@suutari13 what people? all people? How will that go by? The government's guns pointing at everyone trying to sell groceries or grow vegetables in their backyard... DOn't vote
Lets say we had a road. How do you suggest one road could be owned by competing individuals? It's like saying the could pssibly be competition in selling one house...there could only be one possible owner and one seller. Should there be and unlimited amount of roads side by side leading to the same place so that they could compete? WTF?
While most of what you say is correct, it is UNFORTUNATE that business gain so much power to hold virtually a monopoly like you say.
I know a test was done in CA. The stated "privatized" some roads being built, but it went to the lowest bidder that was willing to work the quickest!
Have you ever heard of an overpass being completed in < 31 days? cough cough, do you think it would have been cheaper if "state workers" worked the job?
dude please tell me are you a jew,im doing a research,i cant differentiate between jews and whites,i have seen people of your colour and hair and they claim to be ethnical jews,im not a racist,i just want to know man,peace
On Bryan Caplan's libertarian purity test, Mr. Caplan includes a note at the beginning: "A note on meaning: The word privatized as used throughout the survey means that a given government service is henceforth supplied by the free market and paid for by consumers. It is distinguished from sub-contracting in which the government uses tax money to hire a private firm to provide a government service."
The problem we have is that there are multiple definitions for the same term.
Whiskey and 45's! Oh yeah! That's actually a good vid. I've been thinking about making a vid on privatization - of resources - not just 'property' as a response to some of the debate on Youtube. Privatization most violent abroad, especially in 'third world' countries. Corporations, like Brechtel and Nestle, are undermining indigenous rights to lay claim to water reserves.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The point of privatization is that you have multiple private companies so there's compitition between them. At some point you do end up with one company buying everything up which is why it has to be regulated.
In political debates, this has been a source of frustration for me, too. When I say I support "privatization," I just mean rolling back the State. But "pro-privatization" politicians just want to contract out to their cronies and pay them with taxpayer dollars.
Greg Palast and the documentary 'The Corporation' uses the strawman that you expose. Palast and the movie say the Bolivian government confiscated people's oil wells and gave the wells to Bechtel Corp. and gave Bechtel Corp. a regulation-enforced monopoly on Bolivia's running water. Naturally, Bechtel was just as incompetent as the government. Then the documentary and Palast blame Bechtel's incompetence on markets and the profit motive per se. *_*
That or companies collude with each other and stop competing. IE: Big oil and gas! They have the highest profit margins ever and their supposed to be compeating at the pump!
you are ignoring the cartelization through government privledge that creates that near monopoly. Collusion/Trust arguments are something that has been addressed countless times by Austrians
There is no "free market" when government charters and licenses are required in order for a business to compete. Monopolies and corruption are the "nature" of protected markets.
Enron wrote the law that privatised the formerly regulated electric system. California was bankrupted thanks to their gaming of the system which is the "nature" of the free market. Remember, Ken Lay was praised as "businessman of the Century".
When power is privately owned it must operate as a business and charge market prices. When you compare that to subsidized companies of course the prices are higher. The problem is they may hand it to a business completely, cutting funds, but they do not lower the tax they take from you.
And of course as LibertyIsNotGiven mentions: licenses and regulations will still exist to strong arm others out of the market.
When you are talking about electricity, you are getting into something that is a national security/life and death issue for a nation. Shutting down power generators to artificially create a shortage and bump the "market rate" up is a criminal act and endangered people.
"When you are talking about electricity, you are getting into something that is a national security/life and death issue for a nation."
You present a better argument for decentralization than I did. How can you take the contrarian position? Besides, Electricity on a general scale is a VERY modern thing. It's not a matter of life and death for the prepared.
Basic necessities of the people shoud belong to the state like water, electricity, housing, food.
suutari13 9 months ago
@suutari13
What about food? Or shoes? I think that cellphones are important, should they belong to the state too?
ConnorMcLeanMusic 8 months ago
@suutari13 what people? all people? How will that go by? The government's guns pointing at everyone trying to sell groceries or grow vegetables in their backyard... DOn't vote
Sivels 8 months ago
In order to rectify state "ownership" of roads, the only just
path seems to be to creating a corporation of the all the
tax victims who paid taxes in that jurisdiction.
It would to argue against this since it is
essentially "democratic". You're just giving title to those
who were forced to pay for it.
Stock in the company might be non-transferable to
outsiders. Since it was formerly "public property," it's best
to preserve it as a locally owned company of residents.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
you tell'em where to stick it lol Like your vids bro.
loganachilles1982 1 year ago
Sick mustache bro!!!
tnizzle53 2 years ago
ahhhh....good gun you have there.
ohbobsagetpiss 2 years ago
mustache is hilarious
Submission7 2 years ago
indeed. I miss it very much
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
That's a load of bull.
Lets say we had a road. How do you suggest one road could be owned by competing individuals? It's like saying the could pssibly be competition in selling one house...there could only be one possible owner and one seller. Should there be and unlimited amount of roads side by side leading to the same place so that they could compete? WTF?
verstwo2 2 years ago
There are already several state roads to one destination. There are several state roads partially owned by the state and cities based on location.
siggyboss 2 years ago
great video
HayenMill 2 years ago
i disagree.
While most of what you say is correct, it is UNFORTUNATE that business gain so much power to hold virtually a monopoly like you say.
I know a test was done in CA. The stated "privatized" some roads being built, but it went to the lowest bidder that was willing to work the quickest!
Have you ever heard of an overpass being completed in < 31 days? cough cough, do you think it would have been cheaper if "state workers" worked the job?
It simple depends on the issue at hand.
TheParadox2 2 years ago
Comment removed
okayillgonow 2 years ago
you missed his point! He emphasized on Barrier of Entry from all other private investors, except only a few pre-arranged private companies.
meka4996 2 years ago
dude please tell me are you a jew,im doing a research,i cant differentiate between jews and whites,i have seen people of your colour and hair and they claim to be ethnical jews,im not a racist,i just want to know man,peace
sshapewa 2 years ago
A glock sitting on a desk with a bottle o'whisky? Aaaaah. Not a good idea!
GreyAutumn 3 years ago
screw glocks, thats a good ol' .45 son ;)
ForeverDorian 3 years ago
I just call all guns glocks cuz that's the cool thing to do.
Pazrayna 3 years ago
good video
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
The mustache, AND whiskey? That is classy as fuck! I declare Thorsmitersaw as the classiest anarchist!
UcanbeGOD 3 years ago 5
The mustache is beast.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
where the sun doesn't shine
TiSlauf 3 years ago
On Bryan Caplan's libertarian purity test, Mr. Caplan includes a note at the beginning: "A note on meaning: The word privatized as used throughout the survey means that a given government service is henceforth supplied by the free market and paid for by consumers. It is distinguished from sub-contracting in which the government uses tax money to hire a private firm to provide a government service."
The problem we have is that there are multiple definitions for the same term.
Alex Peak
allixpeeke 3 years ago
Same as social security. So I would be for abolish and refund the money back to the citizens.
TechnoNubian 3 years ago
Nice stash dude.:)
noremote 3 years ago
question, how are you going to control the monopolies in a free market from taking over the market?
witzkeyman 3 years ago
I am going to make a video on monopolies just for you
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
that's what politicians mean when they use the term free market. the word free market is used in a deceptive way.
witzkeyman 3 years ago
true say... and nice gun..
sexdrugsRnR 3 years ago
Ha. That gun was badass
wowdavidp1 3 years ago
Whiskey and 45's! Oh yeah! That's actually a good vid. I've been thinking about making a vid on privatization - of resources - not just 'property' as a response to some of the debate on Youtube. Privatization most violent abroad, especially in 'third world' countries. Corporations, like Brechtel and Nestle, are undermining indigenous rights to lay claim to water reserves.
eyemran 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The point of privatization is that you have multiple private companies so there's compitition between them. At some point you do end up with one company buying everything up which is why it has to be regulated.
doford 4 years ago
At no point in history has any business been able to establish a monopoly outside of using the governments aid.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
In political debates, this has been a source of frustration for me, too. When I say I support "privatization," I just mean rolling back the State. But "pro-privatization" politicians just want to contract out to their cronies and pay them with taxpayer dollars.
legendre007 4 years ago 3
Greg Palast and the documentary 'The Corporation' uses the strawman that you expose. Palast and the movie say the Bolivian government confiscated people's oil wells and gave the wells to Bechtel Corp. and gave Bechtel Corp. a regulation-enforced monopoly on Bolivia's running water. Naturally, Bechtel was just as incompetent as the government. Then the documentary and Palast blame Bechtel's incompetence on markets and the profit motive per se. *_*
legendre007 4 years ago 2
exactly
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
That or companies collude with each other and stop competing. IE: Big oil and gas! They have the highest profit margins ever and their supposed to be compeating at the pump!
notloz2 4 years ago
you are ignoring the cartelization through government privledge that creates that near monopoly. Collusion/Trust arguments are something that has been addressed countless times by Austrians
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
There is no "free market" when government charters and licenses are required in order for a business to compete. Monopolies and corruption are the "nature" of protected markets.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 2
5 stars.
XOmniverse 4 years ago 2
Government charters equated to free markets -- it's a common lapse of logic employed by socialists of all stripes. Great video.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 3
Privatisation has become piratization under financial companies. Enron was a great example.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
I am not sure what you are attempting to convey here. Perhaps you can restate your position for me?
Enron is an example of rather extreme government protection and favoritism.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Enron wrote the law that privatised the formerly regulated electric system. California was bankrupted thanks to their gaming of the system which is the "nature" of the free market. Remember, Ken Lay was praised as "businessman of the Century".
Amiduffer 4 years ago
When power is privately owned it must operate as a business and charge market prices. When you compare that to subsidized companies of course the prices are higher. The problem is they may hand it to a business completely, cutting funds, but they do not lower the tax they take from you.
And of course as LibertyIsNotGiven mentions: licenses and regulations will still exist to strong arm others out of the market.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
When you are talking about electricity, you are getting into something that is a national security/life and death issue for a nation. Shutting down power generators to artificially create a shortage and bump the "market rate" up is a criminal act and endangered people.
Amiduffer 4 years ago
Look at the straw-man!
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
you are ignoring the states involvement in the matter... again...
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Pardon?
Amiduffer 4 years ago
"When you are talking about electricity, you are getting into something that is a national security/life and death issue for a nation."
You present a better argument for decentralization than I did. How can you take the contrarian position? Besides, Electricity on a general scale is a VERY modern thing. It's not a matter of life and death for the prepared.
Kbiomech 4 years ago 3
Not by followers of the Austrian school. They called him out YEARS before the company fell.
Kbiomech 4 years ago 3