Well the austrians got me and I was an ex Progressive (mainly because I was a strong candidate in Keynesianism because I feared the corporations and disliked monetary policy). All you have to do is tell people to read a little bit about the accurate political and economic history while having the understanding of some economics. Lots of leftist don't even understand economics
The modern state is a product of private property. You guys really are stupid if you think we're actually going to fall for this nonsense again. Especially when you set it up with totalitarian strawmen. The free market already exists, it's the interstate economy.
The modern state(And any other historical state, for that matter), by its very nature, is an ENEMY of private property. More state=less private property. Less state=more private property. A very simple equation, which every person would do a great service to himself by understanding it.
@Akatam0t0ma You are a bonehead. The state is private property, private property is the state. They are the same fucking thing, they just have different landlords.
Err ,no, the state is NOT private property, it is an institution which is defined as a monopoly on the initiation of force in a geographical area, and has NOTHING to do with private property Also, it's public property, according to modern democratic theory.
No, it's not "private property" in any way, shape or form. Private property is based on the non-aggression principle, while statism is based on violence. And if you are trying to win an argument by throwing meaningless phrases like "selfish parasites", then you have failed miserably. We all have our self-interests, and there is nothing wrong with that, so please get off that phony pedestal of "oh I'm so more moral than thou became I'm so unselfish". You are as selfish as the next guy.
@Akatam0t0ma No it isn't. Private property is created by force. I'm not putting myself on a pedestal you ingrate fuck.
You are a brainwashed moron. That is all you are. There isn't going to be an argument. You are a robot. Programmed by corporatists to do there bidding. Wake the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
@ourben They're not brainwashed, they're just children. They want the rest of the universe to swirl around the immovable rock of their "private property". The insistence of these retards on natural rights is hilarious. If you were living by yourself in the wilderness in some any rand-esqe masturbatory fantasy, nature won't give a flying fuck about your "right" to life, liberty, or property, if you catch malaria/polio/die of starvation/etc. The fact is that rights are meaningless without society
So here's a very simple equation for you: Private property=civilization. No private property=No civilization. It's as simple as that, and no amount of intellectual acrobatics from statist pseudo-intellectuals and freedom equivocators will change it. Got it? Good. Now go give a blowjob to a loaded pistol and squeeze the trigger for being so willfully obtuse and for trying to play that "more moral than thou cause I'm oh so unselfish" card, drone.
@Akatam0t0ma What are you talking about you clown? A simple equation what? Proving what? You fucking reptile. Here's an equation: you=cunt, no cunts=better world. Does it prove anything? No. Does it mean anything? No. Is it an argument of any kind? No. It's just a wanker on the internet who's had the misfortune of running into an even bigger wanker.
Kill yourself by any means possible. Kill your entire family, assuming it is, you have defooed and buried them under the patio already.
Prominent conservatives and libertarians have said the same thing.
If we, as Libertarians, want to push forward politically, we should target the handouts and intervention for the rich. No bailouts, no farm subsidies, no tax credits to favorables (like new energy types). This will show our goal is a free state, not a corporatist.
@jrsub3 Well that's very noble of you, but the objective facts of our world demonstrate that so far, the libertarian strategy of taking over America has been to buy politicians. So I think I stand for most of the world (the portion of the world that isn't spouting raving, batshit insane political theory) when I tell you to go fuck yourself.
Also, the plain fact is that despite libertarians' constant screaming about COMMUNISM, libertarianism is just as, if not more utopian and idealistic. But the thing is, these people have trained themselves over the years to absolutely ignore any sort of cognitive dissonance, any conflict of ideas, whatsoever. They might hold 6 opinions at once that conflict with each other and the real world, but it doesn't matter. That's probably the most unfortunate thing about human nature.
A simple way of saying it is that there is only capitalism; socialism is a subcategory of capitalism, referring to monopoly capitalism. Monopoly or state capitalism is at one end, while freed markets is at the other. At the monopoly end, there is still property (capital), but it belongs to the monopoly. The doctrine of Distributism lends itself to this discussion
I'm someone who has some left-libertarian leanings. My problem with right-libertarians is that, despite criticizing the political elite, they often don't want to criticize the capitalist elite. This guy's ideas about conflationism perfectly describe this problem. It's the only thing keeping right-libertarians from understanding why left-libertarians criticize all elite, both political and capitalist. Big biz & big govt arose at the same time. There is a revolving door between them.
@MarmaladeINFP As a "right libertarian" I concur with you entirely. I hate the corporate elite even more than the politcal elite because they act as if they are titans of the free market and capitalism. They are nothing more than swindlers of the public and there is nothing to be proud of when your business depends on handouts and favorable regulations from the government. I think we need to tear down this veneer of infallibility that many conservatives and some libertarians give to big business
@BeachedWhale09 I don't assume right-libertarianism inherently means not criticizing big biz. Many right-libertarians will criticize crony capitalism & corporatism, but it isn't always clear to me that these people are necessarily against having a plutocratic elite... just as long as it is rationalized as being earned through 'meritocracy'. As I see it, a free market, a moral capitalism, a democratized economy can't function when wealth & power is concentrated, whether in big govt or big biz.
@MarmaladeINFP If you become wealthy by enticing people to give you there money through only moral means, how can being good at it then somehow become immoral?
@Hashishin13 I don't argue about intentions because many claim good intentions and there is no way to objectively measure intentions. There is no such thing as a moral means for any means can be moral or immoral depending on the intentions. All I care about are the results. No matter how intentions and means are rationalized, the results of concentrated wealth and power isn't moral in that it harms more people than it helps, harms all of society. The data is very strong on this point.
@MarmaladeINFP If I sell you sugar with the intent of you eventually getting diabetes, I'm still doing nothing wrong. You would have to willingly buy my sugar for my plan to succeed so therefore all responsibility is on you. Trying to say that anything can be used morally or immorally is ridiculously absurd. Go look up the definitions or moral and immoral, you must be mistaken.
Yea keep saying that "the data" backs you up, great arguement.
@Hashishin13 'Willing' is such a vague term that can mean many things to many people. Is an addict willing? Is someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome willing? Is someone who only knows propaganda and acts on that propaganda willing? Is someone who makes a purchases based on the lies and deception of false advertising willing?
Yes, the data backs up my position. I realize rightwingers don't like facts, but some of us prefer to base our views on something other than belief, bias, and opinion.
@MarmaladeINFP False advertising is fraud, a crime. Selling something like drugs or weapons will always be only for sane adults.
Stockholm's is a mental illness, I don't think being an addict is. People should be able to make their own choices. Alternatives can be presented but addiction isn't a disease or illness, its a character flaw at most. Especially when you consider how broad and easily mis-applied the term "addict" is.
@Hashishin13 Yes, there is much fraud in our capitalist system, but it's hard to prove & even harder to prosecute. Big biz has many complex subtle ways to deceive & big biz has lots of lawyers to defend their interests.
Stockholm's, technically, isn't a mental illness. It's a condition that anyone can experience when held captive, especially when stressed over long periods of time.
Addiction, technically, is a mental illness. Some people have genetic/biological predispositions to addiction.
@Mar "Stockholm's, technically, isn't a mental illness. It's a condition that anyone can experience when held captive, especially when stressed over long periods of time."
Asserting that "anyone can get it" doesn't make your assertion true. I will never love my captors, but I gotta tell you you seem to have Stockholm's for your socialist overlords who are stealing half your income+ and trying to tell you how to live.
A genetic predisposition means NOTHING, psychopaths aren't always criminals.
@Hashishin13 I'm just speaking of facts. Accept the facts or don't. I really don't care. However, it doesn't bother me that you feel compelled to spread your ignorance. You don't even know what socialism is. What we have in this country is a combination of neoconservatism, neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and corporatism. An interesting shift has occurred. It used to be that fascism meant that govt served the interests of capitalism, but now corporations almost completely control our govt.
"Is someone who only knows propaganda and acts on that propaganda willing?"
"Propaganda" is a pretty meaningless word without a context. Most people call anything they disagree with "propaganda", so yes people should be able to make up their own minds, do you not understand why freedom is important?
"I realize rightwingers don't like facts,"
Yea I'm the "rightwinger" anti-theist pro-drug leagalization libertarian, see how meaningless and wrong your label is?
@Hashishin13 Propaganda has a precise meaning & has been studied in great detail by sociologists, political scientists & historians. What average people call "propaganda" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual propaganda. You are avoiding my question. Propaganda works because it undermines the ability to make up one's own mind.
You're a rightwinger because you are a simpleminded anti-intellectual. You criticize one set of rightwing beliefs to defend another set of rightwing beliefs.
@MarmaladeINFP I'm an anti-intillectual because I don't believe you when you baselessly claim "the data is on my side" huh? I went to your retarded article.. GERMANY HAS ALWAYS BEEN WEALTHY. When it was 50 different indpendent city states it was still wealthier then the rest of europe. It has continuously been the wealthiest region in europe for hundreds of years, its GEOGRAPHY not politics that makes them wealthy.
@Hashishin13 Germany had a lot of financial problems earlier in the 20th century which contributed to the world wars. During WWII, Germany experienced massive destruction to its industry and infrastructure. It took a while for Germany to get back on it's feet. Germany's economy was restructured after WWII. Also, Germany wasn't always union-friendly as it is now. The Nazis killed and put into concentration camps many of the socialist activists and union leaders.
@MarmaladeINFP So your saying they were poor when they were being hosed by the allies after the Treaty of Versailles and also after their country was carpet bombed into oblivion, is this surprising to you? You ignored or simply won't admit that I'm right in stating that Germany has ALWAYS been wealthy and that it has everything to do with gewopgraphy and nothing to do with "unions" or "socialism".
@Hashishin13 It's not surprising to me, but apparently it is to you. It disproves your claim that they've always been rich. And you have a weird notion that it doesn't matter what a country does just as long as it's located in a good place. So that is how people get rich, move into a rich neighborhood & the money starts to flow? I thought Germans created a wealthy society through hardwork & ingenuity. I thought Germans had low wealth disparity because they have high social mobility. Silly me.
@MarmaladeINFP "And you have a weird notion that it doesn't matter what a country does just as long as it's located in a good place. So that is how people get rich, move into a rich neighborhood & the money starts to flow?"
I never said that they would be rich regardless of whatever happens, I am saying that if they have been rich throughout their history(which they have) then it stands to reason that the soft socialism they are under now wouldn't destroy everything.
@Hashishin13 You're still ignoring the data. Germany's economy isn't just stronger than the US economy but also has less wealth disparity. You ignore the fact that countries with high union membership tend to have less wealth disparity. You ignore that lower rates of wealth disparity correlate to fewer social problems and more social mobility. It's not just about money. Authoritarian societies can be wealthy (such as Nazi Germany & Communist China) but they tend not to lave low wealth disparity.
@MarmaladeINFP Also wealth isn't veerything. Nazi Germany had a lot of wealth, thye just through it all at the military and government. Wealth isn't whats important to live happily, freedom is.
"I thought Germans had low wealth disparity because they have high social mobility. Silly me."
I keep hearing this moronic term "social mobility" as if there were actual classes to move between. In any country that isn't totalitarian, the geniuses will be rich if they try, is that "social mobility"?
@Hashishin13 That is precisely my point. Wealth isn't everything. Along with more wealth than the US, Germany has lower wealth disparity, higher social mobility (means working hard leads to economic & career betterment), fewer social problems, higher union membership (with a union member required to be on every corporate board), a strong community-oriented banking system, & better social safety net. You know where high wealth disparity is found? In Banana Republics... which the US is becoming.
Did you even READ my response? I'm an anti-theist drug legalizing ANARCHIST. How is any of that "rightwing"? You want to talk about simple minded? I wouldn't be throwing stones Mr. I make a label and stick to it even if its moronic.
@MarmaladeINFP So its "right wing" to support freedom in your opinion? All that I have "espoused" is a bias in favour of freedom. I'm sorry if you think "right wingers" are in favour of freedom, they are aboutequal to "left wingers" just in different ways.
Tell me what I said which you regard to be "right wing".
@MarmaladeINFP Really? Now I'm "far right" because I asked you to point out something? Your a joke. I've rarely seen anyone entrench themselves like this. I ask for evidence and you call me Hitler, very rational of you.
Except for the fact that all the "far right" were SOCIALISTS. You know what the "zi" in "Nazi" meant? SOCIALISTS!
@Hashishin13 It's just a fact that all your stated opinions are commonly found on the far right. It's just a fact. For example, rightwingers are the only ones who ever claim that Nazis are socialists. Those who are more well educated know that the Nazis killed socialists or put them into concentration camps. If it makes you feel ashamed to be identified with rightwingers, maybe you seek to educate yourself about the actual data which the far right rarely does.
@MarmaladeINFP Just keep parroting the words "fact" and "data" over and over, it really makes me see your point.
Oh so the socialists don't like to point out that the Nazis were socialists and so this somehow proves that they weren't? So by your logic everything your opponents say is false and everything your comrades say is true, I think I'm done with arguing.
@Hashishin13 Anyone can label themselves as anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're what they claim. Nazis didn't practice socialism & so they're claims are meaningless. It's similar to how Reagan used libertarian rhetoric while implementing neocon/neoliberal policies.
I change my mind as I learn new info & gain new perspectives. Offer me a logical argument based on data & will consider it seriously, but you've offered nothing of worth. OTOH I've offered you data & you ignored it.
@MarmaladeINFP What did Nazis practise then? Nominally private capitalism, i.e. a form of socialism where the government fronted its operations with private corporations? I don't see the difference...
@Moragauth Nazis were fasicists which is an ideology that is widely acknowledged to mostly attract the far right. Fascism typically includes elements of ethnocentric nationalistim, folk religiosity & apocalyptic/millennial tendencies. It's often defined according to the following 14 traits:
1. Powerful & Continuing Nationalism 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause 4. Supremacy of the Military 5. Rampant Sexism 6. Controlled Mass Media 7. Obsession with National Security 8. Religion & Government are Intertwined 9. Corporate Power is Protected 10. Labor Power is Suppressed 11. Disdain for Intellectuals & the Arts 12. Obsession with Crime & Punishment 13. Rampant Cronyism & Corruption 14. Fraudulent Elections
@MarmaladeINFP So these points are supposed to be defining "the far right wing" which you accuse me of being? Not one of those 14 points represents me at all. I'm not socially conservative at all either. Also I'm opposed to all the points you listed, except I think we would disagree on what counts as "Labour Power is Supressed", as I assume you mean that labourers should be able to form unions who have coercive power over their bosses, beyond that which every worker naturally has.
@Hashishin13 I was responding to your comment where you falsely or ignorantly claimed Nazis were socialists. I was explaining to you what fascism is. Why did you think I was calling you a fascist? No where in my comments did I say you were a fascist.
Also you can list things all day that seem to be against modern day socialism, but thats because your ignoring the definition of socialism. Socialism isn't about being moderate or tolerant at all, its simply the government interfering with the economy through taxes and regulations, more commonly redistributive taxes, but anarcho-capitalists usually identify every bit of governemnt as socialism. Nazis were big gov AND claimed to be socialists.
well-said, though I don't bother using the word "anarchism" a whole lot these days as it tends to cause confusion over what I mean and it bothers traditional anarchists. So I talk about poly-centric law and common law and that sorta thing and just say I'm a libertarian. I don't really talk about being "ancap" unless I'm around other libertarians and even then, I typically just say I'm an anti-state libertarian.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
"Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual"
Fascism is rightwing which isn't the same thing as conservatism, although research shows rightwing authoritarianism is more prevalent among social conservatives. The Italian writer Umberto Eco made this list of typical fascism: 1. Cult of Tradition 2. Cult of Action for Action's Sake 3. Disagreement Is Treason 4. Fear of Difference 5. Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class 6. Obsession with a Plot 7. Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy 8. Contempt for the Weak 9. Selective Populism 10. Newspeak
@MarmaladeI The only "data" you've offered is one website claiming that German is rich because of socialism, which I refuted by pointing out that whenever Germany isn't recovering from one of the only two world wars, it is and has always been wealthy.
You want proof that freedom>socialism? How about east and west Germany? More equality on the eastern side I'm sure, equally poor and equally wanting to leave to the western side, which allowed "wealth disparity". Same with North and south korea.
@Hashishin13 Socialism isn't the same thing as statism. The most pure or radical form of socialism would be a localized direct democracy. There are some intentional communities that operate according to socialist principles. Some of them run community businesses and have been doing so for decades. In the way most people use the term, socialism is so broad as to be almost meaningless. It's like how Nazi Germany was & Communist China is a republic. Does that mean Republicans are Nazi Communists?
@Hashishin13 Many of America's greatest thinkers and leaders warned against the immorality of wealth disparity and the dangers of concentrated wealth (Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Henry David Thoreau, Abraham Lincoln, etc). Even if you doubt these brilliant minds, you would be beyond foolish to doubt the data. Wealth disparity correlates to a wide variety of social problems that impacts even the rich.
Wow. This guy hit the nail on the head. This is what I keep trying to tell Libertarians. This is not a free market. To move it towards a more free market we need to remove government from business FIRST. Then once these changes are made, remove the government from social programs.
I like to think about it this way. The economic fallacies supported by the "left" are many times the result of ignorance. This ignorance can be remedied simply by education. The social/personal freedoms that are trampled by the "right" have to do with deeply ingrained cultural. religious, and personal beliefs. These are so much harder to break through than a simple misunderstanding of economics. I've met more converts to libertarianism from the left then from the right.
There is no way to reach the left. As Tom Woods once said about the people he met while he was studying at Harvard: "Those people were so insane, that I wanted to be the exact opposite of them".
Forget those who say its pointless to try to reach the left, as a mutualist, I think I've been able to use my communist past to make the case for massive government rollback and deregulation sound very attractive to entry-level (ya know, Mooreites and Chomskyites) socialists especially, and even some liberals. In fact, I just met a Green liberal who said he was a libertarian but the Party was getting to friendly to corporations (not that we should care bout the Party anyway xD).
@Hashishin13 What about it? we agree with 85% what could be called standard free-market theory, people have said we disagree mostly on land tenure, I would reccommend asking questions of Shawn P. Wilbur if you want to know anything you could possibly want to know on that, otherwise Kevin Carson's blog is quite open to critics, Brad Spangler's too, although seems to be overly focused on semantic games that not all of us may agree with, and not as much on priorities for a mutualist society.
Hey, it's the guy who wrote "How the government solved the healthcare crisis"! I've been passing that around whenever the subject of healthcare comes up.
I think there is a good case to be made that a Corporatist healthcare system would actually be worse than a Socialist one - and I think this is evident in comparing statistics between Europe and the US. One of the many reasons why "conflationism" is so dangerous.
@Adlasy They are different, better for some worse for others. In the US you can currently get an operation almost instantly, here in Canada it takes months and months.
Under socialism everything takes forever and updates are either hugely expensive or vastly delayed. Under corporatism the prices are ridiculous to the point that without insurance they are only payable by the rich, who have insurance anyway.
The quality of care is much lower in socialism due to waits, but the coverage is better.
@Hashishin13 From an ideological perspective, one side must win & the other lose. From a practical perspective, we can use what works from all systems & not use what doesn't work. So, 'corporatist' health care provides great care for a minority & 'socialist' health care provides good care for the majority. Let's have corporatist health care for the rich while allowing 'socialist' health care for others. Meanwhile, we could seek ways to increase competition within both systems of health care.
@MarmaladeINFP I agree that if we are stuck in "the statist quo" we should have what your describing. Up here its called a "two tier system". Unfortunately socialists want equality over logic, health or wealth, so attempting to argue rationally ends up with moans about how the quality of socialist care will go down because "all the good doctors will just go private". My arguement for rotating doctors betwen the two systems seems to just go in one ear and out the other.
@Hashishin13 Whether or not we're stuck in a status quo, we have to start where we are at because we can't start anywhere else. A market that is free is one that isn't based on or limited to any single ideological agenda or class interest. I'm not solely identified with any position & I'm open to other possible solutions. What is important is finding the most optimal system or systems of health care (within the bounds of present conditions) that creates the greatest good for the greatest number.
@Adlasyn I agree, Corporatism is a much bigger danger than Socialism is to Capitalism. At least in Socialist societies, when everything goes to shit, the entrepreneur isn't blamed for it.
@Adlasyn But we don't have a pure corporatist system. It is part socialist/part corporatist. Perhaps a true corporatist system or a mixed system that we have in the U.S. is worse than a purely socialist one. We could try a free system again. The other choices all end the same.
@joepeeler34 No, not really, in any way at all. We have a capitalist system, closely controlled by oligopolies and huge corporate conglomerates, with a laughably thin social safety net bolted on that is currently (and has been for the last 40 years) being dismantled and sold for scrap. "Socialism" is a word with an actual definition, that being an economic system whereby workers own their own capital, like a doctor's practice. Notice that that says nothing about a command economy.
@icantfindanamex86 All systems employ capital. In a free market there are no subsidies, mandates, welfare programs, central banks, fiat paper currency issued by monopoly issuer, state-created cartels, public-private parterships, etc.
That capital is deployed here doesn't make us free market. It's an absurd statement.
We have a mixed economy with much corporatism and socialism interjected.
Corporatism is when the govt. and firms collude. That's not free market.
@joepeeler34 Okay then, I agree. We don't have an actual capitalist system because actual pure strain capitalism becomes monopolized in about a week. That leaves us with a corporate welfare state designed to suck money out of the majority and funnel it to corporations.
@joepeeler34 Seeing as how the definition from the OED is "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system." I suppose you're technically right in that there do exist cooperative enterprises in our economy, but I don't really get why you're playing semantics, seeing as I never actually said we were "free market". Capitalist sure, but capitalism and free market are not the same.
@icantfindanamex86 We used to have a voluntary welfare society. Now the welfare state includes all economic strata. Rich people can access S.S. and Medicare.
Take Medicare-Medicaid. 75% of people were insured in the early 60's. Most of those people payed out of pocket and used insurance for major medical. Govt. incentives changed that. Other people payed out of pocket or relied on charity from doctors, hospitals, churches, cooperatives, etc.
@joepeeler34 What does this post even mean? You string some claims about medicare/medicaid together than state that socialism is destroying the west. You say "Take Medicare-Medicaid. 75% of people were insured in the early 60's." Insured by who? Medicare-Medicaid? If not then what's your point? Most people pay out of pocket and use insurance for medical today. What government incentives are you referring to specifically and what effects have they had?
@icantfindanamex86 You are using the word socialism to mean communism. Communism is a TYPE of socialism. Democratic socialism, National Socialism, etc. are also TYPES of socialism.
In the west govt.'s directly control the means of production in limited areas. But they indirectly influence production by ACTING as if they control the means of production with carrot-stick approach to taxes, public-private partnerships, subsidies, mandates, regulations to create barriers to entry, etc.
@joepeeler34 This is what's so ridiculous about libertarians. Of course the government influences the free market. That's the point. The government is elected and represents the will of the people who are its citizens. If you'd like to argue that it doesn't in reality, fine, but we're talking theory. There's no reason at all that such a democratically elected government shouldn't be able to interfere in the market.
@icantfindanamex86 The govt. influences the free market? If the economy is being centrally planned, it isnt' a free market.
I don't even like to use the term govt. I prefer Protectorate that doesn't initiate force.
A Protectorate can enforce common law, bankruptcy, contract, private property, etc. It can respond to the initiation of force by citizens. What it should not do is initiate force.
Our economy is heavily centrally planned. It's a mixed economy.
@joepeeler34 "Our economy is heavily centrally planned. It's a mixed economy." What? How does someone put these two sentences next to each other? Is it heavily centrally planned or is it mixed? It can't be both. Name the agency in the US that decides how many tons of steel, how many cars, how many computers to produce each year? You can't because we don't have a centrally planned economy. And no, the fed doesn't count. You don't get to redefine terms however you like.
And if you want to play semantics, then what WOULD you describe our economy as? Obviously it's not a free market because it's not a libertarian utopia, it's not centrally planned because it's not the height of the Soviet Union, so what word is acceptable? Mixed economy? Except that in your post you say it's both centrally planned and mixed. Well, it can't be both.
@icantfindanamex86 A government is not you. You are not the government. I understand that it is a pleasant fiction, but it bears no resemblance to reality.
You also contradict yourself. In one breath you absurdly claim that we have a free market, then claim it doesn't exist. You claim with no historical proof that monopoly would exist in "about a week" if it did. You can't have it both ways.
The only monopolies that have lasted are ones that the govt. created it with favors.
@joepeeler34 When did I ever say that I was the government? And I actually said in one of the last round of posts that we weren't a pure free market. You want historical evidence of monopolies, look at Standard Oil, De Beers, possibly US Steel, in the modern day Monsanto. Obviously some industries are more at risk of monopolization than others, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we started over with the economy monopolies would for pretty quickly.
@icantfindanamex86 Standard Oil and US Steel never had 100% of the market. That is a monopoly. In fact, when the Sherman Anit-Trust Act was signed into law, Standard had already lost a great deal of market share in the years leading up to it. They always had foreign competition.
What's more the price of oil was CONTINUALLY falling during that period. Why? It didn't drop, then rise after a greater market share had been gained by Standard. It continously fell. Why?????
@joepeeler34 And here's the problem. You say that it's good if prices fall because it's beneficial to you, presumably a buyer of oil. But you couldn't give less of a shit about the people who were forced out of business, because you're not them. And when these people, in a democratic society, try to act in their own self interest and break up the monopoly, you start whining and screaming MOB RULE. If you want a cutthroat, self interested society you have to put your own interests on the line.
@icantfindanamex86 There have been numerous monopolies that the government created by law. AT&T stands out. What distinguishes that monopoly from near-free market monopolies is that the price didn't continuously fall.
What about the USPS's monopoly to deliver 1st class mail. Government monopolies good, market monopolies bad?
What about state-santioned insurance cartels that prohibit the purchase of insurance across state lines? What about govt.-created Federal Reserve banking cartel?
@joepeeler34 Did I ever say anything suggesting that I supported monopolies? I support government services existing in competition with private services. And if the private services can't compete, well then as a consumer of said services I really don't give a shit. See, I'm acting in my rational self-interest, just like the rest of the majority that would have voted for such government provided services in a democratic society.
@icantfindanamex86 Government services existing in competion? HA! A govt. doesn't have a profit/loss feedback mechanism. It can take taxes by force. It can also monetize liabilities and debts by inflating the currency (a stealth tax).
If a market capitalist combines labor/capital (inputs) to produce a product (output) in such a way to meet consumer preferences, he is rewarded with profits. The profits indicate society values the output more than the starting inputs. It's socially beneficial.
@joepeeler34 A democratically elected government providing services also indicates that society values it. It's socially beneficial, as determined by the society it affects. Why can't private companies compete with the government? You make sweeping declarations that can be easily disprove. Here, I'll make a theoretical government; It is bound by law to provide postal service to every bumfuck town in the country. Private companies aren't. Therefore private companies can compete quite easily.
If market capitalist combines land, labor and capital in such a way as to produce losses, he is engaged in socially harmful activity. Those resources had alternative uses. The harmful activity will soon stop for lack of capital.
Conversely, the state lacks any mechanisms to sort such as profits/losses, prices signals, consumer preferences. The govt. can monetize, borrow, or tax by force. So: the harmful social activity doesn't have to stop. The govt. will seek even more access to capital.
Of course you support govt. monopolies. Govt. IS monopoly by its nature.
You merely think you are acting in your own self-interest. In a free market, no force is initiated as with the states corporatist/socialist measures. A small group of central planners and connected firms concentrate power in your system.
In a market power isn't concentrated because the consumer is in charge. That's why many firms like the protections of the progressive-corporatist state.
@joepeeler34 And here's the problem again. You're telling me that I'm not acting in my self interest. Who the fuck are you to determine what's in my self interest, and I what's yours? Other peoples' opinions hold as much weight as yours; The world doesn't revolve around you. In a market, power is BY DEFINITION concentrated in the consumer. Why is the consumer any more deserving of power than the producer, or vice versa?
You didn't answer my question about the USPS's monopoly by law to deliver 1st class mail. There is no discovery process when govt. creates a monopoly or cartel. Power is concentrated. You think you are in control because you imagine that you are the govt.
The early "progressives" explicitly sought to tie the needs of the state to business. If they are to do that, is it easier to herd 1,000 cattle (large firms) or 100,000 cats (smaller firms)? That's why there is a corporatist system today.
@joepeeler34 The USPS doesn't have a monopoly at all. If I decided tomorrow to start a company that delivers mail and packages I would be perfectly free, except for competition from other firms providing the same services and from the post office.
@icantfindanamex86 -- you could deliver packages, but you would be forbidden by law from delivering first class mail. You'd also lack any form of government subsidy.
In fact, the so-called left loves corporatism. The created the Federal Reserve banking cartel. The left loves mandates (some firms always benefit at the expense of competitors and consumer choice), subsidies, public-private partnerships, tax credits that only some can access (see "green" companies).
The left loves all of these things so long as they are for "progressive" ends. It's still corporatism. It's still a concentration of power. It doesn't magically become good govt.
@joepeeler34 Would you rather have power concentrated in the government or in corporations? It has to be concentrated somewhere. You can't just wave your hand and declare that power isn't concentrated if Standard Oil controls 97% of the domestic market. If something (the facts) doesn't agree with you you just redefine whatever terms you like to make yourself right.
You don't get to "vote" for where your money goes, to whom, how much, etc. when govt. creates monopolies, cartels, or public-private partnerships. It is a small group of central planners and connected firms that have the power.
This goes back to my point about unlimited democracy resulting in interest factions vieing for power, even within the same party. You have ZERO power in that system. Power is extremely concentrated. In the end, wealth will be too. Observe Federal Reserve's cartel.
@joepeeler34 Sure you do. If your representative doesn't do what you want, vote for another. Again, who is this shadowy central planning board you keep referring to? Give names. You advocate a society in which power is concentrated in you and your friends, effectively a totalitarian oligarchy. Power has to be concentrated somewhere. And saying that I have zero power in a democracy is ridiculous, assuming I have the franchise. Again, you don't get to redefine whatever terms you like.
And no, these monopolies didn't get any sort of help from the government, not in any meaningful way. So maybe you'd like to actually respond to my post asking about your bizarre mention of Medicare/Medicaid. I'm really interested in why you would bring that up.
@icantfindanamex86 It is the most organized interest factions that vie for power in an unlimited democracy. That's one of the reasons that Founders were hostile to unlimited democracy. They created a constitutional republic. You might to well to google the difference.
Even the various interest factions that allign within a party vie for power amongst themselves because they are often at loggerheads.
Repeat after me: I am not the government. Wash, rinse, repeat until you grasp that truth.
@joepeeler34 First, I never said that I was the government, or anything that could be construed as such. Second, your Pavlovian reaction to the word "democracy" is showing. I don't understand why libertarians insist on differentiating between the two. Do you think that just because a government is a representative democracy it doesn't represent the will of the people? And there are no significant examples of direct democracy around today, so why do you insist on making the distinction?
@icantfindanamex86 You are saying that a "government represents the will of the people." Isn't the obvious inference that you and I are the government? Of course that's the inference.
The concept of limited govt. is an oxymoron. Governments govern. They initiate force. You will be a subject. You are never in control when a government initiates force.
That is why I advocate a Protectorate. A Protectorate doesn't do anything that you can't in a state of nature.
@joepeeler34 No that's not the inference at all. The inference is exactly what I said, that the government represents, to a small extent, my and your will. Not entirely of course, but a small part. When a government initiates force I am in some small part in control through my vote. This isn't really that hard. Just because you don't understand that things don't have to be taken to their extreme doesn't mean that they can't.
@icantfindanamex86 While we aren't a direct democracy there are a plethora of ballot initiates that are nothing more than mob-rule. Taken to its logical conclusion, 50% plus one can vote to legalize cannibalism with you being the first meal.
Unlimited democracy is not a difference of type from direct democracy, it's just a difference of degree. Almost everything is up for a vote. I don't think a great many things should ever be put to a vote. You become a slave to the majority in that system.
@joepeeler34 So who decides these things that are too important to be entrusted to the slavish masses? You? I'm sure you would prefer living in a society closely controlled by a libertarian intelligentsia, but most well adjusted people, I think, would say that that's morally base and degenerate. I'm sorry you seem to have trouble with the idea that the world doesn't revolve around you, but just because there is a danger in democracy of YOUR happiness being infringed doesn't mean I should care.
@icantfindanamex86 What I mean by "mixed economy" is that the govt. has inserted much corporatism and socialism into the economy.
With corporatist measures, the govt. indirectly ACTS as if it controls the means of production.
Corporatist measures include mandates, subsidies, public-private partnerships, regulations to create barriers to entry/protect market share, patents, limited liability corporations, collectivize risk, tax credits that only some can access, etc.
Your use of the word Pavlovian is nonsensical. Pavlov's dogs salivated when prompted because they anticipated a reward. So: I wouldn't salivate at the prospect of unlimited democracy. I am repulsed. I do have a Pavlovian response at the mention of liberty though. It's too bad that some have confuse their slavery with liberty.
Perhaps you have Stockholm Syndrome. You have fallen in love with your captors?
I want representation and rule of law. I just don't want mob-rule.
@joepeeler34 You know, I'd rather live in a society where I didn't have total freedom to fuck other people over and do whatever I wanted, but where I had food readily available, clean drinking water, goods/services that I cannot provide for myself, etc. If you wouldn't, you can move to Somalia I guess, but I and most other people are going to vote in such a way (unless you and your friends institute a totalitarian libertopia) as to maximize our benefits.
@icantfindanamex86 Straw man. In a free society you can't initiate force against others. If you read a little closer, you would have caught that.
Pollution is an initiation of force. It can best be handled by state/local governments and the courts
I see no reason why there needs to be bureaucrats with guns as with the EPA. I would prefer the few areas where there needs to be federal legislation regarding pollution to be set by elected representatives rather than a totalitarian bureuacracy
@joepeeler34 Define free. Why aren't I free to initiate force against someone else? Why isn't an elected government free to initiate force? If you really don't understand that things are more nuanced than a binary totalitarian/not totalitarian, then I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. The bureaucracy is appointed by a democratically elected representative, and is bound by laws regulating its powers. That's neither totalitarian nor the opposite of totalitarian, it's in the middle somewhere.
@icantfindanamex86 What do you know of the history of Somalia? Not much I imagine. Are you aware that a communist govt. existed there for many years? It resulted in mass poverty and a depletion of almost the entire capital stock. They are starting from ground zero.
A far better example was Hong Kong, though it deviated some from a free market. There was a system of common law, courts, minimal regulation/taxation. It has almost no natural resources. How did it thrive?
The second kind of left-winger is exactly what I was before I realized that capitalism (i.e. libertarianism) was the only way to achieve it - and the only morally acceptable way of trying. I hope I can help others have the same revelation.
@AnarchoCapitalistTV Because it's formed by a (personal, reverse-class-warfare) sense of entitlement rather than the egalitarian thought of the "anti-privilege" left.
@suchafool990 How do you think political movements get started? People knowing good things and spreading the word. Ron Paul was virtually unknown before 2008 and now he regularly draws a bigger crowd then his mainstream opponents. Also before 2008 there was no "Tea Party", there were only two political powers.
Also if you don't know the truth then you will act from a position of ignorance which generally leads to you failing. Knowledge is power and shines light so you can see the tue path.
@Hashishin13 Moreover, "reaching the left" is exactly what's the problem today. As you say, before 2008, there was no "Tea Party", only two political powers. Well, now in 2011, the Tea Party is becoming just a front for Republican conservatism.
Libertarians need to establish themselves as _not conservative_, otherwise we just scare off half the country and the other half misunderstands our arguments and keeps voting for Big Government Republicans.
Leftists are not antiwar. They just don't want the government to be distracted by foreigners from its war on Americans. They want an all out war on individual Americans.
@carcabe Sounds like bitter conservative propaganda. Both liberals and conservatives strip rights, the liberals strip gun and financial rights as well as limiting free speech when its deemed "racist or offensive", the conservatives strip the right to take whatever drugs you want and encourage the old oppressive attitudes towards sex and are overly harsh on immigrants.
@fab006 what's that supposed to mean? These people have chosen a tyrranical state as the solution to their problems, and I really can't feel sorry for them. It's certainly not in my best interest to try to convince them otherwise considering how little impact I would have, and I have no moral obligation to do so.
@Houshalter See, that's exactly the problem. You're not supposed to "feel sorry" for them.
That's what I said, if you only care about being right, you don't need to convince anyone. You _are_ probably right. If, on the other hand, you actually want to change the world for the better, then you need to be able to identify the people who are likely to agree with you on principle, and to be able to point out to them _why_ their conclusions are wrong. That's the whole point here.
Man, the left don't give a fuck. They believe their own bullshit and they don't want to hear any truth.
dubified89 5 days ago
Well the austrians got me and I was an ex Progressive (mainly because I was a strong candidate in Keynesianism because I feared the corporations and disliked monetary policy). All you have to do is tell people to read a little bit about the accurate political and economic history while having the understanding of some economics. Lots of leftist don't even understand economics
batman93oo 3 weeks ago
The best Libertarian presentation I've ever heard. Thank you for posting.
dantean 2 months ago
So often the left sees the right problems but is settled on precisely the wrong solutions.
SirTenenbaum 6 months ago
The modern state is a product of private property. You guys really are stupid if you think we're actually going to fall for this nonsense again. Especially when you set it up with totalitarian strawmen. The free market already exists, it's the interstate economy.
ourben 10 months ago
@ourben:
The modern state(And any other historical state, for that matter), by its very nature, is an ENEMY of private property. More state=less private property. Less state=more private property. A very simple equation, which every person would do a great service to himself by understanding it.
Statism needs to DIE so civilization can live.
Akatam0t0ma 9 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma You are a bonehead. The state is private property, private property is the state. They are the same fucking thing, they just have different landlords.
ourben 9 months ago
@ourben:
Err ,no, the state is NOT private property, it is an institution which is defined as a monopoly on the initiation of force in a geographical area, and has NOTHING to do with private property Also, it's public property, according to modern democratic theory.
Akatam0t0ma 9 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma It's technically private property, that it can be described as public property is a loophole (and a problem for you selfish parasites).
ourben 9 months ago
@ourben:
No, it's not "private property" in any way, shape or form. Private property is based on the non-aggression principle, while statism is based on violence. And if you are trying to win an argument by throwing meaningless phrases like "selfish parasites", then you have failed miserably. We all have our self-interests, and there is nothing wrong with that, so please get off that phony pedestal of "oh I'm so more moral than thou became I'm so unselfish". You are as selfish as the next guy.
Akatam0t0ma 9 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma No it isn't. Private property is created by force. I'm not putting myself on a pedestal you ingrate fuck.
You are a brainwashed moron. That is all you are. There isn't going to be an argument. You are a robot. Programmed by corporatists to do there bidding. Wake the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
ourben 9 months ago
@ourben They're not brainwashed, they're just children. They want the rest of the universe to swirl around the immovable rock of their "private property". The insistence of these retards on natural rights is hilarious. If you were living by yourself in the wilderness in some any rand-esqe masturbatory fantasy, nature won't give a flying fuck about your "right" to life, liberty, or property, if you catch malaria/polio/die of starvation/etc. The fact is that rights are meaningless without society
icantfindanamex86 4 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 I know. I know. God these fucking idiots drive me insane.
ourben 4 months ago
@ourben:
So here's a very simple equation for you: Private property=civilization. No private property=No civilization. It's as simple as that, and no amount of intellectual acrobatics from statist pseudo-intellectuals and freedom equivocators will change it. Got it? Good. Now go give a blowjob to a loaded pistol and squeeze the trigger for being so willfully obtuse and for trying to play that "more moral than thou cause I'm oh so unselfish" card, drone.
Akatam0t0ma 9 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma What are you talking about you clown? A simple equation what? Proving what? You fucking reptile. Here's an equation: you=cunt, no cunts=better world. Does it prove anything? No. Does it mean anything? No. Is it an argument of any kind? No. It's just a wanker on the internet who's had the misfortune of running into an even bigger wanker.
Kill yourself by any means possible. Kill your entire family, assuming it is, you have defooed and buried them under the patio already.
ourben 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ourben:
"The state is private property, private property is the state."
Objectively false. Next fallacy, please.
Akatam0t0ma 9 months ago
Prominent conservatives and libertarians have said the same thing.
If we, as Libertarians, want to push forward politically, we should target the handouts and intervention for the rich. No bailouts, no farm subsidies, no tax credits to favorables (like new energy types). This will show our goal is a free state, not a corporatist.
jrsub3 10 months ago 20
@jrsub3 Well that's very noble of you, but the objective facts of our world demonstrate that so far, the libertarian strategy of taking over America has been to buy politicians. So I think I stand for most of the world (the portion of the world that isn't spouting raving, batshit insane political theory) when I tell you to go fuck yourself.
icantfindanamex86 4 months ago
Also, the plain fact is that despite libertarians' constant screaming about COMMUNISM, libertarianism is just as, if not more utopian and idealistic. But the thing is, these people have trained themselves over the years to absolutely ignore any sort of cognitive dissonance, any conflict of ideas, whatsoever. They might hold 6 opinions at once that conflict with each other and the real world, but it doesn't matter. That's probably the most unfortunate thing about human nature.
icantfindanamex86 4 months ago
I think we need more help like this
aristochat3 10 months ago
Right on. If you want to reform US healthcare, start by repealing a whole bunch of anticompetitive laws! - not adding new laws.
FanofFormerPresident 10 months ago
A simple way of saying it is that there is only capitalism; socialism is a subcategory of capitalism, referring to monopoly capitalism. Monopoly or state capitalism is at one end, while freed markets is at the other. At the monopoly end, there is still property (capital), but it belongs to the monopoly. The doctrine of Distributism lends itself to this discussion
guyjohn59 10 months ago
Music by Kevin MacLeod? You mean Satie.
93msinclair 10 months ago
Excellent video!
bathory714 10 months ago
Fight the power!
STAB1L 10 months ago
I'm someone who has some left-libertarian leanings. My problem with right-libertarians is that, despite criticizing the political elite, they often don't want to criticize the capitalist elite. This guy's ideas about conflationism perfectly describe this problem. It's the only thing keeping right-libertarians from understanding why left-libertarians criticize all elite, both political and capitalist. Big biz & big govt arose at the same time. There is a revolving door between them.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP As a "right libertarian" I concur with you entirely. I hate the corporate elite even more than the politcal elite because they act as if they are titans of the free market and capitalism. They are nothing more than swindlers of the public and there is nothing to be proud of when your business depends on handouts and favorable regulations from the government. I think we need to tear down this veneer of infallibility that many conservatives and some libertarians give to big business
BeachedWhale09 10 months ago
@BeachedWhale09 I don't assume right-libertarianism inherently means not criticizing big biz. Many right-libertarians will criticize crony capitalism & corporatism, but it isn't always clear to me that these people are necessarily against having a plutocratic elite... just as long as it is rationalized as being earned through 'meritocracy'. As I see it, a free market, a moral capitalism, a democratized economy can't function when wealth & power is concentrated, whether in big govt or big biz.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP If you become wealthy by enticing people to give you there money through only moral means, how can being good at it then somehow become immoral?
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 I don't argue about intentions because many claim good intentions and there is no way to objectively measure intentions. There is no such thing as a moral means for any means can be moral or immoral depending on the intentions. All I care about are the results. No matter how intentions and means are rationalized, the results of concentrated wealth and power isn't moral in that it harms more people than it helps, harms all of society. The data is very strong on this point.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP If I sell you sugar with the intent of you eventually getting diabetes, I'm still doing nothing wrong. You would have to willingly buy my sugar for my plan to succeed so therefore all responsibility is on you. Trying to say that anything can be used morally or immorally is ridiculously absurd. Go look up the definitions or moral and immoral, you must be mistaken.
Yea keep saying that "the data" backs you up, great arguement.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 'Willing' is such a vague term that can mean many things to many people. Is an addict willing? Is someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome willing? Is someone who only knows propaganda and acts on that propaganda willing? Is someone who makes a purchases based on the lies and deception of false advertising willing?
Yes, the data backs up my position. I realize rightwingers don't like facts, but some of us prefer to base our views on something other than belief, bias, and opinion.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP False advertising is fraud, a crime. Selling something like drugs or weapons will always be only for sane adults.
Stockholm's is a mental illness, I don't think being an addict is. People should be able to make their own choices. Alternatives can be presented but addiction isn't a disease or illness, its a character flaw at most. Especially when you consider how broad and easily mis-applied the term "addict" is.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Yes, there is much fraud in our capitalist system, but it's hard to prove & even harder to prosecute. Big biz has many complex subtle ways to deceive & big biz has lots of lawyers to defend their interests.
Stockholm's, technically, isn't a mental illness. It's a condition that anyone can experience when held captive, especially when stressed over long periods of time.
Addiction, technically, is a mental illness. Some people have genetic/biological predispositions to addiction.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@Mar "Stockholm's, technically, isn't a mental illness. It's a condition that anyone can experience when held captive, especially when stressed over long periods of time."
Asserting that "anyone can get it" doesn't make your assertion true. I will never love my captors, but I gotta tell you you seem to have Stockholm's for your socialist overlords who are stealing half your income+ and trying to tell you how to live.
A genetic predisposition means NOTHING, psychopaths aren't always criminals.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 I'm just speaking of facts. Accept the facts or don't. I really don't care. However, it doesn't bother me that you feel compelled to spread your ignorance. You don't even know what socialism is. What we have in this country is a combination of neoconservatism, neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and corporatism. An interesting shift has occurred. It used to be that fascism meant that govt served the interests of capitalism, but now corporations almost completely control our govt.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP part 2
"Is someone who only knows propaganda and acts on that propaganda willing?"
"Propaganda" is a pretty meaningless word without a context. Most people call anything they disagree with "propaganda", so yes people should be able to make up their own minds, do you not understand why freedom is important?
"I realize rightwingers don't like facts,"
Yea I'm the "rightwinger" anti-theist pro-drug leagalization libertarian, see how meaningless and wrong your label is?
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Propaganda has a precise meaning & has been studied in great detail by sociologists, political scientists & historians. What average people call "propaganda" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual propaganda. You are avoiding my question. Propaganda works because it undermines the ability to make up one's own mind.
You're a rightwinger because you are a simpleminded anti-intellectual. You criticize one set of rightwing beliefs to defend another set of rightwing beliefs.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP I'm an anti-intillectual because I don't believe you when you baselessly claim "the data is on my side" huh? I went to your retarded article.. GERMANY HAS ALWAYS BEEN WEALTHY. When it was 50 different indpendent city states it was still wealthier then the rest of europe. It has continuously been the wealthiest region in europe for hundreds of years, its GEOGRAPHY not politics that makes them wealthy.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Germany had a lot of financial problems earlier in the 20th century which contributed to the world wars. During WWII, Germany experienced massive destruction to its industry and infrastructure. It took a while for Germany to get back on it's feet. Germany's economy was restructured after WWII. Also, Germany wasn't always union-friendly as it is now. The Nazis killed and put into concentration camps many of the socialist activists and union leaders.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP So your saying they were poor when they were being hosed by the allies after the Treaty of Versailles and also after their country was carpet bombed into oblivion, is this surprising to you? You ignored or simply won't admit that I'm right in stating that Germany has ALWAYS been wealthy and that it has everything to do with gewopgraphy and nothing to do with "unions" or "socialism".
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 It's not surprising to me, but apparently it is to you. It disproves your claim that they've always been rich. And you have a weird notion that it doesn't matter what a country does just as long as it's located in a good place. So that is how people get rich, move into a rich neighborhood & the money starts to flow? I thought Germans created a wealthy society through hardwork & ingenuity. I thought Germans had low wealth disparity because they have high social mobility. Silly me.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP "And you have a weird notion that it doesn't matter what a country does just as long as it's located in a good place. So that is how people get rich, move into a rich neighborhood & the money starts to flow?"
I never said that they would be rich regardless of whatever happens, I am saying that if they have been rich throughout their history(which they have) then it stands to reason that the soft socialism they are under now wouldn't destroy everything.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 You're still ignoring the data. Germany's economy isn't just stronger than the US economy but also has less wealth disparity. You ignore the fact that countries with high union membership tend to have less wealth disparity. You ignore that lower rates of wealth disparity correlate to fewer social problems and more social mobility. It's not just about money. Authoritarian societies can be wealthy (such as Nazi Germany & Communist China) but they tend not to lave low wealth disparity.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP Also wealth isn't veerything. Nazi Germany had a lot of wealth, thye just through it all at the military and government. Wealth isn't whats important to live happily, freedom is.
"I thought Germans had low wealth disparity because they have high social mobility. Silly me."
I keep hearing this moronic term "social mobility" as if there were actual classes to move between. In any country that isn't totalitarian, the geniuses will be rich if they try, is that "social mobility"?
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 That is precisely my point. Wealth isn't everything. Along with more wealth than the US, Germany has lower wealth disparity, higher social mobility (means working hard leads to economic & career betterment), fewer social problems, higher union membership (with a union member required to be on every corporate board), a strong community-oriented banking system, & better social safety net. You know where high wealth disparity is found? In Banana Republics... which the US is becoming.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP "rightwing beliefs"
Did you even READ my response? I'm an anti-theist drug legalizing ANARCHIST. How is any of that "rightwing"? You want to talk about simple minded? I wouldn't be throwing stones Mr. I make a label and stick to it even if its moronic.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13
If you're an anarchist, why do you espouse rightwing rhetoric and use rightwing talking points?
I judge people on their words and deeds, not on how they label themselves.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP So its "right wing" to support freedom in your opinion? All that I have "espoused" is a bias in favour of freedom. I'm sorry if you think "right wingers" are in favour of freedom, they are aboutequal to "left wingers" just in different ways.
Tell me what I said which you regard to be "right wing".
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Everything you've said fits the rhetoric of the far right. Just open your eyes and see.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP Really? Now I'm "far right" because I asked you to point out something? Your a joke. I've rarely seen anyone entrench themselves like this. I ask for evidence and you call me Hitler, very rational of you.
Except for the fact that all the "far right" were SOCIALISTS. You know what the "zi" in "Nazi" meant? SOCIALISTS!
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 It's just a fact that all your stated opinions are commonly found on the far right. It's just a fact. For example, rightwingers are the only ones who ever claim that Nazis are socialists. Those who are more well educated know that the Nazis killed socialists or put them into concentration camps. If it makes you feel ashamed to be identified with rightwingers, maybe you seek to educate yourself about the actual data which the far right rarely does.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP Just keep parroting the words "fact" and "data" over and over, it really makes me see your point.
Oh so the socialists don't like to point out that the Nazis were socialists and so this somehow proves that they weren't? So by your logic everything your opponents say is false and everything your comrades say is true, I think I'm done with arguing.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Anyone can label themselves as anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're what they claim. Nazis didn't practice socialism & so they're claims are meaningless. It's similar to how Reagan used libertarian rhetoric while implementing neocon/neoliberal policies.
I change my mind as I learn new info & gain new perspectives. Offer me a logical argument based on data & will consider it seriously, but you've offered nothing of worth. OTOH I've offered you data & you ignored it.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP What did Nazis practise then? Nominally private capitalism, i.e. a form of socialism where the government fronted its operations with private corporations? I don't see the difference...
Moragauth 10 months ago
@Moragauth Nazis were fasicists which is an ideology that is widely acknowledged to mostly attract the far right. Fascism typically includes elements of ethnocentric nationalistim, folk religiosity & apocalyptic/millennial tendencies. It's often defined according to the following 14 traits:
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP So these points are supposed to be defining "the far right wing" which you accuse me of being? Not one of those 14 points represents me at all. I'm not socially conservative at all either. Also I'm opposed to all the points you listed, except I think we would disagree on what counts as "Labour Power is Supressed", as I assume you mean that labourers should be able to form unions who have coercive power over their bosses, beyond that which every worker naturally has.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 I was responding to your comment where you falsely or ignorantly claimed Nazis were socialists. I was explaining to you what fascism is. Why did you think I was calling you a fascist? No where in my comments did I say you were a fascist.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP "far right" was in there.
Also you can list things all day that seem to be against modern day socialism, but thats because your ignoring the definition of socialism. Socialism isn't about being moderate or tolerant at all, its simply the government interfering with the economy through taxes and regulations, more commonly redistributive taxes, but anarcho-capitalists usually identify every bit of governemnt as socialism. Nazis were big gov AND claimed to be socialists.
Hashishin13 10 months ago 2
@Hashishin13
There can be state socialism just as there can be state capitalism.
There can be anarcho-capitalism just as there can be anarcho-socialism.
Many anarcho-capitalists identify socialism as statism.
Many anarcho-socialists identify capitalism as statism.
Statism is statism no matter what ideological rhetoric is used to justify it, rightly or wrongly.
Anarchism is anarchism no matter what ideological rhetoric is used to justify it, rightly or wrongly.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago 12
@MarmaladeINFP Well said.
blue46gt 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
well-said, though I don't bother using the word "anarchism" a whole lot these days as it tends to cause confusion over what I mean and it bothers traditional anarchists. So I talk about poly-centric law and common law and that sorta thing and just say I'm a libertarian. I don't really talk about being "ancap" unless I'm around other libertarians and even then, I typically just say I'm an anti-state libertarian.
stealthswimmer 4 months ago
Benito Mussolini:
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
"Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual"
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeI The only "data" you've offered is one website claiming that German is rich because of socialism, which I refuted by pointing out that whenever Germany isn't recovering from one of the only two world wars, it is and has always been wealthy.
You want proof that freedom>socialism? How about east and west Germany? More equality on the eastern side I'm sure, equally poor and equally wanting to leave to the western side, which allowed "wealth disparity". Same with North and south korea.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Socialism isn't the same thing as statism. The most pure or radical form of socialism would be a localized direct democracy. There are some intentional communities that operate according to socialist principles. Some of them run community businesses and have been doing so for decades. In the way most people use the term, socialism is so broad as to be almost meaningless. It's like how Nazi Germany was & Communist China is a republic. Does that mean Republicans are Nazi Communists?
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Many of America's greatest thinkers and leaders warned against the immorality of wealth disparity and the dangers of concentrated wealth (Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Henry David Thoreau, Abraham Lincoln, etc). Even if you doubt these brilliant minds, you would be beyond foolish to doubt the data. Wealth disparity correlates to a wide variety of social problems that impacts even the rich.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/11/16/real-wages-wealth-disparity/
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
Very interesting talk
2plus2make4 10 months ago
Wow. This guy hit the nail on the head. This is what I keep trying to tell Libertarians. This is not a free market. To move it towards a more free market we need to remove government from business FIRST. Then once these changes are made, remove the government from social programs.
SpamSpamNEggs 10 months ago
I like to think about it this way. The economic fallacies supported by the "left" are many times the result of ignorance. This ignorance can be remedied simply by education. The social/personal freedoms that are trampled by the "right" have to do with deeply ingrained cultural. religious, and personal beliefs. These are so much harder to break through than a simple misunderstanding of economics. I've met more converts to libertarianism from the left then from the right.
renegade2142 10 months ago
@renegade2142 Amen.
fab006 10 months ago
simply amazing
fps0chris 10 months ago
There is no way to reach the left. As Tom Woods once said about the people he met while he was studying at Harvard: "Those people were so insane, that I wanted to be the exact opposite of them".
genji77 10 months ago
That bit about "Mike"... that was me.
syadasti 10 months ago
I love roderick long. One of my inspirational intellectual heroes.
ericfontainejazz 10 months ago
I am a libertarian grad student in the humanities, and I can say that this talk was very relevant to me.
RMMHS4RP 10 months ago
Forget those who say its pointless to try to reach the left, as a mutualist, I think I've been able to use my communist past to make the case for massive government rollback and deregulation sound very attractive to entry-level (ya know, Mooreites and Chomskyites) socialists especially, and even some liberals. In fact, I just met a Green liberal who said he was a libertarian but the Party was getting to friendly to corporations (not that we should care bout the Party anyway xD).
Lleldorynix 10 months ago
@Lleldorynix Tell me about mutualism, to me it sounds like socialism light and requires the same ridiculously unworkable level of cooperation.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 What about it? we agree with 85% what could be called standard free-market theory, people have said we disagree mostly on land tenure, I would reccommend asking questions of Shawn P. Wilbur if you want to know anything you could possibly want to know on that, otherwise Kevin Carson's blog is quite open to critics, Brad Spangler's too, although seems to be overly focused on semantic games that not all of us may agree with, and not as much on priorities for a mutualist society.
Lleldorynix 10 months ago
Hey, it's the guy who wrote "How the government solved the healthcare crisis"! I've been passing that around whenever the subject of healthcare comes up.
TreachMarkets 10 months ago 2
Free Market is not big business.
BachGuitar3 10 months ago 3
What a lovely speech. Thank you to the speaker and mises org.
ourmanthejoker 10 months ago
"Fight the power!"
-Amen, Brother.
HunterfromtheFuture 10 months ago 5
I think there is a good case to be made that a Corporatist healthcare system would actually be worse than a Socialist one - and I think this is evident in comparing statistics between Europe and the US. One of the many reasons why "conflationism" is so dangerous.
Adlasyn 10 months ago 16
@Adlasy They are different, better for some worse for others. In the US you can currently get an operation almost instantly, here in Canada it takes months and months.
Under socialism everything takes forever and updates are either hugely expensive or vastly delayed. Under corporatism the prices are ridiculous to the point that without insurance they are only payable by the rich, who have insurance anyway.
The quality of care is much lower in socialism due to waits, but the coverage is better.
Hashishin13 10 months ago 3
@Hashishin13 From an ideological perspective, one side must win & the other lose. From a practical perspective, we can use what works from all systems & not use what doesn't work. So, 'corporatist' health care provides great care for a minority & 'socialist' health care provides good care for the majority. Let's have corporatist health care for the rich while allowing 'socialist' health care for others. Meanwhile, we could seek ways to increase competition within both systems of health care.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP I agree that if we are stuck in "the statist quo" we should have what your describing. Up here its called a "two tier system". Unfortunately socialists want equality over logic, health or wealth, so attempting to argue rationally ends up with moans about how the quality of socialist care will go down because "all the good doctors will just go private". My arguement for rotating doctors betwen the two systems seems to just go in one ear and out the other.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Whether or not we're stuck in a status quo, we have to start where we are at because we can't start anywhere else. A market that is free is one that isn't based on or limited to any single ideological agenda or class interest. I'm not solely identified with any position & I'm open to other possible solutions. What is important is finding the most optimal system or systems of health care (within the bounds of present conditions) that creates the greatest good for the greatest number.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@Adlasyn It's nice to see someone else in the comments who understands why conflationism is dangerous.
MarmaladeINFP 10 months ago
@Adlasyn I agree, Corporatism is a much bigger danger than Socialism is to Capitalism. At least in Socialist societies, when everything goes to shit, the entrepreneur isn't blamed for it.
jrsub3 10 months ago
@Adlasyn But we don't have a pure corporatist system. It is part socialist/part corporatist. Perhaps a true corporatist system or a mixed system that we have in the U.S. is worse than a purely socialist one. We could try a free system again. The other choices all end the same.
joepeeler34 9 months ago
@joepeeler34 No, not really, in any way at all. We have a capitalist system, closely controlled by oligopolies and huge corporate conglomerates, with a laughably thin social safety net bolted on that is currently (and has been for the last 40 years) being dismantled and sold for scrap. "Socialism" is a word with an actual definition, that being an economic system whereby workers own their own capital, like a doctor's practice. Notice that that says nothing about a command economy.
icantfindanamex86 4 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 All systems employ capital. In a free market there are no subsidies, mandates, welfare programs, central banks, fiat paper currency issued by monopoly issuer, state-created cartels, public-private parterships, etc.
That capital is deployed here doesn't make us free market. It's an absurd statement.
We have a mixed economy with much corporatism and socialism interjected.
Corporatism is when the govt. and firms collude. That's not free market.
joepeeler34 4 months ago
@joepeeler34 Okay then, I agree. We don't have an actual capitalist system because actual pure strain capitalism becomes monopolized in about a week. That leaves us with a corporate welfare state designed to suck money out of the majority and funnel it to corporations.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Seeing as how the definition from the OED is "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system." I suppose you're technically right in that there do exist cooperative enterprises in our economy, but I don't really get why you're playing semantics, seeing as I never actually said we were "free market". Capitalist sure, but capitalism and free market are not the same.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 We used to have a voluntary welfare society. Now the welfare state includes all economic strata. Rich people can access S.S. and Medicare.
Take Medicare-Medicaid. 75% of people were insured in the early 60's. Most of those people payed out of pocket and used insurance for major medical. Govt. incentives changed that. Other people payed out of pocket or relied on charity from doctors, hospitals, churches, cooperatives, etc.
Socialism is destroying the west.
joepeeler34 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joepeeler34 What does this post even mean? You string some claims about medicare/medicaid together than state that socialism is destroying the west. You say "Take Medicare-Medicaid. 75% of people were insured in the early 60's." Insured by who? Medicare-Medicaid? If not then what's your point? Most people pay out of pocket and use insurance for medical today. What government incentives are you referring to specifically and what effects have they had?
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 You are using the word socialism to mean communism. Communism is a TYPE of socialism. Democratic socialism, National Socialism, etc. are also TYPES of socialism.
In the west govt.'s directly control the means of production in limited areas. But they indirectly influence production by ACTING as if they control the means of production with carrot-stick approach to taxes, public-private partnerships, subsidies, mandates, regulations to create barriers to entry, etc.
joepeeler34 4 months ago
@joepeeler34 This is what's so ridiculous about libertarians. Of course the government influences the free market. That's the point. The government is elected and represents the will of the people who are its citizens. If you'd like to argue that it doesn't in reality, fine, but we're talking theory. There's no reason at all that such a democratically elected government shouldn't be able to interfere in the market.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 The govt. influences the free market? If the economy is being centrally planned, it isnt' a free market.
I don't even like to use the term govt. I prefer Protectorate that doesn't initiate force.
A Protectorate can enforce common law, bankruptcy, contract, private property, etc. It can respond to the initiation of force by citizens. What it should not do is initiate force.
Our economy is heavily centrally planned. It's a mixed economy.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 "Our economy is heavily centrally planned. It's a mixed economy." What? How does someone put these two sentences next to each other? Is it heavily centrally planned or is it mixed? It can't be both. Name the agency in the US that decides how many tons of steel, how many cars, how many computers to produce each year? You can't because we don't have a centrally planned economy. And no, the fed doesn't count. You don't get to redefine terms however you like.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
And if you want to play semantics, then what WOULD you describe our economy as? Obviously it's not a free market because it's not a libertarian utopia, it's not centrally planned because it's not the height of the Soviet Union, so what word is acceptable? Mixed economy? Except that in your post you say it's both centrally planned and mixed. Well, it can't be both.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 A government is not you. You are not the government. I understand that it is a pleasant fiction, but it bears no resemblance to reality.
You also contradict yourself. In one breath you absurdly claim that we have a free market, then claim it doesn't exist. You claim with no historical proof that monopoly would exist in "about a week" if it did. You can't have it both ways.
The only monopolies that have lasted are ones that the govt. created it with favors.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 When did I ever say that I was the government? And I actually said in one of the last round of posts that we weren't a pure free market. You want historical evidence of monopolies, look at Standard Oil, De Beers, possibly US Steel, in the modern day Monsanto. Obviously some industries are more at risk of monopolization than others, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we started over with the economy monopolies would for pretty quickly.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 Standard Oil and US Steel never had 100% of the market. That is a monopoly. In fact, when the Sherman Anit-Trust Act was signed into law, Standard had already lost a great deal of market share in the years leading up to it. They always had foreign competition.
What's more the price of oil was CONTINUALLY falling during that period. Why? It didn't drop, then rise after a greater market share had been gained by Standard. It continously fell. Why?????
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 And here's the problem. You say that it's good if prices fall because it's beneficial to you, presumably a buyer of oil. But you couldn't give less of a shit about the people who were forced out of business, because you're not them. And when these people, in a democratic society, try to act in their own self interest and break up the monopoly, you start whining and screaming MOB RULE. If you want a cutthroat, self interested society you have to put your own interests on the line.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 There have been numerous monopolies that the government created by law. AT&T stands out. What distinguishes that monopoly from near-free market monopolies is that the price didn't continuously fall.
What about the USPS's monopoly to deliver 1st class mail. Government monopolies good, market monopolies bad?
What about state-santioned insurance cartels that prohibit the purchase of insurance across state lines? What about govt.-created Federal Reserve banking cartel?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Did I ever say anything suggesting that I supported monopolies? I support government services existing in competition with private services. And if the private services can't compete, well then as a consumer of said services I really don't give a shit. See, I'm acting in my rational self-interest, just like the rest of the majority that would have voted for such government provided services in a democratic society.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 Government services existing in competion? HA! A govt. doesn't have a profit/loss feedback mechanism. It can take taxes by force. It can also monetize liabilities and debts by inflating the currency (a stealth tax).
If a market capitalist combines labor/capital (inputs) to produce a product (output) in such a way to meet consumer preferences, he is rewarded with profits. The profits indicate society values the output more than the starting inputs. It's socially beneficial.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 A democratically elected government providing services also indicates that society values it. It's socially beneficial, as determined by the society it affects. Why can't private companies compete with the government? You make sweeping declarations that can be easily disprove. Here, I'll make a theoretical government; It is bound by law to provide postal service to every bumfuck town in the country. Private companies aren't. Therefore private companies can compete quite easily.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
If market capitalist combines land, labor and capital in such a way as to produce losses, he is engaged in socially harmful activity. Those resources had alternative uses. The harmful activity will soon stop for lack of capital.
Conversely, the state lacks any mechanisms to sort such as profits/losses, prices signals, consumer preferences. The govt. can monetize, borrow, or tax by force. So: the harmful social activity doesn't have to stop. The govt. will seek even more access to capital.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Of course you support govt. monopolies. Govt. IS monopoly by its nature.
You merely think you are acting in your own self-interest. In a free market, no force is initiated as with the states corporatist/socialist measures. A small group of central planners and connected firms concentrate power in your system.
In a market power isn't concentrated because the consumer is in charge. That's why many firms like the protections of the progressive-corporatist state.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 And here's the problem again. You're telling me that I'm not acting in my self interest. Who the fuck are you to determine what's in my self interest, and I what's yours? Other peoples' opinions hold as much weight as yours; The world doesn't revolve around you. In a market, power is BY DEFINITION concentrated in the consumer. Why is the consumer any more deserving of power than the producer, or vice versa?
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
You didn't answer my question about the USPS's monopoly by law to deliver 1st class mail. There is no discovery process when govt. creates a monopoly or cartel. Power is concentrated. You think you are in control because you imagine that you are the govt.
The early "progressives" explicitly sought to tie the needs of the state to business. If they are to do that, is it easier to herd 1,000 cattle (large firms) or 100,000 cats (smaller firms)? That's why there is a corporatist system today.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 The USPS doesn't have a monopoly at all. If I decided tomorrow to start a company that delivers mail and packages I would be perfectly free, except for competition from other firms providing the same services and from the post office.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 -- you could deliver packages, but you would be forbidden by law from delivering first class mail. You'd also lack any form of government subsidy.
terry0mac 1 month ago
In fact, the so-called left loves corporatism. The created the Federal Reserve banking cartel. The left loves mandates (some firms always benefit at the expense of competitors and consumer choice), subsidies, public-private partnerships, tax credits that only some can access (see "green" companies).
The left loves all of these things so long as they are for "progressive" ends. It's still corporatism. It's still a concentration of power. It doesn't magically become good govt.
See Solyndra
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Would you rather have power concentrated in the government or in corporations? It has to be concentrated somewhere. You can't just wave your hand and declare that power isn't concentrated if Standard Oil controls 97% of the domestic market. If something (the facts) doesn't agree with you you just redefine whatever terms you like to make yourself right.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
You don't get to "vote" for where your money goes, to whom, how much, etc. when govt. creates monopolies, cartels, or public-private partnerships. It is a small group of central planners and connected firms that have the power.
This goes back to my point about unlimited democracy resulting in interest factions vieing for power, even within the same party. You have ZERO power in that system. Power is extremely concentrated. In the end, wealth will be too. Observe Federal Reserve's cartel.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Sure you do. If your representative doesn't do what you want, vote for another. Again, who is this shadowy central planning board you keep referring to? Give names. You advocate a society in which power is concentrated in you and your friends, effectively a totalitarian oligarchy. Power has to be concentrated somewhere. And saying that I have zero power in a democracy is ridiculous, assuming I have the franchise. Again, you don't get to redefine whatever terms you like.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
And no, these monopolies didn't get any sort of help from the government, not in any meaningful way. So maybe you'd like to actually respond to my post asking about your bizarre mention of Medicare/Medicaid. I'm really interested in why you would bring that up.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 It is the most organized interest factions that vie for power in an unlimited democracy. That's one of the reasons that Founders were hostile to unlimited democracy. They created a constitutional republic. You might to well to google the difference.
Even the various interest factions that allign within a party vie for power amongst themselves because they are often at loggerheads.
Repeat after me: I am not the government. Wash, rinse, repeat until you grasp that truth.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 First, I never said that I was the government, or anything that could be construed as such. Second, your Pavlovian reaction to the word "democracy" is showing. I don't understand why libertarians insist on differentiating between the two. Do you think that just because a government is a representative democracy it doesn't represent the will of the people? And there are no significant examples of direct democracy around today, so why do you insist on making the distinction?
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 You are saying that a "government represents the will of the people." Isn't the obvious inference that you and I are the government? Of course that's the inference.
The concept of limited govt. is an oxymoron. Governments govern. They initiate force. You will be a subject. You are never in control when a government initiates force.
That is why I advocate a Protectorate. A Protectorate doesn't do anything that you can't in a state of nature.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 No that's not the inference at all. The inference is exactly what I said, that the government represents, to a small extent, my and your will. Not entirely of course, but a small part. When a government initiates force I am in some small part in control through my vote. This isn't really that hard. Just because you don't understand that things don't have to be taken to their extreme doesn't mean that they can't.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 While we aren't a direct democracy there are a plethora of ballot initiates that are nothing more than mob-rule. Taken to its logical conclusion, 50% plus one can vote to legalize cannibalism with you being the first meal.
Unlimited democracy is not a difference of type from direct democracy, it's just a difference of degree. Almost everything is up for a vote. I don't think a great many things should ever be put to a vote. You become a slave to the majority in that system.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 So who decides these things that are too important to be entrusted to the slavish masses? You? I'm sure you would prefer living in a society closely controlled by a libertarian intelligentsia, but most well adjusted people, I think, would say that that's morally base and degenerate. I'm sorry you seem to have trouble with the idea that the world doesn't revolve around you, but just because there is a danger in democracy of YOUR happiness being infringed doesn't mean I should care.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 What I mean by "mixed economy" is that the govt. has inserted much corporatism and socialism into the economy.
With corporatist measures, the govt. indirectly ACTS as if it controls the means of production.
Corporatist measures include mandates, subsidies, public-private partnerships, regulations to create barriers to entry/protect market share, patents, limited liability corporations, collectivize risk, tax credits that only some can access, etc.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Your use of the word Pavlovian is nonsensical. Pavlov's dogs salivated when prompted because they anticipated a reward. So: I wouldn't salivate at the prospect of unlimited democracy. I am repulsed. I do have a Pavlovian response at the mention of liberty though. It's too bad that some have confuse their slavery with liberty.
Perhaps you have Stockholm Syndrome. You have fallen in love with your captors?
I want representation and rule of law. I just don't want mob-rule.
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Comment removed
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 You know, I'd rather live in a society where I didn't have total freedom to fuck other people over and do whatever I wanted, but where I had food readily available, clean drinking water, goods/services that I cannot provide for myself, etc. If you wouldn't, you can move to Somalia I guess, but I and most other people are going to vote in such a way (unless you and your friends institute a totalitarian libertopia) as to maximize our benefits.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 Straw man. In a free society you can't initiate force against others. If you read a little closer, you would have caught that.
Pollution is an initiation of force. It can best be handled by state/local governments and the courts
I see no reason why there needs to be bureaucrats with guns as with the EPA. I would prefer the few areas where there needs to be federal legislation regarding pollution to be set by elected representatives rather than a totalitarian bureuacracy
joepeeler34 3 months ago
@joepeeler34 Define free. Why aren't I free to initiate force against someone else? Why isn't an elected government free to initiate force? If you really don't understand that things are more nuanced than a binary totalitarian/not totalitarian, then I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. The bureaucracy is appointed by a democratically elected representative, and is bound by laws regulating its powers. That's neither totalitarian nor the opposite of totalitarian, it's in the middle somewhere.
icantfindanamex86 3 months ago
@icantfindanamex86 What do you know of the history of Somalia? Not much I imagine. Are you aware that a communist govt. existed there for many years? It resulted in mass poverty and a depletion of almost the entire capital stock. They are starting from ground zero.
A far better example was Hong Kong, though it deviated some from a free market. There was a system of common law, courts, minimal regulation/taxation. It has almost no natural resources. How did it thrive?
joepeeler34 3 months ago
Santa Claus!
MrAlpruitt 10 months ago
The second kind of left-winger is exactly what I was before I realized that capitalism (i.e. libertarianism) was the only way to achieve it - and the only morally acceptable way of trying. I hope I can help others have the same revelation.
fab006 10 months ago 3
would like to know why Roderick chose the term "aristocratic" left. any ideas?
AnarchoCapitalistTV 10 months ago
@AnarchoCapitalistTV remember when john kerry's wife derisively asked, "what's chili?"
jonathans8 10 months ago
@AnarchoCapitalistTV Because it's formed by a (personal, reverse-class-warfare) sense of entitlement rather than the egalitarian thought of the "anti-privilege" left.
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 nice one!
AnarchoCapitalistTV 10 months ago
@AnarchoCapitalistTV :)
fab006 10 months ago
@AnarchoCapitalistTV - The Aristocratic Left are those that see themselves as above anyone that disagrees with them.
Slipknotyk06 10 months ago
Ron Paul 2012
droobiedee 10 months ago
its all well and good to know all this, but so what? its not like any of us can do anything about it
suchafool990 10 months ago
@suchafool990 Well then, we'd better get off our asses and at least give it our best effort. Being complacent isn't going to help anything either.
MrUnicorn1995 10 months ago 5
@suchafool990 How do you think political movements get started? People knowing good things and spreading the word. Ron Paul was virtually unknown before 2008 and now he regularly draws a bigger crowd then his mainstream opponents. Also before 2008 there was no "Tea Party", there were only two political powers.
Also if you don't know the truth then you will act from a position of ignorance which generally leads to you failing. Knowledge is power and shines light so you can see the tue path.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 Moreover, "reaching the left" is exactly what's the problem today. As you say, before 2008, there was no "Tea Party", only two political powers. Well, now in 2011, the Tea Party is becoming just a front for Republican conservatism.
Libertarians need to establish themselves as _not conservative_, otherwise we just scare off half the country and the other half misunderstands our arguments and keeps voting for Big Government Republicans.
fab006 10 months ago
Gary Johnson 2012
gabiehrlich 10 months ago
Just keep pointing out the gun in the room
Caleb983 10 months ago 5
Leftists are not antiwar. They just don't want the government to be distracted by foreigners from its war on Americans. They want an all out war on individual Americans.
carcabe 10 months ago 3
@carcabe Sounds like bitter conservative propaganda. Both liberals and conservatives strip rights, the liberals strip gun and financial rights as well as limiting free speech when its deemed "racist or offensive", the conservatives strip the right to take whatever drugs you want and encourage the old oppressive attitudes towards sex and are overly harsh on immigrants.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
Watched the whole thing. Great.
frionelhero 10 months ago
Of all the things you could be doing with your time, trying to "reach the left" feels like the most unproductive.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter Only if you care more about "being (self-)right(eous)" than about the kind of society you live in - and the kind you could be living in.
fab006 10 months ago
@fab006 what's that supposed to mean? These people have chosen a tyrranical state as the solution to their problems, and I really can't feel sorry for them. It's certainly not in my best interest to try to convince them otherwise considering how little impact I would have, and I have no moral obligation to do so.
Houshalter 10 months ago
@Houshalter See, that's exactly the problem. You're not supposed to "feel sorry" for them.
That's what I said, if you only care about being right, you don't need to convince anyone. You _are_ probably right. If, on the other hand, you actually want to change the world for the better, then you need to be able to identify the people who are likely to agree with you on principle, and to be able to point out to them _why_ their conclusions are wrong. That's the whole point here.
fab006 10 months ago
How to reach the Left? With a long-range rifle.
richardcadbury 10 months ago
this was an excellent talk
Graffight 10 months ago 3