Economics in One Lesson (The Free Market) part 1

[epramberg]

I love how vague this guy is about the, "regulations". Everywhere else he is sure to be specific about things being a "collection of behaviors" and making a (completely asinine) claim that these behaviors can't be regulated.

EVERY law regulates behavior. That is what prevents rape and murder from "emerging" in large quantities. Likewise, the markets can be regulated through the regulation of business practices. Charging a tariff for products manufactured outside the country (whether by a

[dwightward1]

This 'lesson' in economics begins by trying to redefine the language so as to eliminate the concept of economic classes. That distortion right at the outset nullifies all else this free marketer (who will deny up and down that he's a Darwinist and fascist) has to say. Go peddle your goods at the local eugenics society.

[noobler9]

if you resist far enough, they'll kill ya!

I was talking about corporations hiring paramilitaries ;) coffee wars, chiquita...

keeping "government" out of it, you've still got international corporations to deal with

[noobler9]

@noobler9 and then BOOF the tractor companies take 30% of the market! and they all compete and stuff... and some people defect from the cartel..... and then BOOF they all cartel up together again

[nalejbank]

A free market economy that benefits the end user cannot function when its medium of exchange is forced upon it by the "legalized" Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is dead on when he advocates competition to the Fed's paper fiat "money". Legalize all forms of currencies and the FED will change or die. Ultimately, fiat and fractional reserve money systems must be shut down because they are immoral and unethical. The market will naturally take care of this if we can legalize currency competition.

[wakeupscreaming]

Hopefully some mad scientist creates a robot that can automatically build a house, clean, cook food, and chop wood. When that day comes, capitalism will collapse. Gene Rodenberry's "Star Trek" is set in the future, and money has no use. Hopefully that day comes soon. I'm sure there will be some rich fat guys who get their heads decapitated in the process, because they'll fight and resist the change, because it will mean the end of their gobbling up of property.

[SuperGuitarman69]

ExuisiteDoom is a bright guy

[carlindelco]

Free market capitalism is like an inverted negative auction, where instead of you bidding higher for the product, the product ( business) bids lower for YOU!

Why or how anyone dislikes the free market is anyone's guess, but it is clearly the best economy for those who participate in it, and the worst for those who try to compete against it.

[Robohump]

There's no such thing as a tree if you take apart all of the molecules that combine to make a tree.

Forrests and herds are very much real.

[soyuski]

The economy boils down to this. You have inputs (labor, capital and resources) that are converted to outputs (consumer and producer satisfaction). By voluntary trade people set prices to allocate inputs and outputs. But it doesn't work with out secure property rights.

[soyuski]

Take this seriously. You need functioning impartial courts to secure contracts and property rights. You require a police not "on the take" to enforce it. Your "savage capitalism" don't work without rule of law, and its not part of the Austrian School of economics.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@soyuski

And that rule of law needs to reflect the preferences of the individual members of society, in exactly the same way as prices need to reflect the preferences of the individual members of society.

Why is it that unearned moral legitimacy and license to violently override consumer preference is the greatest of evils in all other industry, such as agriculture and software programming, but the greatest good in this one industry, the provision of law?

[goddedme]

You are not an anarchist. You are a free-market capitalist. I won't bother trying to refute your beliefs, because that would probably be a futile endeavour, but I do think you should stop misappropriating the term anarchist just to make you sound cool.

[xTAxGUNZ]

He is correct that a market emerges naturally. It is human nature to create things to survive, entertain our selves, and improve out quality of life. Because not all people are Jacks of all trades we logically developed markets or a trade system to obtain the things we cannot create or do for our selves.

[pavilionking06]

@xTAxGUNZ AWESOME TEA PARTY TRIBUTE! 9-12 & MILITIA!!! MY PAGE!

[xTAxGUNZ]

@pavilionking06

Sorry not interested. I am not a Tea Party fan.

[olzt100]

Pretty long explanation. But still not quite sure what you were trying to explain.

[mrjuly4th]

Capitalist are using the poor? Take Econ 101 over again. In Free Markets, everyone uses each other to benefit themselves. You can find these teaching in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nation. Nike sells shows to earn a profit. People buys shoes from Nike because they want that particular shoe. Someone may work for Nike to earn a wage. It is a win-win-win for everyone all done on a voluntary basis.

BTW, this video sucks.

[cole3454657]

@mrjuly4th well, communism is supposed to work too but.. idealisms and reality are 2 different things

[itierney]

There's no such thing as a forest. It's just a bunch of trees. There no such thing as a tree its just a bunch of wood. There's no such thing as wood, its just a bunch of molecules. There no such thing as molecule, their just bunches of atoms. There's no such thing as atoms, they're just bunches of proton's, neutrons and electrons. Theres no such thing as protons, they're just collections of quarks....Personally, I don't believe in quarks...since all matter is just energy anyway.

[conspirator272727]

@itierney Ok I see your point. I disagree that there is no such thing as a forest, since an entity is a thing. But could the wood exist without the tree? No. Could the tree exist without the forest? Yes.

There is an easy answer to this in terms of economics. An economy does not require a collective group. An individual can provide for himself without others not responsible for his origin.

[kubaniski]

is this confederal socialists video?

[JEBO777]

DREAM ON

[anthonyc3po]

your using reductionism! why do you stop at the tree or the human? they dont exist, they are made of cells)(most of which dont have anything to do with human cells i.e. bacteria in the stomach

[seimer22]

For the government to regulate a market is to regulate the people involved, restricting their freedom. BRAVO!

[b1gr1g]

Pretty simple, yet very accurate...Good work!

[yakooza]

My posts arn't showing up!

[robertwc82]

to put what he is saying simply is, these entities like, governments, market, nations, corperations ect dont exist in the physical world, wht exists is human beings interacting with other human beings

[ExquisiteDoom]

"Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know." Hayek

"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man

as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be."

- Isaac Morehouse

"It is helpful to think of the way free enterprise responds to government. It's the way society responds to a

natural disaster. -Llewellyn H. Rockwell."

[yakooza]

Lol @ Austrian economics

[ExquisiteDoom]

Why?

[yakooza]

They have some of the worst arguments I ever seen.

[ExquisiteDoom]

You have the worst arguments i've ever seen >_>

[yakooza]

I haven't made any arguments.

You made three different claims, which I restrained from responding because Youtube's 400 character limit won't be enough.

[ExquisiteDoom]

I didn't make any claims besides your arguments being a failure :| I simply posted my favorite quotes. But i stand firmly by them. But go ahead and bring up some fallacies i've heard before again and again, repetitively without any connection to reality. I await for your mysticism :D

[yakooza]

I will only address one point because I don't want to fight a war on 3 fronts at the same time on Youtube.

The human nature argument I find too be very un synced with society.

Evolutionary science, biology, philosophy, simple observation and research in the categories respectively proves that humans are not evil beings whose self interest dominates all others.

I'm no scientist so I can only link you to these researches.

(Will do so in next post, got no room here.)

[ExquisiteDoom]

Let me take a wild guess.... Management is evil , based on self-interest to dominate all others? I know fully well humans aren't inherently evil, i just don't get how you can make such a conclusion and then make a 180 and crucify freemarkets.

[yakooza]

What is evil is the profit motive which raises many problems in private ownership of property.

Imperialism, globalization, consumerism, exploitation, poverty, economic waste, poor resource allocation, inequality, mass media, corruption.

[ExquisiteDoom]

I'm sorry but you clearly have fallen into the trap i myself have fallen in. Imperialism has existed since governments existed. Globalisation is not a problem, what made it a problem is the idea of territorial limits which do not even exist. Consumerism is completely legitimate, but prices have been distorted by the government to amplify this effect. Exploitation is a feeling that is but arbitrary. Poverty is solved by production

[yakooza]

Imperialism has existed since class domination has existed. It in the interests of the ruling class that imperialist acts take place.

Globalization is not a problem? Sweatshops paying $0.30 cents an hour, corporations bribing governments, America and its corporations forcing their domination over other countries.

What do you mean poverty can be solved by production? Production is increasing, but so is poverty. It is the poor who produce, but the rich who profit off them. Its making it worse.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Oh, and the rich has every incentive to feed the poor. As this creates opportunities for profit. But when prices are distorted in a manner that no profit can be made, how can you even feed these people when the investment would actually be consumption? You don't seem to get how profit is consistently used to increase the efficiency, workforce, work conditions. If there is negative equity, the company cannot support more people. Don't look at paper like it's money. Resources are used.

[yakooza]

Capitalists are using the poor as a cheap source of labor. How would it profitable at all to pay them higher wages?

There is clearly enough food to feed everyone in the world. If capitalists cared at all about feeding the poor, they would do so.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Let's put it this way. Let's say we can use gasoline to produce more gasoline and more food, why the hell would we simply give away the gasoline which is a capital asset, to be consumed by unproductive people. You don't seem to get how capital assets work. What good is having food, when those who produce food can't feed themselves THEN supply others? And how is giving food to unproductive people going to pull them out of their unproductivity?

[pavilionking06]

@ExquisiteDoom AWESOME TEA PARTY TRIBUTE! 9-12 & MILITIA!!! MY PAGE!

[thinkdamnit]

@ExquisiteDoom herp-derp: IT DON'T

[The34gl3]

@ExquisiteDoom Your rambling is so full of inconsistencies that it blows my mind.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@The34gl3 I was pretty elucidative on that year old comment but i can't expect the same from everyone else unfortunately.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Capitalists are using the poor because they are effective. Can a poor person manage a whole industry without training? I'd love to see you try this. Everyone has to begin at the bottom of the ladder, and the poor profits by lowering the costs of what they work for. Now if industries were allowed to function naturally, the poor's purchasing power would be rather undeterminably higher than it currently is , thanks to government bureaucracy and liberal insanity.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom capitalist are using the poor to exploit their labour. How are the capitalists going managing the welfare of thier nations now Exqi??

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 Just like any human exploits resources, a human will exploit labor, which is a resource, this is not saying much. I also fail to see the relevance of your question because it bundles all capitalists into one hate group (including state lobbying capitalists) and i obviously don't agree with all capitalists.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom you can dress it up however you like.Laissez-faire capitalism has been shown to be a disaster  socially , for humanity and environmentally. Keynesian economics couldnt prevent the inevitable bust , synonymous of the capitalist system.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 And how are keynesians laissez-faire capitalists? How was laissez-faire shown to be a disaster? You don't explain anything, you just say them and it's getting rather annoying. Plus, i sense several potential contradiction in the things you espouse.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom the contradiction are within the capitalist system. That why we have boom bust. The last 30 years of laissez -faire capitalism in particular deregulation, globalisation and privatisation speaks for itself. A disaster.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 You have made several unsubstantiated claims and refuse to expand on them and just add more unsubstantiated claims, you don't even say where the contradiction lies, because you have no clue, you're a troll and i will ignore you until you actually make a point.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom Are you aware of todays crisis in capitalism??. How would you assess what has happened over the period ?? I dont see you refuting what I say has been occuring. The contradiction within so called "free market" capitalism is that it needs the state to survive. History doesnt lie.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 You must first substantiate your claims for me to debunk. Positive claims require evidence to be taken seriously, you give me nothing to gnaw on, you are a waste of time. Last change before i simply ignore anything you throw at me.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."

- Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky On Anarchism

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 Well Chomsky is a retard with a double standard and so do his followers. He wants a bigger state to control "capitalism" then move on to anarchy, which is what stalin, mao, paul potts, etc have all been doing. Now i'M certain i can't have a reasonable debate with you.

[radoa1]

@ExquisiteDoom you're not comprehending. Your take on what Anarchism means is is -what can I say - laughable.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@radoa1 You seem to think advocating more statism than we have will lead us towards more anarchy... Which is the critical contradiction in Chomsky's beleif system, he's a closet statist and i'm not arguing for or against social anarchy, i'M just saying he's a dumbass or a traitor to your social anarchy framework.

[RealCrusadeHistory]

@radoa1

And anyone who would take Noam Chomsky seriously is an ignoramus.

[radoa1]

@RealCrusadeHistory who do you take seriously champ???

[SuperGuitarman69]

@ExquisiteDoom Brilliantly said my friend.

[ExquisiteDoom]

economic waste/poor resource allocation? Really? you somehow beleive governments do not cause this in the first place? Inequality? The world isn't equal, that's just a face of life, if you force equality, you will destabilize the economic system. Mass media is okay; not when the FFC regulates the information. Corruption is created by violence, not by greed, typical socialist misconception. Governments will always have an army behind, private companies cannot without the government's aid.

[yakooza]

Yes really. There is currently more food to feed everyone on earth yet 30,000 people die each day because of starvation. There was even a recent study that showed 50% of food produced in America is wasted.

A lot of unnecessary shit is also created with the intent of profit. A consumerist culture is made to go along with this wasteful resourcing.

Mass media is a huge problem. It is is owned by the rich, and thus continuously spreads ruling class interests.

Cold war propaganda for one.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Your point is moot. It doesn't take into consideration where this scarcity comes from in the first place. Contracts, created by government owned entities. Those contracts leverage the amount of commodities available and through time and propaganda the market has forgotten that a future contract does not equate a commodity. Thus, you get low prices, but scarcity of goods. Usually, third world countries suffer from this as a result.

[ExquisiteDoom]

I seem to have misread your reply. So i'll rephrase. Contracts lower the demand signals, therefore production is lower than necessary. Plus, it may proove unefficient to deliver the goods. If it's unefficient and choose to do it, production will take the hit, so you can't magically feed them. Instead, third world countries have to produce, but that won't happen for the IMF is making damned sure these countries remain dependant by using the weapon of debt and obligations.

[ExquisiteDoom]

The government owns landfields, and land. How do you expect people to stop polluting when there is a LITTERAL government backed insurance in case of pollution? The private sector doesn't have to bear the costs, as the government will, so it is perfectly natural that secondary effects will ensue; such as pollution and waste of resources.

As for the media, in just about any country media's material is run by governments in some shape or form. Either via subsidies or bribery.

[yakooza]

You want to do this over personal message or AIM instead?

Youtube won't post my comments...

[yakooza]

...And yet there the best supporters of capitalism :)

[AntonBatey]

What's funny about it?

[Hawbawbowba]

@AntonBatey Herp derp because Austrians derp Schwarzenegger herp Hitler derp.

[pavilionking06]

@AntonBatey AWESOME TEA PARTY TRIBUTE! 9-12 & MILITIA!!! MY PAGE!

[gundamWWW]

I think the worse thing about Economics is that people often think it's a

"absolute science" such as psychics or biology or chemistry.

It's a social science, dependent on human behaviour.

Human behaviour is erratic which makes various economic theories such a Free market capitalism, Keyensianism and a command economy not work as they were prescriped to be.

This is the flaw not only with the Hayekian model, but all models!

I liked your video.

[forestskog]

@gundamWWW "I think the worse thing about Economics is that people often think it's a 'absolute science'"

So true... I notice that attitude a lot in economists as well as lawyers (I'm a lawyer), even sociologists (social "scientists").

I call it "science envy" because they want the status and credibility of "hard" science. If you read the history of how lawyers lobbied to rename their title to JD (Juris Doctor) they used the absurd claim that they were basically scientists of the law. 

[gundamWWW]

@forestskog

You are so right on. I like it when the PhD. types refer to themselves as Dr. ...

This may lead people who are not familiar with the title to mistake them for an

M.D. or physician

I go to university and we have "political scientists" in our faculty, lol.

The Latin word of "Science" was termed the love of knowledge, but I question of much of contemporary study is actually finite knowledge...

[samuils]

Ok here is good and bad evaluation. This is a great explanation as to why free markets are THE best, and socialism will suck. But a terrible advertisement for anarchy.

If you want to see a free market absent of courts which enforce contracts between companies, look at drug dealers. Their murderous ways are there to enforce contracts and to eliminate competition. Same thing happened in USSR during perestroika, enforcing and elimination of competition was done though AK 47's.

[ow4744]

Socialism never created anything? Well that shows a slight ignorance of a great deal of world history.

[PatriotReporting]

guys, the reason the credit crisis happened was not capitalism fault.

It was the regulators allowing entitities to leverage 40-1 60-1 with limited regulations. THE CRA,, and both parties have turned away from the system and regulations that allowed America to creat e the industrial revolution and create a GDP other countries now want us to share or give them some of our GDP in the name of soicialism

Socialism has never created anything! Nor a industrial revolution that put men on the moon

[ShaneSaw83]

I don't see how that could possibly work in practice.  They're on land you now "own" using "your" resources, and when you ask them to leave, they say no one can own the land, it belongs to everyone.

Two irreconcilable paradigms; meaning you would either have to use force or switch to their socialist, egalitarian lifestyle.

It also already didn't work in early, non-statist America. Free settlers of course killed the natives and eventually moved those left to reservations.

[ShaneSaw83]

Hypothetical: What happens if anarcho-capitalists like yourself come across a tribe of people that don't understand european-stlye land ownership and believe we all share natural resources?

You would make your model the operative paradigm, annex their land, divide it up, buy and sell it along with the natural resources? If they didn't like it and you had stronger weapons, you would win and impose your will, just like the government is doing to you now, right?

Feedback welcome, thanks.

[HailRasec]

Haha. This kid makes me laugh. If he actually had any real life experience, he would be amused for the babble he spews.

[GeorgesBarras]

Governments are imbued with some some weird fictitious authority; but people don't like to let it go.

[ShaneSaw83]

That's because people prefer governments to anarchy. See every nation in the world.

[VanDoodah]

How are the poor going to be able to afford protection in an anarcho-capitalist society?

[DoomHippie]

Charity groups, at first. But with time, as competition grows, the cost goes down until most people are able to afford Free Market Protection. Charity groups almost always are able to fill the rest of the market.

[ShaneSaw83]

You're speculating as to how much charity groups would do, when you really can't know at all. It might be very little, especially in a world where the altruistic people have to worry about their own asses all the time. Also, cost only goes down so much before it loses profitability, so the truly poor would never be able to afford it.

[mbarkhau]

1. There isn't that much to be gained from robbing poor people.

2. Guns aren't that expensive.

[VanDoodah]

Okay then; I accept that they can defend themselves, but how can they take people to court without a lot of money? A rich person can take someone to court for violation of his or her rights, but can a working-class person?

[koloss999]

If you can convince a lawyer that your rights have been violated, he will in most cases be willing to work pro bono, provided he gets a cut of the settlement in case you win the trial.

Also the only reason the court system is so expensive atm. is because government has a monopoly on the service of arbitration and there is no market mechanism to drive down prices.

[ShaneSaw83]

If he gets a cut then he's not working pro bono, that means for free. Also, if it's not a civil case how do you convince the lawyer then? Let me summarize what you're advocating: If you're poor and someone commits a crime against you, unless you're going to be able to sue and win a decent amount of money, you're fucked.

[ShaneSaw83]

You know, robbery isn't the only crime. The pathological members of society might rape, assault, molest, kidnap and murder poor people. Your solution to that would be a lot of gun fights, I guess.

[drew335533]

You sound almost exactly like confederalsocalist. For a while, I thought you had just taken some of his videos lol. Still good videos though.

[grindoftheday]

Apparently our local (NZ) Commerce Commission have been investigating anti-competitive conduct, like that of which you talk about in this video, in school uniform shops around the country. Basically, the schools (governments) have been trying to ban students from purchasing stationary and uniforms etc. from outside sources, distorting the market, so that the school shop has a monopoly over the market.

[grindoftheday]

If the government needs to go because of conduct like this, which I agree with, then what stops private entities from engaging in the very same conduct? Do you have any videos on this?

[tumbleweedjoe]

Well said. I remember one time many years ago my family was driving in a car past a bunch of beef cows and my little sister asks "Why don't we run out of cows with all the meat we eat?" A good question and one for which the answer is both deceptively simple and (for many people) illusive. I sometimes think that all of the crazy ideas that people have about markets and governments are forms of the same question that my sister asked.

[WolYou]

The economic system is a religion. It has nothing to do with science. Natural capital is replaced by artificial capital. The problem behind this mechanism is, that you can't multiply natural capital as you could with the artificial one. Time is NOT money. A tree is NOT equivalent to paper and the oceans are NOT an infinite resource for free fish. The market is blind for natural ressources. Thats why this system must crash on a regular basis. There is no steady growth.

[PatriotReporting]

well said,

The problem with America is that it has sold out to the EU, IMF, Nato and other socialist entites.

The key would be to follow the Constitution as it was laid out by the framers. It is ironic that we as a country under a capitalistic democratic republican form of government were able to do in 230 years what the world could not n 5000 years.

The facts and results are for all to see. The credit meltdown was not capitalisms fault. It was the world bankers and regulators imo.

[ShaneSaw83]

How do you figure it was the regulators? There wasn't anyone regulating Wall St. at all, that's why it was able to happen.

Notice I didn't say that a lack of regulation caused the crisis, greed did, but regulation could have prevented it. It was a perfect example of unregulated capitalism in practice.

Please explain how it was the regulators fault--maybe I'm missing something. Thanks.

[tumbleweedjoe]

WolYou, the problem you're referring to here is caused by government and solved by markets (i.e. private ownership, exchange and production). Most natural resources, including trees and fish, CAN be multiplied ad infinitum. Privatize logging and logging  companies are forced to farm trees from privately held plots, which they will have every incentive to increase the productivity of, since their livelihood depends on it. Right now, States declare themselves owners of most of the world's....

[tumbleweedjoe]

(continued from below) ...trees and declare that noone may take ownership of sites on or in the ocean (excpet for governments of course, which proclaim their own jurisdiction over the coastline). This erases any incentive to manage/renew natural resources. Read Walter Block's "Free Market Environmentalism". There are no "public goods" or "externalities" that aren't infinitely better handled by private action.

[nonantianarchist]

The market is only blind to natural resources if the natural resources are common resources. Whenever property rights are well-defined and enforced, there will be no long-term externalities.

[anifreek]

I am an anarcho-communist, and to me, it seems that one of the arguements against anarcho-capitalism, something which you fail to mention, is that while price and quality are factors, ways of paying less to get higher quality, such as slave labor, are not factored in, maybe you can convince me that this isnt actually a problem?

[Aryaba]

I don't even see how this could be a problem. So, explain how this is a problem.

[anifreek]

You dont think that slave labor is a problem? o_O

[Aryaba]

Slave labor is a problem in theory, but not in reality.

[WolYou]

Aryaba: You are not very smart. Aren't you?

[Aryaba]

Oh annointed one? Please do tell.

I love how people just snipe without actually answering the question.

Idiot.

[redmend]

The reason the state is absolutely needed in economics is shown in theory that it is needed to enforce contracts. Let's say that market for shoes (which doesn't exist?) exists here by me, in New England. Now let's say that you, wherever you live, wish to purchase shoes. You pay some money for the shoe, but he never delivers it. You'd be upset, right? What do you do? If you go to him you must give up everything at home for a bit to travel, and if he is stronger? This is when the state steps in.

[redmend]

Markets also exist. Markets are the supply and demand of certain goods, products, and monetary units. You even defined market, a description of how individuals interact with each other. By saying this isn't real is like saying chemistry is just a description of how molecules interact and thus isn't real.

Also, philosophy dictates that a just act of violence is always A)For the good of the majority, B)Given with equal force.

[D34thSetX]

The fact of the matter is he is making a point about how people use semantics about well government isn't anything it is people.. if it is to be said like that it is that everything that is a group or an organization is just people.

As such supply and demand is the demand that "people" are asking for and people supplying the people that are demanding various goods.

[killuminati43]

The government and the Law should be utilized for one reason only: To Maintain Justice. Let the free market exist untouched.

[D34thSetX]

basically the government itself would not exist if you wanted the free market left untouched.. taxation is a form of robbery that distorts the market.

[Eldxale]

There is no such thing as a tree. If you take away all the cells, you are left with nothing.

There is no such thing as a cell. If you take away all the molecules, you are left with nothing.

There is no such thing as a molecule. If you take away all the atoms, you are left with nothing.

There is no such thing as an atom. If you take away all the protons, neutrons, and electrons, you are left with nothing.

[celticbandit]

I am you and you are me. Everything is one. That's why the law and private ownership don't make sense to me.

[Eldxale]

I am me. You are you.

[mexaguil]

You are right his statement is absurd, but he is on the right track. What he means to say is an attack through methaphor to the belief that the rights of the collective override the rights of the individual. But the collective is simply just a collection of individuals, hence if the individuals don't have rights then nobody does. The collective is just an abstraction and the real unit of morality is the individual human being.

[lionessimba]

I agree to that.

[MarcusNorberg]

The thing is that a tree is a UNIT, whereas a forest is a GROUP. The parts of the tree are bound together, but the trees of a forest aren't - thus a tree isn't a concept in the same sense.

[Scoforever]

To remove government force have user fees instead of taxes. Government needs to exist to protect people. In anarchism people have to protect their property. In other words government should be as small as possible but still existing.

[rainskullvids]

I could start by pointing out that no government has ever stayed small, as giving a group of people a monopoly on force is essentially opening Pandora's box. Also, yes, people do have to protect their property under any system, it's just a question of whether they call 911, pick up a gun, or use any of the infinite means of defending property. The state is not the only means of protecting property. Also, what happens if you have your small government, and I try to compete with it?

[hydralisk125]

Who protects you from the government?

[Scoforever]

This can be a problem. Government has to be at the very low size were it protects people without harming them.  You need a constitution to limit its power.

[hydralisk125]

I'd prefer a world without coercive states all together than a one in which you hope that states do not become too large, and that they will respect a magic piece of paper.

[Scoforever]

The magic piece of paper is to tell the people when to say 'Viva La Revolucion'.

[D34thSetX]

Limit the power of the state? lol... yeah okay.. look back in history and see how that worked.

[Scoforever]

How did it work to have no state.

[D34thSetX]

Worked out great until there were crazy powermongers like Cromwell that destroyed those societies to gain more power for himself. Actually go and listen to videos and read about M.E. Ireland and Iceland.

[Scoforever]

Crazy powermongers will always exist. They just put in a more repressive regime than the last.

[D34thSetX]

This is true, they are just more effective with a state.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"In anarchism people have to protect their property."

You think some nanny organization would be better than people protecting their own property? Property ownership gives people incentive to provide strong security for their property; nanny government doesn't really give a shit what happens to your property as long as you keep paying taxes.

Really, I can't understand how you could be so blindly backwards with these kinds of statements.

[ShaneSaw83]

It's a pretty sweet service, I gotta say. If some unwelcome person comes on my property I just dial the # and an armed cop comes and takes care of it for me. It's actually happened before, and the cop came within 10 min. of me calling and was very helpful. And unlike with your system, they didn't ask me for a credit card # before sending him, cus I had already paid for it. So, while I'm sorry you're forced to pay against your will, I'm not quite ready to give up the service.

[787Bisurdaddy]

One example does not set the precedence. In fact, while cops HAVE been useful to me on one or two occasions, they have been far more trouble than their worth.

It's okay, you love your statism and services that the state provides you with everyone else's money. You support extortion, violence, and chaos. I sleep well at night knowing I'm not so despicable or ignorant.

[BatsBasilica]

America needs authentic free market capitalism, which is something that doesn't currently exist here.

Restore The Republic.

[rainskullvids]

We started out with a republic. It got us here. A constitution does nothing, as politicians have absolutely no incentive to abide by it and it cannot operate a firearm. A republic will always go banana, sooner or later.

[palkom13]

wonderfully clear

[soloimmigrant]

if there is no forest, then there is no collection of trees. take the trees away and the collection of trees isnt there.

[truthadvocate]

A tree is just a collection of tissues, which are just collections of cells, which are just collections of molecules, atoms, etc. The individual is just a collection of cells... thus the confusion on whether or not a fetus is an individual. In my opinion, a fetus is an individual. I don't see any logic that would differentiate it in a meaningful way from other individuals. What say you?

[Kufootball72]

the government exercises force by violence way to much these days when it comes to international economic policy, but I wouldn't necessarily say they use that same force when it comes to corporations. This isn't free market fundamentals, it's a fraud market. Great video keep them coming!

[Israe5l]

Calling a "forest" a "collection of trees" is just reductionism. Forest has more properties than mere "collection of trees". For example specialization in production.

But still, I don't know whats wrong with the "market".

[jaminunit]

What about unskilled workers?

[AntonBatey]

What about them?

[wildflower420]

check out FreeTalkLive c com you will likely like it. Live on internet 7 to 10 PM EST also on regular radio

people have a instant negative association to the word anarchy,

[wmhs02dm]

wonderful!

[tylerguillotine]

is this you talking? lol sound diffrent//