disappeared?
It's takes a while to explain anarchist law, but suffice to say that medieval Ireland persisted as an anarchy for 1000 years and they had a very sophisticated way of dealing with law and justice through voluntary means.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Here is the problem, the seller is driven to make bad , poorly made product with built in obsolescence. You also ignore the monopoly corporations and banks that manipulate money and products. Eh, the pharmaceutical companies write the legislation for generic drugs, automobile industry writes safety standards etc etc . There is no "general " freedom so this is completely wrong.
darliegoddess 3 years ago
Ah I beg to differ my friend. Who empowers bankers and corporations? The govt. In fact, corporations are fictional legal entities created and protected by the state. Monopolies are impossible without the state which cartelizes and protects wealthy corps from competition.
All that legislation you speak of is impossible in an anarchy. Those are corps lobbying the govt to pass laws which benefit their interests, they need the govt in order for this scheme to work.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
In an anarchy you cannot have this positivist legislation, where a central body can simply make up laws out of thin air and then enforce them onto the rest of society. It makes no sense. The corps and bankers are dependent upon the govt's monopoly on the provision of law and protection in order to have power over the masses.
It's weird, the supposed solution to potential monopolies is to create the largest, most extravagant and violent monopoly possible: the state.
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
and by the way there is absolutely no way you are 50!
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
Wow, you solved my problem, I will get this in my exams.
chof0319 3 years ago
LUCKILY, just like the end of a bad mafia movie, the state will get so paranoid that their self destructive tendencies will turn against them, and they'll start killing each other off.
Already starting to happen.
Gettinghitonattheban 3 years ago
I don't think the idea of a free market is bad per se; it just depends on how it operates, and to what end.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago