I hate this "no can do" attitude. First of all, it's damn foolish to think that a laissez-faire system devoid of regulation can function in the best interests of the people. Look at England in the late 19th century. Now, the reason government and government regulation doesn't work is not because the concept is flawed, but because DEMOCRACY in it's current form is flawed. In the United States this is painfully apparent. Don't fix your problems by eliminating them, REPAIR them.
Your 'logic' is unfortunately compromised by the fact that you live within a dysfunctional, so-called 'democracy' (that is in truth nothing of the sort). Perhaps, instead of fantasing about ridiculous anarcho-capitalist utopias you should focus upon fixing your degraded political system. By the way, it's pronounced "lay-say-fair", not "lah-zay-fair". Just thought you might like to know (clearly you've suffered from an educational deficit some point).
great vid, i enjoyed watching it again, would love to hear what you think of the Net Neutrality bullshit that just happened right before Christmas, by a administration that said it was against it. lol. what a joke.
As Stargazer5781 once said, "Statism is all well and good until you realize that people in the state are human too. If your claim is that people need to be ordered around and controlled, who will order around and control the people in the state? Statism necessitates the existence of gods and only made sense back when people thought the heads of state were gods. When you realize gods don't exist, all arguments for a state self-detonate."
The main thing preventing monopolies in a vast majority of industries is government regulation of competition - without it there would just be a hike in mergers and a lot of violation to newcomers.
Competition is not a naturally occuring phenonomen in a free capitalist system - by nature businesses want to merge, cooperate and increase profits - NOT compete to lower prices and increase quality for consumers.
You need at least a minimum of government regulation for capitalism to work
@Dacadema Jacob just outlined what prevents monopolies and then you try and define it here by saying competition doesn't naturally occur in a free capitalist system? That is ridiculous. Completely untrue.
What about safety regulations, Massa energy and BP had numerous violations on there coal mine / oil rigs. Granted they were able to buy off the government into not paying attention to there violations, but how would a free market fix this, The boycott of BP is disasterous in achieving its goal.
Well, for one thing, in the absence of corporate protection, the owners and directors of BP wouldn't be able to shift the blame onto a God-damned piece of paper. They would instead be compelled to cease their aggression immediately, and then made to provide full restitution to the owners of the property which they had despoiled - just like any other criminal.
This is where the idea of "All property is privately owned" is crucial in a free society. The simple answer to your question is that if or when an oil rig exploded and spewed oil into the waters and all over private property, those individuals would be able to sue BP for damages incurred to their property. One massive spill like BP has now, and they would go bankrupt paying out damages through the court system.
Jacob, your magic tricks never seize to amaze me. Can you say Oil-Spill? Yes? Then I would love to see you explain in your next video HOW the free market could prevent an oil-spill.
And please, dont go into deception-mode and rant about how government regulation didnt prevent it either. It wasnt regulation that failed but lack of it.
And I can tell you who would watch the watchers in a REAL democracy:
The people.
Unfortunatly capitalism is the rule of money by the state OVER the people.
@13otany13ay Is it the free market that is putting a cap on the amount of money that BP is held liable to pay for cleanup or is it the government that made that arbitrary cap? Is it the free market that has granted immunity to all of the persons in the BP corporation from being held personally liable or is it the government who created such notions as corporations in the first place?
The free market cannot magically prevent accidents. But at least it holds people liable for them.
@JacobSpinney So, the answer is "The free market cannot magically prevent accidents."
Well, government regulation could prevent these accidents, especially if the government is under controll of the people, instead of being a service agency of the capitalist to rule OVER the people.
@13otany13ay So the reason that airplanes crash is because they're not regulated enough? The reason hurricanes happen is because climatologists aren't regulated enough? Common. It doesn't matter how many warning labels and directions you give. Accidents happen.
@JacobSpinney Yes, accidents happen. Safety regulations decrease the risk and thus the ammount and/or severity of accidents. You know that.
Free market rules do not provide safety regulations.
Come on, Jacob. It helps to admitt a problem in order to find ways to solve it. Free markets do need regulations. That needs regulators. And that needs democracy to assure accountability of these regulators - the role of government.
@13otany13ay You don't think that self-interest is a good enough incentive to have safety procedures in place? So businesses are too greedy and selfish and they need to be regulated, but they're not greedy and selfish enough to do competent risk assessments?! Thanks to the government, BP will only have to pay so much for this accident. In a free market, BP would have to pay A LOT more. Due to that fact, in a free market, their greedy selfishness would incentivize them to be EVEN MORE careful.
@13otany13ay Exactly! If you want to be that cold. The business has to do a cost benefit analysis. "How much money will it cost me to enact some good safety procedures?" Let's say X. "How much money will it cost me if the shit hits the fan?" Let's say 1000000X. Thus, based on a very simple cost benefit analysis, you save a lot more money going with the safety procedures than you do risking going without them.
@13otany13ay However much an arbitration court decides when they get sued. All the more reason to invest in as many safety procedures as the business can. Because when they do get sued, they can point to the fact that they spent all this money in safety procedures. If they did not spend any money in safety procedures, you can imagine how that would look to an arbitrator.
@JacobSpinney Hahaha... you are such a disgusting crook, Jacob.
The corporations would pay the arbitrator in your free-market-lala-land. They would simply buy the arbitrator. Thus the money value of a human life would be determined to be cheaper by the corporations and as a result the risk assesment will almost allways show that safety procedures arent worth the money.
Thats why your world view is nothing more then the completely unaccountable tyrrany of the capital. And you know that.
@13otany13ay Did you not even watch this video you're commenting on? In my free-market-lala-land the arbitration courts would be based off of reputation and competing with each other for your business. The arbitration court would be like an insurance policy when you enter into a contract. Either both parties pay up front for this insurance policy, or one of them does. But BOTH parties agree ahead of time what arbitration court they'd like to have in the event of a contract dispute.
@13otany13ay If a business will only enter into a contract with you if you agree for the arbitrator to be someone with the reputation of ALWAYS ruling in favor of the business, then who in their right mind would agree to such a contract? They might as well be agreeing to provide their labor free of charge and with no liability!
@13otany13ay The courts of the free market would be competing arbitration companies based off of reputation, not a single monopoly of law as in the government. This is why judges are a lot more easy to bribe than an arbitrator would be. Because the parties aren't able to choose the judge. The judge is assigned to them. And the judge does not lose his job if he continually rules in favor of business XYZ. The arbitrator does.
@13otany13ay So instead of responding to ANY of my criticisms of regulation, you simply attack my position. And after I explain exactly why the free market is less corruptible than the government is, you just ignore everything I say and attack my position again.
@13otany13ay It is not because of a lack of regulation that made BP careless (if they were careless). It is because BP would be able to privatize their profits and socialize their losses, thanks to the government! When you tell a business that you will let them keep their profits, but you will cover any of their losses, what do you think they'll do?!
@JacobSpinney As I said in my first comment: Please dont go into deception mode by ranting about how government regulation failed. Failed regulation, wrong regulation or absence of regulation does not prove that no regulation at all must be the solution.
You agreed that free markets do not prevent such an oil spill. I said only good regulation can, given the government is not owned by capitalists, but controlled by the people.
@13otany13ay You are mischaracterizing my position. I stated that the free market cannot prevent accidents from happening. You stated regulation can. I pointed out the absurdity of such a statement and you agreed that indeed even under regulation, accidents will happen. I explained how the free market causes businesses to want to be safe, because they will be held responsible if they mess up, and instead of offering a retort, you simply assert that regulation will work better.
@13otany13ay Wouldn't you agree that it doesn't necessarily create the best incentive structure for the government to tell a business that they can keep all their profits, but that the government will cover any of their losses? That by doing so, the business throws caution to the wind and no longer cares about the risks it takes?
@13otany13ay Instead of being on the offensive and ignoring everything I say. How about for once you answer one of my questions? For starters, the question I posed above this comment.
@FightBadIdeas Exactly my point too: The government is NOT controlled by the people but rather by lobbyists. In an ancap-society arbitration courts would also be controlled by the capital.
The real problem for both systems, the corporatist representative democracies AND anarcho-capitalism, is the concentration of capital. Ancaps dont have a solution for the problem of bribery, corruption and lobbyism.
They simply favour to legalize and to institutionalize it and then dare to call it freedom.
@13otany13ay Yes we do. Competition. If one service ( be it judicial, road, security whatever) takes bribes or abuses their market status, there are no artificial barriers to entry, like there are now, to prevent competition from forming and/or stop people from stop paying that particular service and start paying their more honest competitors.
@crazypants88 When the families of the dead workers sue them, why should BP accept their arbitrator, when all they need to do is unleash a massive PR-Campaign to spin the accident. If the families want to even have a chance to get compensation, they would have no other choice then to accept an arbitrator by the grace of BP.
Compensations for accidents would decrease and so would the quality of safety regulations, because the price for human lifes decreased and accidents would become cheaper.
@13otany13ay 1. They could agree on arbitrator beforehand. 2 I doubt anyone is gonna be able to spin a oil company's refusal to pay damages to their dead workers grieving families into something positive for that company. 3. If you'd strip the legal protection corporations have from the state, it would be much easier to regular people to sue them in case something like the BP spill were to happen.
@crazypants88 The question was why BP should agree on an arbitrator AT ALL? Whats the incentive?
Nowadays corporations agree on private arbitrators out of fear the case could go to a public court and that could make things more expensive. But when there are no public courts, whats forcing BP to accept an arbitration? Especially when the sueing party are just a bunch of poor "Schmocks". They will have no leverage to force BP to accept anything.
@JacobSpinney All you said is, that contractors (in this case the workers and BP) would agree on an arbitrator beforehand. This needs two things:
1. Employment contracts, that designate an impartial arbitrator for lawsuits.
2. BP keeps that contract.
If they dont, then the familis of the dead workers will have to sue BP for a breach of contract. And again the question arises: Why should BP accept an arbitrator? Whats their incentive? Who would force them?
@13otany13ay You are not making sense. I've already stated that the arbitrator would be agreed upon before hand when the contract is entered into, not at the moment that one alleges a breach of the contract has happened. What would force BP to submit to the arbitrator they already agreed to submit to in the contract? THE CONTRACT! In the contract, the arbitrator can be named specifically and there will be provisions within the contract stating what authority the arbitrator has.
@13otany13ay Some contracts could very well say that if one of the parties does not submit to the ruling of the arbitrator in the event of a dispute, then they are to be hanged! Is that force enough for you?! I imagine in most cases, arbitrators would also be an insurance policy, so that even if one of the parties decides not to pay up, the victim is still compensated from the insurance.
@13otany13ay It is then on the shoulders of the arbitrator to collect the debt of the party refusing to pay. And they will state explicitly what methods they are allowed to use to collect on that debt. I imagine most cases would simply be blacklisting the party so that they could no longer enter into contracts with anyone; much like credit ratings.
@JacobSpinney You assume alot there. First that every corporation would agree to make employment contracts with every employee. Then you assume the all corporations would agree on arbitration in these contracts. Then that they all would agree on impartial arbitration. Then that they all would agree on arbitrators who make blacklists. And then you assume that all employees would have the luxury to say no to a blacklisted corporation.
Do you think corporations are the fucking salvation army?
@13otany13ay I assume that every corporation would agree to make employment contracts with every employee? There is no assuming about it. If there is no contract, then what we are talking about is slavery.
@13otany13ay I don't assume that all corporations would agree on arbitration in these contracts, I KNOW IT. If there were no means of settling a possible dispute laid out in the contract, then what employee in their right mind would sign such a thing?! Without a means of dispute resolution explicitly laid out, it's simply a piece of paper.
@13otany13ay I don't assume that they would agree on impartial arbitration, I KNOW THEY WOULD! Otherwise the contract would not be signed by both parties! Let's say you want to work BP. Are you telling me that you would be willing to enter into a contract with BP that states the arbitrator will be BP themselves?!?!? You might as well be agreeing to offer your labor free of charge!
@13otany13ay I don't assume they would all agree on arbitrators who make blacklists. I KNOW THEY WOULD! Once again, if there is no consequence explicitly laid out in the contract for what would happen if one of the parties refused to abide by the arbitrators ruling, then it's just a meaningless piece of paper, not a contract.
@13otany13ay I don't assume that all employees would have the luxury to say no to a blacklisted corporation. I KNOW THEY WOULD! Are you telling me you would willfully choose to work for someone who has repeatedly gotten away with NOT PAYING any of his employees? Are you really so naive so as to think that you'll be the exception and he'll pay you?
No. I think corporations are government created monsters that would not exist in a free market.
@JacobSpinney As I said, you assume that EVERY corporation would do..... In other words at least almost every corporation.... In other words you assume that corporations would be very generous.
Now assume that corporations show labourers the middle finger and they would have no other choice then to accept their working conditions.
Again, Jacob, I tell you that you assume quite alot of benevolence to come from corporations. What justifies the confidence? Or is it worship?
@13otany13ay I assume no such benevolence whatsoever. What I am relying on is the self interest of the employees. Are you really going to tell me that you would choose to work FOR FREE for a business?
@JacobSpinney You rely on the self interest of workers? Then you are the first ancap I ever met who relies on strong unions. Neat!
Of course, the problem with that is, that unions get their leverage during strikes by the protection of an impartial third power - nowadays the state. Without that strikes are pretty pointless and violence is almost allways inevitable. How do you intend to solve the problem of strike busters and strike breakers without government protection and regulation?
@13otany13ay I understand your point, but I don't agree that the problem is the concentration of capital, but rather of coersive power. It may be easy to bribe a few legislators or judges, but if you have many arbitration courts, for instance, then it becomes increasingly costly to buy a good number of judges or legislators. And you don't really have to have too many of them, just not having barriers of entry would be enough, I believe.
You are a great lobbyist for freedom Jacob. Thanks! Most people just don't seem to use reasoning and rational thought, but want an almighty power taking care of them, at least in fantasy.
Furthermore, the very existence of corporation (the anti-free market government-created critter) aggravates the problems with government regulations. Since the corporation prevents the people running the company from being touched, why should they care... they are being protected.
In a free market, there would be no such thing as a corporation.
If people are irrational then why put irrational people in charge of them. Surely whether or not people are rational they will be more rational when considering themselves.
To further his last point about how people have this bizzaro fantasy that the government is composed of wise custodians of the general good.. because thats all you want to do when you want to do good. You dont go and become a Doctor, or a Teacher, or a Philosopher, rather you go and grab the gun of the military and the police, cuz thats how you do good..
This is a gret video. I'm going to mirror it and link back to it in the description. If you would like me to remove the video, please let me know, and I'll talke it down.
@RicardoClaro I think you misunderstand what the free market is. It's a market devoid of state regulations. The free market has not been available to businesses for a long time, if ever. Cartelization on a free market is very unlikely, and even if achieved extremely hard to maintain because every business in the cartel has a huge profit incentive to sell a good or provide a service at a lower price then the rest of the cartel, thereby breaking the cartel and reaping the most profit.
@FriendOregon So if you criticize the state for doing something you don't like, then the cops can arrest you for criticizing something in a way that they don't like and the state who, in turn, watch the cops can approve the arrest. The system works!
They don't need watchers you silly boy! Everyone knows that entering into politics turns you into a being far beyond the temptations of mere mortals! ^^
Air travel fares dropping by half seems like a very bad example to me. Since air travel is intimately technological, and technology has very far surpassed what it was in the 1970's, wouldn't you expect air travel prices to drop by at least half since the 1970's anyway?
"In a free market, a business is only able to gain a larger market share by offering a better, gooder service at a cheaper price"
Not really, but I love you for your optimism. A truly free market could only completely work that way if every consumer had expert knowledge of what their options were and equal access to every possible variation of the product. But in the real world, it all boils down to public perception, and the company who wins is the one with the most influence over the press.
@aleceth However, don't take that comment as a disagreement of all of your points, I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of ways other than regulation to unfairly monopolize the markets. Advertisement and the press is just one example. The more and greater varied methods of controlling the market, the better diversified system of checks and balances. But I'm not saying you're wrong about the vulnerability of a government controlled system.
@aleceth If what you were saying were true then American vehicles/electronics would have won out over Japanese vehicles/electronics in America, 3DFX would still be the leader in the GPU market, IBM would be the only PC manufacturer, Asus would own the MOBO market, Atari would have been the only console company to thrive and Zune would have dominated the IPOD. You are clearly and undeniably wrong.
@aleceth They don't NEED this expert knowledge, as the Wisdom of Crowds shows. In fact, it works best when the knowledge is diversely distributed among the population, and they each make their decisions on that basis.
@shanedk Yes, Shane, because the wisdom of the people is always spot on. Hence all your videos demonstrating how few people believe silly things like creationism.
@aleceth Spoken like someone who's never actually watched the video or is a complete liar. I go in detail about why the WoC works, what it needs to work, and what can make it go wrong. Yet, like all dogmatists, you turn it into a black/white false dichotomy.
The fact is, NO ONE has this "expert knowledge" you keep bleating on about. NO ONE knows what interest rates should be, or how much money there should be in the economy. The WoC works; your way is appeal to an omnipotent state.
@shanedk You're claiming I was saying the exact opposite from what I actually was, so I sent you a message because there must have been some sort of mis-communication.
@shanedk For example; how many "scientists" are spokesmen for creationism that only believe in it because the bits that make sense to them are outside their field of expertise? Yet they become powerful spokesmen because there is a perception that they understand what they're talking about because they are "scientists".
@aleceth I can agree that the media influences public opinion. But it seems so hypocritical to me for one to argue that because the media influences public opinion, we should elect regulators . . . as if the media will not influence public opinion in THEIR elections!
@JacobSpinney Well, that's the rub. The only solution I can see is to get rid of the corporatism that allows so much of the media to be in so few hands. If it were as diverse as, say, blogging, then the WoC would have much more to work with.
@JacobSpinney Exactly, which is why I tried to make the point of saying I don't disagree that government regulation can lead to unbalanced market. I'm simply stating that eliminating the government isn't going to automatically make a completely free market. I believe in certain types of regulation, but the current system of regulation is corruptible. I would rather see regulation reform than a complete lack of regulation.
Thank you for the rational discourse as opposed to name calling!
It is amazing how much people believe advertising. "We from DD advise you to use DD" gets a septic response, but 'we from the government recommend subjugation' leads to enthusiastic support.. 'ýour money or your life, but it's ok we are not interested in profits and protect you against those who are' is a piece of self advertising that gets believed immediately, given you are holding a gun.
I hate this "no can do" attitude. First of all, it's damn foolish to think that a laissez-faire system devoid of regulation can function in the best interests of the people. Look at England in the late 19th century. Now, the reason government and government regulation doesn't work is not because the concept is flawed, but because DEMOCRACY in it's current form is flawed. In the United States this is painfully apparent. Don't fix your problems by eliminating them, REPAIR them.
wasteofspace1234 1 month ago
Your 'logic' is unfortunately compromised by the fact that you live within a dysfunctional, so-called 'democracy' (that is in truth nothing of the sort). Perhaps, instead of fantasing about ridiculous anarcho-capitalist utopias you should focus upon fixing your degraded political system. By the way, it's pronounced "lay-say-fair", not "lah-zay-fair". Just thought you might like to know (clearly you've suffered from an educational deficit some point).
atlasman55 3 months ago in playlist My Top Videos
@atlasman55 Why the name calling?
ShwangShwing 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
It's simple, don't vote for republicans. Problem solved.
baldurus1 4 months ago
Uhh dumbass democrats get payed by fucking companies to. Just not as blatantly as the Republicans do.
scienceatheism 3 months ago in playlist My Top Videos
@scienceatheism Congratulations, you managed to defeat your own argument.
baldurus1 3 months ago
So just because Democrats dont do it so out in the open and I realized that that some how negates my point? You are fucking retarded.
scienceatheism 3 months ago
It's pronounced less-ay faire.
gbob509 1 year ago
great vid, i enjoyed watching it again, would love to hear what you think of the Net Neutrality bullshit that just happened right before Christmas, by a administration that said it was against it. lol. what a joke.
freethinker3161 1 year ago
As Stargazer5781 once said, "Statism is all well and good until you realize that people in the state are human too. If your claim is that people need to be ordered around and controlled, who will order around and control the people in the state? Statism necessitates the existence of gods and only made sense back when people thought the heads of state were gods. When you realize gods don't exist, all arguments for a state self-detonate."
vspqbd 1 year ago
how do we change that?
FrankaDith 1 year ago
You watch the watchers by voting.
funisverygood 1 year ago
excellent video
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
The main thing preventing monopolies in a vast majority of industries is government regulation of competition - without it there would just be a hike in mergers and a lot of violation to newcomers.
Competition is not a naturally occuring phenonomen in a free capitalist system - by nature businesses want to merge, cooperate and increase profits - NOT compete to lower prices and increase quality for consumers.
You need at least a minimum of government regulation for capitalism to work
Dacadema 1 year ago
@Dacadema Jacob just outlined what prevents monopolies and then you try and define it here by saying competition doesn't naturally occur in a free capitalist system? That is ridiculous. Completely untrue.
itachi705 1 year ago
Great video. Lucid.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
how did microsoft get its monopoly?
interstate317 1 year ago
Who is your first quote attributed to?
billburns2 1 year ago
what song is that one in the background?
bwelkk 1 year ago
@bwelkk It's one of the royalty free stock songs in my garageband app on my mac.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
A person with a Mac making Mac ad parody videos.
Oh, the delicious irony. :3
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I just heard this song on "How I met your mother"
Weird.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney It's not half bad.
TreachMarkets 8 months ago
What about safety regulations, Massa energy and BP had numerous violations on there coal mine / oil rigs. Granted they were able to buy off the government into not paying attention to there violations, but how would a free market fix this, The boycott of BP is disasterous in achieving its goal.
interstate317 1 year ago
@interstate317 watch?v=WBZCHaKmkeM
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@interstate317
Well, for one thing, in the absence of corporate protection, the owners and directors of BP wouldn't be able to shift the blame onto a God-damned piece of paper. They would instead be compelled to cease their aggression immediately, and then made to provide full restitution to the owners of the property which they had despoiled - just like any other criminal.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@interstate317
This is where the idea of "All property is privately owned" is crucial in a free society. The simple answer to your question is that if or when an oil rig exploded and spewed oil into the waters and all over private property, those individuals would be able to sue BP for damages incurred to their property. One massive spill like BP has now, and they would go bankrupt paying out damages through the court system.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
Great video!
SkaRocksYea 1 year ago
Anyone who votes thumbs down on this is a consumer whore.
percheron1654 1 year ago
Jacob, your magic tricks never seize to amaze me. Can you say Oil-Spill? Yes? Then I would love to see you explain in your next video HOW the free market could prevent an oil-spill.
And please, dont go into deception-mode and rant about how government regulation didnt prevent it either. It wasnt regulation that failed but lack of it.
And I can tell you who would watch the watchers in a REAL democracy:
The people.
Unfortunatly capitalism is the rule of money by the state OVER the people.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Is it the free market that is putting a cap on the amount of money that BP is held liable to pay for cleanup or is it the government that made that arbitrary cap? Is it the free market that has granted immunity to all of the persons in the BP corporation from being held personally liable or is it the government who created such notions as corporations in the first place?
The free market cannot magically prevent accidents. But at least it holds people liable for them.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney So, the answer is "The free market cannot magically prevent accidents."
Well, government regulation could prevent these accidents, especially if the government is under controll of the people, instead of being a service agency of the capitalist to rule OVER the people.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay So the reason that airplanes crash is because they're not regulated enough? The reason hurricanes happen is because climatologists aren't regulated enough? Common. It doesn't matter how many warning labels and directions you give. Accidents happen.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Yes, accidents happen. Safety regulations decrease the risk and thus the ammount and/or severity of accidents. You know that.
Free market rules do not provide safety regulations.
Come on, Jacob. It helps to admitt a problem in order to find ways to solve it. Free markets do need regulations. That needs regulators. And that needs democracy to assure accountability of these regulators - the role of government.
Pretty simple actually.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay You don't think that self-interest is a good enough incentive to have safety procedures in place? So businesses are too greedy and selfish and they need to be regulated, but they're not greedy and selfish enough to do competent risk assessments?! Thanks to the government, BP will only have to pay so much for this accident. In a free market, BP would have to pay A LOT more. Due to that fact, in a free market, their greedy selfishness would incentivize them to be EVEN MORE careful.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney A risk assessment? For that we would need to calculate the prize of the damage. How much money are the lifes of the dead workers worth?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Exactly! If you want to be that cold. The business has to do a cost benefit analysis. "How much money will it cost me to enact some good safety procedures?" Let's say X. "How much money will it cost me if the shit hits the fan?" Let's say 1000000X. Thus, based on a very simple cost benefit analysis, you save a lot more money going with the safety procedures than you do risking going without them.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney You didnt answer the question. How much money is a life worth? How do corporations assess the money value of a human life?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay However much an arbitration court decides when they get sued. All the more reason to invest in as many safety procedures as the business can. Because when they do get sued, they can point to the fact that they spent all this money in safety procedures. If they did not spend any money in safety procedures, you can imagine how that would look to an arbitrator.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Who pays the arbitration court?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Red Herring.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Hahaha... you are such a disgusting crook, Jacob.
The corporations would pay the arbitrator in your free-market-lala-land. They would simply buy the arbitrator. Thus the money value of a human life would be determined to be cheaper by the corporations and as a result the risk assesment will almost allways show that safety procedures arent worth the money.
Thats why your world view is nothing more then the completely unaccountable tyrrany of the capital. And you know that.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Did you not even watch this video you're commenting on? In my free-market-lala-land the arbitration courts would be based off of reputation and competing with each other for your business. The arbitration court would be like an insurance policy when you enter into a contract. Either both parties pay up front for this insurance policy, or one of them does. But BOTH parties agree ahead of time what arbitration court they'd like to have in the event of a contract dispute.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay If a business will only enter into a contract with you if you agree for the arbitrator to be someone with the reputation of ALWAYS ruling in favor of the business, then who in their right mind would agree to such a contract? They might as well be agreeing to provide their labor free of charge and with no liability!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay The courts of the free market would be competing arbitration companies based off of reputation, not a single monopoly of law as in the government. This is why judges are a lot more easy to bribe than an arbitrator would be. Because the parties aren't able to choose the judge. The judge is assigned to them. And the judge does not lose his job if he continually rules in favor of business XYZ. The arbitrator does.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay So instead of responding to ANY of my criticisms of regulation, you simply attack my position. And after I explain exactly why the free market is less corruptible than the government is, you just ignore everything I say and attack my position again.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Do you smoke crack?
SkaRocksYea 1 year ago
@13otany13ay It is not because of a lack of regulation that made BP careless (if they were careless). It is because BP would be able to privatize their profits and socialize their losses, thanks to the government! When you tell a business that you will let them keep their profits, but you will cover any of their losses, what do you think they'll do?!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney As I said in my first comment: Please dont go into deception mode by ranting about how government regulation failed. Failed regulation, wrong regulation or absence of regulation does not prove that no regulation at all must be the solution.
You agreed that free markets do not prevent such an oil spill. I said only good regulation can, given the government is not owned by capitalists, but controlled by the people.
Dont try to spin this.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay You are mischaracterizing my position. I stated that the free market cannot prevent accidents from happening. You stated regulation can. I pointed out the absurdity of such a statement and you agreed that indeed even under regulation, accidents will happen. I explained how the free market causes businesses to want to be safe, because they will be held responsible if they mess up, and instead of offering a retort, you simply assert that regulation will work better.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Wouldn't you agree that it doesn't necessarily create the best incentive structure for the government to tell a business that they can keep all their profits, but that the government will cover any of their losses? That by doing so, the business throws caution to the wind and no longer cares about the risks it takes?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Instead of being on the offensive and ignoring everything I say. How about for once you answer one of my questions? For starters, the question I posed above this comment.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay It seems to me that the whole point is that the government is NOT controlled by the people but rather by lobbyists.
FightBadIdeas 1 year ago
@FightBadIdeas Exactly my point too: The government is NOT controlled by the people but rather by lobbyists. In an ancap-society arbitration courts would also be controlled by the capital.
The real problem for both systems, the corporatist representative democracies AND anarcho-capitalism, is the concentration of capital. Ancaps dont have a solution for the problem of bribery, corruption and lobbyism.
They simply favour to legalize and to institutionalize it and then dare to call it freedom.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Yes we do. Competition. If one service ( be it judicial, road, security whatever) takes bribes or abuses their market status, there are no artificial barriers to entry, like there are now, to prevent competition from forming and/or stop people from stop paying that particular service and start paying their more honest competitors.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 When the families of the dead workers sue them, why should BP accept their arbitrator, when all they need to do is unleash a massive PR-Campaign to spin the accident. If the families want to even have a chance to get compensation, they would have no other choice then to accept an arbitrator by the grace of BP.
Compensations for accidents would decrease and so would the quality of safety regulations, because the price for human lifes decreased and accidents would become cheaper.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay 1. They could agree on arbitrator beforehand. 2 I doubt anyone is gonna be able to spin a oil company's refusal to pay damages to their dead workers grieving families into something positive for that company. 3. If you'd strip the legal protection corporations have from the state, it would be much easier to regular people to sue them in case something like the BP spill were to happen.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 The question was why BP should agree on an arbitrator AT ALL? Whats the incentive?
Nowadays corporations agree on private arbitrators out of fear the case could go to a public court and that could make things more expensive. But when there are no public courts, whats forcing BP to accept an arbitration? Especially when the sueing party are just a bunch of poor "Schmocks". They will have no leverage to force BP to accept anything.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Great, just ignore everything I said about private arbitration and repeat your criticisms which I've already addressed.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney All you said is, that contractors (in this case the workers and BP) would agree on an arbitrator beforehand. This needs two things:
1. Employment contracts, that designate an impartial arbitrator for lawsuits.
2. BP keeps that contract.
If they dont, then the familis of the dead workers will have to sue BP for a breach of contract. And again the question arises: Why should BP accept an arbitrator? Whats their incentive? Who would force them?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay You are not making sense. I've already stated that the arbitrator would be agreed upon before hand when the contract is entered into, not at the moment that one alleges a breach of the contract has happened. What would force BP to submit to the arbitrator they already agreed to submit to in the contract? THE CONTRACT! In the contract, the arbitrator can be named specifically and there will be provisions within the contract stating what authority the arbitrator has.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay Some contracts could very well say that if one of the parties does not submit to the ruling of the arbitrator in the event of a dispute, then they are to be hanged! Is that force enough for you?! I imagine in most cases, arbitrators would also be an insurance policy, so that even if one of the parties decides not to pay up, the victim is still compensated from the insurance.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay It is then on the shoulders of the arbitrator to collect the debt of the party refusing to pay. And they will state explicitly what methods they are allowed to use to collect on that debt. I imagine most cases would simply be blacklisting the party so that they could no longer enter into contracts with anyone; much like credit ratings.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney You assume alot there. First that every corporation would agree to make employment contracts with every employee. Then you assume the all corporations would agree on arbitration in these contracts. Then that they all would agree on impartial arbitration. Then that they all would agree on arbitrators who make blacklists. And then you assume that all employees would have the luxury to say no to a blacklisted corporation.
Do you think corporations are the fucking salvation army?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I assume that every corporation would agree to make employment contracts with every employee? There is no assuming about it. If there is no contract, then what we are talking about is slavery.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I don't assume that all corporations would agree on arbitration in these contracts, I KNOW IT. If there were no means of settling a possible dispute laid out in the contract, then what employee in their right mind would sign such a thing?! Without a means of dispute resolution explicitly laid out, it's simply a piece of paper.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I don't assume that they would agree on impartial arbitration, I KNOW THEY WOULD! Otherwise the contract would not be signed by both parties! Let's say you want to work BP. Are you telling me that you would be willing to enter into a contract with BP that states the arbitrator will be BP themselves?!?!? You might as well be agreeing to offer your labor free of charge!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I don't assume they would all agree on arbitrators who make blacklists. I KNOW THEY WOULD! Once again, if there is no consequence explicitly laid out in the contract for what would happen if one of the parties refused to abide by the arbitrators ruling, then it's just a meaningless piece of paper, not a contract.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I don't assume that all employees would have the luxury to say no to a blacklisted corporation. I KNOW THEY WOULD! Are you telling me you would willfully choose to work for someone who has repeatedly gotten away with NOT PAYING any of his employees? Are you really so naive so as to think that you'll be the exception and he'll pay you?
No. I think corporations are government created monsters that would not exist in a free market.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney As I said, you assume that EVERY corporation would do..... In other words at least almost every corporation.... In other words you assume that corporations would be very generous.
Now assume that corporations show labourers the middle finger and they would have no other choice then to accept their working conditions.
Again, Jacob, I tell you that you assume quite alot of benevolence to come from corporations. What justifies the confidence? Or is it worship?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I assume no such benevolence whatsoever. What I am relying on is the self interest of the employees. Are you really going to tell me that you would choose to work FOR FREE for a business?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney You rely on the self interest of workers? Then you are the first ancap I ever met who relies on strong unions. Neat!
Of course, the problem with that is, that unions get their leverage during strikes by the protection of an impartial third power - nowadays the state. Without that strikes are pretty pointless and violence is almost allways inevitable. How do you intend to solve the problem of strike busters and strike breakers without government protection and regulation?
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay I understand your point, but I don't agree that the problem is the concentration of capital, but rather of coersive power. It may be easy to bribe a few legislators or judges, but if you have many arbitration courts, for instance, then it becomes increasingly costly to buy a good number of judges or legislators. And you don't really have to have too many of them, just not having barriers of entry would be enough, I believe.
FightBadIdeas 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney How would the free market stop Earthquakes, Spinney? Huh? Come on, how would it?!
Xtro2005 1 year ago
@RicardoClaro "Free markets don't exist despite the existence of laws."
Huh? The laws/regulations ARE WHY the free market doesn't exist. So why did you say "despite the existence of laws"?
sofiamarmeladova 1 year ago
You are a great lobbyist for freedom Jacob. Thanks! Most people just don't seem to use reasoning and rational thought, but want an almighty power taking care of them, at least in fantasy.
hooverdog1957 1 year ago
@hooverdog1957 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@RicardoClaro Then you should know that a free market was NOT available to "them" as state regulations are not subject to consent.
crazypants88 1 year ago
Jacob, you are becoming my favorite political guy. Right on!
darkmatteruniverse 1 year ago
@darkmatteruniverse Thanks so much! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Furthermore, the very existence of corporation (the anti-free market government-created critter) aggravates the problems with government regulations. Since the corporation prevents the people running the company from being touched, why should they care... they are being protected.
In a free market, there would be no such thing as a corporation.
kevinbenko 1 year ago
You rock dude!
pantadon 1 year ago
@pantadon Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Always refreshing to see someone with an intelligent statement. As always, you do a great job bringing to light the downfalls of government control.
MrTheShepherd 1 year ago
@MrTheShepherd Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
If people are irrational then why put irrational people in charge of them. Surely whether or not people are rational they will be more rational when considering themselves.
Scoforever 1 year ago 2
excellent as usual
Daniel44125 1 year ago
@Daniel44125 Thanks. :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Fantastic video!
Keep up the good fight!
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
To further his last point about how people have this bizzaro fantasy that the government is composed of wise custodians of the general good.. because thats all you want to do when you want to do good. You dont go and become a Doctor, or a Teacher, or a Philosopher, rather you go and grab the gun of the military and the police, cuz thats how you do good..
TheGodofAtheists 1 year ago 2
This is a gret video. I'm going to mirror it and link back to it in the description. If you would like me to remove the video, please let me know, and I'll talke it down.
woodsofodin 1 year ago
@woodsofodin That'd be awesome dude! Thanks! Could you make it a video response to this please?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Thy will be done. :) Check your video replies.
woodsofodin 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney i think ill do the same. i like your video
credible2 1 year ago
@credible2 Thanks so much!!! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney oh its no problem. you don't have to thank me.
credible2 1 year ago
I love your vids... Who hit the dislike button? They are an idiot... or maybe just have a fat finger... lol hahah
l1xx3r 1 year ago
@l1xx3r LOL Thanks. :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Not believing in free market is like not believing in gravity, whether you like gravity or not it will always be there and will always effect you.
spol07 1 year ago
@RicardoClaro I think you misunderstand what the free market is. It's a market devoid of state regulations. The free market has not been available to businesses for a long time, if ever. Cartelization on a free market is very unlikely, and even if achieved extremely hard to maintain because every business in the cartel has a huge profit incentive to sell a good or provide a service at a lower price then the rest of the cartel, thereby breaking the cartel and reaping the most profit.
crazypants88 1 year ago 2
great vid!
crazypants88 1 year ago
@crazypants88 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
You have a way of making too much sense. That is why government and businesses don't listen.
trekkerperson 1 year ago
well done video..i like the music
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 Thanks. :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
DA GUVERNMINT WATCHES EM
Ilikenuman 1 year ago 2
@Ilikenuman ROFLMAO!! XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
we do jacob. that is why the State currently works so well.
Decentralism 1 year ago
@Decentralism :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
We watch the watchers.... duhhhhh
FriendOregon 1 year ago
@FriendOregon And who watches you?
silentbob36 1 year ago
@silentbob36 the cops.... it circular.... not linear...
FriendOregon 1 year ago
@FriendOregon So if you criticize the state for doing something you don't like, then the cops can arrest you for criticizing something in a way that they don't like and the state who, in turn, watch the cops can approve the arrest. The system works!
silentbob36 1 year ago 2
@FriendOregon Yes . . . it definitely is circular. LOL
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 2
This "god" parallel always gets people to a second look at regulation.
Great vid
darklord220 1 year ago
@darklord220 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Then there are the times when there aren't other places to shop
Ioganstone 1 year ago
@Ioganstone For every cent that a business overcharges you, that's yet another incentive for an entrepreneur to create a competing business.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@Ioganstone And even if that were to happen, a state would not change that.
crazypants88 1 year ago
Similar logic can be used regarding courts, police, defense and prisons, imho.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago 2
The WATCHMEN will!
Apptendo 1 year ago 3
@Apptendo :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Who watches the watchers?
They don't need watchers you silly boy! Everyone knows that entering into politics turns you into a being far beyond the temptations of mere mortals! ^^
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 9
Woohoo! :-D
Stargazer5781 1 year ago
Air travel fares dropping by half seems like a very bad example to me. Since air travel is intimately technological, and technology has very far surpassed what it was in the 1970's, wouldn't you expect air travel prices to drop by at least half since the 1970's anyway?
Mozza314 1 year ago
When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
-P. J. O'Rourke
MrBr3w 1 year ago 10
@MrBr3w Nice quote. :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
"In a free market, a business is only able to gain a larger market share by offering a better, gooder service at a cheaper price"
Not really, but I love you for your optimism. A truly free market could only completely work that way if every consumer had expert knowledge of what their options were and equal access to every possible variation of the product. But in the real world, it all boils down to public perception, and the company who wins is the one with the most influence over the press.
aleceth 1 year ago
@aleceth However, don't take that comment as a disagreement of all of your points, I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of ways other than regulation to unfairly monopolize the markets. Advertisement and the press is just one example. The more and greater varied methods of controlling the market, the better diversified system of checks and balances. But I'm not saying you're wrong about the vulnerability of a government controlled system.
aleceth 1 year ago
@aleceth If what you were saying were true then American vehicles/electronics would have won out over Japanese vehicles/electronics in America, 3DFX would still be the leader in the GPU market, IBM would be the only PC manufacturer, Asus would own the MOBO market, Atari would have been the only console company to thrive and Zune would have dominated the IPOD. You are clearly and undeniably wrong.
Xtro2005 1 year ago 4
@aleceth They don't NEED this expert knowledge, as the Wisdom of Crowds shows. In fact, it works best when the knowledge is diversely distributed among the population, and they each make their decisions on that basis.
See my economics series.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes, Shane, because the wisdom of the people is always spot on. Hence all your videos demonstrating how few people believe silly things like creationism.
aleceth 1 year ago
@aleceth Spoken like someone who's never actually watched the video or is a complete liar. I go in detail about why the WoC works, what it needs to work, and what can make it go wrong. Yet, like all dogmatists, you turn it into a black/white false dichotomy.
The fact is, NO ONE has this "expert knowledge" you keep bleating on about. NO ONE knows what interest rates should be, or how much money there should be in the economy. The WoC works; your way is appeal to an omnipotent state.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You're claiming I was saying the exact opposite from what I actually was, so I sent you a message because there must have been some sort of mis-communication.
aleceth 1 year ago
@shanedk For example; how many "scientists" are spokesmen for creationism that only believe in it because the bits that make sense to them are outside their field of expertise? Yet they become powerful spokesmen because there is a perception that they understand what they're talking about because they are "scientists".
aleceth 1 year ago
@aleceth WTF does that have to do with the Wisdom of Crowds?
shanedk 1 year ago
@aleceth I can agree that the media influences public opinion. But it seems so hypocritical to me for one to argue that because the media influences public opinion, we should elect regulators . . . as if the media will not influence public opinion in THEIR elections!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Well, that's the rub. The only solution I can see is to get rid of the corporatism that allows so much of the media to be in so few hands. If it were as diverse as, say, blogging, then the WoC would have much more to work with.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Of course. Without corporatism, one wouldn't have the ability to use all of the outlets for propaganda.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Exactly, which is why I tried to make the point of saying I don't disagree that government regulation can lead to unbalanced market. I'm simply stating that eliminating the government isn't going to automatically make a completely free market. I believe in certain types of regulation, but the current system of regulation is corruptible. I would rather see regulation reform than a complete lack of regulation.
Thank you for the rational discourse as opposed to name calling!
aleceth 1 year ago
PERFECT!
eagleeye1975 1 year ago 3
@eagleeye1975 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
lol government
theVAGINAntichrist 1 year ago 4
Its like the debate we had!
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy I wonder if anyone can come up with a response to this better than (well it's better having all the power in the hands of a few).
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
haha
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
It is amazing how much people believe advertising. "We from DD advise you to use DD" gets a septic response, but 'we from the government recommend subjugation' leads to enthusiastic support.. 'ýour money or your life, but it's ok we are not interested in profits and protect you against those who are' is a piece of self advertising that gets believed immediately, given you are holding a gun.
modelmark 1 year ago 5
great job here.
freethinker3161 1 year ago 3
@freethinker3161 Thanks! :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago