The Somalies are terrorised by gangs and unrully militia, and their pirates are ruthless killers with no respect for life. I would sooner live in socialist France or Sweden anyday. In fact, France, with it's mandatory 35 hour, where workers get 6 weeks paid annual leave, with its high taxes, where you get a state nanny for 4 hrs twice a week if you have a new baby, with it's enormous regulations, is still richer than the USA. Libertarians allow the rich to steal all your money and freedom .
The free market has been proven not to work and there is no debate about this anymore. All the free market does is make the rich richer and more powerful while making eveyone else poorer destroying liberty.The free market is fascism which ruins lives and destroys families.Through a fair government we can redistribute wealth and create a much happier society, although the rich won't like it much.This is will reballance the enormous unfair adavantage that the rich use enslave and rob us.
would help everyone? Your idiotic, absolutist bullshit just doesn't fly with reality, Jacob. You libertarians think the solution is to just "get the gov't out", as if the private sector in EVERY CASE is NEVER at fault, and businesses NEVER do shit that ends up costing society more. "Competition" always evens shit out, so you guys claim.
Tell that to all the folks who HAVE been helped by what you call "state welfare", like the mother who did all she could to work her ass off to support her child but was able to get a little extra help from welfare. Or the unemployed man who just lost his factory job and didn't have to lose his house or other amenities because unemployment helped until he got his new job (probably lower-paying, though, sadly).
Do you REALLY believe that eliminating all welfare immediately with no transition
The welfare state gives people lots of freedom. State health care means there no need to worry about this anymore, or insurance companies ripping you off. And welfare if your luck runs out takes care of that worry too. Countries that give state education to their children are investing in its future as these kids can grow up to become prosperous which is good for the economy and creates a safer high quality society. This gives people enormous freedom to get on with the things that they enjoy.
@nivekvb Have you been watching the news lately?All welfare states are broke,In welfare states the incentive to work is removed and now 4 generations of many of the same families know nothing but welfare in America.Have more illegitimate kids,get more money and if you can convince the state your kid is half-retarded you get more money.People are also paid to stay single, marriage is discouraged in this system,this is the reason for all the baby daddys and baby mammas.We can't afford it anymore.
@CBALLEN You make some good points and nothing is perect, but I just think that neo liberialism and its cousin, libertarianism, is something far worse as well as being a very cruel system which shows no mercy or compassion. We are inteligent creatures so there must be a way around these problems, although will mean compromises, but there is sweet spot between social domocracy and captilalism which will work the best for the majority of people.
@nivekvb The church used to take care of the needs of the poor,but not to the extent that the government can,it can give them most all their wants too,of course politicians learned quickly,if you take the place of the church you end up keeping your job which is easy money,and at the same time ,building a power base while guaranteeing to keep certain people uneducated,unmotivated,crime ridden(too much time on their hands) & poor.
Americans take on $85 billion of debt each year for higher education, while college is financed by taxes in Germany and tuition is cheap to free in other modern countries. While soaring medical costs are a key reason that since 1980 bankruptcy in America has increased 15 times faster than population growth, no one in Germany or the rest of the modern world goes broke because of accident or illness. You got it, social democracy wins every time. We like it.
What job do you have? Is it one where you have a minimum wage in place (even though you may be earning more than that), one where you have weekends, a 40-hour week, and vacation days? Yeah, those things you love? Unions made those. Unions are important.
Mr. Spinney if you wish to live in a geographical area that is not under the dominion of any sovereign power you have options. By making the choice to continue living here you adknowledge the state as the sovereign. You rememdy if you want a different sovereign is to find a different country that is more suitable to you and then move there. If wish to have no sovereign power you could move to a country with no functioning government find an island that is not under the
2/2 jurisdiction of or the territory of any sovereign power. Or you can get on a boat, sail past the 12 mile territorial water limit, sale out 15 miles to be safe, drop anchor and stay there. You would no longer be in territory under the dominion of any sovereign territory. I wish to live in a society under the sovereignty of a state, you do not. The state exist and has for over two centuries so your deisre to abolish that state is not legiitimate, your remedy is to find an alternative place.
@JacobSpinney I didn't know that I had to have a solution. What I'm saying is that you are wrong when you say that a single payer sytstem is less efficient than a free market option. Largely because the free market isn't free and we do not have perfect information.
@JacobSpinney True, I could compare Europe with Afghanistan or Somalia two countries very close to a free market healthcare. And where have you found a healthcare system more efficent trhen the ones in Europe?
@gaspphil More efficient in what respect? All we have to compare is a corporatist system (the US) to socialist ones (Europe). And we see that the US dominates all the other countries in terms of waiting times and medical innovation. While Europe, on the other hand, costs less. So it's higher quality at a higher price or lower quality at a lower price. I'm not sure there's a clear winner.
@gaspphil While a free market would indeed offer higher quality than both at a lower price than both. The fact that there's not currently a comparable free market system only goes to show you how scared governments are of letting people see how much better stateless solutions are.
@gaspphil No. It isn't in theory. The Austrian school of economics completely demolished the theory that communism would work.
That's exactly what I pointed out. US has higher quality, but at the cost of access to only those who can afford it.
I don't. I was merely pointing out that socialist models have pros and cons just like corporatist models do. But free market models have all of the pros with none of the cons.
@JacobSpinney WIth the help of the Austrian school of economics I would like you to show me a free market model where every one; regardless of income, has free access to healthcare.
@gaspphil Yes. You are wrong. Free goods and services will be funded and provided by whoever feels that people who cannot afford the product should still receive it. Thanks to the dramatic increase in the wealth of the poor, middle class, and rich that a free market will bring, this will be far less of an issue than people make it out to be.
@gaspphil They are utopians. The dream of what never has existed and never will because it's not possible. What we would actually end up with if he had his way is living in a neo-fuedalist society of enclaves of neo-tribal like communities. Not fun. He chooses to continue to live in a geographic area that is part of a sovereign power. If he wishes to to live in a place where there is no sovereign power he needs to find that place and then go there. That is his remedy.
@gaspphil What arguments? I refer you to a series of videos and you refuse to watch them being certain that you know all there is to know and then you have the gall to ask me what arguments?
Basic economic theory and even the laws of physics clearly state that no process can be 100% efficient.
The variability of supply and demand in market systems is the primary driving point besides profit, and the concentration of power determines in large part the balance of what decides prices. In a Democratic republic, there is no such thing as against one's will if it is acknowledged that one's will can and is expressed by the express and implicit powers of a vote.
There is an easy way to see if your right. Does people in countries with state welfare have a more or less healthy people? The same goes for the economic bit.
Im not the educated in the subject to be honest but i know my country has a way better health index than the us have. Im sure that the gdp is almost the same. But economics is more complex and i dont know what factors to really study to see the change. But yeah i choose Sweden any day of the week.
cap and control banking thats where your wallet needs protecting, the banks are forclosing on industry and forcing the gov to dismanle your socail saftynet, noone on welfare gets $1000000 bonus, and if theres no industry theres no work, rebuild industry = more jobs = less on welfare
state welfare protects the poor from bad employers, and the worse elements of society, or perhaps you prefer to be like india or thailand where children are sold as labour, or crippled for begging or sold into prostitution, if the banks keep shutting down industry a whole lot of people will need welfare, we need more state support, more jobs and more social housing, and more control over bans
@Kenpohi, free markets lead to near full employment, and under those conditions there would be no point in welfare. Economically it doesn't benefit anyone. And if you are trying to morally justify it, don't forget stealing is wrong. No one gets called a hero for giving 20% of his stolen money back to charity. Yet when the state does it we are supposed to call it benevolent and generous and "helping the poor".
@Houshalter freemarkets lead to monopolys which take over everything,and then give your jobs to lowpaid asian slaves, who are not protected by thier governments and leaving you on welfare,ecomonically wellfare benefits poor children, and and society because it feels secure, taxes are given to banks for bailouts but contiually you attack the weakest society members while never going after the banks,you have to pay tax anyway, better to give it to the poor than selfish mega banks
@Kenpohi, governments are the only ones capable of creating monopolies. In a free market anyone can compete, and so monopolies never form. As for "giving away jobs", there are not a finite number of jobs. If there were, 99% of people would be unemployed because of population growth, the introduction of women to the workforce, the inventions of technologies that let one person do what once took a hundred, etc.
And yes we "attack" corrupt banks just as much. It's all just as wrong to me.
@Houshalter of course there is a finite number of jobs thats why car workers become burger flippers when the car industrie goes there will be no jobs in the car industrie,and there are a finite number of macdonalds and if its cheaper to make cars else where they will, as for governments creating monopolies, corperations bought governments,removed controls and created monopolies,ask dick chaney and haliburton,or the coca cola company
@Kenpohi, monopolies never form in free markets. Period. Corporations never, ever buy out politicians to remove regulations. They buy them out to *add them*, or at least the vast majority of the time.I mean, if what you say is true, and I believe it is, that corporations have basically bought out the government by now and corporatism is rampant, then it would make no sense whatsoever that the number of pages of regulations continues to increase at exponential rates, if they wanted a free market.
While your points are valid, loking to social democracies you can pretty easily see that social democratic states does offer overall better services for health care, structural upkeep etc than open market systems. You'r arguments is thus not backed up by the actual reality in other parts of the world. That being said, you cannot just switch parts and bits, you need a proper workthrough of the entire systems. Also adding a party that wants profit _always_ ingreases cost/price.
It's all very well to blame Corportatism, but how do you prevent unbridled Captialism from turning into Corporatism (other than government intervention)?
@JacobSpinney How would you prevent an Anarchist society descending in tribalism or ending up with some form of Government anyway as seems to happen (going by what I've studied of Anarchist societies)?
How are property rights protected? How are borders protected? How are individual rights protected?
These are questions that bother me about anarchism and have many years.
@coltrane1966 The way I see it if a state came to be in a stateless society and took over. It would be like if slavery would come back in our time. It would only happen if a major shift in ideology would happen and if it did happen it wouldn't invalidate abolishing slavery.
@JacobSpinney surly we need to legislate against banks to stop their control of the gov, your tax dollars are going to bankers for bonuses and not to welfare, we always hear get rid of welfare to help the poor this is bs
people are on welfare because they cant find work (and even on welfare the have to work anyway on workfare and new deal programes) people on welfare are not the enemy,they re not for scapegoating because there but for the grace of god go you
@PissedFechtmeister if companies cant play of fair ground it only makes since that they would compete to stand on the high ground, if they dont pay for special treatment their competitors will
There is no government in Somalia. Think that is a good place to live? Dude, seriously. Tax is necessary. The strongest economies on the planet have higher tax and provide more welfare than the U.S does.
@trexx97 No. I do not think Somalia is a good place to live. Since we're equating all stateless societies to Somalia, why don't we be logically consistent and equate all statist societies to, say . . . Stalin's Russia. Think that is a good place to live?
@trexx97 I agree that a little tax (like 3% sales tax -they way it was designed by founding fathers) is necessary but your claim that economy grows because of high taxes is ridiculous. The biggest economies are drowning in debt cos of that failed policies, besides 'welfare' destroys jobs, and it's immoral. If you take money from one person and keep it or give it to someone it's a theft. The fastest growing economies actually have way smaller taxes than USA that's why they attract capital.
@trexx97 Too bad that isn't true at all, the EU nations are in domino collapse while China and India are growing but not the top dog yet.
Your Somalia bit is a shallow and too-common canard. Somalia was poor when they had a socialist state, and they are poor without the state. The proper way to examine Somalia is the contrast between urban and rural populations pre-to-post collapse of the state as well as the 13/15 standards of living which have gone up since the collapse.
@RoundSquareX Are you saying that leaving your job, friends, and family and moving to a new state/country is as easy as switching a phone provider, let's say?
@JacobSpinney Morons who tell you to leave the country because they don't like your opinions are actually the ones who should leave because they hate freedom.
@JacobSpinney Sake of argument yes. An internet company, how many do I have to choose from? Lowest rent I can find in my geographic area is 50% of my income, where do I find a better deal? I have to travel to get to my job because my cities unemployment rate is 17%, and I have school obligations so I always loose to the person who has a more flexible schedule, so I have to pay for gas and insurance which is 15% of my income. My health plan is 22%. I have just enough for food, how do I save?
@RoundSquareX No. I have already explained why this will happen, though. The fact that it has yet to be truly tried means only that.
If you would like a historical example for where there was less government and more economic freedom, then I think the industrial revolution could be pointed to. The industrial revolution is responsible for the concept of the division of labor that has led to the largest increase in the standard of living that has ever taken place in human history.
@JacobSpinney i like to think of some of the former soviet block countries that Margaret Thatcher worked with. when a planned economy is set free wonderful things happen
While it's not a perfect example (taxation and state-type intervention was minimized, rather than totally eliminated), it's historical contrast with communist China right next door, that immigrants flocked to a place of virtually no natural resources turning it into one of the largest economic powerhouses in the world, makes it stand out like no other in fairly recent history.
And, as taxation and intervention has increased, you can also see HK's decline in real time.
Well, social(ist) 'welfare' traps capital in public sector and keeps it away from the private sector (which is where the productive jobs are created) so socialism actually creates unemployment and then it pretends like it helps unemployed people who actually are unemployed thanks to socialism. I disagree that consumption tax is a theft cos ultimately you have a choice you can just not sell or buy though imo property tax is more legitimate if the land is owned by a monarch.
@GompCelticPL I'm from Jersey, I pay $100 bucks a week in property taxes so someone who's getting an entitlement check can also get free housing, food, education & health care. at some point it's going to be more cost efficient to give up my house, quit my job & join them.
@davidpark68 Most of this 100$ is 'eaten' by bureaucracy the so called needy people don't actually see most of it, because you've gotta pay some guy who takes it from you, some guy who 'gives' it to someone else etc. Don't quit working just go into grey market. Around where I live most people who are officially poor and unemployed earn lots of money that way. Besides U.S. is a republic so I don't think there should be any property tax there.
@chitchcott its not bullshit, companies do not have printing presses and the more money spent on the CEO or any employee for that matter is less money in the coffers at the end of the day. if the company is profitable by $1000 and it cuts its CEOs wage by $1000, its efficiency has just double. if you raise the wage by $1000 then the company now has zero funds for reinvestment, its breaking even.
@JacobSpinney Not necessarily. CEOs may be cunts, but at least in a free market they provide services that are of much greater value than their pay - which is why they're paid so much. It's actually pretty difficult to be a CEO, which is why the very best are in such high demand.
The money you "take out of a business" is not proportional to the revenue that the invested money generates, so your correlation of is false.
tl;dr CEOs are paid high cuz they generate the dolla.
@chitchcott In a free market, you'd be correct. In a corporatist market, you are wrong. When they're a monopoly, thanks to corporatism, they have every incentive to cut themselves fat checks that ARE NOT proportional to the amount of value they generate, just like governments.
@JacobSpinney for a corporatist CEO it's not what you know, it's how many congressmen you can fit in your pocket, Buying a few congressmen to create legislation that keeps out competition & few ex congressmen or a few ex regulators as lobbyists is the best investment a corporation can make.
Are you suggesting anarchy? What about the role of a government to act as a safeguard, say, food quality standards? If a snack kiosk sells poor quality hot dogs and some people get seriously ill/die from that, you can't say, "Oh, well, next time they'll choose another snack kiosk and this one will simply go out of business - hoorah, free markets!" :/
@puuuuuuch it would work more effectively than having the government reduce the amount of hot dogs available. then people just get less food.
the same applies to medicine. People look at risks taken from people taking medicine that might half a bad reaction but they ignore the amount of lives lost from reducing the supply for safety checks.
@puuuuuuch, if the kiosk tells you their food is perfectly safe, and this can be as simple as a little sticker slapped on somewhere or some kind of symbol drawn on the sign, and you get sick from eating it, then that's fraud. It's a crime that could be handled in the same way as murder or theft.
Also, there may be several competing agencies that inspect and/or set standards for things like that, and no one would go to places that didn't show they were part of one of those organizations.
Why would the kiosk want additional liability by slapping such stickers? I'm pretty sure no kiosks (or a minority of them) would make such statements. What I see 99% of the time is disclamers stating that the service provider opts out of any liability, etc. (not necessarily food-related, but still). This is more like an utopia than a plausible reality.
@puuuuuuch, no one would eat at the restraunt that says "ha ha ha, if you die from our food it's your own damn fault." Companies offer extras and garuntees all the time if they think it will attract more customers. And if they are running an honest business then they have nothing to fear at all.
A more likely scenario would be each restraunt getting insurance that would compensate victims of their food, and no one would eat at restraunts that didn't have such insurance.
@puuuuuuch um, those people can sue in a free market if they get ill, unless the vendor is letting people know his product will make you ill. today if a producer sells an FDA inspected good and people get sick and die, the vendor just needs to point to the FDA and say we passed inspection. Pharmaceutical companies do this all the time, the great part is that people cant sue the gov unless it lets you sue them. free market agents dont have the same immunity to lawyers that the gov has
@puuuuuuch What makes you so sure there won't be private testing agencies? If you're under health insurance, surely your health insurance company would have a vested interest in keeping you healthy so they don't have to pay up on the policy. Wouldn't they then be more than happy to investigate food safety and only recommend safe restaurants to their clients?
@puuuuuuch Good point absolutely none of us have thought of this before. Wow. Do you really think any of us hasn't heard this shit thousands of times already? We have, and you bring NOTHING new to the discussion. I don't mean to be a douchebag, but this is frustrating.
@JacobSpinney Ok that makes sense. Whenever I hear "monopoly price" I think in terms of pre-Rothbard monopoly theory (i.e. one big firm dominates an industry and can gain more and more profit the higher it raises its price). If I am understanding you correctly you are saying monopoly price is the price attained through LEGAL restrictions on the market.
It's amusing how little people actually listen to your points, so you end up repeating the same examples in every video. Like your fish story... it's a good example, and I wonder why so few people address it?
Also, he says that 'Taxation isn't theft when it's taken from the rich'? Really? It's theft when it's taken from lower/middle classes? So the more money I earn, the more right it gives everyone else to take it? And where is that line of 'rich'? I'd just purposely stay $1 under that line.
This has been flagged as spam show
The Somalies are terrorised by gangs and unrully militia, and their pirates are ruthless killers with no respect for life. I would sooner live in socialist France or Sweden anyday. In fact, France, with it's mandatory 35 hour, where workers get 6 weeks paid annual leave, with its high taxes, where you get a state nanny for 4 hrs twice a week if you have a new baby, with it's enormous regulations, is still richer than the USA. Libertarians allow the rich to steal all your money and freedom .
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The free market has been proven not to work and there is no debate about this anymore. All the free market does is make the rich richer and more powerful while making eveyone else poorer destroying liberty.The free market is fascism which ruins lives and destroys families.Through a fair government we can redistribute wealth and create a much happier society, although the rich won't like it much.This is will reballance the enormous unfair adavantage that the rich use enslave and rob us.
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 1 month ago
Sometimes the gov't should stay out, and sometimes gov't needs to get involved. It's not one or the other 100% of the time.
whoo689 2 months ago
would help everyone? Your idiotic, absolutist bullshit just doesn't fly with reality, Jacob. You libertarians think the solution is to just "get the gov't out", as if the private sector in EVERY CASE is NEVER at fault, and businesses NEVER do shit that ends up costing society more. "Competition" always evens shit out, so you guys claim.
whoo689 2 months ago
Tell that to all the folks who HAVE been helped by what you call "state welfare", like the mother who did all she could to work her ass off to support her child but was able to get a little extra help from welfare. Or the unemployed man who just lost his factory job and didn't have to lose his house or other amenities because unemployment helped until he got his new job (probably lower-paying, though, sadly).
Do you REALLY believe that eliminating all welfare immediately with no transition
whoo689 2 months ago
You liberal fuck
Vic12aar 2 months ago
The welfare state gives people lots of freedom. State health care means there no need to worry about this anymore, or insurance companies ripping you off. And welfare if your luck runs out takes care of that worry too. Countries that give state education to their children are investing in its future as these kids can grow up to become prosperous which is good for the economy and creates a safer high quality society. This gives people enormous freedom to get on with the things that they enjoy.
nivekvb 2 months ago
@nivekvb Have you been watching the news lately?All welfare states are broke,In welfare states the incentive to work is removed and now 4 generations of many of the same families know nothing but welfare in America.Have more illegitimate kids,get more money and if you can convince the state your kid is half-retarded you get more money.People are also paid to stay single, marriage is discouraged in this system,this is the reason for all the baby daddys and baby mammas.We can't afford it anymore.
CBALLEN 2 months ago
@CBALLEN You make some good points and nothing is perect, but I just think that neo liberialism and its cousin, libertarianism, is something far worse as well as being a very cruel system which shows no mercy or compassion. We are inteligent creatures so there must be a way around these problems, although will mean compromises, but there is sweet spot between social domocracy and captilalism which will work the best for the majority of people.
nivekvb 2 months ago
@nivekvb The church used to take care of the needs of the poor,but not to the extent that the government can,it can give them most all their wants too,of course politicians learned quickly,if you take the place of the church you end up keeping your job which is easy money,and at the same time ,building a power base while guaranteeing to keep certain people uneducated,unmotivated,crime ridden(too much time on their hands) & poor.
CBALLEN 2 months ago
Americans take on $85 billion of debt each year for higher education, while college is financed by taxes in Germany and tuition is cheap to free in other modern countries. While soaring medical costs are a key reason that since 1980 bankruptcy in America has increased 15 times faster than population growth, no one in Germany or the rest of the modern world goes broke because of accident or illness. You got it, social democracy wins every time. We like it.
nivekvb 3 months ago
5:22 Nope, unions do nothing at all. Nope.
What job do you have? Is it one where you have a minimum wage in place (even though you may be earning more than that), one where you have weekends, a 40-hour week, and vacation days? Yeah, those things you love? Unions made those. Unions are important.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
2:18 NOPE, WASN'T THE BANKS AT ALL.
bobmuffins 5 months ago
Mr. Spinney if you wish to live in a geographical area that is not under the dominion of any sovereign power you have options. By making the choice to continue living here you adknowledge the state as the sovereign. You rememdy if you want a different sovereign is to find a different country that is more suitable to you and then move there. If wish to have no sovereign power you could move to a country with no functioning government find an island that is not under the
xexixk 8 months ago
2/2 jurisdiction of or the territory of any sovereign power. Or you can get on a boat, sail past the 12 mile territorial water limit, sale out 15 miles to be safe, drop anchor and stay there. You would no longer be in territory under the dominion of any sovereign territory. I wish to live in a society under the sovereignty of a state, you do not. The state exist and has for over two centuries so your deisre to abolish that state is not legiitimate, your remedy is to find an alternative place.
xexixk 8 months ago
A, European countries pay 3-7%, of GDP, less on healtcare than the USA and gets everyone insured without distinction.
B, There is no rule saying that because you have a single payer system that there must be a single provider of different healthcare services.
C, All free markets, in order to maximize profit, will seek to get a monopoly.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil So I am defending US healthcare? And your solution to businesses seeking monopoly is to . . . institute a monopoly in the form of a state?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney I didn't know that I had to have a solution. What I'm saying is that you are wrong when you say that a single payer sytstem is less efficient than a free market option. Largely because the free market isn't free and we do not have perfect information.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil Is the US healthcare system a free market?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney No. The US healtcare system is bloody mess.
But there is big private interest in US healthcare.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil And so why are you comparing the US to European countries?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney True, I could compare Europe with Afghanistan or Somalia two countries very close to a free market healthcare. And where have you found a healthcare system more efficent trhen the ones in Europe?
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil So you think it's valid to compare the healthcare system of a wealthy country to the healthcare system of a dirt poor country?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@gaspphil More efficient in what respect? All we have to compare is a corporatist system (the US) to socialist ones (Europe). And we see that the US dominates all the other countries in terms of waiting times and medical innovation. While Europe, on the other hand, costs less. So it's higher quality at a higher price or lower quality at a lower price. I'm not sure there's a clear winner.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@gaspphil While a free market would indeed offer higher quality than both at a lower price than both. The fact that there's not currently a comparable free market system only goes to show you how scared governments are of letting people see how much better stateless solutions are.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney
A,In theory even the communist system is marvellous.
B, What I see is a system where you get care according to your needs and not to to your means. Higher quality to whom?
C, I thought you didn't like the american healthcare system.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil No. It isn't in theory. The Austrian school of economics completely demolished the theory that communism would work.
That's exactly what I pointed out. US has higher quality, but at the cost of access to only those who can afford it.
I don't. I was merely pointing out that socialist models have pros and cons just like corporatist models do. But free market models have all of the pros with none of the cons.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney WIth the help of the Austrian school of economics I would like you to show me a free market model where every one; regardless of income, has free access to healthcare.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil Please watch my state is not great video and then do a search on my channel for "healthcare" and watch those.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney I don't need to. No free market system will provide a good for free.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil Are you saying that you choose to be willfully ignorant of the arguments and still hold a position on the issue?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney Am I wrong? Who will provide a good or a service for free?
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil Yes. You are wrong. Free goods and services will be funded and provided by whoever feels that people who cannot afford the product should still receive it. Thanks to the dramatic increase in the wealth of the poor, middle class, and rich that a free market will bring, this will be far less of an issue than people make it out to be.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney My dear Jacob. Do deam on. It's lovely to be young
and innocent.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil Another hard-nose realist, using ageism.
DKshad0w 9 months ago
@DKshad0w Seems a fallacious use of "realism" is what all statists fall back on if they don't actually have arguments.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@gaspphil They are utopians. The dream of what never has existed and never will because it's not possible. What we would actually end up with if he had his way is living in a neo-fuedalist society of enclaves of neo-tribal like communities. Not fun. He chooses to continue to live in a geographic area that is part of a sovereign power. If he wishes to to live in a place where there is no sovereign power he needs to find that place and then go there. That is his remedy.
xexixk 8 months ago
@JacobSpinney What arguments? Except of a hint of a theoretical economic system, you have
nothing to back your claims of a system that is more efficient and that provides healtcare to everyone regardless of income.
gaspphil 9 months ago
@gaspphil What arguments? I refer you to a series of videos and you refuse to watch them being certain that you know all there is to know and then you have the gall to ask me what arguments?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
Comment removed
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
Basic economic theory and even the laws of physics clearly state that no process can be 100% efficient.
The variability of supply and demand in market systems is the primary driving point besides profit, and the concentration of power determines in large part the balance of what decides prices. In a Democratic republic, there is no such thing as against one's will if it is acknowledged that one's will can and is expressed by the express and implicit powers of a vote.
metashifter 9 months ago
There is an easy way to see if your right. Does people in countries with state welfare have a more or less healthy people? The same goes for the economic bit.
Im not the educated in the subject to be honest but i know my country has a way better health index than the us have. Im sure that the gdp is almost the same. But economics is more complex and i dont know what factors to really study to see the change. But yeah i choose Sweden any day of the week.
mrfuzzer1 11 months ago
I like you
You're smart
Ninjoel 1 year ago
That book by Schiff should be a must read for everyone.
AtheistPatriot1 1 year ago
cap and control banking thats where your wallet needs protecting, the banks are forclosing on industry and forcing the gov to dismanle your socail saftynet, noone on welfare gets $1000000 bonus, and if theres no industry theres no work, rebuild industry = more jobs = less on welfare
Kenpohi 1 year ago
state welfare protects the poor from bad employers, and the worse elements of society, or perhaps you prefer to be like india or thailand where children are sold as labour, or crippled for begging or sold into prostitution, if the banks keep shutting down industry a whole lot of people will need welfare, we need more state support, more jobs and more social housing, and more control over bans
Kenpohi 1 year ago
@Kenpohi LOL, I Guess it does considering the people on welfare don't work. how about a law that protects my wallet from welfare recipients.
davidpark68 1 year ago
@Kenpohi, free markets lead to near full employment, and under those conditions there would be no point in welfare. Economically it doesn't benefit anyone. And if you are trying to morally justify it, don't forget stealing is wrong. No one gets called a hero for giving 20% of his stolen money back to charity. Yet when the state does it we are supposed to call it benevolent and generous and "helping the poor".
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter freemarkets lead to monopolys which take over everything,and then give your jobs to lowpaid asian slaves, who are not protected by thier governments and leaving you on welfare,ecomonically wellfare benefits poor children, and and society because it feels secure, taxes are given to banks for bailouts but contiually you attack the weakest society members while never going after the banks,you have to pay tax anyway, better to give it to the poor than selfish mega banks
Kenpohi 1 year ago
@Kenpohi, governments are the only ones capable of creating monopolies. In a free market anyone can compete, and so monopolies never form. As for "giving away jobs", there are not a finite number of jobs. If there were, 99% of people would be unemployed because of population growth, the introduction of women to the workforce, the inventions of technologies that let one person do what once took a hundred, etc.
And yes we "attack" corrupt banks just as much. It's all just as wrong to me.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter of course there is a finite number of jobs thats why car workers become burger flippers when the car industrie goes there will be no jobs in the car industrie,and there are a finite number of macdonalds and if its cheaper to make cars else where they will, as for governments creating monopolies, corperations bought governments,removed controls and created monopolies,ask dick chaney and haliburton,or the coca cola company
Kenpohi 1 year ago
@Kenpohi, monopolies never form in free markets. Period. Corporations never, ever buy out politicians to remove regulations. They buy them out to *add them*, or at least the vast majority of the time.I mean, if what you say is true, and I believe it is, that corporations have basically bought out the government by now and corporatism is rampant, then it would make no sense whatsoever that the number of pages of regulations continues to increase at exponential rates, if they wanted a free market.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Kenpohi
And how exactly does the free market create monopolies?
Illyrien 1 year ago
While your points are valid, loking to social democracies you can pretty easily see that social democratic states does offer overall better services for health care, structural upkeep etc than open market systems. You'r arguments is thus not backed up by the actual reality in other parts of the world. That being said, you cannot just switch parts and bits, you need a proper workthrough of the entire systems. Also adding a party that wants profit _always_ ingreases cost/price.
sp4zzer 1 year ago
Why did you call him the "punk rock patriot"?
TiradeFaction 1 year ago
Spot on Mr. Spinney!
testekleez 1 year ago
4:10
Peter Schiffs book?
hanzo138 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree. You are definitely right!
zzztopzzz 1 year ago
Well that would be authoritarian unions, which are just as much cartels as corporations.
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
The CEO of ford is worth what he is paid
bilpayne 1 year ago
It's all very well to blame Corportatism, but how do you prevent unbridled Captialism from turning into Corporatism (other than government intervention)?
NathanZackery 1 year ago
@NathanZackery End the legitimacy in the state itself.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 26
@JacobSpinney How would you prevent an Anarchist society descending in tribalism or ending up with some form of Government anyway as seems to happen (going by what I've studied of Anarchist societies)?
How are property rights protected? How are borders protected? How are individual rights protected?
These are questions that bother me about anarchism and have many years.
coltrane1966 1 year ago
@coltrane1966 The way I see it if a state came to be in a stateless society and took over. It would be like if slavery would come back in our time. It would only happen if a major shift in ideology would happen and if it did happen it wouldn't invalidate abolishing slavery.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney are you advocating anarchy ???
Kenpohi 1 year ago
@Kenpohi Possibly, though more likely anti-statism.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney surly we need to legislate against banks to stop their control of the gov, your tax dollars are going to bankers for bonuses and not to welfare, we always hear get rid of welfare to help the poor this is bs
people are on welfare because they cant find work (and even on welfare the have to work anyway on workfare and new deal programes) people on welfare are not the enemy,they re not for scapegoating because there but for the grace of god go you
Kenpohi 1 year ago
@NathanZackery It's the government intervention which creates the corporatism.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister if companies cant play of fair ground it only makes since that they would compete to stand on the high ground, if they dont pay for special treatment their competitors will
surrealnumber 1 year ago
There is no government in Somalia. Think that is a good place to live? Dude, seriously. Tax is necessary. The strongest economies on the planet have higher tax and provide more welfare than the U.S does.
trexx97 1 year ago
@trexx97 No. I do not think Somalia is a good place to live. Since we're equating all stateless societies to Somalia, why don't we be logically consistent and equate all statist societies to, say . . . Stalin's Russia. Think that is a good place to live?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 10
@JacobSpinney Besides, the principle of non-aggression is clearly not held in Somalia.
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
@trexx97 I agree that a little tax (like 3% sales tax -they way it was designed by founding fathers) is necessary but your claim that economy grows because of high taxes is ridiculous. The biggest economies are drowning in debt cos of that failed policies, besides 'welfare' destroys jobs, and it's immoral. If you take money from one person and keep it or give it to someone it's a theft. The fastest growing economies actually have way smaller taxes than USA that's why they attract capital.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago 2
@trexx97 Too bad that isn't true at all, the EU nations are in domino collapse while China and India are growing but not the top dog yet.
Your Somalia bit is a shallow and too-common canard. Somalia was poor when they had a socialist state, and they are poor without the state. The proper way to examine Somalia is the contrast between urban and rural populations pre-to-post collapse of the state as well as the 13/15 standards of living which have gone up since the collapse.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
Is there a particular reason that this kind of 'nonsense' only comes out of America?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Actually you do have more choices, you have 50 states to choose from, and a person can move to another country as well.
RoundSquareX 1 year ago
@RoundSquareX Are you saying that leaving your job, friends, and family and moving to a new state/country is as easy as switching a phone provider, let's say?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Morons who tell you to leave the country because they don't like your opinions are actually the ones who should leave because they hate freedom.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Sake of argument yes. An internet company, how many do I have to choose from? Lowest rent I can find in my geographic area is 50% of my income, where do I find a better deal? I have to travel to get to my job because my cities unemployment rate is 17%, and I have school obligations so I always loose to the person who has a more flexible schedule, so I have to pay for gas and insurance which is 15% of my income. My health plan is 22%. I have just enough for food, how do I save?
RoundSquareX 1 year ago
@RoundSquareX End government taxation and intervention and your wage will double and your expenses will cut in half.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 4
@JacobSpinney That is a mighty big promise, can you point to one example in the world or in history where that was the case?
RoundSquareX 1 year ago
@RoundSquareX No. I have already explained why this will happen, though. The fact that it has yet to be truly tried means only that.
If you would like a historical example for where there was less government and more economic freedom, then I think the industrial revolution could be pointed to. The industrial revolution is responsible for the concept of the division of labor that has led to the largest increase in the standard of living that has ever taken place in human history.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney i like to think of some of the former soviet block countries that Margaret Thatcher worked with. when a planned economy is set free wonderful things happen
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@RoundSquareX Hong Kong.
While it's not a perfect example (taxation and state-type intervention was minimized, rather than totally eliminated), it's historical contrast with communist China right next door, that immigrants flocked to a place of virtually no natural resources turning it into one of the largest economic powerhouses in the world, makes it stand out like no other in fairly recent history.
And, as taxation and intervention has increased, you can also see HK's decline in real time.
GabrielKoulikov 1 year ago
@WiseMonkey888
Weight? Epic Fail.
rockandrock44 1 year ago
Government is the problem, it's always the problem.
Medicine, everywhere the Gov. is involved prices are sky rocketing, Lasic eye surgery, No Gov. and the prices are dropping.
Not just medicine, Computers and cell phones.
No Gov. and they're better and faster and cheaper than ever.
Yeah the Gov. is involved with phone companies and the rates are going up but, the phones are cheaper and better all the time.
9 words of Terror!!
" I'm from the Government and, I'm here to help"
americanbandwidth 1 year ago 3
Well, social(ist) 'welfare' traps capital in public sector and keeps it away from the private sector (which is where the productive jobs are created) so socialism actually creates unemployment and then it pretends like it helps unemployed people who actually are unemployed thanks to socialism. I disagree that consumption tax is a theft cos ultimately you have a choice you can just not sell or buy though imo property tax is more legitimate if the land is owned by a monarch.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@GompCelticPL I'm from Jersey, I pay $100 bucks a week in property taxes so someone who's getting an entitlement check can also get free housing, food, education & health care. at some point it's going to be more cost efficient to give up my house, quit my job & join them.
davidpark68 1 year ago
@davidpark68 Most of this 100$ is 'eaten' by bureaucracy the so called needy people don't actually see most of it, because you've gotta pay some guy who takes it from you, some guy who 'gives' it to someone else etc. Don't quit working just go into grey market. Around where I live most people who are officially poor and unemployed earn lots of money that way. Besides U.S. is a republic so I don't think there should be any property tax there.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
Comment removed
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
Come on dude... "The higher you pay your CEO, the less efficient your company will be"
You know that's bullshit as it stands. You gots to explain it for people.
chitchcott 1 year ago
@chitchcott its not bullshit, companies do not have printing presses and the more money spent on the CEO or any employee for that matter is less money in the coffers at the end of the day. if the company is profitable by $1000 and it cuts its CEOs wage by $1000, its efficiency has just double. if you raise the wage by $1000 then the company now has zero funds for reinvestment, its breaking even.
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@chitchcott How is it bullshit as it stands? Must I really explain how the more money you take out of a business, the less stuff it can produce?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
chitchcott 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Not necessarily. CEOs may be cunts, but at least in a free market they provide services that are of much greater value than their pay - which is why they're paid so much. It's actually pretty difficult to be a CEO, which is why the very best are in such high demand.
The money you "take out of a business" is not proportional to the revenue that the invested money generates, so your correlation of is false.
tl;dr CEOs are paid high cuz they generate the dolla.
chitchcott 1 year ago
@chitchcott In a free market, you'd be correct. In a corporatist market, you are wrong. When they're a monopoly, thanks to corporatism, they have every incentive to cut themselves fat checks that ARE NOT proportional to the amount of value they generate, just like governments.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 3
@JacobSpinney So how did they get there in the first place? Why can't anyone just be a CEO?
chitchcott 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney for a corporatist CEO it's not what you know, it's how many congressmen you can fit in your pocket, Buying a few congressmen to create legislation that keeps out competition & few ex congressmen or a few ex regulators as lobbyists is the best investment a corporation can make.
davidpark68 1 year ago
ridiculous videos like punk patriots is why I unsubbed him ages ago.
Good video Jacob
Daniel44125 1 year ago 2
government only passes bills to benefit a few corporations over all others, creating monopolies in any sector they touch.
>:)
iTellYouNoLie 1 year ago
@WiseMonkey888 Rather than dismissing everything I say as complete bilge and nonsense, perhaps it would be helpful to explain why you think it is.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 15
Are you suggesting anarchy? What about the role of a government to act as a safeguard, say, food quality standards? If a snack kiosk sells poor quality hot dogs and some people get seriously ill/die from that, you can't say, "Oh, well, next time they'll choose another snack kiosk and this one will simply go out of business - hoorah, free markets!" :/
puuuuuuch 1 year ago
@puuuuuuch it would work more effectively than having the government reduce the amount of hot dogs available. then people just get less food.
the same applies to medicine. People look at risks taken from people taking medicine that might half a bad reaction but they ignore the amount of lives lost from reducing the supply for safety checks.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
@puuuuuuch, if the kiosk tells you their food is perfectly safe, and this can be as simple as a little sticker slapped on somewhere or some kind of symbol drawn on the sign, and you get sick from eating it, then that's fraud. It's a crime that could be handled in the same way as murder or theft.
Also, there may be several competing agencies that inspect and/or set standards for things like that, and no one would go to places that didn't show they were part of one of those organizations.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Why would the kiosk want additional liability by slapping such stickers? I'm pretty sure no kiosks (or a minority of them) would make such statements. What I see 99% of the time is disclamers stating that the service provider opts out of any liability, etc. (not necessarily food-related, but still). This is more like an utopia than a plausible reality.
puuuuuuch 1 year ago
@puuuuuuch, no one would eat at the restraunt that says "ha ha ha, if you die from our food it's your own damn fault." Companies offer extras and garuntees all the time if they think it will attract more customers. And if they are running an honest business then they have nothing to fear at all.
A more likely scenario would be each restraunt getting insurance that would compensate victims of their food, and no one would eat at restraunts that didn't have such insurance.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Comment removed
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@puuuuuuch um, those people can sue in a free market if they get ill, unless the vendor is letting people know his product will make you ill. today if a producer sells an FDA inspected good and people get sick and die, the vendor just needs to point to the FDA and say we passed inspection. Pharmaceutical companies do this all the time, the great part is that people cant sue the gov unless it lets you sue them. free market agents dont have the same immunity to lawyers that the gov has
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@puuuuuuch What makes you so sure there won't be private testing agencies? If you're under health insurance, surely your health insurance company would have a vested interest in keeping you healthy so they don't have to pay up on the policy. Wouldn't they then be more than happy to investigate food safety and only recommend safe restaurants to their clients?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 5
@puuuuuuch Good point absolutely none of us have thought of this before. Wow. Do you really think any of us hasn't heard this shit thousands of times already? We have, and you bring NOTHING new to the discussion. I don't mean to be a douchebag, but this is frustrating.
trentmanslow 1 year ago
@trentmanslow And you bring WHAT to the discussion? Nice attitude, btw, probs have high people skills.
puuuuuuch 1 year ago
@WiseMonkey888 I'm not sure what there is to answer. No. I'm not on drugs. Were there any arguments you made that I missed?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
Are you my long lost brother?!?!? lol
Freedom FTW!!!
mikeshanklin 1 year ago 23
@mikeshanklin :)
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 2
What exactly do you mean by monopoly prices?
t3hsauce 1 year ago
@t3hsauce The difference between the price caused by government manipulation in the economy and the price that it otherwise would have been.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Ok that makes sense. Whenever I hear "monopoly price" I think in terms of pre-Rothbard monopoly theory (i.e. one big firm dominates an industry and can gain more and more profit the higher it raises its price). If I am understanding you correctly you are saying monopoly price is the price attained through LEGAL restrictions on the market.
t3hsauce 1 year ago
@t3hsauce Yeah. Maybe I should change the term to something else to avoid the confusion. Maybe "artificial price" . . . ?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
congrats on 100 videos and great video
TylersCool45 1 year ago
It's amusing how little people actually listen to your points, so you end up repeating the same examples in every video. Like your fish story... it's a good example, and I wonder why so few people address it?
Also, he says that 'Taxation isn't theft when it's taken from the rich'? Really? It's theft when it's taken from lower/middle classes? So the more money I earn, the more right it gives everyone else to take it? And where is that line of 'rich'? I'd just purposely stay $1 under that line.
FishofMuu 1 year ago