This fairytale, this packaged, media-spewn, hollywood-backed, academia-farted lie this kid spews before Milton Friedman IS the idiocy our world contains.
Libertarians boast how the poor and needy of the world would be helped by wealthy successful free market capitalists if only said tycoons weren't pissed off about taxes. Surely their trillions in their after-tax personal fortunes all these decades would leave enough surplus disposable income to build clean-water systems and prevent the high rate of infant mortality from lack of clean drinking water. Also, how's the free market doing preventing oil companies turning Nigeria into a toxic swamp?
Human nature, unless one is sociopathic, includes the impulse to help and support others. The tribal village paradigm natural to nonindustrialized humans is a model of communist organization.
@funboy7979 communism does work actually on the small scale. unfortunately it can not be scaled up because the society becomes to large for individuals to consider the needs of all other members of the society.
Love when economic discussions are reduced to black and white, either communism or capitalism. We've had successful social democracies for some time, rationally balancing the free market with government regulation. Since none of the Koch Brother shills here could answer my question, I will. Who said, "We're all Keynesians now?" Why it was Guilty Uncle Milty himself, when the unregulated free markets he claimed to be such a fan of created undeniably disastrous results. Propaganda!
2: the phrase "we're all Keynesians now" is part of a larger one that was actually attributed to Nixon and detailed the fact that everyone on the political level seemed to accept Keynesian economics, so whoever you voted for it would always be a Keynesian. Please do proper research.
@funboy7979 Clearly you fail to understand English, I wonder did you stop reading after you saw the word attributed? or are you ignorant of its other meaning? and you still haven't answered my question on social democracies.
@funboy7979 And where did I say it was not? man your brain must be made of butter cause its melting under this heat. Look up the word attributed then get back to be and GFE is still a worthless acronym.
The time is long past when any reasonable person demands others type reams of publicly-available (and commonly-known) information in a 500-character comment box. You Koch Brother shills really need to update your playbook.
Stanford University student should have recited his question beforehand. He's in stanford for God's sake. Friedman's answer was so simple, yet explains what we are trying to achieve today through a revolution. Liberty, Liberty....
I don’t believe funboy is that stupid so I’ll just assume he is trolling; The American dream has work great for my family. Every generation of my family has been more successful than the one before since my great grandfather moved to America. I will take Milton’s perspective, my personal experience and real facts over liberal folklore any day. Run along now and try to convince undergrads it’s not so bad in Cuba.
@kuhioffxi Since you are on a first-name basis with "Milton" I guess we should assume you are family, hence understandably biased, thus your ad hominem tomfoolery is forgiven. Since that appears to be your only defense of Milton Friedman's ideas it is apparent you see them for the right wing-nut propaganda they are. Libertarians try to get working people to vote against their economic interests by promising legal weed & hookers. What they really deliver is a regression to robber baron days.
@funboy7979 And it would also seem your intelligence is further lowered by your clear inability to understand Libertarians. Please, explain your madness.
@TheConnorian In the long run we're all dead, so why should I care about "Liberty"? Religion is a myth, so what's wrong with torture and murder if you can get away with it? Interesting questions aren't they?
@technatezin Because in the short run things matter. Religion is a matter of perspective and torture and murder and other crimes should be controlled or the human race is doomed. Interesting but not unanswerable.
@TheHomoludens Tell me how they are a myth? communism went against human nature, free market embraces it. Communism is the opposite of free market, it tries to control what it cannot, free market does not.
@TheConnorian "communism went against human nature"
There´s never been communism (I doubt there´ll ever be), only state-capitalism.
"Free markets" have also never existed, powerful people have always used their social power to further their economic gains.
"Socialism/communism" and "capitalism" have in common that they´re purely deductive systems, heremtically shielded from any information that might contradict the purity of logical consistency. Religions...
@TheConnorian You´re free to bash religions, but be aware that deductive systems are not science. "Undeniable truths" derived from axioms are epistemologically equal to the pope´s "unfailability".....
@TheConnorian "Because in the short run things matter."
You say this as if Libertarian (Austrian school) economics is effective in looking at things in the short run. Also, in the short run paying slaves not to starve is VERY profitable. Why then do slaves have violent rebellions?
"torture and murder and other crimes should be controlled or the human race is doomed."
The human race isn't doomed already? How do you control violence? With human guards? What if they're corrupt?
Funnily enough in the short run, long run and medium run Libertarian economics or simply laissez faire economics is far more effective than any government controlled system.
Your analogy about the slaves is ludicrous. The reason slaves rebel is because you ignore their human rights.
"isn't the human race doomed already?" no. "how do you control violence?" with laws and police.
@TheConnorian ..... And if I had money compared to someone who doesn't have money then I have the power to be either benevolent or malevolent depending on my mood and depending on what the other person can offer me in the monetary exchange.
I can pay someone to kill or torture someone I don't like OR I can pay someone's food bill or rent OR I can pay them what I consider to be a fair wage for their labor.
Those who have no money don't get to decide or control things.
@technatezin Those who have less money kill you if you are malevolent, surely the events in 1917 Russia taught people like you that. Most business owners pay their workers a good pay, some even go beyond and above like John Cadbury and make the entirety of their workers welfare their duty to deal with. Few business owners are malevolent towards their workers and those that are soon pay the consequence. Those who don't have money are the great deciders, they just don't realise it.
I agree and will add that only through extreme central power of the government/state can labor be controlled/repressed the most. There were/are no uprisings in China or Communist Russia as government and business is the same, and workers strikes and other actions can be seen as rebellion against the state and end in imprisonment or death.
Workers have the most power in a free capitalist system, where public relations and chance of boycotts plays a role.
@brendanmcwilliams Well said sir. Capitalism is the best system because it doesn't undermine your natural freedoms and rights as a human being, too bad we've never had a completely capitalistic system.
@TheConnorian Have we ever had a completely communistic system? Apart from how most humans lived for thousands of years and in most indigenous villages today?
@funboy7979 yes, the USSR was communist remember or do you want to call them socialists? either one they were both. Plus if you think indigenous humans lived in communistic systems you are painfully wrong.
@TheConnorian Let's see, imperialist mass-murdering authoritarian dictatorship run for decades by a homicidal maniac benefits a tiny elite while exploiting the masses calls itself communist and/or socialist and you believe them? Uh, ok, Sparky, your mad genius intelligence is really blinding us now.
@funboy7979 Thats communism for you! complete social and economic control via government! I do enjoy teaching you. I wonder do you know that socialism is basically the same?! just with a little more freedom each side.
@funboy7979 And so funboy, you prove my victory, your arguments have been defeated and all that is left is the insults that you throw to try and make yourself feel more secure. Until next time, goodbye.
@TheConnorian Ah, another high school debating legend. If argumentum ad hominem lost the debate then you disqualified yourself with your first infantile response. There is nothing original in your scripted spew. Unregulated free markets were the rule in robber baron days. No restrictions, no environmental protection, no labor unions, no social safety net. This is the Koch brothers' dystopian wet dream, and why they've thrown millions at the Libertarian and Tea Parties.
@funboy7979 Once again you seem to be highly confused. You simply couldn't argue me back and now have thrown yourself into the pit with your hogwash. There is nothing original in your volatile talk either, I've heard hundreds of socialists afraid of not having the nanny state looking over them talk like you. I wonder how old are you because you sound like a child.
@funboy7979 Unregulated free markets were never the rule in robber baron days, in fact those barons were themselves using the government technically and so you defeat your argument even more. There are restrictions you seem to forget they still have to adhere to the law, there is environmental protection because it is not profitable to destroy things, there are labour unions why would they disappear? and there is a social safety net because free market has nothing to do with it.
@TheConnorian "There are restrictions you seem to forget they still have to adhere to the law"
In your delusions! How does your statement have to do with actual historic living conditions? Or today? And what use are laws that are bought by the people they should be imposed upon?
"there is environmental protection"
It´s not working and the people who should control the companies are bought just like the rest - from bottom to top).
Society´s corrupted and your only thought is: more markets!
@TheHomoludens Now your statements are just pseudo logic. If you cannot see that the law restricts certain practices already then I am worried. Plus we are talking about economics, not about corruption, while they link in, corruption is dealt with by governments more than economies. Rethink your attacks.
@TheConnorian "Now your statements are just pseudo logic"
Ad hominem BS!
"Plus we are talking about economics, not about corruption,"
And then you go off blaming the government, while the corruption happens on both sides. You´re ideologically deluded. And fyi: your way of communicating is turning me off. You want to promote liberterian ideas?
@TheHomoludens You throw out things that aren't even true and expect me to answer them in a standard manner? stop throwing out Bullshit and I will answer it properly.
The only ideologically deluded person here is you. No wonder Germany is a socialised state if your the one saying you want constitutionalist policy.
According to international law the BRD is still under foreign occupation. And being the result of WW2 it´s merely a construct that would allow the control over the German population from outside (look at "BRD GmbH" e.g.).
What a "socialised state"?
And the BRD doesn´t have a constitution, this has clearly been avoided by the powers that be.
@TheHomoludens dear lord how does this have anything to do with what I said? your arguing that your nation is in a mess and while saying earlier you want constitutional governance, you have no constitution...
@TheHomoludens dear lord how does this have anything to do with what I said? your arguing that your nation is in a mess and while saying earlier you want constitutional governance, you have no constitution...
@TheHomoludens Maybe the translator is broken then as you seem to have misunderstood what I have written or maybe you are not writing all you are thinking?
@TheConnorian "Maybe the translator is broken then as you seem to have misunderstood what I have written or maybe you are not writing all you are thinking?"
Seem to have misunderstood what? Your empty phrases?
There´s nothing to misunderstand in your cheap rabulistic tactics.
@TheHomoludens Are you insecure? you sound insecure. It wasn't even an attack or an attempt to school. And seems that those languages are the only thing you have learnt over the years.
And if you are having trouble understanding me how about actually writing logical things yourself? you ask a lot of questions and make accusations but give no solutions yourself.
And once again your assuming I'm attacking you for not writing everything you are thinking. Stop acting the war hawk and calm down.
Actually I believe that we´re all in this trouble because of the herd mentality. Every heirarchic structure seems to tend towards oligarchy, which always brings about poverty and repression for the masses.
@TheHomoludens Herd mentality I agree is bad, however I believe there needs to be structure but not one that wishes to have power. You solve (to a good degree) the heirachy problem by greatly limiting the governments power over the people.
@TheConnorian I agree with the libertarian position that the common belief in Papa State is a great cause of the turbulences we´ve oinly just entered, but I don´t see how replacing one belief system (statism) with another one (monetarism/merkantilism) would help.
As drastic and sceptic as it may sound, my perspective is that the only solution could be a break-down of the hierarchic structures (hopefully with minimal violence) and many will land on their feet. Many wouldn´t unfortunately.
1st point: good! however mercantilism is more liberal instead of libertarianism and I would hope that when a libertarian government gets in again here in Britain that they wouldn't go to the point where the government becomes a business instead of (guess what) a government.
I also want to break down hierarchic structures. I believe that con-federalism is the best way to go top down style, delegating greater powers to smaller areas over their affairs instead of a single dictator.
@TheConnorian "I also want to break down hierarchic structures. I believe that con-federalism is the best way to go top down style, delegating greater powers to smaller areas over their affairs instead of a single dictator."
I think that´s contradictive. That would merely mean making them more effective.
I think hierarchies have to be built from bottom to top, not vice versa.
Save "economy" (or rather the cartels domination over the world resources)?
Would mean more wars for resources, no democracy/freedom for the people and only buy time considering the facts that many important resources are limited.
Save "humanity"?
Can only mean: force the superrich globalists to let go of control and then start building flat, flexible hierarchies, direct democracies in a constitutional frame imo.
@TheHomoludens You need to save humanity and the economy, its hard to do but its the best way. Super confederate constitutional direct democracy though is the easier of the two to establish, showing really that the economy is really the most volatile and rabid human creation yet.
Agree about government control over currency, no central banks stuff however, that just asks for the economy to constantly boom and bust.
I think the basic trouble could be described like this:
Individuals may live in real-time ("now"), thoughts are based on memories of perceptions, theories are based on thoughts.
The trouble of today: we experience the trouble now, act upon it upon the knowledge of yesterday, analyse it upon theories from the last century and emotionally respond as a prehistoric human would.
@TheHomoludens very true. Only thirty percent of humans are radical thinkers (I know this fact but cannot remember the source) able to avoid slipping into these holes and able to come up with new ideas. It is almost nigh impossible to get rid of the herd mentality and regressive standard though pattern, it is very deeply embedded.
Most people learn from history and if something is about to happen that has never happened in that way before, they believe it won't happen. Terrible.
@TheConnorian Freedom for me first of all means freedom from ideologies and "truths". My epistemological stance is Critical Rationalism.
A breakdown of the current system would of course propably cost a lot of lives, but how many lives does it cost to prolong it? Globally at least as many I think.
The sociological/psychological ascept would be a breakdown of the narcissm that the "western culture" is built upon (yes, I include Germany).
@TheHomoludens I think that things would need to get seriously bad for you to be able to break down the system. I think the system can perpetuate itself by having the american problem where they vote only repub or demo, and they are normally just as bad as each other but because the other promises change people flock to them.
My problem is that there are very few ways to change human thinking on a grand scale, there would always be a potential dictator being born even after everything you did.
@TheConnorian "My problem is that there are very few ways to change human thinking on a grand scale, there would always be a potential dictator being born even after everything you did."
Hm, I consider the label "liberterian" misleading, if you don´t believe people can actually be free.
@TheHomoludens Libertarian ideal is to create the most amount of freedom within rational limits (aka you do not have the freedom to go around killing people), beyond that you are an anarchist. I simply pointed out that freedom must be guarded at all time as there will always be people who want to erode it.
@TheConnorian See, that´s what I don´t buy. Rationalism is outdated by today´s neuroscience which reveals that humans more often than not rather act/decide first and the "thinking" explains or comments the actions after it´s "triggered". This doesn´t mean that decision can´t be based on past experiences and reflection.
We mustn't be bogged down by what we cannot all do.
And just because freedom must be guarded it doesn't make it a fiction, it just makes it fragile. Many people would be only too happy to take your freedoms to get an extra £50 in their pocket every day.
@TheHomoludens You are protected from the protectors by the legal system and you are protected from that by other parts of the legal system and you are protected from that by the ability to mount armed revolution.
@TheConnorian By calling for protection, by putting out statements like:
"freedom has to be guarded"
Can you define "freedom"? And to make that clear, non-coercion is too narrow a definition for me.
Actually I think, you´re some wealthy kid, that wants to cut down the governmental system as far as possible while keeping up the protection for your wealth. That´s also the reason rich people call for private security contractors.
2. rich people call for "free marlets" in order to protect their wealth from taxation under the label of "liberty" thus reducing "freedom" to capitalism
3. Governments have been bought by corporations and rich globalists - corporatism has taken over
4. the "economic crisis" so far has been "fought" by enforcing the causes that lead into it (wealth concentration and debts- two sides of the same coin)
1. the question is not how do we give him freedom then, but why does he have no freedom.
2. class warfare that is. Free Markets do not protect the wealth of the rich alone it protects the wealth of everyone, does the fact that the rich still have wealth mean that you shouldn't do it no matter how much it benefits the poor?
3. corporatism thrives on big government, because they easily buy out politicians to get the regulations or taxes that keep competitors out of business.
systematic wealth concentration in a corrupt system
b. metaphysic answer: because he got blinded by the glitzer and entertainment + dumbed down by burgers, booze and drugs
2. "protects" imaginary "wealth"; see 1.
3. corporatism is all involved parties fault. It´s no wonder high politicians easily get CEO jobs and vice versa. Best current examples: Papadimos, Monti
1. Then the answer is to fix the system and to educate people so they are more politically conscious.
2. When I say protect I mean that you are much less likely to lose wealth and much more likely to gain it.
3. Very true.
4. Well the revolution is certainly coming: in america the militias are literally booming in size. So much that the government is trying to get the right to firearms and to form militias taken away.
1. Then the answer is to fix the system and to educate people so they are more politically conscious.
2. When I say protect I mean that you are much less likely to lose wealth and much more likely to gain it.
3. Very true.
4. Well the revolution is certainly coming: in america the militias are literally booming in size. So much that the government is trying to get the right to firearms and to form militias taken away.
4. The economic crisis is being dealt with just as you said. Taking loans to pay off loans that you took to pay off loans which you also took to pay of loans. And by bailing out the businesses then dumping the debt on the poor. Its not going to create entrepreneurship but it will create a revolution.
@TheConnorian 5. Both "money" and "state" are (almost religious) belief systems, they only become "true" by public consent. This consent is becoming more and more fragile.
6. Herd mentality and oligarchic structures are root causes of today´s "problems".
I don´t think that there´ll be a solution coming out of that system, the system has been running too long and favoring certain people for too long.
I want that shit to collapse, down with ECB, FED, IWF, BIZ,...
@TheConnorian Ultimately I think it would be much better for all people to "update" their "thinking" and give up the false guidance of traditional political concepts. They´re all based on ontologies that deny certain aspects of "being human" and even with the best intentions result in totaliterian regimes.
The only solution is to tell people they make a differnce.
Btw, I´d vote for Ron Paul if I were American.
Rather robber barons´ capitalism than global Rothschild fascism of the banking cartel.
@TheHomoludens Problem is as I said that most people can't think for themselves, its a primitive fail-safe so that humans are forced to form groups to increase survival chances to my understanding.
I everyday tell people that they need to think radically and that they make a difference but most are bogged down by the "well there are so many other people, do I really matter?" fallacy.
Glad to hear about Ron Paul. And while I agree on the last point I'd rather have neither :P
@TheConnorian "Problem is as I said that most people can't think for themselves"
This assumption can´t be tested, I could as well call it a belief.
Why not just give it a try?
Can it become so much worse in the long run than if things drift the way they do?
"Survival" is another misconception. Westerners tend to quickly associate individual survival, the peak of it being science-fiction cults like "transhumanism".
Life is constant change and death is a part of it.
@TheHomoludens true it can't be tested unless you look at election results (little joke there).
I'm happy to give stuff a try, besides the future is uncertain I mean most of the Romans probably though their empire would last forever and we know how that went.
However I would like to do things now and not have to wait for generations later for my plans to come to fruition but hey maybe it will take that long. who knows, that is the key question.
@TheHomoludens In my opinion, you should have hard principles, so taking freedom through violence to create freedom, would be no real freedom at all, everything would unwind in the end. It must be a peaceful revolution maintained by consent or else the revolution is doomed to fail.
There is always a way to peace and all the others, thing is there is no certainty in maintaining said things after you attain them.
@TheHomoludens A free society obviously however a free society is more than just a free market and to just focus on that would not grant much support. Most people would support a freer society because they can see the historical benefits of more freedoms and the modern benefits of more freedoms and because of that I hope to also attract followers.
@TheConnorian "A free society obviously however a free society is more than just a free market and to just focus on that would not grant much support. Most people would support a freer society because they can see the historical benefits of more freedoms and the modern benefits of more freedoms and because of that I hope to also attract followers."
Ablahblahblah...
You´re trying to attract followers, otherwise it wouldn´t take you so many hollow words.
@funboy7979 Koch brothers have also thrown millions at governments, but you would ignore this, they've used big government lobbying to get what they want. They back both sides hoping that they'll get the same treatment perpetually. Plus its not libertarian and tea parties, its libertarians and conservatives, they have a much wider range.
@TheHomoludens My point is that every ideology that demands big government to solve problems eventually falls into what you said, oligarchy and general evilness, the main oligarchy situations are socialism and communism.
And your right about the banks however not so much about Capitalism, capitalism + big government = corporatism as we see today, I mean the De Beers corporation probably the only private monopoly to arise was held up by regulations. capitalism + small government = profit for all
@TheConnorian Otoh a government could also be made too small. There should be a check of powers. Theoratically a good king/queen would be an efficient government, but what comes after him/her?
And: the structure must achieve both flexibility (best way imo constitutional democracy) and stability.
I really wonder if a perfect system is possible. And if it´s possible, would humans make it work?
Sometimes I feel envious of the prehistoric hunters. What a hard life, but free and intense!
@TheHomoludens A small government is good but as you said tiny government is not. There, as you said, should always be a check of powers but to the least amount possible. I also agree that constitutional democracies are good and I also believe that there are no perfect systems, with the right leadership any system can work to a degree however some are much more prone to failure.
I also share your envies however of the Athenian Greeks, freemen who voted for people not parties.
@TheConnorian Na, I wrote prehistorical hunters, not Athenian Greeks, big difference. You do know that in their democracy only about 10% of the population were "freemen" and the rest were slaves?
And that they already knew the principle of debtslavery?
@TheHomoludens I've studied the democracy, from what I know it was 20%, anyway prehistoric hunters lived in a world where death literally waited round the next corner, that's not something I want to return to, at least in Athens you could be well protected.
I understand their knowledge of debt slavery however what I envy is the fact that they voted for people not parties so you didn't end up with situations like nowadays where people vote conservative because they aren't labour.
@TheConnorian If "some" and "most" are technical terms known only to adolescents parroting corporate progaganda in internet chatrooms than I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first job, sonny.
@funboy7979 If "corporate propaganda" and "parroting" are the only things you can try to stain me with then I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first brain cell, sonny.
@funboy7979 If "corporate propaganda" and "parroting" are the only things you can try to stain me with then I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first brain cell, sonny.
You should consider the fact that the political system is only one part of the larger system at work. The group of people controlling the amount of money (be it currencies, giral money or "derivatives") - the central banks - actually control the whole system.
The Roman empire grew with a state central banking issueing cheap metal coins and it worked great, it declined with privately controlled gold money.
@funboy7979 I was largely sceptic of libertarianism and I still disagree with some of their positions - specially sophisms like "praxeology" and the religious believe in "free markets" (ignoring that it´s always humans interacting not rational machines).
Still many would want to break the dangerous monopoly of the FED and to me this seems to be the central issue of today.
@TheHomoludens I'd like you to elaborate on your concerns on the free market if you may, it would help me understand the though pattern of those who oppose it.
@TheConnorian I don´t think my "thought pattern" is in any way representive for others.
Basically I disagree with the libertarian definition of "freedom": non-coercion. As much as I see this as a valuable principle I think it´s counterbalanced by the mere fact, that a starving person will do enough to get food. And I don´t think any "morality" should try to condemn a hungry person stealing for survival.
@TheHomoludens Hmm, very true however the libertarian system I envision would take care of the starving, if not with jobs or low taxes so they can eat, it would also have minimum welfare so people don't get into that state.
@TheConnorian "Markets" are an interpretation of human action, they´re no entity by themselves.
I don´t see how a purely "free market society" should deal with the dangers of monopolies or cartels leading to extreme wealth concentration in the hands of very few and poverty of the masses. A starving person has no freedom.
Hunger is completely unnecessary in the whole world. Humanity could feed all starving people in the world with just the food that´s thrown away in the western countries.
@TheHomoludens The only monopolies in existence are government run monopolies so by eliminating the parts of government that they use (aka market regulations and illogical illegalisations) and cartels operate exactly the same.
In a libertarian government free market the goods are cheaper and the people have more money so starving is much much harder than in many other systems. If more starting nations adopted this instead of being protectionists then the world would be better off.
@TheConnorian "In a libertarian government free market the goods are cheaper and the people have more money "
See, this is another problem I have with libertarians.
There have never been freer markets than early human trade, but this will not feed the population of today. Your free markets have so far never existed (just like democracy), yet you write as if you could point out hundreds of historic examples.
That´s not proper logic and still it´s very common.
@TheHomoludens No I believe in it because it is logical, lower taxes would leave people with more money and less regulations (as we have seen in the past when regulations have been lowered) equal cheaper goods, would you rather have super protectionism with regulations everywhere?
"Logic" and "real" are two different meanings. You wrrite about "free markets" as if they were real and historic. At the same time, whenever a historic comparison (robber barron capitalism, Manchester Capitalism) is made you blame the government and not the people interacting in the market.
Either you´ve intergrated your ideology so deeply, that it became unconscious part of you or you´re a bought propaganda tool (which I believe).
@TheHomoludens I'm not evading your criticism. I know that free markets have never truly existed and those "historic comparisons" are situations were corporations have used the government (aka the people interacting with the government). capitalism and crony capitalism are two very different things and only the latter has ever been in existence.
@TheConnorian Then why don´t you start promoting "free markets" AND explain why and how these never existed. That´s something I´d listen to and I´d find interesting.
It seems to run against the academic tradition that started with Mises, where everyone sold his thoughts as factual, while in reality it´s just theory (and not even scientific if the standards of Critical Rationalism are applied).
Don´t try to impose "truths", try to raise question and curiousity!
@TheHomoludens Have you read what I wrote? have you noticed anything about what I have been promoting? free markets was a big thing if you remember throughout what I said.
If you want to know why they never exist is because its much more profitable for a few to have a more controlled market and any market that has existed has been subject to a government that had regulated it, the closest thing to a free market throughout history have been the mixed markets of Switzerland and Hong Kong.
@TheConnorian "the closest thing to a free market throughout history have been the mixed markets of Switzerland and Hong Kong."
I´ll take Switzerland because of the direct democracy they practise!
You see, if the results of "free markets" are so vastly different, your liberterian ideas can only be a part of a bigger answer to the question of "how do we want society to be".
@TheHomoludens My economics are theoretical yes, but that is because they haven't been tried to the degree I would like however they can be backed up when you look at Hong Kong for instance (a very free market state) they have been booming in wealth thanks to their libertarian approach to the economy. They are also theoretical because every other economic system that tried to use sums and maths to predict everything has failed, Keynesian ideology being the key one on this matter.
I normally don't get too involved however when I see something I feel I can prove I do.
And yes unfortunately there are arrogant pricks in about every movement, the majority of every movement actually, they are the kind of sheep who prattle on with fallacies they saw in the last party broadcast instead of looking around for themselves.
@TheConnorian If you believe in freedom, you can´t treat people as sheep, that´s a contradiction - unless you only believe in the freedom of the smartest, sociopathic criminals.
Short: a "libertarian" society that is structured by "authorities" according to "undeniable truths" and deductive thinking has nothing to do with "freedom" or philosophy.
If people wanted to choose socialism and you believe in freedom, you´d have to let them. Everything else is hypocrisy.
@TheHomoludens I believe in freedom and I don't treat people like sheep, where did I say that? Surely you understand that the huge majority of people are just followers repeating what the person in front says.
And if a socialist government was voted in, I'd live with it however I would fight their attempts to force socialist things on the whole of society. Libertarianism is about choice so if they try to restrict choice then I will fight it.
You seem to be showing a loose grasp on the ideology.
@TheConnorian "Surely you understand that the huge majority of people are just followers repeating what the person in front says." That´s the same as saying they´re sheep.
Do you want to attract followers or do you want to work towards a free society?
No society is perfect. But Cuban idealism is well-intentioned and better for the masses. The US works hard to defeat Cuba's ability to sustain itself under the current system. In Cuba poverty is not considered the failure of an individual, but a challenge for the state in managing communal resources. Before you had a dictator propped up by the US and Havana was a mafia playground, the locals were employed as waiters and hookers. There is no permanent homeless underclass there as in the US.
hahaha this kid looks exactly like a liberal friend of mine that i always get into arguments with
laker10591 2 days ago
His girlfriend would suck another man's dik right in front of him .
7008aspen 3 days ago
Hell yes. I love this guy.
jonguyton1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This fairytale, this packaged, media-spewn, hollywood-backed, academia-farted lie this kid spews before Milton Friedman IS the idiocy our world contains.
toneeeeeee 4 days ago
Comment removed
toneeeeeee 4 days ago
when was this
Sagefrakrobatik 5 days ago
What year was this video?
redcat608 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarians boast how the poor and needy of the world would be helped by wealthy successful free market capitalists if only said tycoons weren't pissed off about taxes. Surely their trillions in their after-tax personal fortunes all these decades would leave enough surplus disposable income to build clean-water systems and prevent the high rate of infant mortality from lack of clean drinking water. Also, how's the free market doing preventing oil companies turning Nigeria into a toxic swamp?
funboy7979 1 week ago
Comment removed
funboy7979 1 week ago
Human nature, unless one is sociopathic, includes the impulse to help and support others. The tribal village paradigm natural to nonindustrialized humans is a model of communist organization.
funboy7979 1 week ago
@funboy7979 Are talking about real tribal villages or some magical concept you dreamt up?
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@funboy7979 I believe that's called private charity.
DMAN123223 6 days ago
@funboy7979 communism does work actually on the small scale. unfortunately it can not be scaled up because the society becomes to large for individuals to consider the needs of all other members of the society.
xcvsdxvsx 2 days ago
Love when economic discussions are reduced to black and white, either communism or capitalism. We've had successful social democracies for some time, rationally balancing the free market with government regulation. Since none of the Koch Brother shills here could answer my question, I will. Who said, "We're all Keynesians now?" Why it was Guilty Uncle Milty himself, when the unregulated free markets he claimed to be such a fan of created undeniably disastrous results. Propaganda!
funboy7979 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@funboy7979
1: name said social democracies.
2: the phrase "we're all Keynesians now" is part of a larger one that was actually attributed to Nixon and detailed the fact that everyone on the political level seemed to accept Keynesian economics, so whoever you voted for it would always be a Keynesian. Please do proper research.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian Nixon was quoting Friedman's already famous statement. Do *your* research. Btw, Sparky, in response to your other other question: GFE.
funboy7979 1 week ago
@funboy7979 Clearly you fail to understand English, I wonder did you stop reading after you saw the word attributed? or are you ignorant of its other meaning? and you still haven't answered my question on social democracies.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian Sorry, Monkey Tits, but the quote is Milton Friedman's. I did answer your other question -- the answer is GFE I said.
funboy7979 6 days ago
@funboy7979 And where did I say it was not? man your brain must be made of butter cause its melting under this heat. Look up the word attributed then get back to be and GFE is still a worthless acronym.
TheConnorian 6 days ago
@TheConnorian
GFE =
Google
Fucking
Exists
The time is long past when any reasonable person demands others type reams of publicly-available (and commonly-known) information in a 500-character comment box. You Koch Brother shills really need to update your playbook.
funboy7979 5 days ago
@funboy7979 You still didn't answer my question.
TheConnorian 5 days ago
How did this kid get into Stanford? What a nincompoop...I love the dudes in the background laughing at this noob.
ruffnecs 1 week ago
Comment removed
asdfghjkl6661 1 week ago
hahaha, the way he says et cetera is weird... he sings it a bit
frannzoo 1 week ago
Stanford University student should have recited his question beforehand. He's in stanford for God's sake. Friedman's answer was so simple, yet explains what we are trying to achieve today through a revolution. Liberty, Liberty....
escenzmusic 1 week ago
screw inequality, im gonna become a ninja
pawn12345678 1 week ago
I don’t believe funboy is that stupid so I’ll just assume he is trolling; The American dream has work great for my family. Every generation of my family has been more successful than the one before since my great grandfather moved to America. I will take Milton’s perspective, my personal experience and real facts over liberal folklore any day. Run along now and try to convince undergrads it’s not so bad in Cuba.
kuhioffxi 1 week ago
@kuhioffxi Since you are on a first-name basis with "Milton" I guess we should assume you are family, hence understandably biased, thus your ad hominem tomfoolery is forgiven. Since that appears to be your only defense of Milton Friedman's ideas it is apparent you see them for the right wing-nut propaganda they are. Libertarians try to get working people to vote against their economic interests by promising legal weed & hookers. What they really deliver is a regression to robber baron days.
funboy7979 1 week ago
@funboy7979 And it would also seem your intelligence is further lowered by your clear inability to understand Libertarians. Please, explain your madness.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian Can you answer the same question: Who said, "We're all Keynesians now," and why?
funboy7979 1 week ago
@TheConnorian In the long run we're all dead, so why should I care about "Liberty"? Religion is a myth, so what's wrong with torture and murder if you can get away with it? Interesting questions aren't they?
technatezin 1 week ago
@technatezin Because in the short run things matter. Religion is a matter of perspective and torture and murder and other crimes should be controlled or the human race is doomed. Interesting but not unanswerable.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian "Free markets" are a myth just as communism.
Reality doesn´t submit to concepts.
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens Tell me how they are a myth? communism went against human nature, free market embraces it. Communism is the opposite of free market, it tries to control what it cannot, free market does not.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "communism went against human nature"
There´s never been communism (I doubt there´ll ever be), only state-capitalism.
"Free markets" have also never existed, powerful people have always used their social power to further their economic gains.
"Socialism/communism" and "capitalism" have in common that they´re purely deductive systems, heremtically shielded from any information that might contradict the purity of logical consistency. Religions...
Reality doesn´t submit to concepts.
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheConnorian "communism went against human nature, free market embraces it."
That´s what I find laughably deluded:
You seriously claim to know "human nature"?
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens Yes, unlike you I deal in facts not pseudo science.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian You´re free to bash religions, but be aware that deductive systems are not science. "Undeniable truths" derived from axioms are epistemologically equal to the pope´s "unfailability".....
TheHomoludens 1 week ago
@TheHomoludens I have not bashed religions, I am religious myself.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian "Because in the short run things matter."
You say this as if Libertarian (Austrian school) economics is effective in looking at things in the short run. Also, in the short run paying slaves not to starve is VERY profitable. Why then do slaves have violent rebellions?
"torture and murder and other crimes should be controlled or the human race is doomed."
The human race isn't doomed already? How do you control violence? With human guards? What if they're corrupt?
technatezin 1 week ago
@technatezin
Funnily enough in the short run, long run and medium run Libertarian economics or simply laissez faire economics is far more effective than any government controlled system.
Your analogy about the slaves is ludicrous. The reason slaves rebel is because you ignore their human rights.
"isn't the human race doomed already?" no. "how do you control violence?" with laws and police.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian ..... And if I had money compared to someone who doesn't have money then I have the power to be either benevolent or malevolent depending on my mood and depending on what the other person can offer me in the monetary exchange.
I can pay someone to kill or torture someone I don't like OR I can pay someone's food bill or rent OR I can pay them what I consider to be a fair wage for their labor.
Those who have no money don't get to decide or control things.
technatezin 1 week ago
@technatezin Those who have less money kill you if you are malevolent, surely the events in 1917 Russia taught people like you that. Most business owners pay their workers a good pay, some even go beyond and above like John Cadbury and make the entirety of their workers welfare their duty to deal with. Few business owners are malevolent towards their workers and those that are soon pay the consequence. Those who don't have money are the great deciders, they just don't realise it.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
@TheConnorian
I agree and will add that only through extreme central power of the government/state can labor be controlled/repressed the most. There were/are no uprisings in China or Communist Russia as government and business is the same, and workers strikes and other actions can be seen as rebellion against the state and end in imprisonment or death.
Workers have the most power in a free capitalist system, where public relations and chance of boycotts plays a role.
brendanmcwilliams 1 week ago
@brendanmcwilliams Well said sir. Capitalism is the best system because it doesn't undermine your natural freedoms and rights as a human being, too bad we've never had a completely capitalistic system.
TheConnorian 6 days ago
@TheConnorian Have we ever had a completely communistic system? Apart from how most humans lived for thousands of years and in most indigenous villages today?
funboy7979 5 days ago
@funboy7979 yes, the USSR was communist remember or do you want to call them socialists? either one they were both. Plus if you think indigenous humans lived in communistic systems you are painfully wrong.
TheConnorian 5 days ago
@TheConnorian Let's see, imperialist mass-murdering authoritarian dictatorship run for decades by a homicidal maniac benefits a tiny elite while exploiting the masses calls itself communist and/or socialist and you believe them? Uh, ok, Sparky, your mad genius intelligence is really blinding us now.
funboy7979 4 days ago
@funboy7979 Thats communism for you! complete social and economic control via government! I do enjoy teaching you. I wonder do you know that socialism is basically the same?! just with a little more freedom each side.
TheConnorian 4 days ago
@TheConnorian Go to your room, Junior, The adults need to talk.
funboy7979 3 days ago
@funboy7979 And so funboy, you prove my victory, your arguments have been defeated and all that is left is the insults that you throw to try and make yourself feel more secure. Until next time, goodbye.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian Ah, another high school debating legend. If argumentum ad hominem lost the debate then you disqualified yourself with your first infantile response. There is nothing original in your scripted spew. Unregulated free markets were the rule in robber baron days. No restrictions, no environmental protection, no labor unions, no social safety net. This is the Koch brothers' dystopian wet dream, and why they've thrown millions at the Libertarian and Tea Parties.
funboy7979 2 days ago
@funboy7979 Once again you seem to be highly confused. You simply couldn't argue me back and now have thrown yourself into the pit with your hogwash. There is nothing original in your volatile talk either, I've heard hundreds of socialists afraid of not having the nanny state looking over them talk like you. I wonder how old are you because you sound like a child.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian And I have to jump to defend funboy.
Your first answer was definitely a personal attack AGAIN containing zero arguments.
These rabulistic tactics are so cheap and transparent!
If you believed in your message you wouldn´t have to regress to such tactics.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian And I have to jump to defend funboy.
Your first answer was definitely a personal attack AGAIN containing zero arguments.
These rabulistic tactics are so cheap and transparent!
If you believed in your message you wouldn´t have to regress to such tactics.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@funboy7979 Unregulated free markets were never the rule in robber baron days, in fact those barons were themselves using the government technically and so you defeat your argument even more. There are restrictions you seem to forget they still have to adhere to the law, there is environmental protection because it is not profitable to destroy things, there are labour unions why would they disappear? and there is a social safety net because free market has nothing to do with it.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "There are restrictions you seem to forget they still have to adhere to the law"
In your delusions! How does your statement have to do with actual historic living conditions? Or today? And what use are laws that are bought by the people they should be imposed upon?
"there is environmental protection"
It´s not working and the people who should control the companies are bought just like the rest - from bottom to top).
Society´s corrupted and your only thought is: more markets!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Now your statements are just pseudo logic. If you cannot see that the law restricts certain practices already then I am worried. Plus we are talking about economics, not about corruption, while they link in, corruption is dealt with by governments more than economies. Rethink your attacks.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "Now your statements are just pseudo logic"
Ad hominem BS!
"Plus we are talking about economics, not about corruption,"
And then you go off blaming the government, while the corruption happens on both sides. You´re ideologically deluded. And fyi: your way of communicating is turning me off. You want to promote liberterian ideas?
Change the way you communicate!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens You throw out things that aren't even true and expect me to answer them in a standard manner? stop throwing out Bullshit and I will answer it properly.
The only ideologically deluded person here is you. No wonder Germany is a socialised state if your the one saying you want constitutionalist policy.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian You fail!
According to international law the BRD is still under foreign occupation. And being the result of WW2 it´s merely a construct that would allow the control over the German population from outside (look at "BRD GmbH" e.g.).
What a "socialised state"?
And the BRD doesn´t have a constitution, this has clearly been avoided by the powers that be.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens dear lord how does this have anything to do with what I said? your arguing that your nation is in a mess and while saying earlier you want constitutional governance, you have no constitution...
You are seriously trailing.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens dear lord how does this have anything to do with what I said? your arguing that your nation is in a mess and while saying earlier you want constitutional governance, you have no constitution...
You are seriously trailing.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Wtf?
Can´t you read?
Of course I want Germany to have a constitution, so far it hasn´t.
What´s unclear about that?
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Maybe the translator is broken then as you seem to have misunderstood what I have written or maybe you are not writing all you are thinking?
TheConnorian 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "Maybe the translator is broken then as you seem to have misunderstood what I have written or maybe you are not writing all you are thinking?"
Seem to have misunderstood what? Your empty phrases?
There´s nothing to misunderstand in your cheap rabulistic tactics.
Again plain ad hominem attacks.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "Maybe the translator is broken"
What translator? I speak and write four languages, you clown! Do you think you can school me? Hahaha!
"you seem to have misunderstood what I have written"
Well, then how about writing clearly what you want to express?
And yes, I don´t write everything I think, I can´t even type that fast. Smart assumption of yours!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Are you insecure? you sound insecure. It wasn't even an attack or an attempt to school. And seems that those languages are the only thing you have learnt over the years.
And if you are having trouble understanding me how about actually writing logical things yourself? you ask a lot of questions and make accusations but give no solutions yourself.
And once again your assuming I'm attacking you for not writing everything you are thinking. Stop acting the war hawk and calm down.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens So seeming as you hold yourself in high esteem then what are your plans for the economy?
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian My "plans for the economy"?
That´s a tough one...
Actually I believe that we´re all in this trouble because of the herd mentality. Every heirarchic structure seems to tend towards oligarchy, which always brings about poverty and repression for the masses.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Herd mentality I agree is bad, however I believe there needs to be structure but not one that wishes to have power. You solve (to a good degree) the heirachy problem by greatly limiting the governments power over the people.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian I agree with the libertarian position that the common belief in Papa State is a great cause of the turbulences we´ve oinly just entered, but I don´t see how replacing one belief system (statism) with another one (monetarism/merkantilism) would help.
As drastic and sceptic as it may sound, my perspective is that the only solution could be a break-down of the hierarchic structures (hopefully with minimal violence) and many will land on their feet. Many wouldn´t unfortunately.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens
1st point: good! however mercantilism is more liberal instead of libertarianism and I would hope that when a libertarian government gets in again here in Britain that they wouldn't go to the point where the government becomes a business instead of (guess what) a government.
I also want to break down hierarchic structures. I believe that con-federalism is the best way to go top down style, delegating greater powers to smaller areas over their affairs instead of a single dictator.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "I also want to break down hierarchic structures. I believe that con-federalism is the best way to go top down style, delegating greater powers to smaller areas over their affairs instead of a single dictator."
I think that´s contradictive. That would merely mean making them more effective.
I think hierarchies have to be built from bottom to top, not vice versa.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheConnorian But what are the alternatives?
Save "economy" (or rather the cartels domination over the world resources)?
Would mean more wars for resources, no democracy/freedom for the people and only buy time considering the facts that many important resources are limited.
Save "humanity"?
Can only mean: force the superrich globalists to let go of control and then start building flat, flexible hierarchies, direct democracies in a constitutional frame imo.
Add government control over currency.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens You need to save humanity and the economy, its hard to do but its the best way. Super confederate constitutional direct democracy though is the easier of the two to establish, showing really that the economy is really the most volatile and rabid human creation yet.
Agree about government control over currency, no central banks stuff however, that just asks for the economy to constantly boom and bust.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "You need to save humanity and the economy"
1. Personally I can´t and wouldn´t.
2. What for?
As long as there are humans there´ll be some kind of "eonomy". There´s nothing to save except humanity. The rest is imaginery.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens developing ideas on the spot eh?
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian What other way is there to develop ideas?
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens I do the same most of the time. Constantly learning.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Back to herd mentality.
I think the basic trouble could be described like this:
Individuals may live in real-time ("now"), thoughts are based on memories of perceptions, theories are based on thoughts.
The trouble of today: we experience the trouble now, act upon it upon the knowledge of yesterday, analyse it upon theories from the last century and emotionally respond as a prehistoric human would.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens very true. Only thirty percent of humans are radical thinkers (I know this fact but cannot remember the source) able to avoid slipping into these holes and able to come up with new ideas. It is almost nigh impossible to get rid of the herd mentality and regressive standard though pattern, it is very deeply embedded.
Most people learn from history and if something is about to happen that has never happened in that way before, they believe it won't happen. Terrible.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian " It is almost nigh impossible to get rid of the herd mentality"
Hm, well can´t subscribe that personally. I´ve all my life wondered about the miracles of fashion, market psychology, adoration of "stars"...
It´s a bit strange to simultaneously "think" differently than others and be empathic. Guess those who stand it should be considered adults ;)
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens
Interesting last point. Never thought about that in such a way.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Freedom for me first of all means freedom from ideologies and "truths". My epistemological stance is Critical Rationalism.
A breakdown of the current system would of course propably cost a lot of lives, but how many lives does it cost to prolong it? Globally at least as many I think.
The sociological/psychological ascept would be a breakdown of the narcissm that the "western culture" is built upon (yes, I include Germany).
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens I think that things would need to get seriously bad for you to be able to break down the system. I think the system can perpetuate itself by having the american problem where they vote only repub or demo, and they are normally just as bad as each other but because the other promises change people flock to them.
My problem is that there are very few ways to change human thinking on a grand scale, there would always be a potential dictator being born even after everything you did.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "My problem is that there are very few ways to change human thinking on a grand scale, there would always be a potential dictator being born even after everything you did."
Hm, I consider the label "liberterian" misleading, if you don´t believe people can actually be free.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Libertarian ideal is to create the most amount of freedom within rational limits (aka you do not have the freedom to go around killing people), beyond that you are an anarchist. I simply pointed out that freedom must be guarded at all time as there will always be people who want to erode it.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian See, that´s what I don´t buy. Rationalism is outdated by today´s neuroscience which reveals that humans more often than not rather act/decide first and the "thinking" explains or comments the actions after it´s "triggered". This doesn´t mean that decision can´t be based on past experiences and reflection.
"Freedom must be guarded"
That makes freedom a fiction!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens
We mustn't be bogged down by what we cannot all do.
And just because freedom must be guarded it doesn't make it a fiction, it just makes it fragile. Many people would be only too happy to take your freedoms to get an extra £50 in their pocket every day.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian And who/what protects us from the protectors?
How come you now defeend "statism"?
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens You are protected from the protectors by the legal system and you are protected from that by other parts of the legal system and you are protected from that by the ability to mount armed revolution.
Also how do I protect statism?
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian By calling for protection, by putting out statements like:
"freedom has to be guarded"
Can you define "freedom"? And to make that clear, non-coercion is too narrow a definition for me.
Actually I think, you´re some wealthy kid, that wants to cut down the governmental system as far as possible while keeping up the protection for your wealth. That´s also the reason rich people call for private security contractors.
Canceling all protectors?
Way too dangerous for rich kids...
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
@TheHomoludens
Freedom is the ability to choose, without coercion or any constraint, how to govern and act out your life.
Then when you consider being part of a group it becomes much much more complex.
And I'm not "some wealthy kid" who wants to protect my wealth, my bank account only has about £1000 in it and my family is lower middle class.
Plus creating a free market with low taxes cancels the protectors for the rich, but why focus on them, sounds like class warfare to me.
TheConnorian 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "sounds like class warfare to me"
Oh, it is, but it´s been started by those on top. Never heard that Buffet Quote?
"Freedom is the ability to choose, without coercion or any constraint, how to govern and act out your life.
Then when you consider being part of a group it becomes much much more complex."
But you ignore that money can only work as a public agreement.
That debases all the economic theory based on the assumption of rational individuals, turning it selfcontradictive.
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "sounds like class warfare to me"
Oh, it is, but it´s been started by those on top. Never heard that Buffet Quote?
"Freedom is the ability to choose, without coercion or any constraint, how to govern and act out your life.
Then when you consider being part of a group it becomes much much more complex."
But you ignore that money can only work as a public agreement.
That debases all the economic theory based on the assumption of rational individuals, turning it selfcontradictive.
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
@TheConnorian I´ll repeat my opinion:
1. hungry people have no freedom.
2. rich people call for "free marlets" in order to protect their wealth from taxation under the label of "liberty" thus reducing "freedom" to capitalism
3. Governments have been bought by corporations and rich globalists - corporatism has taken over
4. the "economic crisis" so far has been "fought" by enforcing the causes that lead into it (wealth concentration and debts- two sides of the same coin)
...
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
@TheHomoludens
1. the question is not how do we give him freedom then, but why does he have no freedom.
2. class warfare that is. Free Markets do not protect the wealth of the rich alone it protects the wealth of everyone, does the fact that the rich still have wealth mean that you shouldn't do it no matter how much it benefits the poor?
3. corporatism thrives on big government, because they easily buy out politicians to get the regulations or taxes that keep competitors out of business.
TheConnorian 1 day ago
@TheConnorian 1. "but why does he have no freedom"
a. strucutral answer:
systematic wealth concentration in a corrupt system
b. metaphysic answer: because he got blinded by the glitzer and entertainment + dumbed down by burgers, booze and drugs
2. "protects" imaginary "wealth"; see 1.
3. corporatism is all involved parties fault. It´s no wonder high politicians easily get CEO jobs and vice versa. Best current examples: Papadimos, Monti
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
@TheHomoludens
1. Then the answer is to fix the system and to educate people so they are more politically conscious.
2. When I say protect I mean that you are much less likely to lose wealth and much more likely to gain it.
3. Very true.
4. Well the revolution is certainly coming: in america the militias are literally booming in size. So much that the government is trying to get the right to firearms and to form militias taken away.
TheConnorian 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHomoludens
1. Then the answer is to fix the system and to educate people so they are more politically conscious.
2. When I say protect I mean that you are much less likely to lose wealth and much more likely to gain it.
3. Very true.
4. Well the revolution is certainly coming: in america the militias are literally booming in size. So much that the government is trying to get the right to firearms and to form militias taken away.
TheConnorian 1 day ago
@TheHomoludens
4. The economic crisis is being dealt with just as you said. Taking loans to pay off loans that you took to pay off loans which you also took to pay of loans. And by bailing out the businesses then dumping the debt on the poor. Its not going to create entrepreneurship but it will create a revolution.
TheConnorian 1 day ago
@TheConnorian 4. hopefully, otherwise we´ll end up as debtslaves to Rothschilds, Windsors and the like...
I won´t! That´s one thing I´m sure of!
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
Comment removed
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian 5. Both "money" and "state" are (almost religious) belief systems, they only become "true" by public consent. This consent is becoming more and more fragile.
6. Herd mentality and oligarchic structures are root causes of today´s "problems".
I don´t think that there´ll be a solution coming out of that system, the system has been running too long and favoring certain people for too long.
I want that shit to collapse, down with ECB, FED, IWF, BIZ,...
TheHomoludens 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "We mustn't be bogged down by what we cannot all do."
Yeah right, you´re "free", but if you disagree you´ll be " put into your place".
Na thanks, not for me! I don´t go with that!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Ultimately I think it would be much better for all people to "update" their "thinking" and give up the false guidance of traditional political concepts. They´re all based on ontologies that deny certain aspects of "being human" and even with the best intentions result in totaliterian regimes.
The only solution is to tell people they make a differnce.
Btw, I´d vote for Ron Paul if I were American.
Rather robber barons´ capitalism than global Rothschild fascism of the banking cartel.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Problem is as I said that most people can't think for themselves, its a primitive fail-safe so that humans are forced to form groups to increase survival chances to my understanding.
I everyday tell people that they need to think radically and that they make a difference but most are bogged down by the "well there are so many other people, do I really matter?" fallacy.
Glad to hear about Ron Paul. And while I agree on the last point I'd rather have neither :P
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "Problem is as I said that most people can't think for themselves"
This assumption can´t be tested, I could as well call it a belief.
Why not just give it a try?
Can it become so much worse in the long run than if things drift the way they do?
"Survival" is another misconception. Westerners tend to quickly associate individual survival, the peak of it being science-fiction cults like "transhumanism".
Life is constant change and death is a part of it.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens true it can't be tested unless you look at election results (little joke there).
I'm happy to give stuff a try, besides the future is uncertain I mean most of the Romans probably though their empire would last forever and we know how that went.
However I would like to do things now and not have to wait for generations later for my plans to come to fruition but hey maybe it will take that long. who knows, that is the key question.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "However I would like to do things now and not have to wait for generations later for my plans to come to fruition."
This raises the question of ethics. What means are justified to achieve "freedom"?
"there´s no way to peace. peace is the way"
Imo one can replace "peace" with "freedom", "love", "wisdom" and maybe others.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens In my opinion, you should have hard principles, so taking freedom through violence to create freedom, would be no real freedom at all, everything would unwind in the end. It must be a peaceful revolution maintained by consent or else the revolution is doomed to fail.
There is always a way to peace and all the others, thing is there is no certainty in maintaining said things after you attain them.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian And thanks for not writing an answer to my last question.
I´ll repeat:
Do you want to attract followers or do you want to work towards a free society?
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens A free society obviously however a free society is more than just a free market and to just focus on that would not grant much support. Most people would support a freer society because they can see the historical benefits of more freedoms and the modern benefits of more freedoms and because of that I hope to also attract followers.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "A free society obviously however a free society is more than just a free market and to just focus on that would not grant much support. Most people would support a freer society because they can see the historical benefits of more freedoms and the modern benefits of more freedoms and because of that I hope to also attract followers."
Ablahblahblah...
You´re trying to attract followers, otherwise it wouldn´t take you so many hollow words.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheConnorian A free society will never be built upon "followers"!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens so libertarians now can't have a party because people might follow the ideology? your really sounding nuts.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "You throw out things that aren't even true"
Prove it!
"The only ideologically deluded person here is you"
Lame ad hominem BS!
"Its not the same as treating them like sheep."
Yeah right...
The question was:
do you want to attract followers or do you want to work towards a free society?
Your actions speak for themselves...
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@funboy7979 Koch brothers have also thrown millions at governments, but you would ignore this, they've used big government lobbying to get what they want. They back both sides hoping that they'll get the same treatment perpetually. Plus its not libertarian and tea parties, its libertarians and conservatives, they have a much wider range.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian The USSR was as communist as the US today is a "free market" society.
So far every system finally wound up as oligarchy, with all the repression and violence resulting.
And who´s in power now?
The central bankers cartel.
Capitalism - socialism, it´s all fucked and leads to corporatism if the power of money creation is a monopoly beyond the checks of powers.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens My point is that every ideology that demands big government to solve problems eventually falls into what you said, oligarchy and general evilness, the main oligarchy situations are socialism and communism.
And your right about the banks however not so much about Capitalism, capitalism + big government = corporatism as we see today, I mean the De Beers corporation probably the only private monopoly to arise was held up by regulations. capitalism + small government = profit for all
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens And once again money supply needs to be controlled centrally by government not a bank using the government as proxy.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian Back to constitutionalism!
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheConnorian Otoh a government could also be made too small. There should be a check of powers. Theoratically a good king/queen would be an efficient government, but what comes after him/her?
And: the structure must achieve both flexibility (best way imo constitutional democracy) and stability.
I really wonder if a perfect system is possible. And if it´s possible, would humans make it work?
Sometimes I feel envious of the prehistoric hunters. What a hard life, but free and intense!
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens A small government is good but as you said tiny government is not. There, as you said, should always be a check of powers but to the least amount possible. I also agree that constitutional democracies are good and I also believe that there are no perfect systems, with the right leadership any system can work to a degree however some are much more prone to failure.
I also share your envies however of the Athenian Greeks, freemen who voted for people not parties.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian Na, I wrote prehistorical hunters, not Athenian Greeks, big difference. You do know that in their democracy only about 10% of the population were "freemen" and the rest were slaves?
And that they already knew the principle of debtslavery?
Is that a kind of soociety you´d like to have?
Don´t look much further...
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens I've studied the democracy, from what I know it was 20%, anyway prehistoric hunters lived in a world where death literally waited round the next corner, that's not something I want to return to, at least in Athens you could be well protected.
I understand their knowledge of debt slavery however what I envy is the fact that they voted for people not parties so you didn't end up with situations like nowadays where people vote conservative because they aren't labour.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian If "some" and "most" are technical terms known only to adolescents parroting corporate progaganda in internet chatrooms than I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first job, sonny.
funboy7979 6 days ago
@funboy7979 If "corporate propaganda" and "parroting" are the only things you can try to stain me with then I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first brain cell, sonny.
TheConnorian 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funboy7979 If "corporate propaganda" and "parroting" are the only things you can try to stain me with then I think I understand you perfectly. Get back to us after you get that first brain cell, sonny.
fixed it for you.
TheConnorian 6 days ago
@funboy7979 It isn´t all so easy.
You should consider the fact that the political system is only one part of the larger system at work. The group of people controlling the amount of money (be it currencies, giral money or "derivatives") - the central banks - actually control the whole system.
The Roman empire grew with a state central banking issueing cheap metal coins and it worked great, it declined with privately controlled gold money.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@funboy7979 I was largely sceptic of libertarianism and I still disagree with some of their positions - specially sophisms like "praxeology" and the religious believe in "free markets" (ignoring that it´s always humans interacting not rational machines).
Still many would want to break the dangerous monopoly of the FED and to me this seems to be the central issue of today.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens I'd like you to elaborate on your concerns on the free market if you may, it would help me understand the though pattern of those who oppose it.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian I don´t think my "thought pattern" is in any way representive for others.
Basically I disagree with the libertarian definition of "freedom": non-coercion. As much as I see this as a valuable principle I think it´s counterbalanced by the mere fact, that a starving person will do enough to get food. And I don´t think any "morality" should try to condemn a hungry person stealing for survival.
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens Hmm, very true however the libertarian system I envision would take care of the starving, if not with jobs or low taxes so they can eat, it would also have minimum welfare so people don't get into that state.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian "Markets" are an interpretation of human action, they´re no entity by themselves.
I don´t see how a purely "free market society" should deal with the dangers of monopolies or cartels leading to extreme wealth concentration in the hands of very few and poverty of the masses. A starving person has no freedom.
Hunger is completely unnecessary in the whole world. Humanity could feed all starving people in the world with just the food that´s thrown away in the western countries.
Sick!
TheHomoludens 3 days ago
@TheHomoludens The only monopolies in existence are government run monopolies so by eliminating the parts of government that they use (aka market regulations and illogical illegalisations) and cartels operate exactly the same.
In a libertarian government free market the goods are cheaper and the people have more money so starving is much much harder than in many other systems. If more starting nations adopted this instead of being protectionists then the world would be better off.
TheConnorian 3 days ago
@TheConnorian "In a libertarian government free market the goods are cheaper and the people have more money "
See, this is another problem I have with libertarians.
There have never been freer markets than early human trade, but this will not feed the population of today. Your free markets have so far never existed (just like democracy), yet you write as if you could point out hundreds of historic examples.
That´s not proper logic and still it´s very common.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens No I believe in it because it is logical, lower taxes would leave people with more money and less regulations (as we have seen in the past when regulations have been lowered) equal cheaper goods, would you rather have super protectionism with regulations everywhere?
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Don´t try to evade my criticism!
"Logic" and "real" are two different meanings. You wrrite about "free markets" as if they were real and historic. At the same time, whenever a historic comparison (robber barron capitalism, Manchester Capitalism) is made you blame the government and not the people interacting in the market.
Either you´ve intergrated your ideology so deeply, that it became unconscious part of you or you´re a bought propaganda tool (which I believe).
Not symphathetic!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens I'm not evading your criticism. I know that free markets have never truly existed and those "historic comparisons" are situations were corporations have used the government (aka the people interacting with the government). capitalism and crony capitalism are two very different things and only the latter has ever been in existence.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian Then why don´t you start promoting "free markets" AND explain why and how these never existed. That´s something I´d listen to and I´d find interesting.
It seems to run against the academic tradition that started with Mises, where everyone sold his thoughts as factual, while in reality it´s just theory (and not even scientific if the standards of Critical Rationalism are applied).
Don´t try to impose "truths", try to raise question and curiousity!
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Have you read what I wrote? have you noticed anything about what I have been promoting? free markets was a big thing if you remember throughout what I said.
If you want to know why they never exist is because its much more profitable for a few to have a more controlled market and any market that has existed has been subject to a government that had regulated it, the closest thing to a free market throughout history have been the mixed markets of Switzerland and Hong Kong.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheConnorian "the closest thing to a free market throughout history have been the mixed markets of Switzerland and Hong Kong."
I´ll take Switzerland because of the direct democracy they practise!
You see, if the results of "free markets" are so vastly different, your liberterian ideas can only be a part of a bigger answer to the question of "how do we want society to be".
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens My economics are theoretical yes, but that is because they haven't been tried to the degree I would like however they can be backed up when you look at Hong Kong for instance (a very free market state) they have been booming in wealth thanks to their libertarian approach to the economy. They are also theoretical because every other economic system that tried to use sums and maths to predict everything has failed, Keynesian ideology being the key one on this matter.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "would you rather have super protectionism with regulations everywhere?"
You should be a computer, they work with binary thinking!
I already wrote what I´d like to have (constituationalism), do you have no memory?
Or is everything you do just about putting out these libertarian slogans?
That turns me off, I´d seriously give your political position a try, but the persons promoting it are quite often arrogant pricks.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens true it was a rash statement.
I normally don't get too involved however when I see something I feel I can prove I do.
And yes unfortunately there are arrogant pricks in about every movement, the majority of every movement actually, they are the kind of sheep who prattle on with fallacies they saw in the last party broadcast instead of looking around for themselves.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian If you believe in freedom, you can´t treat people as sheep, that´s a contradiction - unless you only believe in the freedom of the smartest, sociopathic criminals.
Short: a "libertarian" society that is structured by "authorities" according to "undeniable truths" and deductive thinking has nothing to do with "freedom" or philosophy.
If people wanted to choose socialism and you believe in freedom, you´d have to let them. Everything else is hypocrisy.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens I believe in freedom and I don't treat people like sheep, where did I say that? Surely you understand that the huge majority of people are just followers repeating what the person in front says.
And if a socialist government was voted in, I'd live with it however I would fight their attempts to force socialist things on the whole of society. Libertarianism is about choice so if they try to restrict choice then I will fight it.
You seem to be showing a loose grasp on the ideology.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "Surely you understand that the huge majority of people are just followers repeating what the person in front says." That´s the same as saying they´re sheep.
Do you want to attract followers or do you want to work towards a free society?
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
@TheHomoludens Its not the same as treating them like sheep.
TheConnorian 2 days ago
@TheConnorian "early human" is supposed to mean: in times before the agraric revolution.
TheHomoludens 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No society is perfect. But Cuban idealism is well-intentioned and better for the masses. The US works hard to defeat Cuba's ability to sustain itself under the current system. In Cuba poverty is not considered the failure of an individual, but a challenge for the state in managing communal resources. Before you had a dictator propped up by the US and Havana was a mafia playground, the locals were employed as waiters and hookers. There is no permanent homeless underclass there as in the US.
funboy7979 1 week ago
@funboy7979 And you seem to have a real problem understanding the realities of Cuba.
TheConnorian 1 week ago
Comment removed
funboy7979 1 week ago
Bill Walton?
oracleofdelphire 1 week ago
"Equality" certainly worked for the Soviet Union, Cuba and all the other states of equality....Dr Friedman is brilliant
TheGW411 2 weeks ago
@TheGW411 Cuba: 100% literacy rate, universal health care, no fat cats enslaving anybody, no homeless. Hmmmm ...
funboy7979 2 weeks ago
@funboy7979 I served refugees from Cuba today at work. hmm...
wesleyburkhart 2 weeks ago