Yaron Brook's Call to Action - June 2009

[philipmorin556]

Hey, if you want more views and subscribers go to viewsandsubs (dot) com

heee hee shamone mother fucker, I'm Micheal Jackson.? This song rocks luv it, thanks OP

[orangeman4242]

Finally, the best of both worlds: Yaron elucidating principles from current events and the camera including the beautiful woman next to him throughout the video!

[DevilDue]

Can you say "Ayn Rand" with that gay mouth ?

[jcapcik]

Obviously even the disinterested "understand" that only because it's what they are taught.

[jcapcik]

"Dying planet." Can you say that with a straight face?

[buckyoung81]

Listen to the man! Yaron Brook is right: the future of this country is at stake, with more debt than I think any of us can truly understand. And if you feel strongly about changing this country for the better, get out there and speak up when you can! There are two kinds of governments in this world: one that protects individual liberties and allows individuals to make their own decisions (capitalism), and one that destroys those rights many of us have taken for granted (socialism, communism, etc

[vbabe11111]

@buckyoung81

i am interested in learning more about the green tea party movement can you recommend me a few books?

[buckyoung81]

@vbabe11111 The best source for the tea party movement can be found on places like aynrand dot org, where they have a section dedicated to it. But in terms of books, I'd recommend anything by Ayn Rand (esp. Atlas Shrugged)- and getting involved on places like facebook and twitter where you can follow Yaron Brook (and other pro-liberty supporters), as they often post articles and videos that can help you understand the movement better.

[dfusselman]

It always strikes me as odd that people justify public schools or roads under the logic that "it's of benefit to everybody." Well, what isn't of benefit to others? Food is more important that education or medical care, but do you really want to model the supermarket after 70s style Russian shops where you were lucky to get bread of any sort and you had three lines to go through before you could leave with your state delivered items? Altruism gives you an excuse for tyranny.

[spawk1993]

Made up and man made are different. I saying their not real, its all ultimately just arbitrary preference . A society shouldn't base its self off of your preference just because you dont like people being forced to pay taxes doesnt make it wrong , and other people certainly shouldn't change the way our country works because of your preference.

[spawk1993]

lulz , morality is made up. And so are rights.

[bakukenshin]

We do believe that the government should be responsible for maintaining law enforcement, the courts, and military. However, we believe that these can be funded voluntarily, without taxation. However, the shift to a non-tax system would require many other changes in our system. For example an insurance premium on contractual agreements is one possibility.

[spawk1993]

Why do we need a monopoly of courts and law? Could they not compete in the free market like all other services?

[bakukenshin]

No. A society supportive of capitalism needs to enforce laws objectively, i.e. can't have a vested interest in the outcome on one side or the other. Police represent the physical force necessary to constrain non-compliant criminals. A competition of enforcers would lead to anarchy. The government needs to maintain control over the use of force. The other branches are to balance the power of the executive, but power rests with those who have the guns.

[bakukenshin]

The judicial system must be objective and separate from the enforcers to effectively check their power. Judges should be systematically encouraged to represent high ideals of their trade within a single judiciary, but competing judiciaries makes no sense. If one community has one judiciary and another has another judiciary, any conflict between the two communities could not be resolved. Which judiciary would have jurisdiction? There needs to be an incorporating authority.

[bakukenshin]

The legislative system, once again, should experience competition for the representative slots in the system, but competing legislative systems would result in the same problem, a lack of coherence in the legal code. Capitalism needs a coherent, clearly understandable legal code to operate effectively. Remember, it is through contradictory and incomprehensible laws that fascism is established as that is what makes everyone a criminal.

[shovelcharge]

Google Ayn Rand's essays: Man's Rights and The Nature of Government

[Vodka2389]

I was skeptical about the idea of voluntary taxes too. But the more I thought about it, the more apparent it became that people would be more than willing to pay for the government to protect their rights and property.

[blummedia]

YOu could look at all the programs currently supported, and ask why don't the people who support the ideas, pay for the programs themselves instead of forcing others to pay for their ideas.

There are those that take from one man and give to another, while claiming they are the virtuous ones.

Check out Milton Friedman and the ways of spending money.

[spawk1993]

Stay away from any thing freidman says about monetary policy and business cycles lol

[Koutetsu]

The only proper function of government is to protect rights. Anything else is slavery, any law which is not protecting freedom, is by default taking freedom away. Period. The government has no place micromanaging the economy, and doing so can only destroy market functions in favor of the greed-driven whims of bureaucrats.

[Eldel15]

These minarchist cling on to the state, they do not realize that the state is a coercive monopoly and will always misuse its power.

[killerbandit]

Inevitably wo will some corporation or individual who can attain power abuse it to their benifit.

The general idea is that when this is discovered we create rules to prevent it. In turn those who wish to abuse power will find another hole in the law to exploit until we plug it. This will happen again and again until we can get it perfect. To which there is no indication will happen any time soon.

[killerbandit]

I think Yuron has forgotten that there are thousands upon thousands of American troops fighting in a war right now.

He has also forgotten that the regulations that were once in place to keep companies from becoming 'to big to fail' were removed in the name of the free market.

These companies were run into the ground for the short term profits of the few. Self interest yes, enlightened no.

Without rules the actions of a few men will destroy thousands of lives.

[p0rq]

In fact, those regulations are still in place ensuring banks can make reckless decisions, safe in the knowledge that the Government will bail them out.

The ones that do not insure the banks, are there preventing them from actually making rational decisions. They either restrain good decision making, or, by setting an arbitrary standard for corporations to meet, ensure that they do no more than meet that minimum standard.

You're right: The actions of a few men - the Government - ruin us all.

[killerbandit]

You are wrong about the regulations, take a look at the glass steagall act. It was removed under Clinton.

Many of the laws that were added under Bush for example were lobbied for by the industries themselves.

Rules are always a tricky thing. However it is difficult to play the game without them.

[p0rq]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall was followed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Not only was that a prohibitive piece of regulation, with a bunch of claws, it also encouraged, in fact, enforced a little thing known as sub-prime mortgages - heard of them at all?

And I do not deny industries have started playing the politics game. CEOs are expected to be politicians to survive these days; not businessmen with, you know, economic sense. That's what happens when government encroaches on business.

[killerbandit]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial and investment banks to merge...hardly prohibitive. It was enacted in the name of 'freeing up the market' by a republican congress. I am not denying that gov is very capable of making bad legislation.

I would point out that it takes two to tango and that big businesses are encroaching on government for their own self interests.

In this case business lobbied for legislation that turned out to be self destructive.

[p0rq]

I do not deny, in an atmosphere, like I said, where businessmen are expected to be more like politicians/gangsters than rational businessmen, you will get results like that.

As for the GLBA, read the small print: those mergers could only go ahead so long as they appeased political winds. Mmm, government encroachment again.

Furthermore, Clinton himself promised to: "veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements."

'Minority-lending requirements' = Sub-prime loans.

[killerbandit]

I think Yuron has forgotten that there are thousands upon thousands of American troops fighting in a war right now.

He has also forgotten that the regulations that were once in place to keep companies from becoming 'to big to fail' were removed in the name of the free market.

These companies were run into the ground for the short term profits of the few. Self interest yes, enlightened no.

Without rules the actions of a few men will destroy thousands of lives.

[stratvic]

Rules commanded by whom?

[killerbandit]

Democratically elected representatives.

[stratvic]

Is authority determined by majority?

[killerbandit]

Usually. It depends on your local system of government, municipal, state, or federal.

[stratvic]

Who determines usually? I assume a constitution ... which is also based on a majority or perhaps an arbitrarily defined super majority. So I take your answer as yes, a majority authorizes and legitimises authority.

If I meet you in an empty lot with my buddy and we vote to tax you the contents of your wallet and redistribute it to ourselves is that legitimized involuntary altruism?

If we need a super majority I can invite another friend or two.

[killerbandit]

I am not sure what you are advocating. The abolition of government?

In a society there are freedoms and responsibilities. You seem to want all the freedom yet none of the responsibility.

You may not like that you must contribute to the maintenance of an electrical grid, but you are always free to leave.

[stratvic]

I am not advocating, I am discovering what you are advocating. Which appears to be a tyrannical kleptocracy.

Are you asserting that majorities wherever found authorise and legitimise authority and that using that authority tyrannically to enforce theft is the means by which we will achieve a good society?

I accept and uphold chosen responsibilities and have no objection whatsoever to paying for products and services that I use which I expect to incorporate a charge for infrastructure.

[killerbandit]

If you really want expect everyone to agree before anything can be done then you would likely not be connected to an electrical grid.

If you are an employer you are well served by public roads and even transit by which your employees can get to work.

You are well served by a public education system that provides you with functional adults(most of the time)

You are well served by the 'theft' of your money to pay for police and fire depts.

[stratvic]

Allow me to flip this on you...."If you really want expect everyone to agree before anything can be done then you would likely not be connected to" cable, cell phone, internet, subscriptions, radio, itunes, amazon, etc.

Public education/indoctrination is an unfortunate example as noted by your "(most of the time)"

I disagree that we are well served by either the police of fire fighters. Police make it their full time job to thwart the constitution and the fire dept is a make (no) work scheme.

[killerbandit]

I am very skeptical about the notion that once you privatize you will eliminate all the issues with public services.

Are the problems inherent in government because of government or because of people? I would argue that the problems faced are inherent in any institution, whether private or public.

We all have the right to protection.

I am better served if my neighbours house doesn't burn to the ground because he can't afford to pay the Fire Dept.

[stratvic]

When businesses make mistake,s become inefficient, or provide bad service consumers take them out by choosing alternatives. When government institutions make mistakes they increase taxes, reinforce monopolies, and increase funding increasing mistakes, repeat, repeat..

We have the right to protect ourselves. I do not have the right to demand that you protect me, though you may choose to do so because I am such a nice guy.

It would be nice if you helped put out a fire. How are you better off?

[stratvic]

Objectivists always loose people when they campaign against altruism. Altruism may not be a virtue but providing it is voluntary it is no vice either . Advocating voluntarism would be a preferred approach.

Looking for commonality between all groups is advantageous if you are playing the majoritism game.... including even anarchists where the interests intersect. You don't have to agree 100%, 95% is plenty to work with.

[killerbandit]

Altruism is one of the reasons we are here as a species.

[stratvic]

Voluntary or involuntary altruism?

[killerbandit]

Both.

There are responsibilities that are pushed upon us nessicary for a functioning democracy and there are responsibilities that we seek on our own.

I am not suggesting you accept them blindly, just that you be aware that we do not get to choose all of our responsibilities.

[stratvic]

What is the difference between theft and involuntary altruism?

[killerbandit]

Theft completely disregards the needs of the victim and is for the personal gain of the theif. Involuntary altruism is generally done for the betterment of society. Now I know this scares you, and it can infact be a negative thing under tyranny.

However you are 'involuntarily altruistic' about public waterworks. You pay to support the water grid so that all have access to clean water whether you like it or not.

[stratvic]

If I steal your wallet and your car but leave you enough for bus fare is that having regard for the victim?

Water is a both a service and a product. Would you enforce a monopoly on both and force me to pay and then call it altruism? Or are you going to force me to pay for others products and services and not call that theft?

Is theft under tyranny the recipe for a good society? Do you draw limits? at water? food? computers? tv? vacation?

Can anyone employ this strategy?

[killerbandit]

You are forced to pay for the water grid. You have clean water thanks to it. You are free to buy water from a private distributor, but it costs you a lot more.

We do draw limits. The gov. charges for services through taxes. You are not taxed to the point where you can't survive.

I would say that it is a continual balancing act of freedom and responsibility, we are always making adjustments with the intent of improvement. If you look back we have improved quite a bit. We aren't done yet.

[stratvic]

What if it cost me less to buy water privately?

"You are not taxed to the point where you can't survive." So the bus fare analogy holds true:). At least you are not a hypocrite.

We don't have freedom from responsibilities and obligations that we choose, but we have the freedom to decide which responsibilities we contract to and accept.  Unchosen obligations forcibly applied are correctly defined as tyranny/ slavery/ extortion/ etc.

[killerbandit]

So you are suggesting that a company can have a higher overhead w/ overpaid CEO's and sell their product for less? An example of this ever happening would be appropriate.

I suppose it would be possible to create a system where we can opt out of all taxes and go with a pay as you go.

So if you use the services of a publicly educated person there is an overhead for those who did not contribute to their education...Can you say beuracracy?

[stratvic]

Companies typically have lower overhead, and if they pay too much or for their CEO or anything else then they risk profitability and sustainability.

Do people own their own education (themselves) or do others own their education? It sounds like a semantic cover and rationale for slavery to me. After all don't we force people to "accept" public education in the first place (depending on where you are)?

[killerbandit]

For profit companies aka private sector, have apprx. 30% overhead compared to about a 2-5% overhead with not-for-profit companies.

Those CEO salaries really take a bite.

You caught me, I was trying to usher in slavery but what will I do now.

Public education is the bar we set for knowledge to create functioning memebers of society. We are better off when those in our community are well educated. You know literacy, arithmetic, history, science.

You benifit from these things.

[stratvic]

If non profit companies are more efficient and sustainable why do they not dominate the consumer market? After all I don't much care if I buy my toothpaste or anything else from someone who wants to help me care for my teeth to make a profit or not. I care about my teeth, quality, availability, and price.

We all benefit when others do well in life. That does not justify making claims on peoples lives or forcing unchosen obligations on them.

[killerbandit]

I need to be clear here, I am not advocating converting all industry to not-for-profit. I am perfectly comfortable with companies making profits.

I am however suggesting that the industries that provide absolutely essential services exist to provide that service first and foremost with profit as a secondary motive at best.

This does not mean we run these companies at a loss, just that said companies run essentially at cost.

[stratvic]

I just wanted to point out to you that your statement ".. 30% overhead compared to about a 2-5% overhead with not-for-profit companies." is empirically false without needing to battle over sources.

Why would an entrepreneur bother to risk their savings, time, effort, etc. to recover costs?

If you mean at cost after rewarding risk that is effectively what profit is. Profit above risk attracts competition lowering profit to compensate for risk, a wage, and interest or opportunity cost.

[killerbandit]

People do not work only for profit, I know this sounds crazy but a lot of people start companies because they like the job.

You want incentives for people to start a business? make it safe for people to do so and not completely devestating if they fail.

I am not sure what your last sentence even means. Could you re-phrase it?

[stratvic]

People excel at what they enjoy doing. That however should and does not preclude making a good living from doing what they are good at.

If you prevent failure you suppress the motivation to succeed and the means by which we reallocate resources from those who do a crappy job to those who can do a better one. People can can and should mitigate their own risks.

[killerbandit]

I am not for removing consequences from failure, but if the consequences are to steep (grinding poverty, debtors prison) then you will only get people who already have money starting businesses and taking risks.

People should be able to get back on their own two feet if they fail.

[stratvic]

Bankruptcy, securitized debt, incorporation, trusts, etc. are some of the means that we are protected from failures.

However, that needs to be balanced with assurances that lenders get paid back otherwise credit disappears. Credit when used correctly is essential for investing in talent and potential.

Debtors prison is firmly in the stupidest idea basket where it exists.

[killerbandit]

I agree.

[stratvic]

Making it safe to fail is insufficient... you need both the incentive to start and the ability to fail.

Re-phrase: Profit has components. It is the sum of; compensation for risk, a wage, and interest or opportunity cost and an perhaps initially an incentive to enter a market. If you accept the components are valid then perhaps you can accept profit is valid, even essential.

[killerbandit]

Profit is essential, and I agree with your assessment.

I would add that is in the case of essential industries the profit motive should be secondary to the service being provided.

Meaning that peoples right to access said service takes priority over the right to earn more than the cost to opperate. An example of this would be clean water.

[stratvic]

Service and profit is the chicken and the egg. i.e. you cannot have one without the other. No profit - no service, no service - no profit.

If the profit motive ensures the availability of non essential services at low prices, why do we not want essential services to be ensured to be readily available at low prices?

We do not insist that "peoples right to access said service (of food) takes priority over the right to earn more than the cost to opperate." ...Because both Stalin and Mao tied it.

[killerbandit]

This is not a case of chicken & egg because labour precedes capital. You can not produce capital without the use of labour first.

In a market w/ no rules you will always end up with monopolies. This is especially the case w/ essential services because people do not really have the choice to not purchase the product.

Profit motives work quite well for a shoe company because if their prices are to high then a boycott is a reasonable option.

[stratvic]

Capital is savings. Savings is derived from labour. Capital is not always necessary to provide a service, labour can suffice...the chicken & egg scenario stands.

Labour also conforms to the profit motive. You work at what is worthwhile. I clean my house because I prefer to live in a clean environment more than expending the effort involved in cleaning it.

You do not have the choice not to purchase food/cars/clothes/toilet paper/etc. Yet we have an abundance of both choice and suppliers.

[killerbandit]

Thumbs down all you want, I didn't say I liked it but that is reality.

[PureAdrenaline97]

What a great mind of reason and integration.

[legendre007]

Keep up the great work, Dr. Brook. :-)