Maybe there's a message here, but you need to order your thoughts more. Try writing it out and then taking a video. I'm really not sure what you're saying.
@jaykgrey : sorry, this isn't a TV show, you're not my Nielsen family. What you may think is constructive criticism is to me just noise. This video is four years old and you are telling me how to make videos four years ago?
I am part of a conversation. If I want to say something I say it, whatever my state of mind otherwise. If you want performance it's easy to find.
@pyrrho314 Clearly my comment is a) a suggestion and b) conditional, based on your own goals and desires. I'm pointing out why you didn't get much of a good reaction: you aren't actually saying anything.
@jaykgrey : I think the reaction was fine and evidently people are watching it four years later.
YOU are not the entirety of the reactions to this video.
And of course you are wrong, people do "defend" themselves against noise, though I did not. What I did was explain to you how your expectations are fsked up. This isn't a video about video production. You can address some point of yours or mine, or save it imo.
@pyrrho314 most of your reactions were negative. This is a fact. I can not address any point of yours because your points were obscured by nonsense. I am not talking about video production, I am talking about communication. You suck at it.
@jaykgrey : your initial comment was negative. That you should expect me to be the positive one just shows your naivete. Clearly you have listening comprehension problems. And I do not think you would have made a comment at all if you hadn't found points you disagree with, now would you? In fact, I think you were just talking about what motivate comment.
If you don't have a point, just save it, I don't care what some random person thinks of my communication skills. duh.
@pyrrho314 Well, you've learned one thing at least: that talking balls doesn't necessarily result in someone taking time to teach you better, but it does result in them laughing at you.
@pyrrho314 [Dannidandannikins=StudentOfObjectivism, apologies for any confusion]
Given that I've over a hundred videos explaining my position I don't think your claim that I am unable to do so has any merit. The point here is that in your video you make assertions such as that 'capitalists try to take control of the market' which make no sense. Capitalists try to get a large market share... but that is not 'controlling'.
Then you claim that capitalists use property coercively... that's nonsense.
However, I don't think it is incumbent on me to explain to you why what you have said is a load of nonsense... So I just pointed out that it is nonsense and left it at that.
@dannidandannikins : since you raised the issue of coercion with property, that'll do and I've watched your intro video and shall watch some more.
I intend to reply to the introductory one already... do you mind if I use some clips from it, specifically, the enumeration of each perspective of your take on Objectivism.
@pyrrho314 you may, but would you mind waiting a week or two - I'm about to redo that video because I'm not quite happy with it. (partly because I oversimplify in the present video, partly because I want to clarify what is the content of the channel - which has changed very slightly from how I originally envisioned it, and partly because my hair looks a mess).
@dannidandannikins : sure, I'll check out some of your other videos. I warn you not all my vids are intoxicated, these are merely entry level. :)
cheers
PS: in seriousness it doesn't matter I stand behind the actual ideas, regardless of my own hair, though I think Einstein had great hair so I may have a different perspective on when I look best.
@dannidandannikins : I'm not about to immediately run to the videos of someone insulting that make no point whatever. Had you just made a specific comment about what you found most objectionable, I might have and even still would do that.
You are naive about property as leverage, extremely naive. Like, say, money, which is property, never used for leverage? Rights to a resource a right of way. Only in fantasy land is this even sensible at all, obviously property conveys power.
He makes a lot of sense to me .. for a young guy... wish I could have thought that clearly at his age... Capitialism = monopoly=capitalist anarchists , thus we , not the owners become 'serfs'.
thanks for sharing your ideas, your failing to think about why some businesses have monopolies and that is because their is a government they can achieve that not because they are the best business but because governments puts regulations on everything making it impossible to compete ... look at mexico i rember they only had one gass station one oil company when i went to visit that is an extreme example... and if their is no government how can a business gain control over the market?
@citizenlares yeah and lets all go back to child labour and 50c an hour pay cheques like China, and while we're at it, lets have toxic run-off into our streets gutters. FAIL
@Esoparagon : with their property rights... e.g. if all the roads are privatized, a big business can come in and buy the means to reach a competitor... and a million other ways...
@Esoparagon : well, on obvious way is if the property is a transport network. These things are difficult to set up, if they are privately owned and a private party wants to control a market, it can do so through a transportation network.
Anyone not hooked up to an alternate network, is screwed. The number of possible transport networks is finite, spacially limited, and therefore small in number.
A person owning the transport network, and business type A, can use the transport network...
@pyrrho314 ... to control other businesses of that type... e.g. refuse to allow them access to the network, run them out of business.
Furthermore, in an infrastructural state without eminent domain... the owner of a road network can, with design of a grid of roads, performed while still acting on good faith with the community, as only a transport company providing cheap transport networks, ensure no other road or ground network can be built... because they will have no right to CROSS...
@pyrrho314 ... the roads already in existence. It's geometry.
Once such a grid is in place, the transport company can control any business within the grid, absolutely, unless that company has rights of trespass and all other protections against abuse of property.
Now, I've said this to a thousand property-tarians, and I have yet to have someone admit the poiunt... it's always "but the invisible hand wouldn't allow it!" Right.
It reveals a primarilly naive perspective about the business world
Ayn Rand advocated the separation of state and economics, and that the state could not coerce anyone unless he/she was a criminal. These "sneaky" ways of gaining market control could be made illegal, and thereby punishable.
Of course a strong legal system would be required... I don't really know how Rand thought to fund that.
@domenicsergi She did advocate a strong legal system funded ideally voluntarily, by theft if necessary (ie for the time being). However, she did not believe there are any "sneaky ways of gaining market control" other than through a corrupt government. I agree with her.
@john42t Well, to put it bluntly, I think you're wrong. The politics, blackmail, intimidation (physically and otherwise), which are used by corrupt governments ARE used by significant businesses.
@domenicsergi You were talking about "sneaky ways to gain market control". Now you say that there are people who use the government to excercise force illegitimately. What on earth have these two things to do with each other? The latter exists and is called corruption, the former is a myth used to discredit business. The two are lumped together in a package deal, incorrectly: If I hold a gun to your head that isn't market control. If I'm the only producer, that's not robbery.
@john42t : it is not a myth john, and such statements simply seem to lack experience.
I.e. buying a rail road doesn't make you a better oil man, doesn't mean you have better refineries... but it does mean you can ship your oil for free on that line and charge the cost to your other customers, and even especially to your oil competitors.
That's possible. That happened. You are in denial.
@pyrrho314 How's running a railroad "free"? Whoever runs it will have the costs to run it, be that someone who also does oil drilling or not. If he's good at both, why wouldn't he do both? And how can he "charge" his competitors? And if it's an economic advantage to do both (ie his costs are less), why would the customers pay more rather than less?
@john42t : as I said, this happened, so you can look up the answers in history. The reason his competitors paid more is because they needed the rail to ship oil, hello. The economic advantage of "doing both" means eventually a capitalist that does it all.. is that free market? No. Just look this stuff up, look how real economic leveral works. Think about why taking over a supply company can be used to control competitors...
@john42t : but you call it a myth. What you really believe is that pulling something off like that proves you are worth the benefit and power. Well, sure... IF YOU PULL IT OFF. good luck with that, see also antitrust law. Some of us don't approve.
@pyrrho314 You're right, some of "us" (in fact most) don't approve, and yes, that's the rationale for antitrust laws. Of course I'm aware of that, I merely disagree with it's moral implications.
@john42t sorry mate I wasn't very clear. The corrupt practices which governments can use in their political self interest can be used by businesses in their own economic self interest. And, as this guy says, there's more ways to attain market control than "serving the market best."
@john42t Also, if you're the only producer because you held a gun to the only other producer's head - that IS robbery. I'm not denouncing economic anarchy (fully), but I believe that any attempt at a system of this sort would have to take these facts into consideration - I suggested a very strong and democratic system of laws.
@domenicsergi : I believe so. The point is... I can be a small oil company, with wells and a refinery... an older company having built up more assets could buy the railroad I need to transports (or the pump engineering companies, etc etc). The railroad example happened with Rockefeller. Having the capital to buy things your competitors are dependent on before they eat your lunch due to innovative practices does not -prove competency-... it's just gaming the system.
@pyrrho314 Oh, I never suggested that there was a gun in the Rockefeller example, nor do I know of one. I reckon if JD can game the system legitimately, good on him.
@domenicsergi : it's our system, we have to and get to define "legitimately"... that's what we're discussing. What should count as legitimate. The rules of economy are not god given.
@pyrrho314 Yeah I'm aware of that mate, but I'd argue that legitimacy is simply defined by the rule of law. If JD bought out railroads, and it was legal to do so when he did it - it's legitimate. If I set fire to a competitor's oil well, it's criminal.
@pyrrho314 this is of course assuming that the laws which govern our society are determined democratically, which I wouln't argue that they really are. However, what would be wrong with a market anarchy if there were a set of democratically determined rules to govern it ?
@domenicsergi The example was given in a comment by pyrrho314. If you obtained "market control" by enslaving someone, the the producer is not you but your slave. I wouldn't call such a thing market control though. It's not the market you're controlling, but a producer. Of course, you can be a bit of both. You could produce a bit and at the same time bully a bit. But that doesn't really change the fundamental disctinction between the two roles.
@john42t If I control all producers though, and can therefore attain monopolistic control of the market, I have obtained Market Control, haven't I? Your argument based on semantics doesn't change the reality of the situation - I have illegitimately (by working outside of the free market, and by using coercion or force) gained the ability to be the sole supplier to a market, you have gained a monopoly.
@domenicsergi Yes, but other than the mafia there's no real-life example for this. However, there's plenty of examples where the government is used (ie the use of force has been legalized): education, import tarrifs, etc. The problem is that most people do acknowledge this in theory and then somehow still leap to the conclusion that some companies, eg. Microsoft or the oil/railroad companies, use "control" in some unspecified way.
@john42t I disagree when you say that there's no real world examples. The problem is you're restricting yourself to a monopoly. How about illegitimately gaining large market shares? There are dozens of examples in the port, transport, construction and food market industries where standover tactics are used. Ok, you can use semantics and call them all "mafia" (organised crime); but that doesn't reduce the number of examples.
@domenicsergi No, you can't call them mafia. Mafia is when you use violence. The mafia is a very limited phenomenon. The food, construction or transport industry don't use violence. They don't shoot people or break their bones (unlike the mafia), and they don't utter the threat to do so. And what else is violence?
@john42t I think that's fairly naive to say; all these industries use violence (painter's and dockers, mafia in the fruit markets, Union busting activities in construction. Also, "violence" could be blackmail, standover tactics, threats, rumor spreading, industrial sabotage, etc...
@john42t Also, so far we've only covered physical force. How about if I use my friendship with the owner of a shopping centre to secure a spot in the most desirable location, whilst only allowing my competitor to set up in the back.
Or I have friends in banks who can arrange for me artificially low finance. Also, you mean to tell me that OPEC can control supply and charge artificially high prices without coercion? Fine, then I'll just go quickly buy a well and start undercutting them.
@domenicsergi [...] Great examples you make, none of the are violence or objectionable in any way or form. If you're befriended with someone owning a shopping center and giving you a special spot, it is his choice. It's his shopping center. Whether your friends in the bank have a right to give you a lower credit depends on the internals of the bank. In particular, if it is *their money*, of course the can give you a credit and deny it to others. If it's corruption, it's the banks [...]
@john42t business, and in the banks interest, to deal with it. No state or legal system necessary in those cases. But yes, most people call this injust or even violence. That's the problem. How's it violent to have a right over your property? That's what we're talking about, isn't it? As long as people refuse to distinguish between an honest man's decision to conduct his business as he pleases and a violent thug, the world will remain the madhouse it is.
@john42t : you are the one that refuses to distinguish, you approve of thuggish practices... of nepotism and favoratisms and want to say you believe in a meritocracy, which clearly you don't if you think someone can just put their favorites in positions of control... ONE person that deserves to put people that don't merit it into positions of power is not a meratocracy.
@pyrrho314 When I help my relatives rather than a stranger, that's nepotism, yes. When I help a trusted friend rather than a stranger, that's favoratism, yes. And you don't like it, I know. I suspect you believe that all men should be equal in value to me. A plausible motivation is that you want me, metaphorically speaking, to value you as much as those that are actually dear to me - of course I can't be sure.
@pyrrho314 I'm not a market anarchist by the way, I approve of the state and believe it's necessary for capitalism to function. Ironically, I thought this to be a leftist myth for a long time (in Germany they called it the stamokap theory - state monopoly capitalism). Now I agree that they might actually had it right, even though of course I use that knowledge to support the state in order to support capitalism. It's one of my favourite paradoxes.
@john42t : yes, fine, I'm glad you can see and deal with things such as that. The issue I have with you is that you think a rich guy, that deserves his wealth, doling out power to his friends, b/c their are their friends is fine... "his right". As far as I'm concerned we've tried that, it hasn't worked, it's not ok... and it's important that to you its ok that a more qualified man might lose out to the friend of a more powerful man.
@pyrrho314 "that a more qualified man might lose out" That certainly happens sometimes, and way too often in the past. However, that's less and less the case. One of the primary reasons is what I call "connection with reality". When in business, you favor an incompetent over someone more able, you pay a price and the competition might do better. When the pope employs someone less able, it doesn't matter. That's the difference: The economy is "connected with reality" and has to answer to it.
@john42t "When in business, you favor an incompetent over someone more able, you pay a price and the competition might do better. " This is in theory. In practice, you need people LOYAL to you to run a show with a command and control hierarchy. The incompetent are competent at loyalty. Thus you miscalculate severely. You don't understand the utility of deploying incompetent people. You think wanting to make money ensures competency... no, because of how power has to be wielded.
@pyrrho314 "The incompetent are competent at loyalty." That's true and it's an important explanation for many historical phenomena. However, for a company dealing with real problems you underestimate the absolute necessity of competence. Microsoft, Apple, Google, they can't afford to not hire the best they can get even though they aren't loyal at all. But the best are needed no matter what. In other industries, the effect might be weaker, but is still present.
@john42t : I am 43, and have worked for a lot of companies, startups, big companies, such as AT&T in R&D... you are entirely mistaken. Incompetency explained only by perceived loyalty and also by the propagation of incompetance no doubt traceable to nepotism/loyalty based decisions is the RULE.
Indeed, I have only worked for multi-million dollar concerns and this is my experience... all you need is enough competancy to survive, after that, people are going for their own power structure.
@pyrrho314 I don't have that much experience, but yeah, I know what you mean. However, I also went to school once. There is no way to exaggerate the incompetence, the utter simplicity and dumbness of my teachers to what I've seen in the economy. Teachers are (in Germany) paid by the government (and *never* fired).
Forgive me for any reduncancy, as I haven't read the comments below.
Capitalists do not control markets. It's impossible. Their consumers, in accordance w/ laws of supply and demand, control markets.
You are correct in that men have found "clever ways" to control customers. This ought to be expected. However, the problem is *not* the clever capitalist, but the citizens who lack the critical thinking skills to NOT buy their product -- which is the fault of STATE education, not capitalism.
@deadsilentnight that would be fine but means that capitalists, in order to have a working system, need to ensure the people are educated. Sadly, they think that's a socialist idea, and don't realize capitalism requires it.
@pyrrho314 If by "they" you mean "neo-conservative whack-jobs", then yes, I agree. However, Objectivists and laissez-faire capitalists believe public schools (state indoctrination camps) ought to be 100% abolished. Also, if you read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, he claims that capitalism may exist if and only when preceded by absolute liberty, and all other versions breed absolute tyranny -- the latter of which (state education, welfare, mixed economy) must NEVER be mistaken for the former :)
@deadsilentnight : right, Objectivists are therefore confused, they don't realize that buyer-beware and free market works only with education, and other basic freedoms secured by an infrastructure....
A true free market cannot exist in a society with a government that forces the ownership of the commons.
Ideas are as free as air, you can as much control an idea once shared as you can the air you exhale. But patent law is a perfect and prime example of government not simply encouraging monopoly but, in fact, creating it.
There is nothing wrong with non-coercive non-fraudulent business tactics. It's up to the competitors to catch up and juries to convict those guilty of fraud or force.
This is an important issue. However, the solution is not totalitarianism. If the choice is between one a-hole who owns a creek and a worldwide system of slavery, ill take the jerk who bought my creek. the choice is simple really. No one said capitalism was perfect. in fact perfection is impossible, the only way to achieve such an ends is through the violent force of government.
With respect, the truth is the exact opposite. By definition, it is the socialists and communists who want to control the market. Once a capitalist tries to control the market, then they are no longer a capitalist, but a dictator.
that's easy. the American kind. if you do an objective and emotionally honest and emotionally unbiased investigation of the facts you'll find this to be true. I don't appreciate the condescending tone very much. I was respectful to you, I expect the same in return.
@heyheymonkees : it was not condescending, I'm serious. I think such a definition would be useful to us all. But so far I think you are mistaken, American capitalism allows buying water rights.
lol. oops. in that case, i sincerely apologize. to be honest, water rights is one of the biggest issues at the moment and it is an area i need to do more research on myself. That said, I suspect the way it works is that a company such as the lumber one makes these "purchases" from the government. The government then gives the rights of one person's land and resources to another. Is this correct?
@heyheymonkees : well in California here is how it worked, the lumber companies bought tons of land, which included all the rights, and diverted water to build sluices so they could float logs down from the mountains to mills. When they eventually sold this land, they sold it without the water rights, which for years were kept for various purposes. Later, these right were sold, not to the land owners, e.g. I lived on a creek for years where it was not legal to take water from the creek even...
@pyrrho314 ... to water your lawn. A golf course just down stream had bought the rights to water the course, which in fact would run the creek dry. The golf course had gone out of business, the creek did not run dry, but you still did not have the water rights, a small inn was using the property but not maintaining the golf course.
Iow, when you sell land, you do not have to sell all the rights to it, you can create arbitrary rights and keep them, and they are like a lien on the land.
Pyrrho your not taking into account that most if not all recorded government bussiness monopoly's where in some way or fashion, came about with the intervention and help of the government. Its a consequence of intervention and regulation many suffer while other prosper at its hands. Just look at fanny mae and freddie. Other banks fail while at the governments hands these banks became to big! So the government bailed them out. Trust me look everywhere hard and you will see what im saying.
Capitalism is the final chapter in historic evolution of THE TYRANNY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity, a Market mechanism where minority interest is the NEGATION OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY IN COOPERATION and HARMONY. We shall overcome the structure of minority power and oppression and reclaim our planet for a world of cooperation for our common neeand well being, expressing our energetic creative divinity in freedom of being.
@khunag : doesn't it bother you that you have to repeat slogans like mantras in order to believe this? how about reason instead of the power of self-hypnosis.
there is no justification for that belief. you think it's proved... well it's not and the rest of us won't go for it if you can't do better... imo. you are welcome to your opinion.
@pyrrho314 I'm not saying that so I can believe, I'm saying that so people like you can start believing it :) ...well, no, not believing actually, it's not about belief as such, it's about facts. And facts are that never in the history of mankind there has been a monopoly that has been not created by the government. Never. You are entitled to your opinion as well, but this is not an opinion, it's a fact.
@khunag : thing is I think about this a lot and have done... I don't see it. Why can't a monopoly form if I say, manager to get all the property or rights of a certain type? All that's required is that you respect my property rights, which I'm assuming you support... property rights that is. Granted private business coops government, but that's the nature of a private business using anything it can, not government... without government, they form their own security to protect their property.
@pyrrho314 What do you mean "of a certain type"? You cannot force your competitors out of business without government intervention, how could you? You can only "beat" them, by providing better and cheaper products and that's beneficial to everyone. So many times men have tried to monopolize and they always failed. And sure, you can protect your property, but a competitors product is not your property.
@khunag : If I legally aquire the water rights for colorado, then all my competing water companies must have sold out to me, or otherwise gone out of business allowing me to buy their assets. At this point, no new companies are able to sell water in Colorado, because you want). That's how.
People use injustice to obtain the property rights (see US) and then use property rights to maintain their monopoly. All you need for monopoly is property rights, without it, people will take your monopoly.
@pyrrho314 So you're selling water and you bought someone else's company that sells water too. What prevents me from selling water in Colorado in that scenario?
@khunag : I said "water rights". You can buy water rights from people, they then DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT ANY LONGER TO GET WATER off their land. FOR EXAMPLE: in california the lumber companies bought the water rights to all surface water, to use for flumes etc. and though they are gone, the water rights are held by different people than the other land rights, and you may NOT take water from a stream going across your land, .e.g. to water your lawn.
@pyrrho314 : buy all the such rights in a county, or county by county a state, or state by state a nation... nothing but anti-monopoly law, which has to be enforced.
If I legally bought all the water rights, and I sincerely am a productive business-man, and don't gouge, is that not possible and legitimate?
@pyrrho314 Oh, that's what you mean, that's just retarded :P Not your argument, the system, I definitely don't support that, If you own a piece of land you can do whatever you want with it, and any agreements between third parties do not concern you.
This isn't capitalism. The purchasing of water rights is what happens in socialist communist countries. What we have today are corporations (don't forget corporatism is not the same thing as capitalism) masquerading around as legitimate capitalists, giving capitalism a bad wrap.
The AT&T monopoly was ended when the government STOPPED regulating phone service. Capitalism is the natural economic system of a free people. Socialism is the attempt to control freedom because you don't think it's fair. If you have more money than me I can put a gun to your head and take it. To a liberal that's economic justice
You evidently don't know how corporations merge with government to create monopoly.
Monopoly is IMPOSSIBLE in a free market. If you're going to attack this aspect of anarcho-capitalism, you better study the argument with greater detail and find out how it's been thoroughly refuted time and time again.
@SunBeamsan : I'm well aware of the objectivist and market anarchist theories. What is a free market? Unregulated == free? Then monopoly IS possible. What mechanism does not allow monopoly? A man with all the local water rights has a monopoly in water, all he needs is a way to claim those rights. MAs claim there is a way to make such a claim without a govenrment... then there is a way to have a monopoly without one. QED
@pyrrho314 Well Ayn Rand wasn't an Anarchist.She still defended the role of government, and did believe the state should get involved in the market. ex: Intellectual Property rights.So she's not a good example. And on monopoly. It is absurd for a man to CLAIM "rights" over ALL the water in an area just because. The only way he can maintain and enforce this monopolization of water, is through "Government" sponsored "rights" through the use of force and coercion.
@pyrrho314 Monopolies don't occur in the free market. Monopolies start with the government. First they create a monopoly of violence. It is part of the definition of government. The that initial monopoly, laws are created to limit the the amount of competitors or to exclude any competitor. Government grant executives of corporations no legal liability, so BP executives will lose any sort of substantial wealth, even though they caused a massive disaster. The housing occurred because of the state.
@pyrrho314 If I show you the origins of religion, does that make the violence committed by religion any less? The state is violence.
The only way a person or business can control an entire resource is with violence and since the state has a monopoly, that is exactly how monopolies are formed. It is done through law that company X or Union B bribes the state into making(still enforced with violence). These kind of monopolies are not a product of the free market.
@Herv3 : that's another myth, the state doesn't ahve a monopoly on violence, it has a monopoly on the justice system which determines if violence was justified.
@pyrrho314 Now you're living in a fairy tale. The State uses violence to do everything it does. From taxes to imprisonment. If the state didn't have violence, it would get nothing done. Now we have seen the negative effects of the state this past decade with over 1.1 million dead Iraqi and now with Obama escalating the war Afghanistan we see that the violence from the state is bipartisan.
@Herv3 : don't use so much hyperbole... there is an implicit threat of force working among governments... but force is not used, e.g. to deliver the mail.
I have seen the destructive force of states, but not seen it is the ONLY descructive force.
@pyrrho314 It's not hyperbole. Over a million have died in Iraq since the invasion an occupation. This doesn't include the Afghanistan or the torture committed by the government. This is all paid for in the same way that all other inefficient. Through the threat and use of violence of taxation. If you think that is hyperbole try skipping your tax bill.
@Herv3 : i t's hyperbole to say that everything the government does is violent. I agree about the crie s of government, but those are alo our crimes, and t does no make the government the only criminal.
@SunBeamsan : you guys have a fairy tale. WIthout government, private organizations mount their own armies to survive and become governents.
it's history, I'm not bound to believe your fairy tale because of course private enterprises can have monopolies. There is nothing in your system to prevent, it you simply say "study up till you realize it's unpossible!" I've studied up. It not impossible.
First of all let me ask you a question. I respect your choice not to practice free-trade, (i.e. trade goods and services between individuals). I would just like to ask you if you would respect my practice of selling, and trading goods and services?
i'm personally in support of socialism, so long as it doesn't turn into come collectivist mob that try's to impose it on unwilling people. I hope you hold the same individualistic anarchist approach.
@SunBeamsan : I do practice free-trade, can't you deal with my actual positions?
I respect that practice. The fact that some practices need regulation doesn't change that. If you deal with large amounts of industrial chemicals, I beleve we need to agree on standards for handling such a danger. If you think that imposes on your freedom, I'm sorry.
YOu didn't read what i had to say. So long as we who practice it don't impose it on anyone, or harm anyone too, then there shouldn't be a problem. When you say there MUST be REGULATION, then you're making a statist argument. YOu're contradicting yourself!
@SunBeamsan : "So long as we who practice it don't impose it on anyone, or harm anyone too, then there shouldn't be a problem. " That's a regulation you just stated.
@SunBeamsan : can I act to stop harm? Do I have to wait until the mercury comes downstream to my land 2 miles away, or can I say "you can't dump it in the stream, because we know it will pollute other people's property"?
@pyrrho314 Oh so you're talking a preemptive strike? haha the hypocrisy. Then should we also regulate individuals? Should i pose a regulation on you, or what? Should i wait untill you pick up an ice pick and stab me to death?
That's statism buddy. IN that case we should pose regulations on everything that could potentially harm us. However the bigger question is who will regulate? Ahh yes, the only ones who have a monopoly to do that. Government :)
@SunBeamsan : so your answer is I have to let a guy poison my water and complain afterward?
There are regulations on those things, doesn't mean they can't be reasonable. You are prohibited from TRYING to attack me with an ice pick. I don't have to wait until I'm bleeding to death to have you arrested for it.
@pyrrho314 No, my response would be exactly the one you would have to a guy with an ice pick. The basic understanding in an anarchy is to not infringe on the liberties, life, or property of another.
Now, the same applies to your hypothetical "Capitalist". The company must be responsible enough to make sure the corporation doesn't poison the water. And in any case, the water would be public property, and there will surely be a business that is in the business of water filtration. So more jobs.
@SunBeamsan btw, you're taking a very Black and white approach to Capitalism. If you understood market dynamics you'd realize Capitalism is the most successful economic system in advancing human development. Th technology you use every day that makes you're life easier is a product of entrepreneurial spirit. To this point i have not found a more economically efficient way of improving the lot of the ordinary man that can even reach a fraction of the capacities of the free-market.
I don't agree with a lot of Ayn Rand. But to be fair, if you read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, she describes two kinds of capitalists--her ideal pure type, who tries to progress and work from internal motivations, and looters and second-handers who work largely for external motivations. Capitalism fails in those books because the latter type of capitalists dominate the former types. Rand's fantasy resolution consists of her ideal types going on strike and forming a world of their own!
Apologists are just disconnected from reality. They won't realize how so backwards capitalism has become until the material conditions that it creates stops favouring them.
This man is a moron. He says there are "sneaky ways" for Capitalists to control markets and then fails to define what those ways are. Talk about not using your brain.
of course individual capitalists want to control the market, and he might do it for a certain time, but it is impossible for him to maintain the monopoly for long periods without coercion from the goverment, thats the key, the capitalist may have a monopoly for a certain time, but without the goverment interveining he is always opet to competition which in time will demonopolize him
@pyrrho314 there is a term for what you are trying to go for, its called Free Market Capitalism, businessmen don't control markets without government aid,
Another way to phrase this is Free Markets do not equate to free firms. Under a system of market liberation the behavior of a firm is not necessarily liberated. In fact under heavy regulation, mercantilism, or market socialism the freedom a firm has to exploit workers or pursue profit may paradoxically be expanded.
The question is weather you want to be inside or outside the matrix.You may like to be in the matrix because even though at the end of the day you are nothing but a battery but still the matrix gives you the illusion that you are a superstar
Its about the individuals who form the comunity...for example youtube may decide to delete this video but pyrrho will still find a way to communicate which is the basis of Objectivisum.Its selfish but its not forced
DickeyRogers, Do you really think you are going to get an answer to that question ?
These are "SNEAKY" ways- you just take it at face value and dont question any more- i think that he is half drunk anyways..
Btw, if people were AS SUSPICIOUS of pols who promise everything to every one, it would be better. I can bet that this guy with all his sincerity believes that if something is decided by a majority of Congressmen, it must be ok-after all they are elected!
ya but in a free market, its not like you have stolen that power, that power was voted to you because you provided a service/product worth that power.
who the hell voted the government all this capital? regulations are necessary but they supposedly were there. The constitution is a contract between the people and the state. contract breached, people got to relearn why that contract was there in the first place.
You should ask yourself, "If businessmen controlling markets is a problem, what causes that problem and how do we stop it?". Behind the businessman's market control is the laws and coercion of a state. If you eliminate the state, you eliminate the mechanism of control.
People have these great philosophical ideas.. such as Rand and others. They sound brillaint dont they
But noone ever uses the evidence of society as examples. We can clearly see that trickle down, doesnt happen in free markets.. or that monopolys dont happen
Wal Mart along with the Chinese Army are some of the biggest employers in the world... This shows we need a balacne between public and private. You cannot tell me Wal Mart is not a monopoly
You are wrong about a Capitalist's view on monopolies. Capitalists believe monopolies would not exist in a free market society and not that giving the best service or product will create a monopoly. Government intervention is the cause of all monopolies. I am not arguing this point now. I only wanted to clarify the position. I do appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts on the matter.
No bu the evidence we have shows that this is not the case.
Government only gets involved when business gets too large, in the form of competition watchdogs etc.. for exampl, the EU has told Sky that they cannot own all the rights of premiership football (small example)
In my country Tesco is getting very large and made excessive profits. There is talk within governmenr of using competition rules to stop them from, for example exapnding their 'small' shops which put corner shops out.
Citing two examples of when gov gets involved in regulating monopolies does not prove that "government only gets involved when business gets too large." Don't you believe there are gov regulations that keep monopolies in power? Making it harder for smaller co.'s to get involved. And that these regulations are lobbied for by big business lobbyists? It's no secret that big business uses sneaky (by means of force) ways to get monopolistic power but only through the means of government.
Oh no, I completely agree and you bring up a excellent point. In the USA big businesses have a lot of control... but this is the point... This has occured because noone has faith in the state so they cannot flex their muscles to stop them.
I think this situation can only occur in a free market, because in a state where we are skeptical of big business this couldnt happen.
What im arguing about is the principle of gov regualtion.. and there are many examples, I was just illustrating.
Why dont we give the gov our consent to never let big business take advantage, and to promote small businesses. I think in business there should be a progressive taxation only on profits.. this way noone can make the excuse that it will cost jobs to pay the taxes.
We cant allow business to make excessive profits anymore! There is a finite amount of money in an economy and its crazy when a tiny fraction of people have most of it...
Im a capitalist, but it must work in the public interest
We have already given the gov consent to let big business take advantage! I do not want to give big business or gov consent to do anything. Why do you think gov's are more virtuous than big business? The taxes argument is another issue. The finite amount of money is yet another. I really appreciate the conversation but with such brief amount of space even though the thoughts are linked please try to stay on one argument.
No we havent.. People have become so disillusioned by politics they are inactive allowing the people to vote for to do what they like
This can be changed, but it never will when people's attitude is that the 'state' should say outa their lives.
The government is supposed to just be the people as an organisation, but in the extreme individualist attitude of America it is not about that anymore - this is why your society is failing. I jus hope a slight left lean from Obama will improve thing
History has shown that monopolies don't exist unless there IS government interference and regulation. If a monopoly were to arise and become corrupt (which is the only reason to hate a monopoly), in an economically free society, another business could arise UNCORRUPTED and take all their business. Which is what I'd do in television if it wasn't so fuckin' impossible to start a TV network. How easy would it be to steal viewers if you could actually produce GOOD shows?
how easy would it be if you can jam their signal, or a wealthy station can jam yours?
as for history showing... that is a logical fallacy a mile wide... since when did we have no government? to compare with... post hoc ergo propter hoc, we have never had objectivism develop without there being government as well.
You have to show a relation... and while gov can aid monopoly, it's also the only thing stopping naturally forming ones.
the government has to be involved in a market in order for there to be a monopoly in that market. If there is no Gov. regulating by means of force (fines and jail time) then anybody has the right to compete. witch means no monopoly. So onlythequestion is correct. Oh ya and ppl like the mob do it as well but thats a little different.
Having the right to compete does not mean having the mean to... but also, do you not support IP then? If a company invents something, is there no protection against others using the invention?
Yes having the right is not the same as having the means, need more from you to understand tho. and I totally support Intellectual property im in a hurry but there will be more if you reply. thanks for the convo
The mob shows us that with no regulation at all, monopolys pop up almost instantly.
A big business would mug us in the streets, if it were legal. They do not function on morality (and why should they) but they fucntion within a regulatroy framework the state (voted by the people) have set up.
America is the most 'free market' of the west, and you guys have the worst social problems. Our attitude over here is that we collectively in the form of government need to address CT
Who will build freeways? No one individual is going to pay for this? The onyl way to pay for a freeway is we coorporatviely put the money in together. Or another way of sayingn it is, we vote for the dept of transport, give them a cut of our salarys and expect them to pay
Evidence suggests that Ayn Rands world view is wrong. i see how she got the views, but government intervention is not morally wrong.. it depends on HOW they intervene. providing education/health is ok
Maybe there's a message here, but you need to order your thoughts more. Try writing it out and then taking a video. I'm really not sure what you're saying.
jaykgrey 2 weeks ago
@jaykgrey : sorry, this isn't a TV show, you're not my Nielsen family. What you may think is constructive criticism is to me just noise. This video is four years old and you are telling me how to make videos four years ago?
I am part of a conversation. If I want to say something I say it, whatever my state of mind otherwise. If you want performance it's easy to find.
pyrrho314 1 week ago
@pyrrho314 Clearly my comment is a) a suggestion and b) conditional, based on your own goals and desires. I'm pointing out why you didn't get much of a good reaction: you aren't actually saying anything.
jaykgrey 1 week ago
@jaykgrey : I think the reaction was fine and evidently people are watching it four years later.
YOU are not the entirety of the reactions to this video.
And of course you are wrong, people do "defend" themselves against noise, though I did not. What I did was explain to you how your expectations are fsked up. This isn't a video about video production. You can address some point of yours or mine, or save it imo.
pyrrho314 1 week ago
@pyrrho314 most of your reactions were negative. This is a fact. I can not address any point of yours because your points were obscured by nonsense. I am not talking about video production, I am talking about communication. You suck at it.
jaykgrey 1 week ago
@jaykgrey : your initial comment was negative. That you should expect me to be the positive one just shows your naivete. Clearly you have listening comprehension problems. And I do not think you would have made a comment at all if you hadn't found points you disagree with, now would you? In fact, I think you were just talking about what motivate comment.
If you don't have a point, just save it, I don't care what some random person thinks of my communication skills. duh.
pyrrho314 1 week ago
@pyrrho314 Further, if it's "just noise," you would not feel inclined to defend yourself to me.
jaykgrey 1 week ago
Consumers control markets as much as businessmen if not more. No need to regulate. ;)
neue01 2 months ago
The views expressed in this video are not even remotely intelligent.
StudentOfObjectivism 2 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism : whatever, if you have point, bring it, if not, I won't be surprised.
pyrrho314 2 months ago
@pyrrho314 Well, you've learned one thing at least: that talking balls doesn't necessarily result in someone taking time to teach you better, but it does result in them laughing at you.
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
@dannidandannikins : why would I care if some idiot that can't state a position laughs and thinks it's at me? seriously, why?
pyrrho314 2 months ago
@pyrrho314 [Dannidandannikins=StudentOfObjectivism, apologies for any confusion]
Given that I've over a hundred videos explaining my position I don't think your claim that I am unable to do so has any merit. The point here is that in your video you make assertions such as that 'capitalists try to take control of the market' which make no sense. Capitalists try to get a large market share... but that is not 'controlling'.
Then you claim that capitalists use property coercively... that's nonsense.
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
...
However, I don't think it is incumbent on me to explain to you why what you have said is a load of nonsense... So I just pointed out that it is nonsense and left it at that.
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
@dannidandannikins : since you raised the issue of coercion with property, that'll do and I've watched your intro video and shall watch some more.
I intend to reply to the introductory one already... do you mind if I use some clips from it, specifically, the enumeration of each perspective of your take on Objectivism.
-py
pyrrho314 2 months ago
@pyrrho314 you may, but would you mind waiting a week or two - I'm about to redo that video because I'm not quite happy with it. (partly because I oversimplify in the present video, partly because I want to clarify what is the content of the channel - which has changed very slightly from how I originally envisioned it, and partly because my hair looks a mess).
dannidandannikins 2 months ago
@dannidandannikins : sure, I'll check out some of your other videos. I warn you not all my vids are intoxicated, these are merely entry level. :)
cheers
PS: in seriousness it doesn't matter I stand behind the actual ideas, regardless of my own hair, though I think Einstein had great hair so I may have a different perspective on when I look best.
pyrrho314 2 months ago
@dannidandannikins : I'm not about to immediately run to the videos of someone insulting that make no point whatever. Had you just made a specific comment about what you found most objectionable, I might have and even still would do that.
You are naive about property as leverage, extremely naive. Like, say, money, which is property, never used for leverage? Rights to a resource a right of way. Only in fantasy land is this even sensible at all, obviously property conveys power.
pyrrho314 2 months ago
He makes a lot of sense to me .. for a young guy... wish I could have thought that clearly at his age... Capitialism = monopoly=capitalist anarchists , thus we , not the owners become 'serfs'.
bluewizard52 3 months ago
thanks for sharing your ideas, your failing to think about why some businesses have monopolies and that is because their is a government they can achieve that not because they are the best business but because governments puts regulations on everything making it impossible to compete ... look at mexico i rember they only had one gass station one oil company when i went to visit that is an extreme example... and if their is no government how can a business gain control over the market?
citizenlares 7 months ago
@citizenlares yeah and lets all go back to child labour and 50c an hour pay cheques like China, and while we're at it, lets have toxic run-off into our streets gutters. FAIL
LazarusCato 7 months ago
Businessmen without using the government can control markets. How?
Esoparagon 8 months ago
@Esoparagon : with their property rights... e.g. if all the roads are privatized, a big business can come in and buy the means to reach a competitor... and a million other ways...
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 How can property be used to control a market?
Esoparagon 7 months ago
@Esoparagon : well, on obvious way is if the property is a transport network. These things are difficult to set up, if they are privately owned and a private party wants to control a market, it can do so through a transportation network.
Anyone not hooked up to an alternate network, is screwed. The number of possible transport networks is finite, spacially limited, and therefore small in number.
A person owning the transport network, and business type A, can use the transport network...
pyrrho314 7 months ago
@pyrrho314 ... to control other businesses of that type... e.g. refuse to allow them access to the network, run them out of business.
Furthermore, in an infrastructural state without eminent domain... the owner of a road network can, with design of a grid of roads, performed while still acting on good faith with the community, as only a transport company providing cheap transport networks, ensure no other road or ground network can be built... because they will have no right to CROSS...
pyrrho314 7 months ago
@pyrrho314 ... the roads already in existence. It's geometry.
Once such a grid is in place, the transport company can control any business within the grid, absolutely, unless that company has rights of trespass and all other protections against abuse of property.
Now, I've said this to a thousand property-tarians, and I have yet to have someone admit the poiunt... it's always "but the invisible hand wouldn't allow it!" Right.
It reveals a primarilly naive perspective about the business world
pyrrho314 7 months ago
Ayn Rand advocated the separation of state and economics, and that the state could not coerce anyone unless he/she was a criminal. These "sneaky" ways of gaining market control could be made illegal, and thereby punishable.
Of course a strong legal system would be required... I don't really know how Rand thought to fund that.
domenicsergi 10 months ago
@domenicsergi She did advocate a strong legal system funded ideally voluntarily, by theft if necessary (ie for the time being). However, she did not believe there are any "sneaky ways of gaining market control" other than through a corrupt government. I agree with her.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t Well, to put it bluntly, I think you're wrong. The politics, blackmail, intimidation (physically and otherwise), which are used by corrupt governments ARE used by significant businesses.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
This is pretty much the contention of this video, I suppose.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi You were talking about "sneaky ways to gain market control". Now you say that there are people who use the government to excercise force illegitimately. What on earth have these two things to do with each other? The latter exists and is called corruption, the former is a myth used to discredit business. The two are lumped together in a package deal, incorrectly: If I hold a gun to your head that isn't market control. If I'm the only producer, that's not robbery.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : it is not a myth john, and such statements simply seem to lack experience.
I.e. buying a rail road doesn't make you a better oil man, doesn't mean you have better refineries... but it does mean you can ship your oil for free on that line and charge the cost to your other customers, and even especially to your oil competitors.
That's possible. That happened. You are in denial.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 How's running a railroad "free"? Whoever runs it will have the costs to run it, be that someone who also does oil drilling or not. If he's good at both, why wouldn't he do both? And how can he "charge" his competitors? And if it's an economic advantage to do both (ie his costs are less), why would the customers pay more rather than less?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : as I said, this happened, so you can look up the answers in history. The reason his competitors paid more is because they needed the rail to ship oil, hello. The economic advantage of "doing both" means eventually a capitalist that does it all.. is that free market? No. Just look this stuff up, look how real economic leveral works. Think about why taking over a supply company can be used to control competitors...
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 I know it happened. It happens all the time. I fully approve of it.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : but you call it a myth. What you really believe is that pulling something off like that proves you are worth the benefit and power. Well, sure... IF YOU PULL IT OFF. good luck with that, see also antitrust law. Some of us don't approve.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 You're right, some of "us" (in fact most) don't approve, and yes, that's the rationale for antitrust laws. Of course I'm aware of that, I merely disagree with it's moral implications.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t sorry mate I wasn't very clear. The corrupt practices which governments can use in their political self interest can be used by businesses in their own economic self interest. And, as this guy says, there's more ways to attain market control than "serving the market best."
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@john42t Also, if you're the only producer because you held a gun to the only other producer's head - that IS robbery. I'm not denouncing economic anarchy (fully), but I believe that any attempt at a system of this sort would have to take these facts into consideration - I suggested a very strong and democratic system of laws.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi Then you're not a producer, obviously. Where's the gun in the railroad/oil example?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t why am I not a producer? If I'm the only producer because I've coercively gained market control, how does that exclude me as a producer?
Railroad / Oil example? Was that mentioned in this vid ?
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi : I believe so. The point is... I can be a small oil company, with wells and a refinery... an older company having built up more assets could buy the railroad I need to transports (or the pump engineering companies, etc etc). The railroad example happened with Rockefeller. Having the capital to buy things your competitors are dependent on before they eat your lunch due to innovative practices does not -prove competency-... it's just gaming the system.
game theory 101
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 Oh, I never suggested that there was a gun in the Rockefeller example, nor do I know of one. I reckon if JD can game the system legitimately, good on him.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi : it's our system, we have to and get to define "legitimately"... that's what we're discussing. What should count as legitimate. The rules of economy are not god given.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 Yeah I'm aware of that mate, but I'd argue that legitimacy is simply defined by the rule of law. If JD bought out railroads, and it was legal to do so when he did it - it's legitimate. If I set fire to a competitor's oil well, it's criminal.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 this is of course assuming that the laws which govern our society are determined democratically, which I wouln't argue that they really are. However, what would be wrong with a market anarchy if there were a set of democratically determined rules to govern it ?
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi The example was given in a comment by pyrrho314. If you obtained "market control" by enslaving someone, the the producer is not you but your slave. I wouldn't call such a thing market control though. It's not the market you're controlling, but a producer. Of course, you can be a bit of both. You could produce a bit and at the same time bully a bit. But that doesn't really change the fundamental disctinction between the two roles.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t If I control all producers though, and can therefore attain monopolistic control of the market, I have obtained Market Control, haven't I? Your argument based on semantics doesn't change the reality of the situation - I have illegitimately (by working outside of the free market, and by using coercion or force) gained the ability to be the sole supplier to a market, you have gained a monopoly.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi Yes, but other than the mafia there's no real-life example for this. However, there's plenty of examples where the government is used (ie the use of force has been legalized): education, import tarrifs, etc. The problem is that most people do acknowledge this in theory and then somehow still leap to the conclusion that some companies, eg. Microsoft or the oil/railroad companies, use "control" in some unspecified way.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : lol, yes there are. besides... what do you mean "besides the mafia"... what are you going to do about the mafia?
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@john42t I disagree when you say that there's no real world examples. The problem is you're restricting yourself to a monopoly. How about illegitimately gaining large market shares? There are dozens of examples in the port, transport, construction and food market industries where standover tactics are used. Ok, you can use semantics and call them all "mafia" (organised crime); but that doesn't reduce the number of examples.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi No, you can't call them mafia. Mafia is when you use violence. The mafia is a very limited phenomenon. The food, construction or transport industry don't use violence. They don't shoot people or break their bones (unlike the mafia), and they don't utter the threat to do so. And what else is violence?
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t I think that's fairly naive to say; all these industries use violence (painter's and dockers, mafia in the fruit markets, Union busting activities in construction. Also, "violence" could be blackmail, standover tactics, threats, rumor spreading, industrial sabotage, etc...
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@john42t Also, so far we've only covered physical force. How about if I use my friendship with the owner of a shopping centre to secure a spot in the most desirable location, whilst only allowing my competitor to set up in the back.
Or I have friends in banks who can arrange for me artificially low finance. Also, you mean to tell me that OPEC can control supply and charge artificially high prices without coercion? Fine, then I'll just go quickly buy a well and start undercutting them.
domenicsergi 8 months ago
@domenicsergi I got this answer of yours too late [...]
john42t 8 months ago
@domenicsergi [...] Great examples you make, none of the are violence or objectionable in any way or form. If you're befriended with someone owning a shopping center and giving you a special spot, it is his choice. It's his shopping center. Whether your friends in the bank have a right to give you a lower credit depends on the internals of the bank. In particular, if it is *their money*, of course the can give you a credit and deny it to others. If it's corruption, it's the banks [...]
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t business, and in the banks interest, to deal with it. No state or legal system necessary in those cases. But yes, most people call this injust or even violence. That's the problem. How's it violent to have a right over your property? That's what we're talking about, isn't it? As long as people refuse to distinguish between an honest man's decision to conduct his business as he pleases and a violent thug, the world will remain the madhouse it is.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : you are the one that refuses to distinguish, you approve of thuggish practices... of nepotism and favoratisms and want to say you believe in a meritocracy, which clearly you don't if you think someone can just put their favorites in positions of control... ONE person that deserves to put people that don't merit it into positions of power is not a meratocracy.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 When I help my relatives rather than a stranger, that's nepotism, yes. When I help a trusted friend rather than a stranger, that's favoratism, yes. And you don't like it, I know. I suspect you believe that all men should be equal in value to me. A plausible motivation is that you want me, metaphorically speaking, to value you as much as those that are actually dear to me - of course I can't be sure.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : btw, I've made a couple new videos on this called "market anarchy revisited" and "more market anarchy revisited" in the last day.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 I'm not a market anarchist by the way, I approve of the state and believe it's necessary for capitalism to function. Ironically, I thought this to be a leftist myth for a long time (in Germany they called it the stamokap theory - state monopoly capitalism). Now I agree that they might actually had it right, even though of course I use that knowledge to support the state in order to support capitalism. It's one of my favourite paradoxes.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : yes, fine, I'm glad you can see and deal with things such as that. The issue I have with you is that you think a rich guy, that deserves his wealth, doling out power to his friends, b/c their are their friends is fine... "his right". As far as I'm concerned we've tried that, it hasn't worked, it's not ok... and it's important that to you its ok that a more qualified man might lose out to the friend of a more powerful man.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 "that a more qualified man might lose out" That certainly happens sometimes, and way too often in the past. However, that's less and less the case. One of the primary reasons is what I call "connection with reality". When in business, you favor an incompetent over someone more able, you pay a price and the competition might do better. When the pope employs someone less able, it doesn't matter. That's the difference: The economy is "connected with reality" and has to answer to it.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t "When in business, you favor an incompetent over someone more able, you pay a price and the competition might do better. " This is in theory. In practice, you need people LOYAL to you to run a show with a command and control hierarchy. The incompetent are competent at loyalty. Thus you miscalculate severely. You don't understand the utility of deploying incompetent people. You think wanting to make money ensures competency... no, because of how power has to be wielded.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 "The incompetent are competent at loyalty." That's true and it's an important explanation for many historical phenomena. However, for a company dealing with real problems you underestimate the absolute necessity of competence. Microsoft, Apple, Google, they can't afford to not hire the best they can get even though they aren't loyal at all. But the best are needed no matter what. In other industries, the effect might be weaker, but is still present.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t : I am 43, and have worked for a lot of companies, startups, big companies, such as AT&T in R&D... you are entirely mistaken. Incompetency explained only by perceived loyalty and also by the propagation of incompetance no doubt traceable to nepotism/loyalty based decisions is the RULE.
Indeed, I have only worked for multi-million dollar concerns and this is my experience... all you need is enough competancy to survive, after that, people are going for their own power structure.
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 : btw, I encourage you to take part in the later videos... if you click my name they are at the moment recent (within the last 6)
pyrrho314 8 months ago
@pyrrho314 I don't have that much experience, but yeah, I know what you mean. However, I also went to school once. There is no way to exaggerate the incompetence, the utter simplicity and dumbness of my teachers to what I've seen in the economy. Teachers are (in Germany) paid by the government (and *never* fired).
john42t 8 months ago
as long as there are more than one capitalist they cant controll the market
unfad1ng 10 months ago
Forgive me for any reduncancy, as I haven't read the comments below.
Capitalists do not control markets. It's impossible. Their consumers, in accordance w/ laws of supply and demand, control markets.
You are correct in that men have found "clever ways" to control customers. This ought to be expected. However, the problem is *not* the clever capitalist, but the citizens who lack the critical thinking skills to NOT buy their product -- which is the fault of STATE education, not capitalism.
deadsilentnight 10 months ago 2
@deadsilentnight that would be fine but means that capitalists, in order to have a working system, need to ensure the people are educated. Sadly, they think that's a socialist idea, and don't realize capitalism requires it.
pyrrho314 10 months ago
@pyrrho314
the problem is that people on the right tend to think that everything socialsit is nessecarly bad just because its socialism.
Socialism isnt a working system everyone knows that but that doesnt mean there are not any good parts of it.
Socialism has a few good parts. Like statefunded schooling which is a socialist idea that acctually is a good idea.
And also state financed hospitals for the poor is a good idea.
Apart from those two free market capitalism is almost infallibale
unfad1ng 10 months ago
@pyrrho314 If by "they" you mean "neo-conservative whack-jobs", then yes, I agree. However, Objectivists and laissez-faire capitalists believe public schools (state indoctrination camps) ought to be 100% abolished. Also, if you read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, he claims that capitalism may exist if and only when preceded by absolute liberty, and all other versions breed absolute tyranny -- the latter of which (state education, welfare, mixed economy) must NEVER be mistaken for the former :)
deadsilentnight 10 months ago
@deadsilentnight : right, Objectivists are therefore confused, they don't realize that buyer-beware and free market works only with education, and other basic freedoms secured by an infrastructure....
pyrrho314 10 months ago
A true free market cannot exist in a society with a government that forces the ownership of the commons.
Ideas are as free as air, you can as much control an idea once shared as you can the air you exhale. But patent law is a perfect and prime example of government not simply encouraging monopoly but, in fact, creating it.
There is nothing wrong with non-coercive non-fraudulent business tactics. It's up to the competitors to catch up and juries to convict those guilty of fraud or force.
mdrdrm 1 year ago
This is an important issue. However, the solution is not totalitarianism. If the choice is between one a-hole who owns a creek and a worldwide system of slavery, ill take the jerk who bought my creek. the choice is simple really. No one said capitalism was perfect. in fact perfection is impossible, the only way to achieve such an ends is through the violent force of government.
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
Comment removed
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
With respect, the truth is the exact opposite. By definition, it is the socialists and communists who want to control the market. Once a capitalist tries to control the market, then they are no longer a capitalist, but a dictator.
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
@heyheymonkees : that's great. I think you should do us a service and define the type of capitalism where people cannot buy water rights.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314
that's easy. the American kind. if you do an objective and emotionally honest and emotionally unbiased investigation of the facts you'll find this to be true. I don't appreciate the condescending tone very much. I was respectful to you, I expect the same in return.
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
@heyheymonkees : it was not condescending, I'm serious. I think such a definition would be useful to us all. But so far I think you are mistaken, American capitalism allows buying water rights.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@heyheymonkees
lol. oops. in that case, i sincerely apologize. to be honest, water rights is one of the biggest issues at the moment and it is an area i need to do more research on myself. That said, I suspect the way it works is that a company such as the lumber one makes these "purchases" from the government. The government then gives the rights of one person's land and resources to another. Is this correct?
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
@heyheymonkees : well in California here is how it worked, the lumber companies bought tons of land, which included all the rights, and diverted water to build sluices so they could float logs down from the mountains to mills. When they eventually sold this land, they sold it without the water rights, which for years were kept for various purposes. Later, these right were sold, not to the land owners, e.g. I lived on a creek for years where it was not legal to take water from the creek even...
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 ... to water your lawn. A golf course just down stream had bought the rights to water the course, which in fact would run the creek dry. The golf course had gone out of business, the creek did not run dry, but you still did not have the water rights, a small inn was using the property but not maintaining the golf course.
Iow, when you sell land, you do not have to sell all the rights to it, you can create arbitrary rights and keep them, and they are like a lien on the land.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
Pyrrho your not taking into account that most if not all recorded government bussiness monopoly's where in some way or fashion, came about with the intervention and help of the government. Its a consequence of intervention and regulation many suffer while other prosper at its hands. Just look at fanny mae and freddie. Other banks fail while at the governments hands these banks became to big! So the government bailed them out. Trust me look everywhere hard and you will see what im saying.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
@Bigturns33 but I'm saying look at where government came from. Laiisez faire economic activities that buil and then assert security forces.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314
That's not where government came from. You should read the declaration of independence.
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
Capitalism is the final chapter in historic evolution of THE TYRANNY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP of alienation,exploitation and suffering of humanity, a Market mechanism where minority interest is the NEGATION OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY IN COOPERATION and HARMONY. We shall overcome the structure of minority power and oppression and reclaim our planet for a world of cooperation for our common neeand well being, expressing our energetic creative divinity in freedom of being.
arzoyan 1 year ago
There can be no monopoly without government intervention and favouritism. There never was, there never will be.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag : doesn't it bother you that you have to repeat slogans like mantras in order to believe this? how about reason instead of the power of self-hypnosis.
there is no justification for that belief. you think it's proved... well it's not and the rest of us won't go for it if you can't do better... imo. you are welcome to your opinion.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 I'm not saying that so I can believe, I'm saying that so people like you can start believing it :) ...well, no, not believing actually, it's not about belief as such, it's about facts. And facts are that never in the history of mankind there has been a monopoly that has been not created by the government. Never. You are entitled to your opinion as well, but this is not an opinion, it's a fact.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag : thing is I think about this a lot and have done... I don't see it. Why can't a monopoly form if I say, manager to get all the property or rights of a certain type? All that's required is that you respect my property rights, which I'm assuming you support... property rights that is. Granted private business coops government, but that's the nature of a private business using anything it can, not government... without government, they form their own security to protect their property.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 What do you mean "of a certain type"? You cannot force your competitors out of business without government intervention, how could you? You can only "beat" them, by providing better and cheaper products and that's beneficial to everyone. So many times men have tried to monopolize and they always failed. And sure, you can protect your property, but a competitors product is not your property.
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag : If I legally aquire the water rights for colorado, then all my competing water companies must have sold out to me, or otherwise gone out of business allowing me to buy their assets. At this point, no new companies are able to sell water in Colorado, because you want). That's how.
People use injustice to obtain the property rights (see US) and then use property rights to maintain their monopoly. All you need for monopoly is property rights, without it, people will take your monopoly.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 So you're selling water and you bought someone else's company that sells water too. What prevents me from selling water in Colorado in that scenario?
khunag 1 year ago
@khunag : I said "water rights". You can buy water rights from people, they then DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT ANY LONGER TO GET WATER off their land. FOR EXAMPLE: in california the lumber companies bought the water rights to all surface water, to use for flumes etc. and though they are gone, the water rights are held by different people than the other land rights, and you may NOT take water from a stream going across your land, .e.g. to water your lawn.
There is no reason I can't...
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 : buy all the such rights in a county, or county by county a state, or state by state a nation... nothing but anti-monopoly law, which has to be enforced.
If I legally bought all the water rights, and I sincerely am a productive business-man, and don't gouge, is that not possible and legitimate?
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Oh, that's what you mean, that's just retarded :P Not your argument, the system, I definitely don't support that, If you own a piece of land you can do whatever you want with it, and any agreements between third parties do not concern you.
khunag 1 year ago
@pyrrho314
This isn't capitalism. The purchasing of water rights is what happens in socialist communist countries. What we have today are corporations (don't forget corporatism is not the same thing as capitalism) masquerading around as legitimate capitalists, giving capitalism a bad wrap.
heyheymonkees 1 year ago
@khunag I agree 100% with your statement.
MrHolipsism 1 year ago
@MrHolipsism : well, it's retarded but people have shown a love for controlling choke points, and if you don't address it your system is lame.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 I agree 100% with your statement as well. There in lies the quandary
MrHolipsism 1 year ago
You should really have read some Rothbard instead of Molyneux.
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
The AT&T monopoly was ended when the government STOPPED regulating phone service. Capitalism is the natural economic system of a free people. Socialism is the attempt to control freedom because you don't think it's fair. If you have more money than me I can put a gun to your head and take it. To a liberal that's economic justice
Phatman956 1 year ago
You evidently don't know how corporations merge with government to create monopoly.
Monopoly is IMPOSSIBLE in a free market. If you're going to attack this aspect of anarcho-capitalism, you better study the argument with greater detail and find out how it's been thoroughly refuted time and time again.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : I'm well aware of the objectivist and market anarchist theories. What is a free market? Unregulated == free? Then monopoly IS possible. What mechanism does not allow monopoly? A man with all the local water rights has a monopoly in water, all he needs is a way to claim those rights. MAs claim there is a way to make such a claim without a govenrment... then there is a way to have a monopoly without one. QED
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Well Ayn Rand wasn't an Anarchist.She still defended the role of government, and did believe the state should get involved in the market. ex: Intellectual Property rights.So she's not a good example. And on monopoly. It is absurd for a man to CLAIM "rights" over ALL the water in an area just because. The only way he can maintain and enforce this monopolization of water, is through "Government" sponsored "rights" through the use of force and coercion.
In a free market you simply can't.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Monopolies don't occur in the free market. Monopolies start with the government. First they create a monopoly of violence. It is part of the definition of government. The that initial monopoly, laws are created to limit the the amount of competitors or to exclude any competitor. Government grant executives of corporations no legal liability, so BP executives will lose any sort of substantial wealth, even though they caused a massive disaster. The housing occurred because of the state.
Herv3 1 year ago
@Herv3 : that is a fairy tale. If you look at the origins of governments... in the absense of law and order they have to mount hteir own militaries.
Monopolies are possible whenever one person control an entire resource.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 If I show you the origins of religion, does that make the violence committed by religion any less? The state is violence.
The only way a person or business can control an entire resource is with violence and since the state has a monopoly, that is exactly how monopolies are formed. It is done through law that company X or Union B bribes the state into making(still enforced with violence). These kind of monopolies are not a product of the free market.
Herv3 1 year ago
@Herv3 : that's another myth, the state doesn't ahve a monopoly on violence, it has a monopoly on the justice system which determines if violence was justified.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Now you're living in a fairy tale. The State uses violence to do everything it does. From taxes to imprisonment. If the state didn't have violence, it would get nothing done. Now we have seen the negative effects of the state this past decade with over 1.1 million dead Iraqi and now with Obama escalating the war Afghanistan we see that the violence from the state is bipartisan.
Herv3 1 year ago
@Herv3 : don't use so much hyperbole... there is an implicit threat of force working among governments... but force is not used, e.g. to deliver the mail.
I have seen the destructive force of states, but not seen it is the ONLY descructive force.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 It's not hyperbole. Over a million have died in Iraq since the invasion an occupation. This doesn't include the Afghanistan or the torture committed by the government. This is all paid for in the same way that all other inefficient. Through the threat and use of violence of taxation. If you think that is hyperbole try skipping your tax bill.
Herv3 1 year ago
@Herv3 : i t's hyperbole to say that everything the government does is violent. I agree about the crie s of government, but those are alo our crimes, and t does no make the government the only criminal.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : you guys have a fairy tale. WIthout government, private organizations mount their own armies to survive and become governents.
it's history, I'm not bound to believe your fairy tale because of course private enterprises can have monopolies. There is nothing in your system to prevent, it you simply say "study up till you realize it's unpossible!" I've studied up. It not impossible.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 haha.
First of all let me ask you a question. I respect your choice not to practice free-trade, (i.e. trade goods and services between individuals). I would just like to ask you if you would respect my practice of selling, and trading goods and services?
i'm personally in support of socialism, so long as it doesn't turn into come collectivist mob that try's to impose it on unwilling people. I hope you hold the same individualistic anarchist approach.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : I do practice free-trade, can't you deal with my actual positions?
I respect that practice. The fact that some practices need regulation doesn't change that. If you deal with large amounts of industrial chemicals, I beleve we need to agree on standards for handling such a danger. If you think that imposes on your freedom, I'm sorry.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 REGULATION?
YOu didn't read what i had to say. So long as we who practice it don't impose it on anyone, or harm anyone too, then there shouldn't be a problem. When you say there MUST be REGULATION, then you're making a statist argument. YOu're contradicting yourself!
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : "So long as we who practice it don't impose it on anyone, or harm anyone too, then there shouldn't be a problem. " That's a regulation you just stated.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : can I act to stop harm? Do I have to wait until the mercury comes downstream to my land 2 miles away, or can I say "you can't dump it in the stream, because we know it will pollute other people's property"?
Why couldn't I do that? That's regulation.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Oh so you're talking a preemptive strike? haha the hypocrisy. Then should we also regulate individuals? Should i pose a regulation on you, or what? Should i wait untill you pick up an ice pick and stab me to death?
That's statism buddy. IN that case we should pose regulations on everything that could potentially harm us. However the bigger question is who will regulate? Ahh yes, the only ones who have a monopoly to do that. Government :)
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan : so your answer is I have to let a guy poison my water and complain afterward?
There are regulations on those things, doesn't mean they can't be reasonable. You are prohibited from TRYING to attack me with an ice pick. I don't have to wait until I'm bleeding to death to have you arrested for it.
You call that regulation then yes, I'm for that.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 No, my response would be exactly the one you would have to a guy with an ice pick. The basic understanding in an anarchy is to not infringe on the liberties, life, or property of another.
Now, the same applies to your hypothetical "Capitalist". The company must be responsible enough to make sure the corporation doesn't poison the water. And in any case, the water would be public property, and there will surely be a business that is in the business of water filtration. So more jobs.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
@SunBeamsan btw, you're taking a very Black and white approach to Capitalism. If you understood market dynamics you'd realize Capitalism is the most successful economic system in advancing human development. Th technology you use every day that makes you're life easier is a product of entrepreneurial spirit. To this point i have not found a more economically efficient way of improving the lot of the ordinary man that can even reach a fraction of the capacities of the free-market.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
I don't agree with a lot of Ayn Rand. But to be fair, if you read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, she describes two kinds of capitalists--her ideal pure type, who tries to progress and work from internal motivations, and looters and second-handers who work largely for external motivations. Capitalism fails in those books because the latter type of capitalists dominate the former types. Rand's fantasy resolution consists of her ideal types going on strike and forming a world of their own!
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jacko38 1 year ago
well said, very good point!
luarwick125 1 year ago
Apologists are just disconnected from reality. They won't realize how so backwards capitalism has become until the material conditions that it creates stops favouring them.
hithlum 1 year ago
This man is a moron. He says there are "sneaky ways" for Capitalists to control markets and then fails to define what those ways are. Talk about not using your brain.
rdsearcy 1 year ago 2
@rdsearcy : what they are? I'll tell you in a video, how's that? I'm not always in that condition my wise wise friend, so astute.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
that is left for you as an exercise
luarwick125 1 year ago
Lose the capital alltogether.
cynosureCSAF 1 year ago
of course individual capitalists want to control the market, and he might do it for a certain time, but it is impossible for him to maintain the monopoly for long periods without coercion from the goverment, thats the key, the capitalist may have a monopoly for a certain time, but without the goverment interveining he is always opet to competition which in time will demonopolize him
mtklaric 2 years ago
the government will always "intervene" because it enforces the property rights of this capitalist... and the property allows coercion...
pyrrho314 2 years ago
@pyrrho314 there is a term for what you are trying to go for, its called Free Market Capitalism, businessmen don't control markets without government aid,
pthompson2010 2 years ago
Another way to phrase this is Free Markets do not equate to free firms. Under a system of market liberation the behavior of a firm is not necessarily liberated. In fact under heavy regulation, mercantilism, or market socialism the freedom a firm has to exploit workers or pursue profit may paradoxically be expanded.
rayyf69 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 are you anti private property of the means of pro.... then, pyrrho?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
I don't know what that means, but I'm not anti private property at all.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
The question is weather you want to be inside or outside the matrix.You may like to be in the matrix because even though at the end of the day you are nothing but a battery but still the matrix gives you the illusion that you are a superstar
Or you hate may it and rebel.
Waadee101 2 years ago
Its about the individuals who form the comunity...for example youtube may decide to delete this video but pyrrho will still find a way to communicate which is the basis of Objectivisum.Its selfish but its not forced
Waadee101 2 years ago
how do you gain a monopoly on a market without using force? all i heard you say was sneaky ways. would you show an example of how its possible?
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
DickeyRogers, Do you really think you are going to get an answer to that question ?
These are "SNEAKY" ways- you just take it at face value and dont question any more- i think that he is half drunk anyways..
Btw, if people were AS SUSPICIOUS of pols who promise everything to every one, it would be better. I can bet that this guy with all his sincerity believes that if something is decided by a majority of Congressmen, it must be ok-after all they are elected!
nagee76 2 years ago
ill take your bet
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
this video is underrated,
should have at least 4 stars,
damn those market youtubers.
good job bro
greenhell666 2 years ago
Capital is power. Period. Regulations are necessary.
HailRasec 2 years ago
ya but in a free market, its not like you have stolen that power, that power was voted to you because you provided a service/product worth that power.
who the hell voted the government all this capital? regulations are necessary but they supposedly were there. The constitution is a contract between the people and the state. contract breached, people got to relearn why that contract was there in the first place.
DickeyRogers 2 years ago
You should ask yourself, "If businessmen controlling markets is a problem, what causes that problem and how do we stop it?". Behind the businessman's market control is the laws and coercion of a state. If you eliminate the state, you eliminate the mechanism of control.
JakeTheShake 2 years ago
no, without government we call the people that gain mechanisms of control "warlords".
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I love how this guy was (at least looks so) drunk while doing this.
One drunk guy is smarter than 300million Randians.
LordShivasServant 2 years ago
sorry ive taken over page one :-(
markgg1 2 years ago
I come across this so much on u tube
People have these great philosophical ideas.. such as Rand and others. They sound brillaint dont they
But noone ever uses the evidence of society as examples. We can clearly see that trickle down, doesnt happen in free markets.. or that monopolys dont happen
Wal Mart along with the Chinese Army are some of the biggest employers in the world... This shows we need a balacne between public and private. You cannot tell me Wal Mart is not a monopoly
markgg1 2 years ago
You are wrong about a Capitalist's view on monopolies. Capitalists believe monopolies would not exist in a free market society and not that giving the best service or product will create a monopoly. Government intervention is the cause of all monopolies. I am not arguing this point now. I only wanted to clarify the position. I do appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts on the matter.
TayDup 2 years ago
No bu the evidence we have shows that this is not the case.
Government only gets involved when business gets too large, in the form of competition watchdogs etc.. for exampl, the EU has told Sky that they cannot own all the rights of premiership football (small example)
In my country Tesco is getting very large and made excessive profits. There is talk within governmenr of using competition rules to stop them from, for example exapnding their 'small' shops which put corner shops out.
markgg1 2 years ago
Citing two examples of when gov gets involved in regulating monopolies does not prove that "government only gets involved when business gets too large." Don't you believe there are gov regulations that keep monopolies in power? Making it harder for smaller co.'s to get involved. And that these regulations are lobbied for by big business lobbyists? It's no secret that big business uses sneaky (by means of force) ways to get monopolistic power but only through the means of government.
TayDup 2 years ago
Oh no, I completely agree and you bring up a excellent point. In the USA big businesses have a lot of control... but this is the point... This has occured because noone has faith in the state so they cannot flex their muscles to stop them.
I think this situation can only occur in a free market, because in a state where we are skeptical of big business this couldnt happen.
What im arguing about is the principle of gov regualtion.. and there are many examples, I was just illustrating.
markgg1 2 years ago
No one has faith in the state to stop lobbyists from lobbying the state? I have lost your reasoning.
TayDup 2 years ago
Why dont we give the gov our consent to never let big business take advantage, and to promote small businesses. I think in business there should be a progressive taxation only on profits.. this way noone can make the excuse that it will cost jobs to pay the taxes.
We cant allow business to make excessive profits anymore! There is a finite amount of money in an economy and its crazy when a tiny fraction of people have most of it...
Im a capitalist, but it must work in the public interest
markgg1 2 years ago
We have already given the gov consent to let big business take advantage! I do not want to give big business or gov consent to do anything. Why do you think gov's are more virtuous than big business? The taxes argument is another issue. The finite amount of money is yet another. I really appreciate the conversation but with such brief amount of space even though the thoughts are linked please try to stay on one argument.
TayDup 2 years ago
No we havent.. People have become so disillusioned by politics they are inactive allowing the people to vote for to do what they like
This can be changed, but it never will when people's attitude is that the 'state' should say outa their lives.
The government is supposed to just be the people as an organisation, but in the extreme individualist attitude of America it is not about that anymore - this is why your society is failing. I jus hope a slight left lean from Obama will improve thing
markgg1 2 years ago
History has shown that monopolies don't exist unless there IS government interference and regulation. If a monopoly were to arise and become corrupt (which is the only reason to hate a monopoly), in an economically free society, another business could arise UNCORRUPTED and take all their business. Which is what I'd do in television if it wasn't so fuckin' impossible to start a TV network. How easy would it be to steal viewers if you could actually produce GOOD shows?
onlythequestion 2 years ago
how easy would it be if you can jam their signal, or a wealthy station can jam yours?
as for history showing... that is a logical fallacy a mile wide... since when did we have no government? to compare with... post hoc ergo propter hoc, we have never had objectivism develop without there being government as well.
You have to show a relation... and while gov can aid monopoly, it's also the only thing stopping naturally forming ones.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
the government has to be involved in a market in order for there to be a monopoly in that market. If there is no Gov. regulating by means of force (fines and jail time) then anybody has the right to compete. witch means no monopoly. So onlythequestion is correct. Oh ya and ppl like the mob do it as well but thats a little different.
lexxlutherr 2 years ago
Having the right to compete does not mean having the mean to... but also, do you not support IP then? If a company invents something, is there no protection against others using the invention?
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Yes having the right is not the same as having the means, need more from you to understand tho. and I totally support Intellectual property im in a hurry but there will be more if you reply. thanks for the convo
lexxlutherr 2 years ago
IP means private monopoly is possible.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Great example
The mob shows us that with no regulation at all, monopolys pop up almost instantly.
A big business would mug us in the streets, if it were legal. They do not function on morality (and why should they) but they fucntion within a regulatroy framework the state (voted by the people) have set up.
America is the most 'free market' of the west, and you guys have the worst social problems. Our attitude over here is that we collectively in the form of government need to address CT
markgg1 2 years ago
.... social problems
Who will build freeways? No one individual is going to pay for this? The onyl way to pay for a freeway is we coorporatviely put the money in together. Or another way of sayingn it is, we vote for the dept of transport, give them a cut of our salarys and expect them to pay
Evidence suggests that Ayn Rands world view is wrong. i see how she got the views, but government intervention is not morally wrong.. it depends on HOW they intervene. providing education/health is ok
markgg1 2 years ago