Good interview, but how is this "Is limited government an oxymoron?" If they answered the question, then didn't do so explicitly. And I am still not sure if Tom Woods is an anarchist or not. If he's a minarchist, I want to hear how he justifies his limited government morally and why he thinks it is good or necessary (i.e. does he think that the market would fail to provide the service of law or something?). And if he's an anarchist, then I would like to hear him say it. Thanks.
you tube is so stupid and limited pisoff you tube you dont respect free speeking i speek my mind diks if you are for not speeking agants coropsion you are stupid besides yutube sond riuns the cuality of my music all this tecnology and cant even ave cualety sond
Is it truly the manager of the Wal-Mart that lays down he law in? It seems to me that the manager would be a lot less tough if he didn't know that the police were a three-digit call away.
Like any radical positions, anarchy can't possibly be the answer. I agree with Mr. Casey who says that anarchists (except Henri) don't go around blowing stuff up. For the most part they write a lot..and that's about it. still..too extreme. They wish to cut out a tumor but propose no way to seal the wound
@MrJamesBP There are about a hundred hours of lectures on various anarcho-capitalist interests and I assure you there are about 3 ways at least for any question you can propose. Go look around if you have specific questions.
@MrJamesBP Why cannot radical positions be "the answer"? Because they are radical? So is relativity and quantum mechanics when compared to Newtonian physics. Doesn't make them less right. Either way, anarcho-capitalism does propose a way to "seal the wound" from the removal of the tumor that is government - various transitional states have been proposed, as well as the use of education (all that writing) to teach people why no government is better (thus minimizing the damage from removal).
[Bastiat] says there are three ways we can organize society:
#1: everybody plunders everybody,
#2: some people plunder other people, or
#3: nobody plunders anybody,
and for some reason, we consider #2 to be the ideal, the height of morality, the only way human beings can interact with each other,and it's considered crazy extremism that you would even consider that there might be the humane alternative of nobody plundering anybody.
Our state is being run by demagogue crooked tryranist republicans. They rape and plunder the poor thru the capitol. They are ruining what made our country great, shared RESPONSIBILITY by the rich as well as the poor. Even Hitler would be clapping for them. But only our gov. can restrain the wicked as they have no morals. No one is to be trusted who clearly working on destroying our Constitution.
In theory anarchy works. But in practice, everyone (or at least most people) would have to be on the same page in order for it to work. In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive.
@jamesdragonforce "In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive."
The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me. Socialist social programs and a mixed Socialist/Free Market (a real mix, not 10%/90% like in the US) not only work, but there has yet to be a political theory that is better in practice (that includes Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism). Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism.
@dave19941000 This is not about happiness, is impossible to judge any given system by the subjective term of "happiness" because happiness for everyone changes over time and the happiness of one individual might be a living hell for another. Another question is Who is the one that makes possible all that "socialist social programs", is it the goverment or the people that actually made them possible, the productive individuals of those society.
@dave19941000 "The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me." That is your argument? They SEEM happy, to YOU. You personally know all of the people who live there? I am not saying you are incorrect, however this nonfactual "information" does not belong in a debate. If you were to say something like (WARNING, MADE UP FACT!) "90% of people in Finland approve of the job their government is doing", or some other FACTS, rather than your uninformed opinion, that might be another story.
@DynamicUnreality Alright here's a fact, Norway is the country that has had the highest quality of life for 8 of the past 10 years, Sweden has the highest level of income equality in the world, and Finland is tied for best education system in the world (source is the United Nations website). And Norway, Sweden and Finland are the 1st, 7th and 5th happiest countries in the world (source: financialjesus(dot)com and theatlantic(dot)com)
@dave19941000 That's a bit better. Now, while I do not disagree with what you said, I have a counter argument, but I am just too effing tired to do fact checking right now, so I'm not even going to. I'll just say that economic progress comes in many forms, and in many cultures. Culturally homogeneous peoples such as those in small countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland have a much easier time with Socialism than a mixed culture, such as that of the United States.
Nordic countries have the highest incidence of laissez-faire markets in the world. Socialism is not the cause of their prosperity. It was in fact social democratic policy that nearly crippled Sweden in the latter half of the 20th C
@jamesdragonforce "In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive."
The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me. Socialist social programs and a mixed Socialist/Free Market (a real mix, not 10%/90% like in the US) not only work, but there has yet to be a political theory that is better in practice (that includes Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism). Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism.
@dave19941000 Oh, but to say "Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism." is just outright false. Liberalism and conservatism are basically opposites, while communism is basically just socialism taken to the extreme.
being poor in north korea is better than in us. Because everyone else is equally poor =) And level of happiness is defined by how person perceive itself in social hierarchy, not by how actually rich it is. Poor among poor are happier than poor among rich.
@mason72518 it wouldn't work, i've already seen the rich, and i will always compare mysef to them.... anyways, it is not the point, the point was - the feeling of happiness is not always correlated with weath. People in ss africa may actually feel quite happy and content, so did people ofiron age, because they didn't know it could better
@coturnix19 Then you should go live in ignorance with these people you speak of. And are you so condescending to say that people in poor countries don't know that things can get better? People in the "emerging" world have seen the way we live in the west, and they want the same things we have here. Living in poverty and ignorance is not the key to happiness.
@coturnix19 That is absolutely ridiculous. I do think people who have a lower standard of living are fine and can be perfectly happy, as long as they have their necessities they can find emotional fulfillment. North Korea is a ridiculous example, that is a totalitarian state straight out of Orwell. North Korea is possibly the most dystopian country on the planet. I feel terrible for those people, if there was ever a country that deserved our retarded foreign policy of interventionism, it's NK.
@Rensune in an anarchist society power would not be a held by a monopoly power such as the government, but the power would still be held by decentralized organizations. It would seem you are not familiar with basic anarcho capitalist principles.
@Humanicus I am talking about the root etymology of the word Anarchy, as well as the organizational skills of higher organisms. Of which principles are you referring to? Because what you just described is a confederacy.
@Rensune I'm referring to the ideas put forth by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. It wouldn't be a confederacy because the "decentralized" power wouldn't simply be vested in a bunch of smaller governments but the services currently provided by the government would be provided by companies relying on voluntary market transactions. The most important element is that no one could claim fiat monopoly.
@Rensune Whatever "order" or "leadership" we currently get from governments would still be provided without all of the other things governments do that we don't necessarily want. Currently, governments provide law and order (poorly) and also fight wars, prosecute us for consensual behavior, interfere with markets and peaceful interactions. All we wanted was a way to protect ourselves from violence and injustice and instead we have a violent behemoth that we cannot secede from.
@newmind1 Neo-Cons? What are you a fuckin retard? Neo-Cons are big government right wingers, they are closer to Liberals then what these guys are advocating.
@AmericanNohbuddy How about a government monopoly that succeeds in solving about 3% of all murders, treats minority communities like garbage, abuses its powers as a matter of course, and has absolutely no incentive to prevent crime or even to solve it? By all means let's stick with this thing, and never think outside the box. (I read your profile info -- when was the last time Republicans actually cut government? Turn off the TV and study for yourself. The budget is NEVER cut.)
@AmericanNohbuddy You should watch "an anarchist legal order". Its basically like government does it, except nobody gets a monopoly and everything is done by contract.
@AmericanNohbuddy Everyone? Also the people who the restaurant paid to maintain order, and lawful behaviour?
The only difference is instead of the protection agencies forcing you to pay them and preventing anyone else from helping you, like the government does, the agencies compete for your business and are pad through voluntary means.
You assume people could afford it firstly. And how do you have a justice system with no government? The only way you can establish laws I'd think would be a direct democracy, but then that would be tyranny of the majority. But who authorizes someone to actually arrest another person?
It will end up being tribal warfare.
But in the end all of this is speculation, since you guys haven't overthrown and gotten rid of the government.
@American With no government taxes, which in most countries are over 50% of total income, yea people could afford it.
You don't have a state, no democracy, understand? You form your own rules and sign legal contracts with people. In those contracts there would be an enforcement agency sited and agreed upon.
The alternative to this is called statism which is the monopoly of force and theft.
It has been generally found in economics that monpolies are inherently innefficient and corruptable.
@ Always with the violence, look there are about an hour or two's worth of questions and answers, but I have seen them all asked and all answered satisfactorily. I'm not going to sit here and type out all the answers just because your too lazy to watch the videos. Just go to either "libertyinourtime" or "misesmedia"'s youtube channels.
For future reference the word tribe implies a homogenous race.
Also you don't have to overthrow anything, if it crumbles into our form of anarchy thats great.
in another interview, Woods talks about how he was being shipped around day in and day out and that this interview was at, like, 5 in the morning. He was like "I was so tired"
Wonderful discussion. I'd have to agree that perhaps it is time to leave the people the hell alone. Governments just do not work now and have, indeed, become huge metastatic cancers that are destroying everything in their paths.
Politicians justify their jobs by passing legislation! They can point to laws passed and say, 'look, I did this or that,' and it makes it seem as if they care!
Private militias and a set 10% income tax rate across the board would be a good start! A set 3% sales tax for the States and part time legislators!
People need to understand that they have the right to fail as well as the right to succeed! Its a two sided coin!
Why is it that I have changed from watching Family Guy to watching Thomas Woods and Austrian economists for not only information but also entertainment? I'm so addicted to the elegance and simplicity of the entire Rothbardian/ Austrian thought.
The only but very important job of government is to protect our rights. This is where anarchists lose me from my libertarian philosophy. There will always be that 1% or so of people that will murder, rape, and steal.
@residentzombie "There will always be that 1% or so of people that will murder, rape, and steal." Exactly why we should not have an institution that is exempt from this immorality and gives this power to the same corruptible humans you are worried about. In addition, do you really think people would somehow loose their sense of self-preservation without a government? That there would be no protection services or dispute resolution without a government?
@jsd8cc Without government to provides rights to it's citizens and a police force to enforce those rules of liberty, one would have to defend themselves and their family 24/7 and crime would increase to do an unorderly society. I am advocating against anarchy only because of the fallacy that 100% of the people can be just and monitor their own actions with ethics and morals.
@residentzombie "Without government to provides rights to it's citizens" Governments do not provide or grant rights. Even the Constitution acknowledges this. It doesn't say "our gov't grants you freedom of speech", it says "freedom of speech is a natural right that cannot be violated". Look up natural vs. legal rights. "a police force to enforce those rules of liberty" Once again, you are presupposing there would be no police or protection services in a stateless society.
@residentzombie (You said "provides", but regardless...) You never addressed my earlier point, re: rights protection. As I said earlier: The notion of a State protecting rights is an oxymoron. A State can only exist by violating rights. A State is predicated on aggression (the initiation of violence - i.e., taxes).
No it is up to you to protect your rights. Although the state likes to claim that it is protecting them for you, and gullible people actually believe that story. A state/government cannot protect anyone's rights. Heck, when it comes to any major disaster like say a nuclear attack or even gasoline shortage, the priorities of govt are always clear thru its actions. Save itself and its functionaries - the rest can fight it out for themselves.
@utubehayter The government does not have a right to protect me. It does have a right to protect my natural God given freedoms though. You are confusing phsyical protection from ideological freedom.
No I am not confusing anything.. Government has no rights AT ALL, neither to protect your god given freedoms, nor you. Even if you delegate that right to govt, it fails miserably, denies that it has that responsibility and more often than not will attack you one way or the other.
It is a typical minarchist argument.. but it is a lie.
@utubehayter Here is the bottom line dude. When the chaos happens, if we abandon the Constitution, the globalist will give us a new contract (probably the UN Charter) or some other totalitarian constitution that will destroy what this country should be all about. Is the Constitution perfect? No, but if we abandon it, this country is FINISHED and totalitarian government will take over. Protect the US Constitution.
"We" have already abandoned the constitution, a long long time ago. This country stood for a very short period (~12 years) for something, that too quite imperfectly. If the american people are going to behave like sheeple.. it seems appropriate that they be sheep-herded, sheared and slaughtered at will by their masters. If Americans can take pride in the current totalitarians.. they deserve more of it.
As to protect the US constitution - good luck with your utopian dream.
Understanding what your position is - I have a few reading recommendations, that could help you. Start with Robert Leferve's critique on the US constitution, then proceed to Rothbard's take on the US constitution, then Hans Hermann Hoppe on The impossibility of Limited Government.
In the mean time, read Etienne de la Boetie, David Hume on Politics of Obedience - to understand that all government (are oligarchies and) depends on legitimacy assigned to it by the people.
@utubehayter Nice reading list that you have recommended, I get so tired of arguing with people that think that America's problem is that it has gotten away from the constitution instead of realizing that the constitution is what has led us to where we are now. I pass out copies of Hoppe's article and look forward to reading the others as well, It is too bad that Rothbard couldn't still be with us.
@utubehayter Was there something specific by Rothbard besides Anatomy of the State that talks about the constitution specifically? And can you post a link for Leferve's critique? I wasn't able to find one on mises or when I googled it, thanks.
Leferve's critique is available on mises website, under media, look by authors, Robert Leferve, the specific article is called "US constitution revisited". There is a reason people think that deviation the US constitution was responsible for the problems.. they imagine that the US constitution is ONLY the bill of rights. And do not see the drastic split between the bill of rights and the main body of the constitution.
@utubehayter Thank you for the link to Leferve's article. I was thinking the same thing about people only thinking about the bill of rights, whenever I tell someone that the constitution gave power to the federal government they attack my intelligence and ask if I have ever read it. The other thing that drives me crazy is everyones love affair with Lincoln, people seem to think he was a paragon of liberty. Dilorenzo has opened my eyes about him, although I think that ignorance is bliss.
@residentzombie You cannot be simply "given" a contract. A contract has certain elements & the Constitution has none of those elements. It does nothing for us. It is literally, a handful of worthless paper.
@residentzombie "The only but very important job of government is to protect our rights." The notion of a State protecting rights is an oxymoron. A State can only exist by violating rights. A State is predicated on aggression (the initiation of violence - i.e., taxes).
@jsd8cc Then you use competition to your advantage and move to a friendlier State. States still have to make sure that our rights are not violated just as the federal gov't does, but is an extra safe guard against corruption of power. The 17 powers not enumerated to the federal government from the States are then left to the States and then finally what is left to the people. Federal gov't and States gov't have different debates. Federal gov't is bound by many rules, but the States are only
Do you really think anarchists, especially anarcho-capitalists assume that ALL people will be good? That there will be no people who want to rape, murder and steal?
It's frustrating that the argument needs to turn to economics and such, when all that's needed is a simple statement, "government is illegitimate." Seriously, there is no such thing as a social contract with the state and the Constitution has no power whatsoever.
“Everything needs to be done, will by entrepreneurs.”….. Yeah right… but for what price? I am certainly not for big government but leave everything to the market is not the answer. Doug Casey is an investor and therefore wants to abolish all regulations for the benefit of the few (rich investors).
The poor in the US do not better than the poor in other developed countries. The market does not care about external costs.
@happyswissman You're right: the U.S. poor do not merely do better than the poor in other developed countries -- they do better than the _middle class_ in other developed countries.
"Abolishing all regulations" would not benefit the "few"; that's why, in case you haven't noticed (and somehow you haven't) the most influential never favor such a regime. They always want regulations, since they know they can game the system.
And the "external costs" argument has been answered 1000 times.
We All Must Be United Under The Swastika and heres why:
The history of newspapers is an often-dramatic chapter of the human experience going back some five centuries. In Renaissance Europe handwritten newsletters circulated privately among merchants, passing along information about everything from wars and economic conditions to social customs and "human interest" features. The first printed forerunners of the newspaper appeared in Germany in the late 1400's
I totally agree that GOVERNMENTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, & CRIMINAL! Not only that but history and even the Bible proves time and time again that governments are absolutely EVIL!
The more perfect we are the less government we need. Anarchy could only be possible in a society where the people are perfect. If we all have an internal government we might not need government. But limited Government is an antidote for tyranny.
what is a state? it is an arbitrary proclamation that some people are from the government and some are not.
so in his ideal world of anarchy, some people get together and form a private organization, which specializes extortion, taking other people's property and guns and distributing the wealth to their friends.
they can call themselves the USA.
what is his argument against it? everyone can claim a monopoly of force.
I don't think you've properly realized what anarchy is for. The type of coercive force you're claiming would exist anarchists already acknowledge. Except we actually know what it is -- GOV'T!
we already live in an anarchist world by his definition. free people came together and formed an organisation they call the USA. you are free to no acknowledge the USA, as long as you don't mind being shot.
since he doesn't acknowledge that there should be any kind of organization that protects individual rights(like police and courts), even north korea is anarchy by his definition.
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
@myrelative You bring up a good point. Although anarchy would be great until governments formed, anarchy has no way of preventing states from forming. People could form groups that would steal others' property, just as they have throughout history and to this day.
You're right, the world we live in is essentially a progressed state of anarchy. It seems that a "good" government would be necessary to prevent worse governments from forming. It's a dilemma that I'll have to think over.
@bobdole57 Not necessarily. I just think that a very limited government might be necessity to prevent looter governments from popping up and taking over. I'm not sure about this yet, though.
How does a society maintain a limited government? I mean, after all it was what we used to have, but it never stays that way. I don't think it is an accident that most governments fail and restart every 300 or so years.
@bobdole57 Yes, I have been thinking about that question a lot recently. Governments have always in history grow as time goes on, until they collapse as a result of unsustainable regulations. I really don't know the answer, but at least we know the right question!
Oh, okay; I apologize then. I hold the same view that the world is what it is and you simply need to view it from the right perspective. I personally will exploit as many tax loopholes as I can and possibly expatriot myself to a less regulated state as Jim Rogers has.
The average five-year old could run a lemonade stand better than the government (but then they'd make him pay five hundred dollars for a permit or something, and then the FDA would close him down anyway for not sterilizing the dixie cups). I find it a little annoying that it is consistently seen as intolerable to have corporate sponsors for public services. What's wrong with Microsoft running a computer camp, or Caterpillar and John Deere using 1000 miles of highway as a product demo?
We ned to live by the motto: WE THE PEOPLE...we are the government, or, we should be...We have lost our values, and are so easily deceived with propaganda...
For as many as I see awakening, I feel so sorrowfully helpless, as I see just as many sinking like a stone.
The Austrian School can be best described as an erroneous and deluded school of economic thought.
Analogous to that of Nostradamus, the Austrians simply make vague predictions about the economy, claim a collapse is eminent, and wait for a fluctuation to claim that they were vilified, despite the numerous farces.
The reasonable schools of economic thought are then burdened with the eccentric diatribes of the misguided Austrians for their "failure" to predict the economic fluctuation.
Once again, how is it then that they predicted the crash of 2007 when nobody else did?
Same for the great depression and 1983 and 1987
If it's deluded and erroneus, how come it's right time after time ?
No they don't make vague predictions
watch Peter Schiff 2006 banking conference (8 part video) he said exactly that in 2007 a great collapse will happen, and people thought he was nuts. He said the exact year and he gave all the reasons why it would happen
The real reason you say it's erroneous, is because it advocates an end to reckless spending, and you probably like government freebies
That's the most common reason people don't like them. But the most viscious thing of all is when the disaster DOES strike, exactly as they say it will, you will be blaming the profit motive and the free market
One of the primary arguments against central banking made by the Austrians are the artificially low interest rates, a policy undertaken by the American Federal Reserve bank and the ECB.
Austrians here claim, as I'm sure they do in US, that these artificially low interest rates somehow manage fool investors into making undesirable investments, thus claiming a market irrationality. Investments they would otherwise not make if the interest rates were higher.
Fed lowering interest rates does in reality encourage massive investments and lending that otherwise wouldn't have been made. This isn't a speculation, it's a fact that has been demonstrated by our economy within the last decade alone.
"A bad investment is a bad investment"
If you're saying that the banks are at fault for taking the bait, then you're right, and Austrians agree with this.
You're an idiot. The argument is not that the low interest rates delude investors into making unwise investments. That has nothing to do with the argument at all. It is that types of investment are artificially encouraged that cannot be completed given the current state of resource availability. Temporally remote stages of production are expanded at a time when the factors of production to support them have not been made available by lower time preferences on the part of society.
Is it just me or has YT tampered with the bandwidth allowances (limit on viewing/viewer/etc). I never used to have to 'wait' till a video 'loads' but now... even the simplest of productions stall repeatedly and one is continually waiting with annoying and non-stop pauses.
Has anyone had enough of YT yet to really make a difference with another website to get it off the ground in a meaningful way? What's it gonna take to show these control freaks competition can be a threat.
YouTube typically limits the amount of bandwidth available to a video per user, even if more is available...you may want to try speedbit or mywifi to speed it up; I've heard good things about both.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i'm a (secular) libertarian (if i had to pick a name). but i find many of doug casey's anarchist points naive. he believes that private enterprise can manage EVERY sector of society. what about violent criminals and such? are we to believe that some sort of private tribunals could manage justice at all levels? there needs to be some limited governance to keep unfettered assholes in check.
Good interview, but how is this "Is limited government an oxymoron?" If they answered the question, then didn't do so explicitly. And I am still not sure if Tom Woods is an anarchist or not. If he's a minarchist, I want to hear how he justifies his limited government morally and why he thinks it is good or necessary (i.e. does he think that the market would fail to provide the service of law or something?). And if he's an anarchist, then I would like to hear him say it. Thanks.
WelcometotheUnknown 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
..when were dealing with politics we have a dramatization of peoples psychological abberations...
that is too perfect
denisonM 4 days ago
Liberty is on the move. When the day comes, everyone will benefit from freedom.
denisonM 4 days ago
Impressive stuff.
3o4Titties 2 weeks ago
you tube is so stupid and limited pisoff you tube you dont respect free speeking i speek my mind diks if you are for not speeking agants coropsion you are stupid besides yutube sond riuns the cuality of my music all this tecnology and cant even ave cualety sond
dianelap67 1 month ago
Limited government and few restrictions are the only way to go, Then and ONLY THEN do you have true freedom.
tehatemachine 1 month ago 2
@tehatemachine
A rattlesnake bite and some sleeping pills are the only way to go, Then and ONLY THEN do you have excellent health.
KagarBeardtooth 1 month ago
Is it truly the manager of the Wal-Mart that lays down he law in? It seems to me that the manager would be a lot less tough if he didn't know that the police were a three-digit call away.
Like any radical positions, anarchy can't possibly be the answer. I agree with Mr. Casey who says that anarchists (except Henri) don't go around blowing stuff up. For the most part they write a lot..and that's about it. still..too extreme. They wish to cut out a tumor but propose no way to seal the wound
MrJamesBP 3 months ago
@MrJamesBP There are about a hundred hours of lectures on various anarcho-capitalist interests and I assure you there are about 3 ways at least for any question you can propose. Go look around if you have specific questions.
Hashishin13 2 months ago
@MrJamesBP Why cannot radical positions be "the answer"? Because they are radical? So is relativity and quantum mechanics when compared to Newtonian physics. Doesn't make them less right. Either way, anarcho-capitalism does propose a way to "seal the wound" from the removal of the tumor that is government - various transitional states have been proposed, as well as the use of education (all that writing) to teach people why no government is better (thus minimizing the damage from removal).
mtanousable 2 weeks ago
parts of this video featured in my new video "politicians lie"
check it out and subscribe :)
LibertarianChristian 3 months ago
@20:31
[Bastiat] says there are three ways we can organize society:
#1: everybody plunders everybody,
#2: some people plunder other people, or
#3: nobody plunders anybody,
and for some reason, we consider #2 to be the ideal, the height of morality, the only way human beings can interact with each other,and it's considered crazy extremism that you would even consider that there might be the humane alternative of nobody plundering anybody.
flowerpt 4 months ago
Our state is being run by demagogue crooked tryranist republicans. They rape and plunder the poor thru the capitol. They are ruining what made our country great, shared RESPONSIBILITY by the rich as well as the poor. Even Hitler would be clapping for them. But only our gov. can restrain the wicked as they have no morals. No one is to be trusted who clearly working on destroying our Constitution.
Licmycat 4 months ago 2
POLITICS: a dramatization of peoples' psychological aberrations
utuebmakeustupid 4 months ago
In theory anarchy works. But in practice, everyone (or at least most people) would have to be on the same page in order for it to work. In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive.
jamesdragonforce 5 months ago
@jamesdragonforce "In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive."
The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me. Socialist social programs and a mixed Socialist/Free Market (a real mix, not 10%/90% like in the US) not only work, but there has yet to be a political theory that is better in practice (that includes Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism). Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism.
dave19941000 4 months ago
@dave19941000 This is not about happiness, is impossible to judge any given system by the subjective term of "happiness" because happiness for everyone changes over time and the happiness of one individual might be a living hell for another. Another question is Who is the one that makes possible all that "socialist social programs", is it the goverment or the people that actually made them possible, the productive individuals of those society.
megatherium100 4 months ago
@dave19941000 "The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me." That is your argument? They SEEM happy, to YOU. You personally know all of the people who live there? I am not saying you are incorrect, however this nonfactual "information" does not belong in a debate. If you were to say something like (WARNING, MADE UP FACT!) "90% of people in Finland approve of the job their government is doing", or some other FACTS, rather than your uninformed opinion, that might be another story.
DynamicUnreality 4 months ago
@DynamicUnreality Alright here's a fact, Norway is the country that has had the highest quality of life for 8 of the past 10 years, Sweden has the highest level of income equality in the world, and Finland is tied for best education system in the world (source is the United Nations website). And Norway, Sweden and Finland are the 1st, 7th and 5th happiest countries in the world (source: financialjesus(dot)com and theatlantic(dot)com)
dave19941000 4 months ago
@dave19941000 That's a bit better. Now, while I do not disagree with what you said, I have a counter argument, but I am just too effing tired to do fact checking right now, so I'm not even going to. I'll just say that economic progress comes in many forms, and in many cultures. Culturally homogeneous peoples such as those in small countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland have a much easier time with Socialism than a mixed culture, such as that of the United States.
DynamicUnreality 4 months ago
@DynamicUnreality
Nordic countries have the highest incidence of laissez-faire markets in the world. Socialism is not the cause of their prosperity. It was in fact social democratic policy that nearly crippled Sweden in the latter half of the 20th C
Samsgarden 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@jamesdragonforce "In theory, socialism is good. But in practice, it's extremes are oppressive."
The people in Norway, Sweden and Finland seem happy to me. Socialist social programs and a mixed Socialist/Free Market (a real mix, not 10%/90% like in the US) not only work, but there has yet to be a political theory that is better in practice (that includes Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism). Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism.
dave19941000 4 months ago
@dave19941000 Oh, but to say "Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, it's like comparing Conservatism and Liberalism." is just outright false. Liberalism and conservatism are basically opposites, while communism is basically just socialism taken to the extreme.
DynamicUnreality 4 months ago
Slim and none... and slim's outta town.
Exhalent 5 months ago
I love when McQuistion goes: I was debating a lady in Irving, Texas......... over 25 years ago.... LOL what a memory!
TimothyADonaghue 7 months ago
god i love everyone from the austrian school. such a breath of fresh air.
dieyoung 7 months ago 3
The government is obsolete, especially since the internet.
doughtymqan 8 months ago 3
PUT DOUG CASEY IN THE TITLE
alistairproductions 8 months ago 4
The Keynesian model is bereft of reality.
RepublicConstitution 8 months ago
@RepublicConstitution Keynes was also a proponent of eugenics. He was a well educated savage.
doughtymqan 8 months ago 3
"we shouldn't even call this political entity we live in America;
America was a wonderful idea, it was a fantastic idea, but America is
gone, it's disappeared, it's been replaced by the United States which
is just another of 200 political entities which cover the face of the
Earth like a skin disease" -Douglas Casey
KneelingAtlas 9 months ago
23:55
..when were dealing with politics we have a dramatization of peoples psychological abberations...
that is too perfect
Equity213 9 months ago
And as for the book metldown, i have to be honest: I agree with everything in it, but it wasnt a very good book.
Equity213 9 months ago
wow Doug Casey and Tom Woods in one video? These guys are pretty much my two favorite speakers.
Equity213 9 months ago 3
This is an excellent introduction to basic morality, especially for those who need it most (D, R). Excellent quote from Tacitus via Casey.
libertarianjury 10 months ago
If you haven't read The Machinery Of Freedom or The Ethics Of Liberty you shouldn't comment on this video. I'm dead serious. Go read them now.
Humanicus 10 months ago 2
being poor in north korea is better than in us. Because everyone else is equally poor =) And level of happiness is defined by how person perceive itself in social hierarchy, not by how actually rich it is. Poor among poor are happier than poor among rich.
coturnix19 10 months ago
@coturnix19 Then go live in N Korea. Let us know how much you like it.
mason72518 10 months ago
@mason72518 it wouldn't work, i've already seen the rich, and i will always compare mysef to them.... anyways, it is not the point, the point was - the feeling of happiness is not always correlated with weath. People in ss africa may actually feel quite happy and content, so did people ofiron age, because they didn't know it could better
coturnix19 10 months ago
@coturnix19 Then you should go live in ignorance with these people you speak of. And are you so condescending to say that people in poor countries don't know that things can get better? People in the "emerging" world have seen the way we live in the west, and they want the same things we have here. Living in poverty and ignorance is not the key to happiness.
mason72518 10 months ago
@coturnix19 "And level of happiness is defined by how person perceive itself in social hierarchy." Most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Humanicus 10 months ago
@Humanicus good for you
coturnix19 10 months ago
@coturnix19 That is absolutely ridiculous. I do think people who have a lower standard of living are fine and can be perfectly happy, as long as they have their necessities they can find emotional fulfillment. North Korea is a ridiculous example, that is a totalitarian state straight out of Orwell. North Korea is possibly the most dystopian country on the planet. I feel terrible for those people, if there was ever a country that deserved our retarded foreign policy of interventionism, it's NK.
zoogle1 9 months ago
Best part at 22:13!
TimothyADonaghue 11 months ago
What a great discussion. I added it to my favorites.
DanMorin007 11 months ago
@9:13 - 10:05 A+ explanation for puzzled liberal economists.
tmac9938 11 months ago
Anarchy is the opposite of chaos? Anarchy literally means without leader: which is biologically impossible.
Rensune 11 months ago
@Rensune in an anarchist society power would not be a held by a monopoly power such as the government, but the power would still be held by decentralized organizations. It would seem you are not familiar with basic anarcho capitalist principles.
Humanicus 10 months ago
@Humanicus I am talking about the root etymology of the word Anarchy, as well as the organizational skills of higher organisms. Of which principles are you referring to? Because what you just described is a confederacy.
Rensune 10 months ago
@Rensune I'm referring to the ideas put forth by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. It wouldn't be a confederacy because the "decentralized" power wouldn't simply be vested in a bunch of smaller governments but the services currently provided by the government would be provided by companies relying on voluntary market transactions. The most important element is that no one could claim fiat monopoly.
Humanicus 10 months ago
@Rensune Whatever "order" or "leadership" we currently get from governments would still be provided without all of the other things governments do that we don't necessarily want. Currently, governments provide law and order (poorly) and also fight wars, prosecute us for consensual behavior, interfere with markets and peaceful interactions. All we wanted was a way to protect ourselves from violence and injustice and instead we have a violent behemoth that we cannot secede from.
Humanicus 10 months ago
They should stop talking about Hayek winning the Nobel Prize for Economics. The fact Krugman has one only hurts Hayek and helps Krugman.
whitechocolatespace 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a bunch of Neo-Cons acting like their not Neo-Cons!
newmind1 1 year ago
@newmind1 Neo-Cons? What are you a fuckin retard? Neo-Cons are big government right wingers, they are closer to Liberals then what these guys are advocating.
brokenbrainz1 1 year ago 36
@newmind1 you are a fucking dumbass.
ferrozm 1 year ago
@newmind1 First off, its not their, its they're in the context which you are speaking. Secondly....... No. Bush and Cheney were neocons.
Libertarians are NOT NEOCONS.
Would you call Thomas Jefferson a neocon? Seriously.
noyouaintgettingit 11 months ago 19
@newmind1 You are so dumb i feel bad for your children. No wounder kids are not getting any smarter
xpaleoconx 11 months ago
@xpaleoconx No wounder? You mean WONDER right? Sounds like you could use a grammar lesson yourself.
cmayberry86 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am pro-capitalism, anti-Catholic Church. Catholic Church is socialist
RRNYC1998 1 year ago
The time is now- Wake and do it peacefully...
Talk to me Carolina G - Thinking
seekinnertruth 1 year ago
Someone shoots you in the restaurant and gets away. Who investigates and arrests the person? who enforces laws?
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy How about a government monopoly that succeeds in solving about 3% of all murders, treats minority communities like garbage, abuses its powers as a matter of course, and has absolutely no incentive to prevent crime or even to solve it? By all means let's stick with this thing, and never think outside the box. (I read your profile info -- when was the last time Republicans actually cut government? Turn off the TV and study for yourself. The budget is NEVER cut.)
DRNevans 1 year ago 3
@DRNevans
Nothing in my profile says anything about republicans cutting government or anything on the budget either.
How are you going to have a justice system with no government and everything privatized?
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy You should watch "an anarchist legal order". Its basically like government does it, except nobody gets a monopoly and everything is done by contract.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@DRNevans Really only 3% are solved? Thats ridiculous.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy who cares? you're already dead, thus police is useless
coturnix19 1 year ago
@coturnix19
That's the spirit!
Happy trolling!
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy Everyone? Also the people who the restaurant paid to maintain order, and lawful behaviour?
The only difference is instead of the protection agencies forcing you to pay them and preventing anyone else from helping you, like the government does, the agencies compete for your business and are pad through voluntary means.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
You assume people could afford it firstly. And how do you have a justice system with no government? The only way you can establish laws I'd think would be a direct democracy, but then that would be tyranny of the majority. But who authorizes someone to actually arrest another person?
It will end up being tribal warfare.
But in the end all of this is speculation, since you guys haven't overthrown and gotten rid of the government.
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
@American With no government taxes, which in most countries are over 50% of total income, yea people could afford it.
You don't have a state, no democracy, understand? You form your own rules and sign legal contracts with people. In those contracts there would be an enforcement agency sited and agreed upon.
The alternative to this is called statism which is the monopoly of force and theft.
It has been generally found in economics that monpolies are inherently innefficient and corruptable.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@Hashishin13
You'd have to purchase things that you usually paid with taxes. Probably would have to keep paying every time you walk on a sidewalk, or use a road.
Sign legal contracts? What if they don't? And what if one's own rules doesn't go along with someone else's?
Tribal warfare has nothing to do with race. If one community wants your land, what is there to stop them if they have enough man power to take it?
I'll be waiting for you to overthrow the government to prove these things.
AmericanNohbuddy 1 year ago
@ Always with the violence, look there are about an hour or two's worth of questions and answers, but I have seen them all asked and all answered satisfactorily. I'm not going to sit here and type out all the answers just because your too lazy to watch the videos. Just go to either "libertyinourtime" or "misesmedia"'s youtube channels.
For future reference the word tribe implies a homogenous race.
Also you don't have to overthrow anything, if it crumbles into our form of anarchy thats great.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy Why would it end up in tribal warfare? You think everyone is that racist?
What you are basically saying is that a society that is based on voluntary contracts can't work, but one based on theft can.
Hashishin13 1 year ago
@AmericanNohbuddy The police. That was a tough one
dbill27 1 year ago
in another interview, Woods talks about how he was being shipped around day in and day out and that this interview was at, like, 5 in the morning. He was like "I was so tired"
evangrogers 1 year ago
Tom you mean to say: How utterly removed it is from the government we were TOLD it was intended to be.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
Wonderful discussion. I'd have to agree that perhaps it is time to leave the people the hell alone. Governments just do not work now and have, indeed, become huge metastatic cancers that are destroying everything in their paths.
I can dream.
RedTulie1 1 year ago
Politicians justify their jobs by passing legislation! They can point to laws passed and say, 'look, I did this or that,' and it makes it seem as if they care!
Private militias and a set 10% income tax rate across the board would be a good start! A set 3% sales tax for the States and part time legislators!
People need to understand that they have the right to fail as well as the right to succeed! Its a two sided coin!
MrWatchdawg77 1 year ago 2
"[I'm] not a minarchist." - Tom Woods
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago 2
Why is it that I have changed from watching Family Guy to watching Thomas Woods and Austrian economists for not only information but also entertainment? I'm so addicted to the elegance and simplicity of the entire Rothbardian/ Austrian thought.
atilliar 1 year ago
Where in the world does Doug recommend living?
InCharacter 1 year ago
LOL "You might as well be speaking Chinese."
InCharacter 1 year ago
The only but very important job of government is to protect our rights. This is where anarchists lose me from my libertarian philosophy. There will always be that 1% or so of people that will murder, rape, and steal.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie "There will always be that 1% or so of people that will murder, rape, and steal." Exactly why we should not have an institution that is exempt from this immorality and gives this power to the same corruptible humans you are worried about. In addition, do you really think people would somehow loose their sense of self-preservation without a government? That there would be no protection services or dispute resolution without a government?
jsd8cc 1 year ago
@jsd8cc Without government to provides rights to it's citizens and a police force to enforce those rules of liberty, one would have to defend themselves and their family 24/7 and crime would increase to do an unorderly society. I am advocating against anarchy only because of the fallacy that 100% of the people can be just and monitor their own actions with ethics and morals.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie "Without government to provides rights to it's citizens" Governments do not provide or grant rights. Even the Constitution acknowledges this. It doesn't say "our gov't grants you freedom of speech", it says "freedom of speech is a natural right that cannot be violated". Look up natural vs. legal rights. "a police force to enforce those rules of liberty" Once again, you are presupposing there would be no police or protection services in a stateless society.
jsd8cc 1 year ago
@jsd8cc I never said it's the job of the government to provide our rights, I said it's up to the government to PROTECT our rights.
residentzombie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentzombie (You said "provides", but regardless...) You never addressed my earlier point, re: rights protection. As I said earlier: The notion of a State protecting rights is an oxymoron. A State can only exist by violating rights. A State is predicated on aggression (the initiation of violence - i.e., taxes).
jsd8cc 1 year ago
@residentzombie
No it is up to you to protect your rights. Although the state likes to claim that it is protecting them for you, and gullible people actually believe that story. A state/government cannot protect anyone's rights. Heck, when it comes to any major disaster like say a nuclear attack or even gasoline shortage, the priorities of govt are always clear thru its actions. Save itself and its functionaries - the rest can fight it out for themselves.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter The government does not have a right to protect me. It does have a right to protect my natural God given freedoms though. You are confusing phsyical protection from ideological freedom.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie
No I am not confusing anything.. Government has no rights AT ALL, neither to protect your god given freedoms, nor you. Even if you delegate that right to govt, it fails miserably, denies that it has that responsibility and more often than not will attack you one way or the other.
It is a typical minarchist argument.. but it is a lie.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Here is the bottom line dude. When the chaos happens, if we abandon the Constitution, the globalist will give us a new contract (probably the UN Charter) or some other totalitarian constitution that will destroy what this country should be all about. Is the Constitution perfect? No, but if we abandon it, this country is FINISHED and totalitarian government will take over. Protect the US Constitution.
residentzombie 1 year ago 2
@residentzombie
"We" have already abandoned the constitution, a long long time ago. This country stood for a very short period (~12 years) for something, that too quite imperfectly. If the american people are going to behave like sheeple.. it seems appropriate that they be sheep-herded, sheared and slaughtered at will by their masters. If Americans can take pride in the current totalitarians.. they deserve more of it.
As to protect the US constitution - good luck with your utopian dream.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@residentzombie
Understanding what your position is - I have a few reading recommendations, that could help you. Start with Robert Leferve's critique on the US constitution, then proceed to Rothbard's take on the US constitution, then Hans Hermann Hoppe on The impossibility of Limited Government.
In the mean time, read Etienne de la Boetie, David Hume on Politics of Obedience - to understand that all government (are oligarchies and) depends on legitimacy assigned to it by the people.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Nice reading list that you have recommended, I get so tired of arguing with people that think that America's problem is that it has gotten away from the constitution instead of realizing that the constitution is what has led us to where we are now. I pass out copies of Hoppe's article and look forward to reading the others as well, It is too bad that Rothbard couldn't still be with us.
petmensan 1 year ago
@utubehayter Was there something specific by Rothbard besides Anatomy of the State that talks about the constitution specifically? And can you post a link for Leferve's critique? I wasn't able to find one on mises or when I googled it, thanks.
petmensan 1 year ago
@petmensan
Leferve's critique is available on mises website, under media, look by authors, Robert Leferve, the specific article is called "US constitution revisited". There is a reason people think that deviation the US constitution was responsible for the problems.. they imagine that the US constitution is ONLY the bill of rights. And do not see the drastic split between the bill of rights and the main body of the constitution.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@utubehayter Thank you for the link to Leferve's article. I was thinking the same thing about people only thinking about the bill of rights, whenever I tell someone that the constitution gave power to the federal government they attack my intelligence and ask if I have ever read it. The other thing that drives me crazy is everyones love affair with Lincoln, people seem to think he was a paragon of liberty. Dilorenzo has opened my eyes about him, although I think that ignorance is bliss.
petmensan 1 year ago 2
@residentzombie You cannot be simply "given" a contract. A contract has certain elements & the Constitution has none of those elements. It does nothing for us. It is literally, a handful of worthless paper.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
@residentzombie
Oh.. and you are using the words "rights" and "responsibilities" interchangeably.
utubehayter 1 year ago
@residentzombie "The only but very important job of government is to protect our rights." The notion of a State protecting rights is an oxymoron. A State can only exist by violating rights. A State is predicated on aggression (the initiation of violence - i.e., taxes).
jsd8cc 1 year ago
@jsd8cc Then you use competition to your advantage and move to a friendlier State. States still have to make sure that our rights are not violated just as the federal gov't does, but is an extra safe guard against corruption of power. The 17 powers not enumerated to the federal government from the States are then left to the States and then finally what is left to the people. Federal gov't and States gov't have different debates. Federal gov't is bound by many rules, but the States are only
residentzombie 1 year ago
@jsd8cc bound to the rights in which they would violate of it's citizens.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie
Do you really think anarchists, especially anarcho-capitalists assume that ALL people will be good? That there will be no people who want to rape, murder and steal?
Suffice to say that you are totally 100% wrong.
utubehayter 1 year ago
Amen, amen!
shepardh1 1 year ago
It's frustrating that the argument needs to turn to economics and such, when all that's needed is a simple statement, "government is illegitimate." Seriously, there is no such thing as a social contract with the state and the Constitution has no power whatsoever.
reapfreak 1 year ago 4
“Everything needs to be done, will by entrepreneurs.”….. Yeah right… but for what price? I am certainly not for big government but leave everything to the market is not the answer. Doug Casey is an investor and therefore wants to abolish all regulations for the benefit of the few (rich investors).
The poor in the US do not better than the poor in other developed countries. The market does not care about external costs.
happyswissman 1 year ago
@happyswissman You're right: the U.S. poor do not merely do better than the poor in other developed countries -- they do better than the _middle class_ in other developed countries.
"Abolishing all regulations" would not benefit the "few"; that's why, in case you haven't noticed (and somehow you haven't) the most influential never favor such a regime. They always want regulations, since they know they can game the system.
And the "external costs" argument has been answered 1000 times.
DRNevans 1 year ago
"Democracy is mob rule dressed up in a sportcoat." - Casey.
I love this quote, and use it a lot myself!
AnarchoRich 1 year ago 2
We All Must Be United Under The Swastika and heres why:
The history of newspapers is an often-dramatic chapter of the human experience going back some five centuries. In Renaissance Europe handwritten newsletters circulated privately among merchants, passing along information about everything from wars and economic conditions to social customs and "human interest" features. The first printed forerunners of the newspaper appeared in Germany in the late 1400's
ImAlwayRightUArnt 1 year ago
very good and informative
1kingconan 1 year ago 2
whhhat?
Lets talk about the constitution...
but lets remove what we dont agree with...like the 2nd ammendment?
i agree with some but not all that they are talking about.
We would love to see a peaceful healthy world...
problem is there is a race known as HUMANS in it.
Who truly has the answers?
lcj1219 1 year ago
@lcj1219 You certainly don't.
Sivels 1 year ago
@lcj1219
"Who truly has the answers?"
Each man must find the answer for himself.
Freethought42 1 year ago
Casey: "there is no need for the dead hand of the State on the market." Well said.
atrickpay11 1 year ago 23
Haha, Tom Woods..." I used to be one of these we got to get back to the what the Founders thought, back to the 10th amendment."
atrickpay11 1 year ago
I totally agree that GOVERNMENTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, & CRIMINAL! Not only that but history and even the Bible proves time and time again that governments are absolutely EVIL!
newjerus777 1 year ago 4
The more perfect we are the less government we need. Anarchy could only be possible in a society where the people are perfect. If we all have an internal government we might not need government. But limited Government is an antidote for tyranny.
Rinoralph 1 year ago
@Rinoralph Those imperfect people you speak of . . . They run the government.
tomniemiller 1 year ago
@tomniemiller -Who elected them? even more imperfect people from "we the people".
Rinoralph 1 year ago
Paraphrasing Jurassic Park: "Government always finds a way".
Jaycephus01 1 year ago
Wow, I've never heard of Thomas Woods (I came to this video to hear Casey), but he's great too! Thanks for uploading.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
Thank you very much for this!
LeifEiriksson 1 year ago
superb
infoseekrs 1 year ago
the guy on the left is an oxy-moron.
what is a state? it is an arbitrary proclamation that some people are from the government and some are not.
so in his ideal world of anarchy, some people get together and form a private organization, which specializes extortion, taking other people's property and guns and distributing the wealth to their friends.
they can call themselves the USA.
what is his argument against it? everyone can claim a monopoly of force.
so go ahead. shoot at the police.
myrelative 1 year ago
I don't think you've properly realized what anarchy is for. The type of coercive force you're claiming would exist anarchists already acknowledge. Except we actually know what it is -- GOV'T!
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
I don'T think you understood what I meant.
we already live in an anarchist world by his definition. free people came together and formed an organisation they call the USA. you are free to no acknowledge the USA, as long as you don't mind being shot.
since he doesn't acknowledge that there should be any kind of organization that protects individual rights(like police and courts), even north korea is anarchy by his definition.
myrelative 1 year ago
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myrelative What he is actually saying is that the monopoly provision of police and courts will lead to all the problems we associate with monopolies in every other area of life. He is not saying we don't need police or courts.
LibertyWins2012 1 year ago
@myrelative You bring up a good point. Although anarchy would be great until governments formed, anarchy has no way of preventing states from forming. People could form groups that would steal others' property, just as they have throughout history and to this day.
You're right, the world we live in is essentially a progressed state of anarchy. It seems that a "good" government would be necessary to prevent worse governments from forming. It's a dilemma that I'll have to think over.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@AlexanderLee1
Well if it is necessarily the case that governments always emerge from a nothing, then its a total wash and we are screwed.
bobdole57 1 year ago
@bobdole57 Not necessarily. I just think that a very limited government might be necessity to prevent looter governments from popping up and taking over. I'm not sure about this yet, though.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@AlexanderLee1
How does a society maintain a limited government? I mean, after all it was what we used to have, but it never stays that way. I don't think it is an accident that most governments fail and restart every 300 or so years.
I hate to think we are doomed to that fate.
bobdole57 1 year ago
@bobdole57 Yes, I have been thinking about that question a lot recently. Governments have always in history grow as time goes on, until they collapse as a result of unsustainable regulations. I really don't know the answer, but at least we know the right question!
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
Oh, okay; I apologize then. I hold the same view that the world is what it is and you simply need to view it from the right perspective. I personally will exploit as many tax loopholes as I can and possibly expatriot myself to a less regulated state as Jim Rogers has.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago 3
@myrelative: In all seriousness, super cool story bro.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Excellent video!
Every Libertarian / pro-limited gov't supporter should watch this video; you guys are anarchists and you just haven't realized it yet.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
The average five-year old could run a lemonade stand better than the government (but then they'd make him pay five hundred dollars for a permit or something, and then the FDA would close him down anyway for not sterilizing the dixie cups). I find it a little annoying that it is consistently seen as intolerable to have corporate sponsors for public services. What's wrong with Microsoft running a computer camp, or Caterpillar and John Deere using 1000 miles of highway as a product demo?
doctorx777 1 year ago
Glad to hear Tom Woods came to the principled anarchy instead of the unprincipled "in between" capitalism and socialism.
andrewh817 1 year ago 2
Share this, people...educate all!
MrDuffy81 2 years ago 39
Pausing. Sorry. 3:45 AM...
MrDuffy81 2 years ago
Pusing it @ 14:43, I am looking at the host's ring...
Is it masonic?
MrDuffy81 2 years ago
Anarchy is the opposite of Heirarchy.
That is what he should have said.
That is the TRUTH. I just realized that a couple of months ago...
MrDuffy81 2 years ago 4
We should all be so lucky to put an end to governing bodies that claim to help, yet actually are killing us at an exponential rate.
Government reminds me of a bully stealing lunch money from smaller kids.
Best regards
anarchylogic 1 year ago
We ned to live by the motto: WE THE PEOPLE...we are the government, or, we should be...We have lost our values, and are so easily deceived with propaganda...
For as many as I see awakening, I feel so sorrowfully helpless, as I see just as many sinking like a stone.
Peace
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
smoke and mirrors.
KaptainKaka 1 year ago
Hash hits and head rushes...
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
Ah thanks doug I might as well kill myself.
How can someone be as absolutely mindless as to vote for a politician?
digitallando 2 years ago
"How can someone be as absolutely mindless as to vote for a politician?"
I have a clean voting record as I have NEVER voted for any politician NOR have I voted for any piece of legislation.
kmarinas86 1 year ago
@digitallando, Politicians govern from their office, whether you vote for them or not.
THE1FuzzyGoddess 1 year ago
Say, I recognize that tune used for "McCuistion": "Market Street" from the soundtrack to "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home".
dondonp12004 2 years ago
Absolutely brilliant.
This should be piped in to the eyes and ears of the hoi polloi 24/7/365.
"The whole system needs to be washed away..."
Truer words have never been said.
hrosemd 2 years ago 36
This has been flagged as spam show
@hrosemd
> This should be piped in to the eyes and ears of the hoi polloi 24/7/365.
What you are suggesting is that some central authority force people to submit to the propaganda you approve of.
My standard answer to statists seeking to dominate me;
You are not the boss of me. Perhaps you need a dog.
CptJaunDiceI 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The crackpot economic school of thought.
AresCitadel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
crackpot because it's not mainstream?
I think those who follow the mainstream blindly are crackpots
The Austrian school has successfully predicted every economic disaster since, and including the Great Depression of the 1930s
Those who refuse to listen to their arguments are the crackpots
Sam26100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Austrian School can be best described as an erroneous and deluded school of economic thought.
Analogous to that of Nostradamus, the Austrians simply make vague predictions about the economy, claim a collapse is eminent, and wait for a fluctuation to claim that they were vilified, despite the numerous farces.
The reasonable schools of economic thought are then burdened with the eccentric diatribes of the misguided Austrians for their "failure" to predict the economic fluctuation.
AresCitadel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again, how is it then that they predicted the crash of 2007 when nobody else did?
Same for the great depression and 1983 and 1987
If it's deluded and erroneus, how come it's right time after time ?
No they don't make vague predictions
watch Peter Schiff 2006 banking conference (8 part video) he said exactly that in 2007 a great collapse will happen, and people thought he was nuts. He said the exact year and he gave all the reasons why it would happen
He was right
Sam26100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real reason you say it's erroneous, is because it advocates an end to reckless spending, and you probably like government freebies
That's the most common reason people don't like them. But the most viscious thing of all is when the disaster DOES strike, exactly as they say it will, you will be blaming the profit motive and the free market
That is the most fucked up thing of all
Sam26100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm in concurrence with AresCitadel, the profligacy displayed by the Austrian School is astounding.
Even as someone who adheres to Neoclassical, I can best describe the Austrians as either extremely misguided or very deceptive.
AlwaysChasingVictory 2 years ago
Any examples?
Sam26100 2 years ago 2
One of the primary arguments against central banking made by the Austrians are the artificially low interest rates, a policy undertaken by the American Federal Reserve bank and the ECB.
Austrians here claim, as I'm sure they do in US, that these artificially low interest rates somehow manage fool investors into making undesirable investments, thus claiming a market irrationality. Investments they would otherwise not make if the interest rates were higher.
A bad investment is a bad investment.
AlwaysChasingVictory 2 years ago
The facts speak for themselves,
Fed lowering interest rates does in reality encourage massive investments and lending that otherwise wouldn't have been made. This isn't a speculation, it's a fact that has been demonstrated by our economy within the last decade alone.
"A bad investment is a bad investment"
If you're saying that the banks are at fault for taking the bait, then you're right, and Austrians agree with this.
That's why we're against the bailouts
let them fail
Sam26100 2 years ago
You're an idiot. The argument is not that the low interest rates delude investors into making unwise investments. That has nothing to do with the argument at all. It is that types of investment are artificially encouraged that cannot be completed given the current state of resource availability. Temporally remote stages of production are expanded at a time when the factors of production to support them have not been made available by lower time preferences on the part of society.
DRNevans 2 years ago 3
Um, the Austrian School yielded the Marginalist Revolution, which is a centerpiece of mainstream econ. How dumb can you be?
LibertyWins2012 2 years ago
Is it just me or has YT tampered with the bandwidth allowances (limit on viewing/viewer/etc). I never used to have to 'wait' till a video 'loads' but now... even the simplest of productions stall repeatedly and one is continually waiting with annoying and non-stop pauses.
Has anyone had enough of YT yet to really make a difference with another website to get it off the ground in a meaningful way? What's it gonna take to show these control freaks competition can be a threat.
minus_You_tube.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
YouTube typically limits the amount of bandwidth available to a video per user, even if more is available...you may want to try speedbit or mywifi to speed it up; I've heard good things about both.
FoxPMcCloud 2 years ago
Why thank you! That was really nice of you to offer some solutions, i'll check 'em out.
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i'm a (secular) libertarian (if i had to pick a name). but i find many of doug casey's anarchist points naive. he believes that private enterprise can manage EVERY sector of society. what about violent criminals and such? are we to believe that some sort of private tribunals could manage justice at all levels? there needs to be some limited governance to keep unfettered assholes in check.
HereticNix 2 years ago