Our Wise Overlords Are Just Here to Serve Us | Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

Presented by Tom Woods at "The Delusion of Good Government": the Mises Circle in Colorado Springs, Colorado; 18 September 2010. Sponsored by Pikes Peak Economics Club. Includes an introduction by Douglas French.

Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ludwig
• von
• Mises
• Institute
• circle
• Thomas
• E.
• Tom
• Woods
• Government
• Corruption
• Democracy
• politicians
• Civilization
• Liberty
• Classical
• Liberal
• Austrian
• Economics
• Property
• Peace
• Freedom

[terramortim]

@BIackOp No kidding. Saying Murray Rothbard is a fascist would be like saying Adolf Hitler is the president of Israel.

[BIackOp]

@cont This explains everything. Lets recap on all the evil you listed here. You called Austrians: Racists, Fascists, Anti-Human, Cult, Corporate Rule, Creationists, Extreme Right Wing, Republicans, illogical, mystical, revisionists, & private tyrannies.

You forget Monarchists, Nazis, Bush lovers, and anything you despise, because you just asserted, lumped, and merged everything stereotypical that the "Left" opposes both in the mainstream and in economics. No wonder you dodged the Mises forums.

[fluff125]

So, uhhh, how about that lesbian kiss video in the sidebar?

[CaptainSkeletor]

@fightingirishman726 I think he supports the "Anarcho-capitalism" theory, If you want to know more you can watch the misesmedia film "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?"

/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

[IvanTheHeathen]

@Distortion0 If there are no legal barrier to entry, and other firms cannot enter the market, the only possible reason for this is that those firms which are already in the market are providing greater and cheaper services to consumers than the firms trying to enter it. In other words, the consumers themselves have decided that those firms are incompetent. What is wrong with this? The Austrian view of monopoly is empirically false? How about an example? Read Gabriel Kolko's work.

[fightingirishman726]

Is Tom an Anarchist? 

[Distortion0]

@swu880 Look, if it's impossible, for whatever reason, for firms to enter a market. And because of this, the firms that are in the market exert the same kind of monopolistic power that they would if the concentration was caused by legal regulation, then why should we not call this a monopoly? It's ridiculous not to. The idea that concentration is caused by legal regulation is empirically false, and the "definition" of monopoly that keeps getting asserted here is based of that stupid idea.

[swu880]

@swu880

Consider the free market

free market merely means people can freely voluntarily enter into & exit out of the market, exchanges & contracts

The state & mafia function to limit competition at the point of a gun rather than through satisfying customers. Not only does the state limit competition, the regulations passed are always designed to favor very small subset of people at the non-consenting expense of everyone else

[swu880]

@swu880 if u can voluntarily enter/exit, then its not monopoly. if there are coercive barriers to entering/exiting then its a monopoly regardless of what public relations may say. And the mafia/state is the prime example of a monopoly

Any other definition ultimately becomes arbitrary- monopoly can't be defined based on 'size' or bullshit 'homogenous goods', 'perfect competition', etc- those are really undefined & wholly arbitrary.

[swu880]

@Distortion0

There aren't any such things as 'natural monopolies'. The definition of a monopoly (the real definition - not the one propagated by the State public relations committees) is the forceful coercive exclusion of other competitors from entering the market AND/OR real coercion- violence forcing people to associate with it. Monopoly, objectively defined, is based on whether its possible to VOLUNTARILY ENTER OR EXIT from the marketplace.

[Hashishin13]

@Distortion0 Capitol flows to profitability, try reading what I have said. If the few firms are exploiting their high-market share LESS REGULATION is the way to make it better, not more. If you sick the "anti-trust" mroons on ISPs they will attack them for their market share, not for exploitative pricing. If you attack someone for having too much market share you hurt the consumer. Utilities are corrupt bullshit, watch Tom Woods on California's blackouts to see what I mean.

[Distortion0]

@Hashishin13 Yeah, I don't know much about the internet in Canada. In the US I'm pretty sure the regulation is minimal, especially compared to the high technology costs. I would support running ISPs as utilities, just acknowledging that there's a high market concentration and that there may be certain regulation needed for markets with high technology costs. It's definitely not the same in the US, anyone can form an ISP if they can afford it.