0:06 - Is government the antithesis of liberty?

0:47 - One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.

2:02 - What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?

3:38 - Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.

5:41 - In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.

7:41 - Is government inherently evil?

9:03 - Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.

9:47 - As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? Who do you think I am? We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.

10:54 - You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.

11:16 - You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.

11:56 - Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.

13:38 - Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ...and there are choices within the educational system.

15:00 - Would you go back to 1890?

16:20 - If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?

16:30 - Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80's and the 90's were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.

19:04 - Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?

20:13 - Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.

20:24 - Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not... The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

23:23 - Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

*doublepromote

Post cannot be double-promoted by blankfist because blankfist is the original submitter.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 2:18am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

The largest problem with the "free market" is that all people have ALL of the information they need to make good choices. And sure when people make deals or barter (Most of the time) they are doing it to enhance their end of the bargain. Most people don't care about win win, they care only about "do I win?" This means that if one party has more information than another about a particular bargain then free market capitalism breaks down. This is why we have insider trading laws. If anything government regulation should be stepped up to include those evil investment strategies where investors sell you one thing and then bet against that thing, hoping/knowing it will fail.

He is right that the free market is not like Darwinian evolution (I get irritated when people say that they are similar). In Darwinian evolution populations of organisms adapt to their environment and occupy a "niche space" the place in the environment they are adapted for. A corporation is like an individual consuming everything in its path. Corporations can also change the rules of the game. An organism in nature cannot change the laws of nature.

Lastly he clearly missunderstands the phrase a "dog eat dog" world. They idea behind that turn of phrase is that conditions are so tough in the world that dogs are eating other dogs.

Jebus this guy acts smart and hoity toity but sure seems ignore some obvious flaws in his arguments and touches on things that are neither here nor there.

My love affair with Libertarianism was crushed by reality. I was a big Libertarian, pushing for Ron Paul up until the actual election of 2008 (I pushed Paul through the primaries). Then the company I worked for at the time sent a memo saying that if Obama won, and put his tax plans in place, they would have to fire over 300 people. Then before Obama even was in office, the company fired 350+ people, and sent a memo to the rest of us that there would be no raises (nobody at that company but the executives have had raises since) as the company couldn't afford it, and claimed that the cost of living went down anyhow. The owner then went out and purchased a private jet and another mansion in a gated community where he already had the second largest mansion in it. I called BS on that, as did a few others. I then started looking at the rich and corporations as a whole and started doing some real studies, not just Libertarian propaganda, and realized that they wouldn't operate on the rational interests of society, but would gladly screw over anyone just to advance their own short term self interests. That owner who fired over 1000 people and kept everyone else under his employ at the same pay rates over 5 years wasn't an aberration, he was the norm, a very high percentage norm. Libertarians are under a delusion that corporations and the rich will act in the rational interests of society, but they could care less about anyone but themselves, and that isn't misusing the phrase "could care less" because less than 2-3% of them care about what would be best for society as a whole, and sure I'm pulling that figure out of my ass, but I'm sure I'm being generous with that guess).

It became clear that without minimum wages, companies like McDonalds and Walmart would gladly pay their workers $1 or $2 an hour. The Libertarian response that people just wouldn't work there then, is BS, because nobody really wants to work at those places for minimum like they do now. The workers would be stuck, just like they were in the days prior to labor unions and minimum wage laws. The 40 hour work week that we have the unions to thank for, would be gone, as companies paid less, people would be forced to work more, and with the Libertarian ideal of removing overtime laws and other pay laws, people would end up working 80 to 100 hour work weeks just to make what used to be minimum. I'm sure we would see child labor return too, as families would have no choice but to put their kids to work to help make ends meet.

It became clear that without government in the way they would gladly pollute and destroy the environment if it means better short term profits and if they don't have to worry about paying clean up costs later, and in a Libertrian world, they won't have to pay for the clean up costs later as nobody would force them to.

I still believe in individual freedom. I believe drug laws are an impairment to individual freedom, the right to do with your body as you will. I don't believe that a company has unlimited freedom, corporations are not people my friend. I believe in the social contract, that we have an obligation to help lift people up, and the only way to do that is via a government that is designed to help those that need it, and that taxes must be collected to achieve that. I believe that if we teach people that greed is bad, to work in the rational interests of all, then we could eventually get rid of government, but it is needed for now to overcome those that would abuse the people. Bring government back to the people and away from the corporations and rich.

the moment he quoted ayn rand his voice turned into charlie browns teacher for me.
wah buh wah wah..
wah wah..
wah

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by pumkinandstorm.

*promote for science!

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 2:42am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

'Promote for science'? Science is pretty antithetical to libertarianism - science is strictly hierarchical and authoritarian, rigidly rule-bound, and uncompromisingly collectivist. The lone, unique, and non-replicable genius might be a Great Man, but he's no scientist.

There is no such thing as the Free Market in America. It doesn't exist, it never has. There has always been corporate welfare and protection. Ronald Reagan was the most protective out of any president there had been before.

The thing that is the problem with the conversation of Civics in this country is that it doesn't exist in reality. It's completely farcical, it's a joke.

This is basically it. We were a country that after World War 2 had HALF of the worlds wealth, unprecedented in all of history. Then we went through the biggest golden age ever, tons of money being generated everywhere. Since the 1970s that didn't translate to the workers, wages stagnated. Now wages are actually regressing, when the rich enriched themselves the workers are getting less and less and the middle class is being destroyed.

I don't dislike anyone for them looking for an answer when there are none about. Going to Libertarianism makes a lot of sense if you want to believe in a just world that makes logical sense. But it's not all that complicated, those at the top have money and power and they use the government to keep it that way. We have to stop them to get what we're owed.

What a buffoon. Libertarianism is a belief-system only held by morons. Some claim lip-service because they know they'll get votes, but the ideas are inherently flawed, moreso than Soviet-style Communism.

Libertarians. Getting statists' butthurt up since the Age of Enlightenment.

Being dumb. Irritating everyone who's not being dumb since forever.

I love it when people's comebacks are just a game of Mad Libs.

@blankfist Why do you support a system that you believe is wrong? In Walden, Henry David Thoreau stopped paying his taxes because of many of the reasons cited in the video you posted.

Are you a quasi conscientious objector when it comes to what your government does? Or maybe a better question, considering this video, would be: Why do you chose to pay money to people who apply force to others to obstruct freedom?

@JiggaJonson, are you attacking the messenger and not the message?

I gave up after he insisted that the "goal" of libertarians is morality. First off, the idea that relying on private solutions as opposed to government ones will result in any kind of enhancement to morality is highly dubious. He specifically refers to waste as being less moral, and I suspect that the government is wasteful in different ways than private industry, but I would need to see some serious studies before I would consider this viewpoint to hold any water. Specifically, private industry just shifts wastefulness onto consumers, which is why you have things like unrepairable electronics filling up landfills. That's consumer waste, not private industry waste. It's just that the private industry can usually make more money when consumers are wasteful or are forced to be wasteful. The net result isn't that the system is less wasteful or more moral, the net result is that the waste ends up happening in a different place.

I gave up after that.

Who said it was an attack? I'm just curious. With a political/philosophical video post, such as this, I can't help but be curious about the person who posted it. You seem to support the ideas purported in this video, but I'm curious if you believe in them enough to act, as Henry David Thoreau did by protesting a political system that he didn't agree with.

Are you always this curious about everyone who posts a "political/philosophical video" on here?

@blankfist
No. I'm interested specifically in people who regularly spread libertarian propaganda, since it's a philosophy I disagree with.

More specifically, I am interested in YOU because of the comments you made about yourself here: http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500#comment-1185054

I admire Thoreau for what he did. I would feel the same way for you if you took up the cause you seem to believe in. Now, will you answer my questions? I'm trying to decide if I have another hypocrite to add to the list of libertarians that annoy me with the philosophy they're unwilling to act on.

@blankfist

I imagine you're kind of like these guys:

All theory, no action.

@JiggaJonson, you seem like a fun person to be around in real life. Just an all around treat. And, by the way, your argument is personal against me, not against the argument in the video. They have a word for that.

@blankfist
I never said I was arguing against the points made in your video. Nor am I arguing "against [you]."

I just honestly wonder why someone would spread ideas they themselves don't want to act on.

The man in this video says (paraphrased) that force applied is the suppression of freedom. I don't agree with that, but you seem to; yet, you pay your taxes, supporting a group of individuals whose job it is to suppress freedom. It's simply bizarre behavior that I'm honestly curious about.

Granted, I'm making assumptions here, please correct me if I'm wrong about you supporting a system of freedom oppression monetarily, about how much you do or don't value freedom, or what your definition of freedom and the government's role in it is.

p.s. It's two words: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html (and it's not what I'm doing).

@JiggaJonson, you're holding old and weird grudges, man. And I'm not your monkey, so I'm not answering personal questions. Also I have the internet too: "An ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument." And, yeah, it is what you're doing. Just saying.

@blankfist
It isn't a grudge, and I'm not arguing against your video, I only got to the definition of freedom, then I noticed who posted it.

I never wanted to comment on the video itself or on libertarian ideas, I wanted to comment on, and question, you posting it. Therefore, it's not ad hominem.

I wish I could understand why you would pay for a system to suppress the freedom you hold so dear. But, alas, you won't tell me!

@blankfist

And of course you're not my monkey. You're the monkey of the government you pay for, just like I am, brother.

Let's start a kickstarter project to raise money for a new party who's only goal would be electoral reform and to remove money from politics.

I like how this is supposed to be a video about answering tough questions and yet it only takes him just over a minute to categorically claim that a social net creates the freedom to make bad decisions and libertarianism incentivised morality.

Well, gee dude. Point, set, match. You've certainly resolved any lingering doubts I had by just stating your views as fact.

@JiggaJonson, you're not very good at trolling. But I like that you're putting in the effort. A solid C+.

Honestly though, I believe there's a flaw in your premise. Whether or not someone engages in every form of civil disobedience is irrelevant to their convictions or dedication to a movement. Take Alan Moore for instance. Outspoken Anarchist. Believed government should be nothing more than an administrative role at best. Big supporters of the Occupy movement. The man behind the Guy Fawkes mask. Yet wrote some of his best work for major corporations. And pays taxes.

One small video, such immense stupidity and ignorance.

When I was a child, I was fortunate enough to meet and speak with an old man who fought with the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war. As he described it, their ideology was virtually identical to modern American Libertarians, looking for a utopian society based essentially on villages and with no central government.

Even a child, something bugged me about it... something didn't sound quite right... and I had trouble putting my finger on exactly what it was. I think you've hit the nail right on the head though.

If you put that objection to an anarchist though, they would dismiss it and say something along the lines of it wouldn't be a problem in practice, because the people wouldn't let it. Needless to say, given the choice, I won't be voting #1 anarchist party.

Oh FFS, one question in and it's retarded. Governments don't exist? Really??

Well, if "government" doesn't exist, than neither does liberty. Both are abstract concepts.

Videos like this still leave me failing to understand the difference between anarchism and libertarianism. It just sounds like anarchism that leads to utopia instead of a Mad Max world because, err, free market.

@blankfist

I love you mentioning Alan Moore. Take a closer look at the psyche of the kind of person you hold up as a political hero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore#Religion_and_magic

Surely someone who believes in the occult has his shit together and we should base a government (or lack thereof) around his ideas. *slow clap*

Nice puckered anus logo by the way. It suits you well.

Not even the dead can rest these days if you ladies and gentlemen make such a ruckus.

It may be that this topic is polarizing. But is it necessary that the flow of communication in this thread degrades to a level close to a "youtube discussion" ? Remember that even if you may fail to find a common political foundation to create a society, you are still talking to human beings, trolls and bots capable of feeling pain.

If you need to use words like weapons just to get your points through or are just arguing for the sake of exchanging verbal hits, well ... thanks for being a good example about "how not to communicate".

@JiggaJonson

i dont mean to intrude on you and @blankfist passive aggressive slapfest but are you implying that ones metaphysical beliefs disqualifies them from having an opinion in regards to forms of government?

what if that persons beliefs were more in line with mainstream religious theology?
like say:christianity,judaism,muslim.

what about american indians?
would THEY be disqualified as well?
were you aware that their theology is strongly based on shamanistic practices?

or is it just those who hold a belief so far removed from your understanding as to be relegated to the stupid/crazy pile?
and therefore disqualified from holding an opinion on...well..anything.

the point you make is really no point at all but rather just a passive aggressive swipe at @blankfist.

and you wonder why he is not engaging with you.

@enoch
Do native americans have to pay taxes to live within the US on a reservation? I thought that was part of their whole thing. I'm not terribly well versed on the issue. And I'm not sure what you mean by christianity and the other religious comparisons. I certainly dont agree with my christian friends on things like abortion, but I respect those that adhere to their religious text more than quasi christians that pick and choose their theology and then pretend that they're god is still infallible (even if i disagree with them all the more).

Blankfist made the original comparison of himself to Thoreau, I'm just fleshing out the idea to see if it's a fair comparison or not.

Thoreau is a personal hero of mine, so I find the comparison insulting and feel the need to press on questioning.

From my point of view, a majority of libertarians are nay-sayers who, as I've described, are all theory and no action. I disagree with the whole "government who governs least, governs best," nonsense; but the comparison to someone who I'd hold up on the same pedestal as oh, say, Nelson Mandela, is one that really gets under my skin.

@JiggaJonson
fair enough my man.
seems i misinterpreted your comment in regards to people who have a certain belief system.
and i am totally with ya on thoreau,the man was brilliant.

but why didnt you straight up say that to him?
it would explain the tone of your comments and may have led to a much richer and fuller dialogue with blankie concerning his views on libertarianism.

my problems with libertarianism are two-fold:
1.@RFlagg already addressed
and
2.the term libertarian here in america is a bastardized version from the european.so to even BEGIN to have a decent conversation on the matter is already twisted from the get-go.

i consider myself a libertarian-socialist with anarchist leanings,but try to talk to a corpoare-media-fed american about that and they spend the entire time trying to stop their head from exploding.
because it is the MEANINGS of the words they do not understand and what they have been told are propagandized versions.

how can we ever expect to talk about these vital issues if the very meanings of the words have been twisted and contorted?

in my opinion THIS is the real problem.

@enoch

Well, note that the "governs best, governs least" quote IS Thoreau speaking, and although I think it's nonsense (I don't personally want to live completely outside any social structure, I don't think it's practical to separate myself from all of the advancements of society), I DO still think that Thoreau was a brave and noble person for believing in something and seeing that belief come to fruition. That's freedom.

But, when you're constantly putting down a system that you seem to wholeheartedly disagree with, but still support, that's hypocrisy, again, acc to me.

I brought up the issue of taxes because that's what Thoreau did. It's not terribly complicated. He felt that the system of government he was a part of was corrupt and restrictive, so he chose to not participate in it by not paying his taxes. He was jailed because of it, and when his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson bailed him out of jail he was upset. He WANTED to remain in jail because he didn't want to contribute to the social system he disagreed with so.

So when blankfist compared himself to Thoreau: http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500#comment-1185054

I felt, and am reminded every time I see this type of propaganda, that there are a few ways of looking at this american libertarianism and those who follow it:

1) They don't believe in the government, but still support it through taxes.
2) They don't actually believe in the principles outlined in their own philosophy, and that's why they support what they affirm is a corrupt, freedom crushing, system, and that explains their support of it.
3) They believe in their ideas, but want to change things through the current system of government, which seems like a bit of a weird Catch 22.
or
4) They just want to have a theoretical discussion.

I've asked and asked, but he maintains that he's a freedom fighter who supports the government that he hates (through the payment of taxes, etc.)

There are other options I've probably considered along the way that aren't mentioned here, but I really put more thought into this than trying to tear blankfist down. It's genuinely confusing to me for someone to seemingly believe something so strongly and not act on those feelings.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. My first teaching job was in a very rural part of the US. Word got out quickly to the principal that I didn't say the pledge of allegiance in the morning (I have a variety of reasons for this, but the main one is that I am an atheist and don't agree with the phrase "under god"). I was brought into the principal's office after his stooge assistant "stopped by" my room several days in a row before and after the announcements. He wanted to know why I wasn't saying it and the conversation was respectful but went something like:

"Well, I choose not to, and I make sure everyone, including myself, is respectful during that time of the day, but I make it clear to the students that they don't have to as well."
"But don't you think you're setting a bad example for the students?"
"Well, no...? (at this point I knew they basically wanted me to just fall in)"

Long story short, at the end of the year, my job no longer existed. They moved the journalism teacher to another building and my position went from Eng teacher to Eng/Journalism teacher (I don't have a journalism license). Since I didn't have a license for that, I couldn't stay. :-/

It was hard to deal with, impossible to prove, but I'm better off 7 years into my career not being surrounded by those people anyway. They REALLY wanted me to just say the pledge, but it wasn't in my job description that I had to say the pledge every morning, and today, I'm happy to be in an inner city school with a more diverse and understanding population where I don't have to.

That's one BIG example from my life, and I'm no Thoreau, but neither is Blankfist. Now if he would just admit it.

@enoch, I feel I need to step in and clear out some of the crazy here. Instead of attacking any argument I've made above, notice how "Jigga" is still only attacking me personally. Then he even attacked Alan Moore instead of his political argument.

Jigga's excuse is because I compared myself to Thoreau over this comment. Go read it, please: http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500#comment-1185054

Am I really "comparing" myself to Thoreau? Or comparing a common political position of anarchism? I just like how Thoreau explained it. Better than I ever could.

@JiggaJonson, I think you're angry at me because I wasn't interested in the Muppet Baby idea you pitched to me. No need to leave weird profile messages trying to provoke me into an argument. Not everyone is meant to work together creatively. I have no hard feelings toward you. Let's all just move on and forgive. Cool?

*promote, because I really feel we all turned a corner here tonight.

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 2:18am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

@blankfist
hah! I had forgotten all about that. No no no.

You said the quote was honest, and that's true. But the difference is Thoreau literally means what he says. His idea of the best kind of government is not having one at all, and that's what he set out to do for a period of his life.

The reason, to clarify, that your ideas coupled with yourself annoy me is that, unlike the honesty in the quote from Thoreau, YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN ANY OF THIS. The reason I come at you so hard is because I genuinely believe you're dishonest.

For example, you flippantly call people statists, meaning that they support a policy system (government) pertaining to society/economics; and while you go on supporting that system through the taxes you pay, you deride others for their support of that system of government.

What are your options besides paying taxes? Well, you actually have a lot:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/02/07/eighteen-ways-to-get-tax-free-income/

If you lived in Alaska (no sales tax and no income tax) in a tiny house on a trailer (no property tax), I'd say, 'this guy is living the life.' But you don't.

Just admit that you're trying to work within the system of government that exists and you're using the system to change the system itself, and you're not in favor of not actually having a system of government already.

If you're participating in the system of government we have, you're supporting it.

Thanks for reminding me about that idea I mentioned to you, I got too busy with a grant editing job and teaching to follow up on many of my creative endeavors.

@JiggaJonson, man, you're harboring such personal resentment. It's all so petty and cringeworthy at this point. But, again, your premise is completely ridiculous. And for so many reasons it's hard to list them all here. I also don't believe in the heavy gun restrictions here in Los Angeles, but I'm not about to walk out onto the streets in front of LAPD with an AK-47 slung over my shoulder. By your backwards logic, that means I'm supporting gun control.

Not to mention, Thoreau lived at a different time when it was probably safer to be a tax resister. The fewer interactions with our police state that I can make for myself is probably for the best. Also the Internal Revenue System (a self-proclaimed tax law enforcement agency) wasn't formed until the exact year Thoreau died. Fact. Look it up.

I'm fairly certain Thoreau didn't have to submit a W9 to work as an author. I, on the other hand, do. And the 16th Amendment, the one responsible for Congress's ability to levy income tax, wasn't even ratified until over forty years after his death. And so forth and so on, etc. etc. boring conversation and blah blah.

Plus my personal life is none of your business. So you're just really talking out your ass and comparing apples to oranges here. I really hope you can find happiness in your life and move past being so bitter.

*promote the great points this video makes! Let's discuss those points instead of whether or not some guy on the internet pays his taxes.

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 2:18am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

This.
Objectivism is the political equivalent of Young Adult Fantasy.

“I’d been kind of an Ayn Rand guy before that,” he said. “And then you go to Asia and you see people who are genuinely poor and genuinely suffering and hadn’t gotten there by whining.” While on a break in Singapore, walking back to his hotel in the middle of the night, he stopped by an excavation site and “saw these shadows scuttling around in the hole. And then I realized the shadows were old women, working the night shift. Oh, I thought, Ayn Rand doesn’t quite account for this.”
-- George Saunders, on his time in Asia during the 90s.

I cleaned up my multiple rants. So sorry for the wall of text.

-------

It's because of guys like the one in the video that I laugh when people are they're Libertarian. I think they're overall idea is nice and dandy, but much like steadfast religious people who don't actually know their theology and how it would actually play out in reality, this guy contradicts himself by the end.

Especially his private defense agencies . . . except, ALL of those solutions are paid for by the government OR by private agencies to take away the liberties from those whom they see as their subjects. But then again, the initiation of force is immoral . . . so any defense agency is immoral, whether it's government funded or not.

And you don't need a fire department because private companies make fire sprinklers? Except, the reason fire sprinklers are everywhere now is because the government forced builders to use them after the free market allowed cities to burn down and hundreds if not thousands to die because of their lack of use. Yes, private companies solve all social issues . . .

------------------

Wait?? Did he really just say the original Robber Baron's lowered prices to be "competitive" and drive each other out of the market?? Wow . . . They lowered prices to put others out of business by raising prices where they already had a monopoly. It wasn't competitive at all. It was a monopoly so they could game the system and raise prices afterwards. There was no competition whatsoever. It was who could butter the hands of the Prices and Kings to get the most lucrative exclusive deal which eventually led to those countries rebelling by forcibly taking over those oils companies and nationalizing. Those stories are EXACTLY why the US has Anti-Trust laws . . .

And for the record, Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple because he spent too much money trying to make the US factories pretty on the inside and never wanted to move to China. It was a board of directors decision and overall, Apple hasn't been the worse offender overseas. It's not the greatest record, but hell, it's not the Wal-Mart suppliers that LOCKED their workers in a unsafe building they knew would catch on fire or crumble. Or both. But hey, free market baby!


-------------

WTF, Government FORCED business owners to segregate? Or could it simply be the RACISTS that refused to serve "coloreds" and their white politicians who had lucrative deals by being in government, so to get elected they passed laws against blacks.

And public education is responsible for racism? So these rich white people who NEVER went to public school were racists because of public education . . . . Holy shit this guy is a loon.

Just because the school is funded by the government doesn't mean the people teaching there aren't racists, or the society itself is racist. Or that there were MANY whites who were against racism and who fought alongside blacks to end racism and to give equal access, without ANY financial incentive whatsoever. Matter of fact, many people SUFFERED financially for standing up for the rights of others.

nt

nt

Let's do that. The one point of agreement I have with this guy is we need to declutter the conversation. Entities like money, governments, corporations etc don't exist. There is only the fact of our material circumstances.

One point I found somewhat hypocritical was his take on policymakers. He says we should blame them when he openly admits they are all bought. In my mind, this is effectively voluntary purchase of the initiation of force. If nobody paid, politicians would have nothing to sell. Inevitably all force is initiated by the highest bidder. Wealth itself is power, and power wouldn't be so named if it didn't imply force.

As you've already pointed out in another thread everything we see, all of our material circumstances, were originally appropriated by conquest (the initiation of force). Thus, initial material circumstances were not morally obtained. Since material wealth begets a trade advantage this initial windfall is likely to entrench your power. For this reason all material gains are suspect.

For these reasons I view wealth itself as immoral. There is a reason Robin Hood has such high standing, and it is not because he robs from the state and gives to the private sector. It's not because he doesn't initiate force. It's because he redistributes ill-gotten gains by whatever means necessary.

Pacifism is selfish.

@JiggaJonson

Never attempt to argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Truly. Only people with a modicum of intelligence are capable of being swayed by rational argument. Libertarians, by definition then, are not capable of being swayed by rational argument.

Just pointing out that I think it's dishonest to be a statist and deride others for being statists, statist.

Thanks for telling me that you fill out a W9, live in LA, and that you're an author; and letting me know that that information is none of my business. How contradictory of you. Statist liberloon.

Although it's fun pointing out you calling the kettle black, it's not necessarily personal grudge. I believe that libertarianism and white-washing of regulations is a bad thing. Look at Pakistan. It's no Somalia in terms of a libertarian paradise, but it's not far off:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/538217/poor-regulation/

^Pakistan is a country riddled with a lack of regulation, yet the poor keep getting poorer there, and the rich keep getting richer.

People who are destitute enough, do have alternatives that are not afforded to them here in the States though, they can sell their organs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/10/pakistan.declanwalsh

OH TO BE FREE! to sell your organs...

If you do end up getting sick, you can always turn to the largely unregulated drug industry: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2012/01/201212775512528261.html

FREEDOM! to produce dangerous drugs on a mass scale... Hey! That's kindof like those kids who died from the polio vaccination that was privately funded and not regulated: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/When-polio-vaccine-backfired-Tainted-batches-2677525.php

It's kind of like...ohhh I wasn't gonna post this again, but what the heck:

i dont pay taxes.
i refused ten years ago and have stuck with that path.
and its been sunshine and rainbows ever since....
ok..not really.my income is severely crippled due to me not paying taxes BUT goddamn does it make me feel good!

i do not pay taxes not to be a cheap ass but rather to protest a system that is so obviously rigged against me.(and you).

as for american libertarianism.
i will say they have the civil rights down.
i totally agree with their philosophy of personal liberty and right to do whatever you want as long as you aint stepping on another blokes shoes.

but when they start with the "free market" sermons i start to look at them as wide-eyed and innocent children.
do they not SEE whats going on?
free market?
what is this free market you speak of?
america is NOT a free market.
it is corporate socialism.
or welfare if you want to troll a bit.

go ahead and de-regulate corporate america.
see what happens.
better yet,just look at some african nations,or former soviet states.
guilded estates with private armies for the uber-wealthy and elite while the majority of the population live in either indentured servitude or total squalor.

i am noticing a disturbing trend here in america.its like they are preparing.
we have a government bought and paid for by corporate america,which does the corporations bidding.
the co-opting of the tea party and the crushing of occupy.
a massive surveillance operation.
militarized police forces across the country.
civil liberties made into mere "suggestions" and no longer inalienable.
executions of american citizens with no due process (bye bye habeas corpus).
a standing army that has been in place for over 60 years and a war on terror that will never end.

it is madness.

so i cannot blame my libertarian friends for calling for smaller government.
because the government has become TOO big and no longer is "for the people,by the people".
it serves its corporate masters.
which is why the "de-regulate" argument truly baffles me.

just as my liberal friends who wish to use the system to correct these imbalances.
what?
the system is utterly BROKEN.
we no longer have a functioning democracy!
why would you even suggest to use a system that threw us all overboard to lick the boots of their masters 30 yrs ago?
the mind..it boggles.

every political philosophy has its flaws.none are perfect.
libertarianism has some very good points while others are a bit...naive in my opinion.

for me the end result is this:
i do not trust power nor authority because i find them to be illegitimate until they prove themselves otherwise.
so i am suspicious when someone tries to force their authority on me based on arbitrary and subjective parameters.(like a cop,or judge or some rich dude).

i am a humanist by nature so my political philosophy flows from that birthplace.
i will never step on you to further my career nor take food out of your mouth.
corporate america has spread a propaganda campaign that is insidious.

capitalism is good.
greed is good.
dog eat dog world out there.
here,buy this,it will make you feel better.
wear that and you will be sexy.
you are lone wolf,against the world,drive this car you lone wolf and be a rebel.

its all bullshit.
human beings feel better when they are co-operating.
when they feel their life has purpose and that they are needed.
not by living in a perpetual 7 yr olds wet dream.

oh
my
god.
you fuckers got me ranting!
i hate you both......
/drops mic

@enoch, to me free market means free exchange between two people or two parties that's mutually beneficial without coercion. I think some disingenuous people have done a great job conflating free markets with corporations and the Koch brothers.

I think most libertarians who want to deregulate markets understand that also means we have to stop giving corporations special subsidies and limited liability protections that create unfair markets to begin with. There really is a major different between the small "l" libertarian belief in free markets and what you're talking about, I think.

@blankfist

i would be totally on board with a massive re-structuring of the corporate charter.

might i suggest we return the clause "for the good of the people"?
and force responsibility financial and otherwise when a corporation causes damage to either the enviroment or society at large.

adam smith said"only with absolute liberty can a free market truly exist".
we do not have absolute liberty nor a free market.
we have a protectionist government which serves the needs of the corporate elite.
and those needs simply translate to :less competition...for them.

which is the point i think you were trying to make and on that note i agree.
but i think the leviathan is a far larger beast and will not be dismissed so easily.

power begets power and seeks only to retain its power.

we have to get money out of politics.
money should never equal free speech,yet sadly that is where we find ourselves to day.

corporations spend billions towards influencing legislation favorable to their bottom line.i read somewhere that for every dollar spent they receive 22,000 from the beneficial legislation.

so not only is out government bought and paid for...they are more trashy than the 10 dollar crack whore.

the only thing that has ever worked to change things...ever.
is the people.
social movements.
we need to starve the beast.

in my opinion the very first step to even BEGIN to make that move forward is we need to fix our fourth estate,or at the very least ridicule and dismiss the fucking circus that we know as corporate media news.
its not news.
its propaganda.

i really think that most people would agree to an extent on what your saying blankie but the reality does not reflect the dream and may be why some people dismiss the notion as silly.

@JiggaJonson brought up a good point and is actually a great way to start to starve the beast.
civil disobedience in the form of refusal to participate in the system.
dont file your taxes.
dont buy car insurance or register your vehicle.
cut up your credit cards and dont pay them.
buy local,from family owned establishments (so your money stays local).

but in my experience most americans do not like being uncomfortable nor afraid and doing these things will bring both to your doorstep.

i always said the american revolution will commence the moment they take away their cable tv.

@enoch, I totally agree. The "for the good of the people" clause should come back, and so should time limits. But that's not going to happen. Though it'd be a step in the right direction.

I agree with everything you've written, actually. Absolutely you cannot have a free market as long as we have a protectionist government. And corporations use government to destroy competition.

Civil disobedience is one thing you can certainly do, but there are other ways. You can't fight every fight. And certainly you have to pick the battles you'd serve best. I think a civil conversation between adults about the evils of corporation/state collusion is the beginning of that. From there, it's a movement to change hearts and minds, and I think in the long run we may just win that battle.