I agree with most of what he says except when it comes to intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is still property. If a writer, musician, filmmaker, painter, scientist or inventor is not entitled to the fruit of his intellectual labor, than why should anyone have any rights to any property?
Are blacks & women really less "free"? Blacks used to have a high family & marriage rate..& abortion was rare...now what does it look like? Women's lib was supported by the Rockefellers knowing they could get women to pay taxes & kids into govt hands & into "public school" which is really public indoctrination..we now have very few families, kids raised by the govt, a 30% black abortion rate, a 50% divorce rate, THIS IS FREEDOM?
@giddymoon And I am not saying woman shouldn't have the right to vote or that blacks should not be treated equal, but the reasons for the supporting the fight were NOT moral ones.
@giddymoon Freedom means people are allowed to make bad choices, but it does not inevitably lead to them. Freedom is freedom, bad judgement is bad judgement. The two should never be confused.
every time they use a word like inhumane i take it as a fact cos the elites running this world are nothing like the rest of us humans on the plantet.... are we free ??? at best were all free range but far from free IMO.
The government does immoral things every day in the name of morality. The government taking your hard earned money in the name of morality, is just as wrong as you stealing from your neighbor.
Yeah, we were prosperous when the govt didn't try and regulate everything.
The problem is not clowns like Obama are in office. That will be resolved in due time. The problem is why the people elected him. Until the family starts doing its duty to raise the children, and the Govt abides by our rule of law ant our Constitution, we will only dig our own hole deeper.
The dumbing-down of America has been a resounding success.
@JRBeaman The government will never abide by the rule of law. They collect revenue violently. They're legal monopolists. They are the final arbitrator in every case, including cases that in involve themselves. Of course they're going to expand their power any chance they get. It's the nature of the beast. No piece of paper will stop them. Going back to the Constitution is like going back to the early stages of a cancer. We need to release that we don't need rulers at all.
You would say yes, because you commit a great non-sequitur, which is that, with the necessity of society comes the necessity of the state. If the shoe industry were monopolized, we would have bad overpriced shoes. For the same reason, monopoly on violence, like the state has, gives us bad overpriced defense. Do you hear about security brutality?
Did this guy say smoking bans are a positive thing?
The industrial poisoning of tobacco (with deadly chemical additives) is where the problem lies. This goes for food as well. That's what causes illnesses. Smoking or eating in itself is not the problem. Health-deteriorating chemicals that have been developed in laboratories for your tax money are the problem.
People have benefited health-wise for thousands of years from smoking/eating all kinds of naturally grown herbs.
Cannabis sativa and Lobelia inflata are two examples of herbs that can cure asthma and much more. Why is it acceptable for the smallest minority on Earth (politicians) to say to the rest of the planet's inhabitants "you can't use those plants - if you do we will ruin your lives" regardless of who found it first?
America is still the Freest country in the World Economically and Civilly but we should be even Freer. By eliminating "Bad Laws" that are designed to regulate how people live their own lives and not how we interact with others.
Apparently your not that familiar with American History. America hasn't declared war since World War II. "An economy responsible for pollution and bad health" your entitled to your own opinion. But you can make the same case for Brazil, China and India and others.
What would you do with criminals slap them on the hand and hope they don't do it again?
You obviously have a Socialistic Democratic view of American. And you didn't contradict my points about American Freedom.
Most Americans don't seem to question the history being taught in its schools own schools very much.
America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan based on false flag operations very recently (regarding WW2, Hitler was financed by Samuel P. & Prescott Bush.)
Greed being responsible for pollution is stating the obvious. America has always been ahead in this and has on political ground (UN) encouraged the rest of the world (for $ reasons) to follow in its footsteps (nuclear power.)
About a million Americans are currently in prison for non-violent "crimes" such as enjoying cannabis. No punishment needed for decreasing stress and curing illness. Punishments don't solve problems; proper education & guidance does.
I take no political side; left & right are both the same. The public debates r mostly theatrics. The majority of people don't approve of those in office.
You make a point about Non Violent offenders so perhaps your not completely clueless. But how about rapists, batterers, murderers, terrorists those people need to be in Prison for what they do. For the safety of society.
@FRSFreeStateNow With statism, those rapists, batterers, murderers and terrorists are easily capable of attaining positions of power which give them control over millions of lives. With anarchy they are only able to operate on an individual basis which while terrible and hard and/or impossible to completely solve, is nowhere near the level of damage a psychopath can do within a statist society
@LTBL88 On an individual basis is a load of crap. No one ever does anything alone. You might think you do but its really not true. So with anarchy stuff that goes down now would still be going down. Instead you would have a few working together to control the majority thats always how it works.
@LordHannigan We already have a few working together to control the majority, its called statism. If it is such a nightmare scenario to have few control the many then why are you justifying it?
VERY good point. Anarchy would eliminate the chance of a sociopath-nutcase-killer (i.e. Stalin/Pol Pot) from committing their vast murderous atrocities. Automatic damage control by, ironically, "no" design.
@FRSFreeStateNow do you think that labor prison camps would cease to exist without a state? How about law? would arbitrators disappear? Would common law and merchant law disappear? (They both existed before the state) Would private security disappear?
Only savages are totally free.....no moral injunctions....no personal responsiblity. Just self interest. Even primitives or tribal cultures are governed by traditions which
have the weigh of law. The more 'civilized' one gets the more he or she must conform to the acceptable norms of their given society.
We have lost many freedoms in my lifetime. I work for four months of the year to pay tax, license, and permit fees. We can no longer send our children to school to learn gun safety. It is not safe to leave a deer rifle hanging in the back window of my pickup and also I can no longer take it into the restaurant with me for safe keeping. Out of pocket doctors visits are a thing of the past. I could continue for 10 hours listing freedoms lost. Look at this man, ask a working man in his 50's.
@dyingangelo Can you ever be "free"? If you live with a group of people, that group of people need to have rules, and all rules are a removal of freedom. You could live completely alone, but then you are not free to be with anyone else. Freedom is very relative. What is it that you feel you are not "free" from?
@profwito But then it kidnapping and detaining a person is highly immoral, but do you cry for the immorality of arresting and jailing killers and rapist? No? No taxes, ie government stealing, means no army at all, no public roads, firefighters, police, justice system, or schools.
If any tax = stealing that there is no government and you would be incorrect in labeling your self as libertarians, as without taxes you are anarchists.
Clearly, there are some exception for taxes with libertarians.
@Loathomar You can be a libertarian and want an anarchist society just like you can be a libertarian and want a democratic society, or a represtative republic, or even a monarcy. Libertarians just want to maximize freedom and there are arguments among them of how that'd best be done.
Some libertarians believe the ends justify the means. That doesn't make stealing right, but they see the good that comes from it as justifiable. A 'bad end' would make the means unjustifiable though.
@Beljora Right, but you can not say that "all taxes = stealing, so we should have no taxes" and then have any form of government at all. If we agree that some form of government is needed, then saying all taxes are evil is pointless. But I think we can all agree that government waist is horrable, and the US government has tones of that.
@Loathomar What I'm getting at is: when libertarians make the argument that taxes are stealing (like the gentleman in this video has and as Judge Napolitano and other respectable libertarians have) yet still want some minimal amount of taxation, they're not being hypocrits anymore than a nun stealing food to feed orphans (okay, that's completely loaded, but it gives you the idea).
@JRBeaman How did you is the "?" at the end of the sentence and the next short sentence "No?". There point I was making it that it is clearly not immoral to jailing killers and rapist... thanks.
It is funny when he said that children are raised with the libertarian idea and than proceeds to show pictures of children in a certain area with a fence around them so they can't get out. Children are told to live peaceful so it is easier for adults to treat them violently.
Just one thing; not hitting someone, stealing or lying is not a Libertarian idea my friend. It is knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is being a good human.
@andyissemicool Democrats think taxing the people more gets the government more money to spend.
History has proven otherwise, but they don't care because they see your loss of freedom as their gain in having more control over you. That seems their only goal. History of late has proven that as fact.
Sadly, some political libertarians like political democrats and political republicans falsely believe that women have had it rough (vid. starting at 2:26). Women have it so rough, they get to live an extra 7 years on average--yeah, really rough. Men, contrary to such popular opinion are now even less free (and have historically been the least free).
@darklordsma Most societies chosen them to be behind the scene, so they can concentrate on raising the children. It's safer for them to not be up front where the men are. Common sense.
@JRBeaman Maybe in the past when physical-labour was more important, but since the rise of advanced capitalism women are definitely more free. Also, historically governments have stopped women from improving their conditions by imposing legal disablities on them (no property right ect,). Libertarians should not gloss over this fact.
@JRBeaman Does society choose anything? Your whole statement reeks of collectivism. In the past physical labour was the predominate form of work. It's not now. Capitalism has opened up great opportunities for women to become rich, successful and independant. As a libertarian, one must recognise that the legal disabilities the government placed on women in the past were unnecessary and evil. Let's not gloss over it. WE'RE NOT CONSERVATIVES HERE!
@PoliticalMe Our biological differences aside, the video was referring to the fact that in the US women did no the right to vote, own property or hold elected office until 1920 in most places in the US. You may feel cheated that woman have a biological advantage over man in life expectancy, but to equate that to rights and freedom is stupid.
Well, assuming there are some proper roles for government, such as defence, and Maybe some limited regulations or standardisations, I'm guessing some, low, level of taxation will be inevitable, in one form or another.
I'd say there's a difference between having to pay some relatively small amount of your money to the benefit of everyone, with a majority agreeing with that practice, as opposed to some thug taking all your stuff.
Also, well, I don't care much for ideas of morality...
Has it ever occurred to some libertarians that extrapolating behavioural norms from a personally individual level onto the whole of society perhaps isn't the best of ideas? That, just maybe, those double standards exist for a... reason?
He says "if you were a woman your ancestors had it much worse than we have it today." Just one point, all of us have female ancestors, not just women. Since slavery was so common in all cultures in the past, all of us probably have slave ancestors, not just blacks.
@XCritonX You make a good point. It's absolutely incorrect that only some of us are more free than our ancestors. We all have ancestors who were women, slaves, serfs, indentured servants, part of oppressive caste systems, political and religious dissidents, &/or social outcastes. Everyone has has ancestors who were indigenous people who experienced genocide, rape, war, invasion, occupation, cultural destruction, &/or loss of tradition. Most of this oppression happened prior to the modern state.
Both economic and personal liberty are hindered with legislation like the Patriot Act, the Drug War and others. Until alot of these statist laws are destroyed, we as a people arent truly free.
@derfy26 Good catch. The Freeman is published by The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
There is also more control over the economy, and more manipulation of the markets...and more money printing. Our economic freedoms are definitely in the toilet. I think the US was just ranked fifth or sixth by Heritage Foundation.
1:27 note the guy up on the roof. I was briefly stationed at the Pentagon, whenever a bigwig (like Condoleezza Rice) would show up, these secret service snipers would pop out of a hatch on the roof. Once the VIP was inside, they would vanish. Ahh, memories.
@fireguyx He addressed many of those issues and specifically described many of the ways in which we are less free. Just because the man acknowledges that blacks and women have more equal access to liberties does not mean he's ignoring the travesties of government. Jesus, LISTEN before you criticize what you supposedly listened to.
@theinfamouspaw But his overall statement is that we are not less free, which I disagree with. He says many Americans are more civilized, yet violence is at an all time-high, especially from what I've seen in the news and all around me. Again Libertarians are not right on everything, the magnitude in how bad this country is and how our liberty is being encroached does not apply to his opinion. I think he is a hypocrite in a lot of his views.
@FireGuyX Is there more violence? Or more news outlets? In fact, violence, as a percentage of the population is on the decline and has been for a long time. /watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk for more. So in general, we have more freedom from violence, but less freedom in the senses of economic opportunity and options, drug consumption, regulation, and mobility. In Europe,freedom of speech is under attack, and freedom on the internet is under attack, from governments, all over the world.
@kev3d watch the news, you hear (and see) outrageous violent stories all the time. I see a lot more confrontational among people. That's not violence, but it leads to violence. Overall I would say US is not the most peaceful place as it once was. We will never have freedom from violence as long as we have a public school system.
@theinfamouspaw Also he doesn't mention economic liberties which is being encroached in a severe way. All the taxes and regulations put on business that harm potential employment. He doesn't mention that our standard of living has gotten worse because the value of our dollar is decreasing at a rapid rate. Overall I would say we are less free then ever before, despite advancements in civil society and technology. I think it's you who needs to LISTEN and see other peoples point of view.
@wetwingnut He's saying the basic, fundamental principles of libertarianism are familiar to us, we grew up with them and many of us live by them. But for some reason, we don't hold the government to those standards which we believe are fair. If that's all you got from the video, then you either weren't paying attention to what he was saying or are severely misguided.
And this where Sheldon Richman is utterly wrong, he can't see past his own delusions. We are less free in A LOT of ways. He thinks Americans are civilized, but violence has gone up in the last 20 years and there is a lot of assholes these days too. We are less free because government has gotten bigger. Government is subsidizing everything a lot more such as roads, education, housing, etc. And the effects of that has broken down communities, caused distortion in the markets
@VictoryCough Until you look at the prison population, due in no small part to the government's ridiculous drug war and creating a dependency for welfare through supposed "anti-poverty" measures.
It should also be noted that it was capitalist industrialization that freed the slaves and not government, for the most part. That is while the industrial north had abandoned the practice; they didn't need it, while it continued in the rural south (though it was on the wane up to the civil war).
"[...] if you're a woman your ancestors were not free." Brilliant. You know who shares the same ancestors as women? Men. I cannot believe he said that, how embarrassing. I know what he meant, that women have not always been free, but he could have said that in a coherent way.
He is one of the few fair-minded right-leaning libertarians I've come across. He actually acknowledges that some people do have more freedom now with our present system. However, his argument against govt is weak. He says people feel morally justified to do something through their govt that they wouldn't feel morally justified to do on their own. This is true, but it's equally true of capitalism. Many people believe being monetarily successful justifies what they did to become successful.
@MarmaladeINFP A company cannot take your property without your consent....unless it is aided by government as is the case with eminent domain abuse. Government is force, business is voluntary. Being "monetarily successful" under real capitalism means that you are providing a product or service that is in demand. Unlike crony capitalism, as the Bush and Obama administrations seem to love so much, through bailouts and pork filled pet projects.
@kev3d Free markets are with consent and without force, but we don't live in a free market. Businesses don't operate in a free market and the rich don't get rich through a free market. A free market would be nice, but it doesn't presently exist. As for the govt, it is corporatocracy and plutocracy. Some of the bills that get passed into law were written directly by corporate lobbyists. Politicians don't have power over businesses. Businesses have power over politicians. Follow the money.
@MarmaladeINFP No Kidding...hence why Government is the enemy. It is not as though the massive and corrupt government will wake up one day and say "hmmm, you know what? We will do nothing but impartial contract enforcement conduct the 18 enumerated powers" Companies and fortunes rise and fall on consumer demand and competition. BUT it takes government to protect the failures and punish the successful.
@kev3d Not all govts are corporatocracies and plutocracies. Not all govts are banana republics. Yes, our govt has been made into a corrupt system by the corruption of those with great power and money, but it wasn't always that way and there is no reason it has to be that way. If you got rid of this govt, the same people with power and money would continue as before. They'd just do it without a middleman or they'd just create a new govt. The govt is just a facade. It isn't the power itself.
@MarmaladeINFP So which would you have? Govt? Which produces nothing and uses force to obtain what it wishes? Or companies, which, while some are occasionally abusive (not unlike people) on the whole are generally in the business of selling people the products and services that people want at a price they can afford? Id rather keep the latter and dispose, as much as possible of the former. As for the origin of the govt tyranny, Id point to the villains WW, FDR, LBJ, GWB & BO, among others.
@kev3d Cont, it is true that not all governments are Plutocracies or Corporatocarcies. But virtually all are Kleptocracies. That is to say they take without asking and use force if you refuse. Rather than a pay-per-use-per-person-who-used-it system(as one would expect at a retail shop or restaurant, shoeshine...whatever) instead there is a complex system of subsidy, regulation, special favors, unfair tax structure and of course, corruption.
@kev3d It is true that not all businesses are plutocracies or corporatocracies. But virtually all are kleptocracies. That is to say they don't exist in a free market as no free market exists in this society and so they didn't earn their wealth and power through a meritocracy. In the US, most wealth is inherited and not earned, The govt you criticize so much is merely an extension of the capitalism you praise so much. Politicians are just the pawns of corporate interests.
@MarmaladeINFP Brilliant job of plagiarism and dishonesty. The vast majority of businesses do not steal, they sell things and services people want through voluntary action. And no, most wealth is not inherited in the US, read "The Millionaire Next Door" and even if it was, anyone who doesn't sell something useful will squander his fortune to someone who does contribute.
@kev3d 1st, most people like govt and so your criticisms fall on deaf ears... unless you want to create a capitalist tyranny over the majority. 2nd, govt produces/produced: internet, emergency services, roads, utilities, safety net, food and drug safety, police, military, rocket science (literally, govt is rocket science lol), & about a billion other things. Most owners & CEOs of businesses don't produce anything. They just tell other people what to do & those other people do the producing.
A "capitalist tyranny" can only exist where business act as a unit. That is, they do not compete. Free markets are the opposite of this, thus businesses cannot be tyrannical.
Government, on the other hand, is inherently monopolistic and never to be trusted.
I don't think most people really "like" government. We demonstrate this once in a while at the polling place, as we did about ten days ago.
@RogerOnTheRight I'm in favor of free markets. If the US and global economy actually was a free market, then I'd support it and I'd support the people who meritocratically earned their wealth and success. Alas, that isn't the reality we live in. We have crony capitalism, corporatocracy, and plutocracy. In the US, for example, most wealth is inherited and not earned. Over the decades, wealth disparity has increased as social mobility has decreased. That isn't a free market meritocracy.
Economics is not zero-sum. Thus, income and wealth disparity is irrelevant. How much you make has nothing to do with my own productivity and value to the market.
And inheritance is not immoral. If we are to permit private property, then certainly disposal of that property is one's own right, including passing on to heirs.
So what is the solution to our relative lack of market freedom? More freedom, or less?
@RogerOnTheRight I didn't say economics is zero-sum, but it's a fact that US wages (when inflation is calcluated) has decreased as manufacturing jobs have decreased, as union membership has decreased, and as social mobility has decreased. Inheritance is a problem when those who inherit wealth use it to bribe and persuade politicians, use it to lobby and have lobbyists directly right the bills politicians pass, use it to buy all the media and create the political narrative they want.
@MarmaladeINFP I'm for increasing freedom, but not just the freedom of the upper classes. As wages have decreased, the wealth has become concentrated at the top. Everything has become concentrated at the top. For example, there used to be a lot more local media, but almost all the media has been bought up by media conglomerates. It used to be easier to have a small business in the US, but now it's easier to have a small business in many European 'socialist' countries.
@MarmaladeINFP In the last 10, 20, 30 etc. years wages have increased, not decreased.
We have more local media via the internet than ever before.
You are right in stating that it is getting harder to start and run a small business in America. That is due to bigger government with more taxes and rules. If the government just buts out of our lives we can all be richer.
@XCritonX In recent decades, the living wage when adjusted for inflation has decreased. That is a fact. It's a complete and utter fact. Yes, if you don't consider changing costs and inflation wages may have gone up, but I'm talking about the reality that people live which includes rising costs and inflation.
In Europe, it's easier to start a business and there is more entrepreneurial social mobility. At the same time, Europe has a lot of regulation and welfare and stronger unions.
@MarmaladeINFP Wealth disparity does cause a shrinking middle class and growing poverty, but there are even more tangible problems. As wealth disparity increases, social and health problems also increase. Even wealthy people are worse off in a society with high wealth disaparity than wealthy people in a society with low wealth disparity. The increase of social and health problems impacts everyone. The US is one of the lowest developed countries on almost any measure of societal health.
@MarmaladeINFP Wealth disparity has nothing to do with middle class losses in the last few years. Just because your neighbor gets richer does not mean that you are poorer. We don't have a fixed amount of wealth in the world. All peoples wealth has grown in the last 50 years, and we are all better off, some just benefit more than others.
Wealth disparity does not cause social and health problems, poverty does. Poverty is caused by reduced economic freedoms caused by governmental interference.
@XCritonX The average wage of Americans has decreased. That is a fact whether you like it or not.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the data. Extreme poverty causes social problems, but moderate poverty doesn't cause social problems. Low wealth disparity societies (or, in the US, states) have less social problems even when they are relatively more poor. It's a correlation. The causation isn't clear, but the correlation is absolutely clear. The data is there. Just look at it.
@MarmaladeINFP Could you please direct me to where you found data that suggests that the quality of Americans lives has been declining for more than 10 years? Shorter time frame data is not relevant since it cant show a trend.
Not all European countries are producing entrepreneurs and new businesses. Sweden and Denmark are both major centers of EU new business growth. They have very few regulations on businesses and the unions are mostly for show. Sweden doesn't even have minimum wage laws.
@XCritonX The links below show the correlation between wealth disparity and social problems. You can easily find data about individual factors. One type of social problem is obesity which has increased in the US as wealth disparity has increased, but in countries where wealth disparity has decreased so has obesity. There are many other examples. It's easy to find the data if you want to find it.
True. Not all European countries, but look at my comparison in a below link b/t US & Germany.
@MarmaladeINFP I did find it interesting that you brough up Sweden and Denmark. Those are perfect examples of how low wealth disparity correlates to low social problems. Sweden and Denmark may have different regulations than the US, but they are extremely far from being unregulated. Regulating to protect and help new businesses is still regulation. The US is opposite. US regulation favors established big businesses.
Wages have not decreased in recent decades if you consider non-cash compensation and overall increase in personal wealth.
Mfg jobs peaked in 1945-- nothing new here. We are moving to a non-mfg economy. Mfg output has gone up-- as has productivity. (current recession excluded).
Social mobility? Do you mean economic mobility? That has not decreased at all.
So, inheriting money is bad, if you spend it unwisely? What if you earn it? Can you bribe people then?
Regarding "buying" media, do you opposed the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Ought political speech be restricted? If so, by whom? The government? Surely that is far worse then some rich people taking out TV ads as they please.
Individuals having freedom of speech is democracy.
Corporations having more freedom of speech than individuals isn't democracy.
Corporations don't just take out some tv ads. They own all of the tv networks and cable channels. A few corporations own almost all the media in the world. The internet has leveled the playing field slightly, but the mainstream media still controls almost every aspect of the campaigning process and the political narrative of public discussion.
Corporations don't have more freedom of speech than individuals. They just have more resources.
On the other hand, given our freedom of association inculcated in the very same amendment as speech freedom, corporations are just collections of individuals underneath. That is, you can get with your like-minded friends and form your own corporation or association and do as they do.
@RogerOnTheRight Freedom of speech is meaningless if only those with the most money are heard. A person alone on an island has freedom of speech. Freedom from is meaningless if there isn't freedom for. If freedom of speech doesn't lead to freedom to influence the democratic process, then it's a sham. Those with more resources use their 'freedom of speech' to bribe politicians, manipulate the political process & buy media to lie/propagandize to the public... which leads to having more resources.
@MarmaladeINFP For example, the legal system supposedly gives everyone the equal right to defend themselves. But, in reality, the more money one spends on lawyers the more one gets favorable decisions. Rich people rarely get prosecuted for tax fraud because they have lawyers to find loopholes and create documents so confusing even IRS agents can't figure them out. The more tax fraud the rich get away with the more resources they have to pay for more lawyers to do more tax fraud.
@MarmaladeINFP Interestingly; According to an IRS study last year, federal employees and retirees owed a staggering $3.3 billion dollars in delinquent tax payments. Taxes are so complicated and so intrusive that even Federal employees cannot (or will not) deal with them. The real solution is for the govt to actually be frugal as the constitution intended and to and eliminate that rights-violating, money stealing behemoth called the IRS.
You are making pointless excuses and blaming others. There have been wealthy people with disproportionate power since the beginning of time. Only now do "little people" actually have a way to be heard and to wield at least some power.
If you are not heard, it is your own fault. Find like-minded people and pool your resources. If you are not completely alone, you will have a voice.
@MarmaladeINFP Government did not "produce" any of those things, it bought them, with other people's money. The internet, as a prime example, was already in development when the defense department took it over and monopolized it. Development remained slow until it was made open to the public. Meanwhile private interests like Bell, IBM, Apple and others were developing technologies for commercial use and not war.
@kev3d The govt produces as much as the management of a big business produces. A govt is just management. A CEO doesn't produce anything and yet CEOs have increasingly made more money than the workers who actually do produce things. In some sectors such as banks, financial speculation produces nothing anywhere within the corporation. All a bank does is manage money and profit off of other people producing things. Society needs both people to produce and manage production.
@MarmaladeINFP I appreciate your kind comment earlier. However I must point out that you appear to be a business illiterate. As a professional business manager and trainer of other business managers I can tell you from real private sector experience that with out the organization and leadership produced by CEOs and their management team no company could exist. Most companies that fail due so because of a lack of leadership. Leaders are very rare, and we deserve to be paid extraordinarily well.
@XCritonX I must point out that you appear to be a reading illiterate. I never claimed that business management is unecessary. I was pointing out that our entire society is built on management, private and public. Companies couldn't operate without management. Likewise, countries and economies couldn't operate without govt management. The only way management could be avoided, private and public, is if we all lived in anarchistic communities with entirely localized production.
@MarmaladeINFP No, the government doesn't produce; it seizes. Take the Postal Service, supposedly "self sufficient" since the 1980s....but it has to borrow taxpayer money to cover it's losses and still raises it's stamp prices. Meanwhile FEDEX, UPS, DHL and others provided better service without taxpayer money. I don't give a damn how much CEOs earn so long as it is through voluntary exchange.
@kev3d Govt as management produces just as much as management in the private sector. The govt builds tangible products all the time: roads, utilities, emergency services, etc. You may disagree about how the govt creates these products, but you would be dishonest to argue that the govt doesn't produce anything.
If we lived in a society with a free market economy, then you wuold be correct about CEOs & the rest of the wealthy elite. Ideals are nice, but the reality we live in is a corporatocracy.
@MarmaladeINFP 1st. The federal govt operates at a near constant loss, unlike the private sector. So if govt "managment" were CEOs, the board of directors would have them dismissed for gross mismanagment. Spending a dollar to "produce" 90 cents is not production, it is a loss. 2nd. The govt doesnt "produce" through its own capital, but rather through siezed assets. Because there is less money in the private sector and more public debt, wealth is destroyed and aggregate demand is reduced.
Vices are not crimes. - Lysander Spooner
BogartWestern 1 month ago
He's wearing and awesome Pink Floyd shirt!
DynamicUnreality 1 month ago
I agree with most of what he says except when it comes to intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is still property. If a writer, musician, filmmaker, painter, scientist or inventor is not entitled to the fruit of his intellectual labor, than why should anyone have any rights to any property?
ohevshalomel 1 month ago
This dude has an absolutely monstrous schnozzola.
Jalreal 1 month ago
1776 NOW!
doobersmanster 1 month ago
Are blacks & women really less "free"? Blacks used to have a high family & marriage rate..& abortion was rare...now what does it look like? Women's lib was supported by the Rockefellers knowing they could get women to pay taxes & kids into govt hands & into "public school" which is really public indoctrination..we now have very few families, kids raised by the govt, a 30% black abortion rate, a 50% divorce rate, THIS IS FREEDOM?
giddymoon 1 month ago
@giddymoon And I am not saying woman shouldn't have the right to vote or that blacks should not be treated equal, but the reasons for the supporting the fight were NOT moral ones.
giddymoon 1 month ago
@giddymoon Freedom means people are allowed to make bad choices, but it does not inevitably lead to them. Freedom is freedom, bad judgement is bad judgement. The two should never be confused.
elynn63ky 1 month ago
@giddymoon Giddy, you're reaching, bro. Put down the Alex Jones.
bweazel 1 week ago
1776
Steadno 1 month ago
I believe so too.
felpaluche 2 months ago
every time they use a word like inhumane i take it as a fact cos the elites running this world are nothing like the rest of us humans on the plantet.... are we free ??? at best were all free range but far from free IMO.
zelotalot 10 months ago
The government does immoral things every day in the name of morality. The government taking your hard earned money in the name of morality, is just as wrong as you stealing from your neighbor.
9971explorer 10 months ago 2
"Are We Really Less Free Today?"
Yeah, we were prosperous when the govt didn't try and regulate everything.
The problem is not clowns like Obama are in office. That will be resolved in due time. The problem is why the people elected him. Until the family starts doing its duty to raise the children, and the Govt abides by our rule of law ant our Constitution, we will only dig our own hole deeper.
The dumbing-down of America has been a resounding success.
JRBeaman 1 year ago
@JRBeaman The government will never abide by the rule of law. They collect revenue violently. They're legal monopolists. They are the final arbitrator in every case, including cases that in involve themselves. Of course they're going to expand their power any chance they get. It's the nature of the beast. No piece of paper will stop them. Going back to the Constitution is like going back to the early stages of a cancer. We need to release that we don't need rulers at all.
darklordsma 10 months ago
You would say yes, because you commit a great non-sequitur, which is that, with the necessity of society comes the necessity of the state. If the shoe industry were monopolized, we would have bad overpriced shoes. For the same reason, monopoly on violence, like the state has, gives us bad overpriced defense. Do you hear about security brutality?
2012Ronpaul2012 1 year ago
Comment removed
jewsaregreat23 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jew is teaching how to live ..fuck you Sheldon
Mrjaguarpaw1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did this guy say smoking bans are a positive thing?
The industrial poisoning of tobacco (with deadly chemical additives) is where the problem lies. This goes for food as well. That's what causes illnesses. Smoking or eating in itself is not the problem. Health-deteriorating chemicals that have been developed in laboratories for your tax money are the problem.
People have benefited health-wise for thousands of years from smoking/eating all kinds of naturally grown herbs.
vv901vv901 1 year ago
Cannabis sativa and Lobelia inflata are two examples of herbs that can cure asthma and much more. Why is it acceptable for the smallest minority on Earth (politicians) to say to the rest of the planet's inhabitants "you can't use those plants - if you do we will ruin your lives" regardless of who found it first?
vv901vv901 1 year ago
Comment removed
vv901vv901 1 year ago
how ironic that he looks just like Karl Marx..
gerwazjana 1 year ago
People with beards are reallly smart..
When I shave ..I get less respect than when I have a beard.
and also eyeglasses make me look even more smarter..
Misterafyableism 1 year ago
America is still the Freest country in the World Economically and Civilly but we should be even Freer. By eliminating "Bad Laws" that are designed to regulate how people live their own lives and not how we interact with others.
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
Comment removed
vv901vv901 1 year ago
@vv901vv901
More Economic Freedom for example with less taxes and regulations. Libertarians care about Economic Freedom as well.
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
Comment removed
vv901vv901 1 year ago
@vv901vv901
Apparently your not that familiar with American History. America hasn't declared war since World War II. "An economy responsible for pollution and bad health" your entitled to your own opinion. But you can make the same case for Brazil, China and India and others.
What would you do with criminals slap them on the hand and hope they don't do it again?
You obviously have a Socialistic Democratic view of American. And you didn't contradict my points about American Freedom.
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
@FRSFreeStateNow
Most Americans don't seem to question the history being taught in its schools own schools very much.
America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan based on false flag operations very recently (regarding WW2, Hitler was financed by Samuel P. & Prescott Bush.)
Greed being responsible for pollution is stating the obvious. America has always been ahead in this and has on political ground (UN) encouraged the rest of the world (for $ reasons) to follow in its footsteps (nuclear power.)
vv901vv901 1 year ago
@FRSFreeStateNow
Ask "what makes someone a criminal and why?"
About a million Americans are currently in prison for non-violent "crimes" such as enjoying cannabis. No punishment needed for decreasing stress and curing illness. Punishments don't solve problems; proper education & guidance does.
I take no political side; left & right are both the same. The public debates r mostly theatrics. The majority of people don't approve of those in office.
Freedom is being in total control of oneself.
vv901vv901 1 year ago 12
@vv901vv901
You make a point about Non Violent offenders so perhaps your not completely clueless. But how about rapists, batterers, murderers, terrorists those people need to be in Prison for what they do. For the safety of society.
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
@FRSFreeStateNow With statism, those rapists, batterers, murderers and terrorists are easily capable of attaining positions of power which give them control over millions of lives. With anarchy they are only able to operate on an individual basis which while terrible and hard and/or impossible to completely solve, is nowhere near the level of damage a psychopath can do within a statist society
LTBL88 1 year ago 10
@LTBL88
I never actually talked to an anarchist before but I guess now I can cross that off my list
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
@LTBL88 On an individual basis is a load of crap. No one ever does anything alone. You might think you do but its really not true. So with anarchy stuff that goes down now would still be going down. Instead you would have a few working together to control the majority thats always how it works.
LordHannigan 10 months ago
@LordHannigan We already have a few working together to control the majority, its called statism. If it is such a nightmare scenario to have few control the many then why are you justifying it?
LTBL88 10 months ago
@LTBL88 I'm not just saying that is is true.
LordHannigan 10 months ago
@LTBL88
VERY good point. Anarchy would eliminate the chance of a sociopath-nutcase-killer (i.e. Stalin/Pol Pot) from committing their vast murderous atrocities. Automatic damage control by, ironically, "no" design.
RodCornholio 8 months ago
@FRSFreeStateNow do you think that labor prison camps would cease to exist without a state? How about law? would arbitrators disappear? Would common law and merchant law disappear? (They both existed before the state) Would private security disappear?
2012Ronpaul2012 1 year ago
@2012Ronpaul2012
I think your assuming that I would answer yes to your questions. And my question would be why?
FRSFreeStateNow 1 year ago
@vv901vv901 if you had proper education you wouldn't need your cannabis.
Unless you have a medical problem (excluding obvious mental problems),
why would you make yourself stupider by using it?
JRBeaman 1 year ago
@JRBeaman
do you eat meat?
and I definitely realize this analogy is beyond your understanding, but still accurate.
1HumanKind 10 months ago
@1HumanKind What analogy?
What does whether I eat meat or not have to do with illegal cannabis use?
JRBeaman 10 months ago
@JRBeaman
what does pot use have to do with education?
what does a thing being legislated have to do with it being good or bad?
The analogy is absolute.
1HumanKind 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1HumanKind Why use pot?
Things are usually legislated because it has been proven to be bad.
Why do you have to get high with a drug?
"The analogy is absolute." ???
You still have not stated the analogy completely.
Maybe you should try making posts without your pot f'ing up your ability to make sense? Or does it make you just think you are making sense?
JRBeaman 10 months ago
I won't argue as long as the governement doesn't pull something out its ass to arrest my dad.
HetLedie 1 year ago
Disclosure and declassification of tech, please!
Hal337 1 year ago
@Hal337 So our enemies can learn what we are doing?
JRBeaman 10 months ago
Only savages are totally free.....no moral injunctions....no personal responsiblity. Just self interest. Even primitives or tribal cultures are governed by traditions which
have the weigh of law. The more 'civilized' one gets the more he or she must conform to the acceptable norms of their given society.
MusicEqualsMemories 1 year ago
he has a pink floyd shirt hes a boss
twichesyt 1 year ago
the freer we think we are, the more productive we are likely to be.
Sivels 1 year ago
We have lost many freedoms in my lifetime. I work for four months of the year to pay tax, license, and permit fees. We can no longer send our children to school to learn gun safety. It is not safe to leave a deer rifle hanging in the back window of my pickup and also I can no longer take it into the restaurant with me for safe keeping. Out of pocket doctors visits are a thing of the past. I could continue for 10 hours listing freedoms lost. Look at this man, ask a working man in his 50's.
farmrdave 1 year ago
im just tired of this society.. i just want to be free
dyingangelo 1 year ago
@dyingangelo Can you ever be "free"? If you live with a group of people, that group of people need to have rules, and all rules are a removal of freedom. You could live completely alone, but then you are not free to be with anyone else. Freedom is very relative. What is it that you feel you are not "free" from?
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar we need rules but we dont need someone holding our heads and telling what is better for us.
dyingangelo 1 year ago
@dyingangelo Then you have to work for it.
What makes you thing freedom is free?
JRBeaman 10 months ago
@profwito But then it kidnapping and detaining a person is highly immoral, but do you cry for the immorality of arresting and jailing killers and rapist? No? No taxes, ie government stealing, means no army at all, no public roads, firefighters, police, justice system, or schools.
If any tax = stealing that there is no government and you would be incorrect in labeling your self as libertarians, as without taxes you are anarchists.
Clearly, there are some exception for taxes with libertarians.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar You can be a libertarian and want an anarchist society just like you can be a libertarian and want a democratic society, or a represtative republic, or even a monarcy. Libertarians just want to maximize freedom and there are arguments among them of how that'd best be done.
Some libertarians believe the ends justify the means. That doesn't make stealing right, but they see the good that comes from it as justifiable. A 'bad end' would make the means unjustifiable though.
Beljora 1 year ago
@Beljora Right, but you can not say that "all taxes = stealing, so we should have no taxes" and then have any form of government at all. If we agree that some form of government is needed, then saying all taxes are evil is pointless. But I think we can all agree that government waist is horrable, and the US government has tones of that.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar What I'm getting at is: when libertarians make the argument that taxes are stealing (like the gentleman in this video has and as Judge Napolitano and other respectable libertarians have) yet still want some minimal amount of taxation, they're not being hypocrits anymore than a nun stealing food to feed orphans (okay, that's completely loaded, but it gives you the idea).
Beljora 1 year ago
@Loathomar "for the immorality of arresting and jailing killers and rapist"
makes no sense. How is that immoral?
JRBeaman 10 months ago
@JRBeaman How did you is the "?" at the end of the sentence and the next short sentence "No?". There point I was making it that it is clearly not immoral to jailing killers and rapist... thanks.
Loathomar 10 months ago
This is the man that made me a libertarian roughly 6 years ago. Before that I was a neo-con.
tfboyle 1 year ago
It is funny when he said that children are raised with the libertarian idea and than proceeds to show pictures of children in a certain area with a fence around them so they can't get out. Children are told to live peaceful so it is easier for adults to treat them violently.
aaron0883 1 year ago
liberalism is a gross, disgusting, freedom-hating global cult
democratsdid9ll 1 year ago
@democratsdid9ll Ya, F liberty!
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Why? Are you one of the freedom haters?
democratsdid9ll 1 year ago
@democratsdid9ll LOL
Loathomar 1 year ago
Just one thing; not hitting someone, stealing or lying is not a Libertarian idea my friend. It is knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is being a good human.
megadrummer2 1 year ago
@megadrummer2: So which political ideologies that aren't libertarian are opposed to the theft that is taxation?
andyissemicool 1 year ago
@andyissemicool opposed to the left that is taxation, or the the left and it's taxation? I don't understand your question, and why ask me?
megadrummer2 1 year ago
@andyissemicool So there's an ideology, not Libertarian, and is opposed to the left and is a form of taxation? IS that your Q?
megadrummer2 1 year ago
@andyissemicool Democrats think taxing the people more gets the government more money to spend.
History has proven otherwise, but they don't care because they see your loss of freedom as their gain in having more control over you. That seems their only goal. History of late has proven that as fact.
JRBeaman 10 months ago
Gently caress IP; glad to see this argument getting deeper into the mainstream.
Guest655321 1 year ago
Sadly, some political libertarians like political democrats and political republicans falsely believe that women have had it rough (vid. starting at 2:26). Women have it so rough, they get to live an extra 7 years on average--yeah, really rough. Men, contrary to such popular opinion are now even less free (and have historically been the least free).
PoliticalMe 1 year ago
@PoliticalMe
Historically women have been less free because in the past they literally had no property rights.
darklordsma 1 year ago
@darklordsma Most societies chosen them to be behind the scene, so they can concentrate on raising the children. It's safer for them to not be up front where the men are. Common sense.
JRBeaman 10 months ago
@JRBeaman Maybe in the past when physical-labour was more important, but since the rise of advanced capitalism women are definitely more free. Also, historically governments have stopped women from improving their conditions by imposing legal disablities on them (no property right ect,). Libertarians should not gloss over this fact.
darklordsma 10 months ago
@JRBeaman Does society choose anything? Your whole statement reeks of collectivism. In the past physical labour was the predominate form of work. It's not now. Capitalism has opened up great opportunities for women to become rich, successful and independant. As a libertarian, one must recognise that the legal disabilities the government placed on women in the past were unnecessary and evil. Let's not gloss over it. WE'RE NOT CONSERVATIVES HERE!
darklordsma 7 months ago
@PoliticalMe Our biological differences aside, the video was referring to the fact that in the US women did no the right to vote, own property or hold elected office until 1920 in most places in the US. You may feel cheated that woman have a biological advantage over man in life expectancy, but to equate that to rights and freedom is stupid.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@profwito
Well, assuming there are some proper roles for government, such as defence, and Maybe some limited regulations or standardisations, I'm guessing some, low, level of taxation will be inevitable, in one form or another.
I'd say there's a difference between having to pay some relatively small amount of your money to the benefit of everyone, with a majority agreeing with that practice, as opposed to some thug taking all your stuff.
Also, well, I don't care much for ideas of morality...
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
Has it ever occurred to some libertarians that extrapolating behavioural norms from a personally individual level onto the whole of society perhaps isn't the best of ideas? That, just maybe, those double standards exist for a... reason?
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
Where can I find this guy's shirt?
scythe747 1 year ago
He says "if you were a woman your ancestors had it much worse than we have it today." Just one point, all of us have female ancestors, not just women. Since slavery was so common in all cultures in the past, all of us probably have slave ancestors, not just blacks.
XCritonX 1 year ago
Comment removed
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@XCritonX You make a good point. It's absolutely incorrect that only some of us are more free than our ancestors. We all have ancestors who were women, slaves, serfs, indentured servants, part of oppressive caste systems, political and religious dissidents, &/or social outcastes. Everyone has has ancestors who were indigenous people who experienced genocide, rape, war, invasion, occupation, cultural destruction, &/or loss of tradition. Most of this oppression happened prior to the modern state.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:20-2:30 How were my ancestors more free than my sister's ancestors?
MikalrAskr 1 year ago
Comment removed
MikalrAskr 1 year ago
This guy sounds awesome, I need to read more by him.
relativisticvel 1 year ago
Remind the politicians that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Both economic and personal liberty are hindered with legislation like the Patriot Act, the Drug War and others. Until alot of these statist laws are destroyed, we as a people arent truly free.
chevydriver1123 1 year ago 13
@derfy26 Good catch. The Freeman is published by The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).
There is also more control over the economy, and more manipulation of the markets...and more money printing. Our economic freedoms are definitely in the toilet. I think the US was just ranked fifth or sixth by Heritage Foundation.
mikemat3307 1 year ago
1:27 note the guy up on the roof. I was briefly stationed at the Pentagon, whenever a bigwig (like Condoleezza Rice) would show up, these secret service snipers would pop out of a hatch on the roof. Once the VIP was inside, they would vanish. Ahh, memories.
032125 1 year ago
I love the hippie t-shirt churched up with the jacket. Not as much as I love his opinion, but it's wacky in a good way.
032125 1 year ago
@fireguyx He addressed many of those issues and specifically described many of the ways in which we are less free. Just because the man acknowledges that blacks and women have more equal access to liberties does not mean he's ignoring the travesties of government. Jesus, LISTEN before you criticize what you supposedly listened to.
theinfamouspaw 1 year ago
@theinfamouspaw But his overall statement is that we are not less free, which I disagree with. He says many Americans are more civilized, yet violence is at an all time-high, especially from what I've seen in the news and all around me. Again Libertarians are not right on everything, the magnitude in how bad this country is and how our liberty is being encroached does not apply to his opinion. I think he is a hypocrite in a lot of his views.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
@FireGuyX Is there more violence? Or more news outlets? In fact, violence, as a percentage of the population is on the decline and has been for a long time. /watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk for more. So in general, we have more freedom from violence, but less freedom in the senses of economic opportunity and options, drug consumption, regulation, and mobility. In Europe,freedom of speech is under attack, and freedom on the internet is under attack, from governments, all over the world.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d watch the news, you hear (and see) outrageous violent stories all the time. I see a lot more confrontational among people. That's not violence, but it leads to violence. Overall I would say US is not the most peaceful place as it once was. We will never have freedom from violence as long as we have a public school system.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
Comment removed
FireGuyX 1 year ago
@theinfamouspaw Also he doesn't mention economic liberties which is being encroached in a severe way. All the taxes and regulations put on business that harm potential employment. He doesn't mention that our standard of living has gotten worse because the value of our dollar is decreasing at a rapid rate. Overall I would say we are less free then ever before, despite advancements in civil society and technology. I think it's you who needs to LISTEN and see other peoples point of view.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
@wetwingnut He's saying the basic, fundamental principles of libertarianism are familiar to us, we grew up with them and many of us live by them. But for some reason, we don't hold the government to those standards which we believe are fair. If that's all you got from the video, then you either weren't paying attention to what he was saying or are severely misguided.
theinfamouspaw 1 year ago
Wow! So we're all born libertarians and it's society that corrupts us into becoming democrats and republicans. This explains so much ...
wetwingnut 1 year ago
DELEGITIMIZE THE STATE
asphyxiafeeling 1 year ago
Thomas Jefferson in a Pink Floyd t-shirt. I like what he has to say.
CaliforniaArchitect 1 year ago
He stole my style!
I wear a flyod shirt and a blazer all the time!
I even have that freaking shirt! WalMart for 10 bucks
VirtualInsanity91 1 year ago
He stole my style!
I wear a flyod shirt and a blazer all the time!
I even have that freaking shirt!
VirtualInsanity91 1 year ago
Looking good, Sheldon!
syadasti 1 year ago
Richman looks an awful lot like George Holyoake.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
sweet Pink Floyd shirt!
sniffsnarff 1 year ago
@sniffsnarff When I saw that shirt and realized it's the same shirt that I own... mind was blown.
NoNameC68 1 year ago
Sheldon Richman is looking more and more like Lysander Spooner, especially with that beard...
EricPNeuman 1 year ago 6
@EricPNeuman I approve of Sheldon Richman's beard.
DeraJa 1 year ago
Freedom is everything a person can do and the ease to which they are able to do it.
Wcoltd 1 year ago
We are not less free than we were, but we are much less free than we could be.
Wcoltd 1 year ago
And this where Sheldon Richman is utterly wrong, he can't see past his own delusions. We are less free in A LOT of ways. He thinks Americans are civilized, but violence has gone up in the last 20 years and there is a lot of assholes these days too. We are less free because government has gotten bigger. Government is subsidizing everything a lot more such as roads, education, housing, etc. And the effects of that has broken down communities, caused distortion in the markets
FireGuyX 1 year ago
I'd think for black americans we are a much more free society. Even Europeans faced institutional discrimination, so in a way we are all freer.
VictoryCough 1 year ago
@VictoryCough Until you look at the prison population, due in no small part to the government's ridiculous drug war and creating a dependency for welfare through supposed "anti-poverty" measures.
It should also be noted that it was capitalist industrialization that freed the slaves and not government, for the most part. That is while the industrial north had abandoned the practice; they didn't need it, while it continued in the rural south (though it was on the wane up to the civil war).
kev3d 1 year ago
"[...] if you're a woman your ancestors were not free." Brilliant. You know who shares the same ancestors as women? Men. I cannot believe he said that, how embarrassing. I know what he meant, that women have not always been free, but he could have said that in a coherent way.
michaelseemstobecool 1 year ago
Are we less free today?? One example..... free speech zones.
mcap52 1 year ago
Is Richman's shirt have a pyramid with the all seeing eye as the capstone?
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie - I'm pretty sure it's a Pink Floyd tee...
Nostradamus411 1 year ago
Gotta love when "experts" make huge over-generalizations like "most people" or "most kids"... please...
onepcwhiz 1 year ago
@onepcwhiz
Valid point, but care to counter his "over-generalization" about most people with something specific?
bttalbot 1 year ago
1:26. Is that a sniper of the roof?
EastCoastMarc 1 year ago
@EastCoastMarc yes....
DeraJa 1 year ago
He is one of the few fair-minded right-leaning libertarians I've come across. He actually acknowledges that some people do have more freedom now with our present system. However, his argument against govt is weak. He says people feel morally justified to do something through their govt that they wouldn't feel morally justified to do on their own. This is true, but it's equally true of capitalism. Many people believe being monetarily successful justifies what they did to become successful.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP A company cannot take your property without your consent....unless it is aided by government as is the case with eminent domain abuse. Government is force, business is voluntary. Being "monetarily successful" under real capitalism means that you are providing a product or service that is in demand. Unlike crony capitalism, as the Bush and Obama administrations seem to love so much, through bailouts and pork filled pet projects.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Free markets are with consent and without force, but we don't live in a free market. Businesses don't operate in a free market and the rich don't get rich through a free market. A free market would be nice, but it doesn't presently exist. As for the govt, it is corporatocracy and plutocracy. Some of the bills that get passed into law were written directly by corporate lobbyists. Politicians don't have power over businesses. Businesses have power over politicians. Follow the money.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP No Kidding...hence why Government is the enemy. It is not as though the massive and corrupt government will wake up one day and say "hmmm, you know what? We will do nothing but impartial contract enforcement conduct the 18 enumerated powers" Companies and fortunes rise and fall on consumer demand and competition. BUT it takes government to protect the failures and punish the successful.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Not all govts are corporatocracies and plutocracies. Not all govts are banana republics. Yes, our govt has been made into a corrupt system by the corruption of those with great power and money, but it wasn't always that way and there is no reason it has to be that way. If you got rid of this govt, the same people with power and money would continue as before. They'd just do it without a middleman or they'd just create a new govt. The govt is just a facade. It isn't the power itself.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP So which would you have? Govt? Which produces nothing and uses force to obtain what it wishes? Or companies, which, while some are occasionally abusive (not unlike people) on the whole are generally in the business of selling people the products and services that people want at a price they can afford? Id rather keep the latter and dispose, as much as possible of the former. As for the origin of the govt tyranny, Id point to the villains WW, FDR, LBJ, GWB & BO, among others.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Cont, it is true that not all governments are Plutocracies or Corporatocarcies. But virtually all are Kleptocracies. That is to say they take without asking and use force if you refuse. Rather than a pay-per-use-per-person-who-used-it system(as one would expect at a retail shop or restaurant, shoeshine...whatever) instead there is a complex system of subsidy, regulation, special favors, unfair tax structure and of course, corruption.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d It is true that not all businesses are plutocracies or corporatocracies. But virtually all are kleptocracies. That is to say they don't exist in a free market as no free market exists in this society and so they didn't earn their wealth and power through a meritocracy. In the US, most wealth is inherited and not earned, The govt you criticize so much is merely an extension of the capitalism you praise so much. Politicians are just the pawns of corporate interests.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Brilliant job of plagiarism and dishonesty. The vast majority of businesses do not steal, they sell things and services people want through voluntary action. And no, most wealth is not inherited in the US, read "The Millionaire Next Door" and even if it was, anyone who doesn't sell something useful will squander his fortune to someone who does contribute.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d 1st, most people like govt and so your criticisms fall on deaf ears... unless you want to create a capitalist tyranny over the majority. 2nd, govt produces/produced: internet, emergency services, roads, utilities, safety net, food and drug safety, police, military, rocket science (literally, govt is rocket science lol), & about a billion other things. Most owners & CEOs of businesses don't produce anything. They just tell other people what to do & those other people do the producing.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
A "capitalist tyranny" can only exist where business act as a unit. That is, they do not compete. Free markets are the opposite of this, thus businesses cannot be tyrannical.
Government, on the other hand, is inherently monopolistic and never to be trusted.
I don't think most people really "like" government. We demonstrate this once in a while at the polling place, as we did about ten days ago.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight I'm in favor of free markets. If the US and global economy actually was a free market, then I'd support it and I'd support the people who meritocratically earned their wealth and success. Alas, that isn't the reality we live in. We have crony capitalism, corporatocracy, and plutocracy. In the US, for example, most wealth is inherited and not earned. Over the decades, wealth disparity has increased as social mobility has decreased. That isn't a free market meritocracy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Economics is not zero-sum. Thus, income and wealth disparity is irrelevant. How much you make has nothing to do with my own productivity and value to the market.
And inheritance is not immoral. If we are to permit private property, then certainly disposal of that property is one's own right, including passing on to heirs.
So what is the solution to our relative lack of market freedom? More freedom, or less?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight I didn't say economics is zero-sum, but it's a fact that US wages (when inflation is calcluated) has decreased as manufacturing jobs have decreased, as union membership has decreased, and as social mobility has decreased. Inheritance is a problem when those who inherit wealth use it to bribe and persuade politicians, use it to lobby and have lobbyists directly right the bills politicians pass, use it to buy all the media and create the political narrative they want.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I'm for increasing freedom, but not just the freedom of the upper classes. As wages have decreased, the wealth has become concentrated at the top. Everything has become concentrated at the top. For example, there used to be a lot more local media, but almost all the media has been bought up by media conglomerates. It used to be easier to have a small business in the US, but now it's easier to have a small business in many European 'socialist' countries.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP In the last 10, 20, 30 etc. years wages have increased, not decreased.
We have more local media via the internet than ever before.
You are right in stating that it is getting harder to start and run a small business in America. That is due to bigger government with more taxes and rules. If the government just buts out of our lives we can all be richer.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX In recent decades, the living wage when adjusted for inflation has decreased. That is a fact. It's a complete and utter fact. Yes, if you don't consider changing costs and inflation wages may have gone up, but I'm talking about the reality that people live which includes rising costs and inflation.
In Europe, it's easier to start a business and there is more entrepreneurial social mobility. At the same time, Europe has a lot of regulation and welfare and stronger unions.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Wealth disparity does cause a shrinking middle class and growing poverty, but there are even more tangible problems. As wealth disparity increases, social and health problems also increase. Even wealthy people are worse off in a society with high wealth disaparity than wealthy people in a society with low wealth disparity. The increase of social and health problems impacts everyone. The US is one of the lowest developed countries on almost any measure of societal health.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Wealth disparity has nothing to do with middle class losses in the last few years. Just because your neighbor gets richer does not mean that you are poorer. We don't have a fixed amount of wealth in the world. All peoples wealth has grown in the last 50 years, and we are all better off, some just benefit more than others.
Wealth disparity does not cause social and health problems, poverty does. Poverty is caused by reduced economic freedoms caused by governmental interference.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX The average wage of Americans has decreased. That is a fact whether you like it or not.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the data. Extreme poverty causes social problems, but moderate poverty doesn't cause social problems. Low wealth disparity societies (or, in the US, states) have less social problems even when they are relatively more poor. It's a correlation. The causation isn't clear, but the correlation is absolutely clear. The data is there. Just look at it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Could you please direct me to where you found data that suggests that the quality of Americans lives has been declining for more than 10 years? Shorter time frame data is not relevant since it cant show a trend.
Not all European countries are producing entrepreneurs and new businesses. Sweden and Denmark are both major centers of EU new business growth. They have very few regulations on businesses and the unions are mostly for show. Sweden doesn't even have minimum wage laws.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX The links below show the correlation between wealth disparity and social problems. You can easily find data about individual factors. One type of social problem is obesity which has increased in the US as wealth disparity has increased, but in countries where wealth disparity has decreased so has obesity. There are many other examples. It's easy to find the data if you want to find it.
True. Not all European countries, but look at my comparison in a below link b/t US & Germany.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I did find it interesting that you brough up Sweden and Denmark. Those are perfect examples of how low wealth disparity correlates to low social problems. Sweden and Denmark may have different regulations than the US, but they are extremely far from being unregulated. Regulating to protect and help new businesses is still regulation. The US is opposite. US regulation favors established big businesses.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarmaladeINFP
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/27/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-germany/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/31/10-states-with-ridiculously-low-unemployment-and-why/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/07/22/study-bosses-getting-meaner/
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/02/11/meritocracy-growing-poor-shrinking-middle-class/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Wages have not decreased in recent decades if you consider non-cash compensation and overall increase in personal wealth.
Mfg jobs peaked in 1945-- nothing new here. We are moving to a non-mfg economy. Mfg output has gone up-- as has productivity. (current recession excluded).
Social mobility? Do you mean economic mobility? That has not decreased at all.
So, inheriting money is bad, if you spend it unwisely? What if you earn it? Can you bribe people then?
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/11/16/real-wages-wealth-disparity/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Regarding "buying" media, do you opposed the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Ought political speech be restricted? If so, by whom? The government? Surely that is far worse then some rich people taking out TV ads as they please.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight
Individuals having freedom of speech is democracy.
Corporations having more freedom of speech than individuals isn't democracy.
Corporations don't just take out some tv ads. They own all of the tv networks and cable channels. A few corporations own almost all the media in the world. The internet has leveled the playing field slightly, but the mainstream media still controls almost every aspect of the campaigning process and the political narrative of public discussion.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Corporations don't have more freedom of speech than individuals. They just have more resources.
On the other hand, given our freedom of association inculcated in the very same amendment as speech freedom, corporations are just collections of individuals underneath. That is, you can get with your like-minded friends and form your own corporation or association and do as they do.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@RogerOnTheRight Freedom of speech is meaningless if only those with the most money are heard. A person alone on an island has freedom of speech. Freedom from is meaningless if there isn't freedom for. If freedom of speech doesn't lead to freedom to influence the democratic process, then it's a sham. Those with more resources use their 'freedom of speech' to bribe politicians, manipulate the political process & buy media to lie/propagandize to the public... which leads to having more resources.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP For example, the legal system supposedly gives everyone the equal right to defend themselves. But, in reality, the more money one spends on lawyers the more one gets favorable decisions. Rich people rarely get prosecuted for tax fraud because they have lawyers to find loopholes and create documents so confusing even IRS agents can't figure them out. The more tax fraud the rich get away with the more resources they have to pay for more lawyers to do more tax fraud.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Interestingly; According to an IRS study last year, federal employees and retirees owed a staggering $3.3 billion dollars in delinquent tax payments. Taxes are so complicated and so intrusive that even Federal employees cannot (or will not) deal with them. The real solution is for the govt to actually be frugal as the constitution intended and to and eliminate that rights-violating, money stealing behemoth called the IRS.
kev3d 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
You are making pointless excuses and blaming others. There have been wealthy people with disproportionate power since the beginning of time. Only now do "little people" actually have a way to be heard and to wield at least some power.
If you are not heard, it is your own fault. Find like-minded people and pool your resources. If you are not completely alone, you will have a voice.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Government did not "produce" any of those things, it bought them, with other people's money. The internet, as a prime example, was already in development when the defense department took it over and monopolized it. Development remained slow until it was made open to the public. Meanwhile private interests like Bell, IBM, Apple and others were developing technologies for commercial use and not war.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d The govt produces as much as the management of a big business produces. A govt is just management. A CEO doesn't produce anything and yet CEOs have increasingly made more money than the workers who actually do produce things. In some sectors such as banks, financial speculation produces nothing anywhere within the corporation. All a bank does is manage money and profit off of other people producing things. Society needs both people to produce and manage production.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I appreciate your kind comment earlier. However I must point out that you appear to be a business illiterate. As a professional business manager and trainer of other business managers I can tell you from real private sector experience that with out the organization and leadership produced by CEOs and their management team no company could exist. Most companies that fail due so because of a lack of leadership. Leaders are very rare, and we deserve to be paid extraordinarily well.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX I must point out that you appear to be a reading illiterate. I never claimed that business management is unecessary. I was pointing out that our entire society is built on management, private and public. Companies couldn't operate without management. Likewise, countries and economies couldn't operate without govt management. The only way management could be avoided, private and public, is if we all lived in anarchistic communities with entirely localized production.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP No, the government doesn't produce; it seizes. Take the Postal Service, supposedly "self sufficient" since the 1980s....but it has to borrow taxpayer money to cover it's losses and still raises it's stamp prices. Meanwhile FEDEX, UPS, DHL and others provided better service without taxpayer money. I don't give a damn how much CEOs earn so long as it is through voluntary exchange.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Govt as management produces just as much as management in the private sector. The govt builds tangible products all the time: roads, utilities, emergency services, etc. You may disagree about how the govt creates these products, but you would be dishonest to argue that the govt doesn't produce anything.
If we lived in a society with a free market economy, then you wuold be correct about CEOs & the rest of the wealthy elite. Ideals are nice, but the reality we live in is a corporatocracy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP 1st. The federal govt operates at a near constant loss, unlike the private sector. So if govt "managment" were CEOs, the board of directors would have them dismissed for gross mismanagment. Spending a dollar to "produce" 90 cents is not production, it is a loss. 2nd. The govt doesnt "produce" through its own capital, but rather through siezed assets. Because there is less money in the private sector and more public debt, wealth is destroyed and aggregate demand is reduced.
kev3d 1 year ago