Yep it totally works exactly how he's saying. People starving to death are just happy with their place on the food chain. The top 1% really do just work harder and deserve it more.

Entitled piece of shit.

Try as I may, I just don't care about wealth inequality. I care about poverty, but I really don't care about how much money a rich person has. And I may care about government redistributing money one way or the other (usually from the bottom up), but about "inequality," per se, I really don't care.

Praxeology shows you what a just environment for the maximum wealth of a society should look like. Thymology shows you why inevitably some people will make more money than others in a fair playing field. When inequality results not so much from thymological differences but from praxeological distortions, then you should suspect foul play.

Too often, anti-inequality folks ignore thymological differences while trying to distort/impose praxeological laws to force compliance, a recipe for certain failure.
Still, much of the world has been coming out of poverty, a testament to the power of commerce and its ability to bypass governments altogether.

People work at McDonalds and Walmart because they like Minimum wage.

If they didn't they would find a better paying job.

This is the guy who made his fortune by getting a loan from his mom, and then repackaging Shareware and Freeware (made by other people) onto CD's to sell in stores.

It's like there's this image of the nice, socially conscious Canadian, and lately a few people are doing their damnest to overthrow that stereotype.

Pretty sure he just plays a character for the camera. Like a Bill'o

A few years ago this guy was a nobody insofar as the media was concerned. Then he started playing the 'baddie' on Shark Tank and the Canadian version of Dragons' Den.
I think this guy is borrowing a page from the likes of Ann Coulter and other right-wing talking heads. Essentially, they are media whores who know that controversy helps to sell their books, programs, lecture circuit, investments... their 'celebrity-ness'. So they say outrageous stuff because they know it gets them face time in our dumbed down media. How do you think it ended up here on Videosift?
Whether they actually believe their own shit... who knows?

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

Have had the opportunity to meet in person away from cameras. He's not lying, he's just exaggerating the delivery.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

@newtboy said: "Equality [...] means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity."

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

Matthew 6:19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal,
Matthew 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

But in a world with massive inequalities in wealth, you simply cannot put cronyism aside. Humans are corruptible, and when some people own millions of times the amount of wealth of others, they can (and many do) use that wealth to slant the playing field drastically in their favor, apparently in order to ensure that nobody can ever catch up with them, or even do as well as they did.

This is the core problem with high levels of wealth inequality. Sociopaths win.

I said "cronyism aside" to explain the pure theory. Of course cronyism throws a wrench into the system. And cronyism is a function of government-granted privileges. As long as you have the monopoly we call government, you will have cronyism. Plain and simple. The most potent way to "slant the playing field" is through the use of government: a powerful and widely accepted tool of legalized aggression and coercion.

In fact, that's one of the main 'uses' of government regulation: to ensure that others cannot "catch up." The minimum wage laws are an example (contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the issue). So is taxation. And currency inflation used to pay for the bailouts. The list goes on and on.

Sociopaths win when they can use government to prevent competition. And make no mistake, the government itself is rife with sociopaths. (One might say that it's a prerequisite!)

(BTW, what exactly do the sociopaths "win?" To my mind, any "wealth" they have was not "won" at all, but was stolen by force, using the government as a mechanism of income redistribution. Without this tool, they'd have no choice but to offer actual goods/services that others want to pay for, if they want any wealth.)

.....
(And just as I was about to post this, I found this!) You think it's harder for poor folks to climb the income ladder now than it was 20 or 40 years ago? You're wrong, say the folks at the Equality of Opportunity project. (Let me note that these are NOT "right wingers." Saez is the darling of many progressives because of some his earlier work on inequality.) "The authors of this study measured the ability of children born in different income strata from 1971 to 1993 to move into different income groups. For example, it found that a child born in 1971 in the bottom 20% of household earners had an 8.4% chance of eventually making it into the top 20% of earners by his or her 20s or 30s. The chances of a child born in 1986 making a similar ascent was 9.0%."

Guillotine this smug piece of shit

@Trancecoach
ok.
i always agree with you to a point and then you lose me.
i agree that commerce and free markets (with non-aggression) can be a good thing.
i agree that a bloated and corrupted government,bought by those who wish to game the system,a bad thing.
i also agree that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

but as @newtboy pointed out.history is a great teacher.
so while inequality is not really my main issue.fairness and justice IS a main issue.

the new global mafia principle only serves the powerful.
and while it may create prosperity for some,it emiserates far more than it helps.
so we both agree that this plutocracy HAS to go,what do we put in its place to keep the scales of fairness and justice equal? giving ALL an even playing field?

we both agree on the problem.
what do you suggest is a fair a just solution?

i know what mine would be but i curious what you envision the solution to be.

Repeat after me:

There's no such thing as a free market.
There's no such thing as a free market.
There's no such thing as a free market.

Free markets rely on rational, informed consumers. Any dominant player in a free market would inhibit both of these things. Free markets depend on the possibility for competition to arise. There are a million ways for a dominant player in a free market to quash competition before it can get a foothold.

Free markets are self-destructive by their nature. They're unstable systems.

that right there!
i always struggled to find the words to express my concerns in regards to a free market.
i dont know why...brain block maybe?

but you nailed it.
exploitation.pure and simple.

thanks man.i think i love you.

The 1% are the real parasites.

The thing I don't get is why free market supporters hold it up as an end unto itself.

I don't care about free markets, and I don't care about regulated markets, I care about the outcome. As a society/species our goals should be about things like justice, freedom and quality of life. If a free market leads to that, then great... bring on the free market. But a free market is not the end, merely the means.

The thing to realise as well, is that no matter how wealthy you are, it's not all down to you.

I earn a decent wage, roughly double the average household income. I'm not ashamed of that; I worked hard to get here, and I continue to work hard.

But neither am I so arrogant as to think that I got here on my own. I'm lucky. I was born into a first world country with parents who supported my education. I've always been fascinated by technology, and I find logical problem solving comes easy to me. It turns out that right now those are valuable skills. 50 years in either direction, maybe not so much. So once again, I'm lucky.

Anyone who is extremely wealthy and thinks they are anything other exceptionally fortunate is deluding themselves.

In other words, show a little humility. You might deserve to be rich through hard work and innovation, but no one person should be worth more than 41 million people. If you genuinely believe that, you're delusional.

And why they seem to hold onto this unsupported belief that if we'd just get the government out of the way, the plutocrats would just be great people for the rest of us. Ignoring all the history that says they'd just screw us over even harder without -something- to stand in their way. The only thing we've ever found that has any ability to actually moderate the behavior of the plutocrats is government...more specifically, some form of democracy, where the voice of the multitudes counts as much, or more than the voice of the 1%. Yes, it can be coopted, but having nothing at all is not going to make then into nice, caring individuals concerned with the rest of us.

This global mafia -- like the Sicilian mafia -- is a direct product/result of government monopolies on aggression. Such mafias could not exist without it.

Completely false. This is simply not true. All consumers are rational insofar as they consciously make choices about what they think is best for them. Whether these choices are correct or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that all exchanges are voluntary, and not enforced through violence or coercion (as is always the case with government). A free market simply means there is no initiation of violence or coercion. To the extent that there is no initiation of violence or coercion, you have a free market. If by "there is no such thing as a free market," you mean that there will always be violent criminals, then we may agree. This may be so. But just like there may always be thieves and murderers within a society, it does not mean that you should not do what you can to eliminate these problems.

You say "There are a million ways for a dominant player in a free market to quash competition before it can get a foothold."

Such as what exactly? Without the government monopoly on aggression, how could this happen? What are these "million ways" you speak of? It is both deductively and empirically proven that this does not happen, and your statement is simply false and based on nothing but an opinion.

A free market simply means voluntary exchanges: not coerced through the initiation of violence or by the threat of violence. I (and billions of other humans) engage in free and voluntary exchanges and interactions on a daily basis. No amount of your repetition of a falsehood makes these voluntary exchanges (i.e., "free market" exchanges) any less real. In fact, your stating such things will only serve to obviate that fact.

And if you look at the comment above, you will see this mindset in action. The reason that "mafias" can't exist without governments is because they weren't necessary. Prior to democratic governments with a monopoly on aggression, the "state" (at least in the form of the nobility) was the mafia.

exactly! @ChaosEngine

this is exactly where @Trancecoach always loses me.

it just sounds like a return to feudalism.
everytime i try to envision @Trancecoach's free market world i picture somolia and roving bands of warlords,conscripting 8 yr olds to consolidate their power.

they have a free market and an ineffectual government.

which is what i hear you promoting..and i find it horrifying.

All markets are free at inception, and no markets are free in practice. Why do you think this is?

A few ways to suppress competition, off the top of my head?
Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof strongarms retailers into not carrying competitors products.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof pays off widget manufacturers to not provide widgets to competitors.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof simply buys and buries competitors, disruptive technologies, whatever.

Free market with patents (antithetical concepts?): Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof refuses to license patents to competitors.

Free market without patents (this has too many problems to enumerate, but just picking one): Espionage. R&D is squandered when a competitor steals your trade secrets/reverse engineers your products, sells it for a pittance.

Price dumping. Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof with large cash reserves simply prices upstarts out of the market.

This list is just off the cuff, is by no means exhaustive, ignores other things like:

1) "Natural" monopolies (utilities, roads, railways, etc.)
2) Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers
a) Side note: In a free market, this is the only place you can go to for environmental protection, avoidance of the tragedy of the commons.

Edit: Okay, I may have overstated my case. Very small-scale interpersonal markets can be free. That farmer's market that's too small to attract the big guys, that's pretty free. There's a scale at which it collapses, though.

"it just sounds like a return to feudalism."

How so specifically? An agrarian culture based on farmland ownership?

It sounds to me that your imagination is getting the best of you. Creative, but not at all what I am describing. Somalia is a failed state, and a socialist failed state at that. However, as you know, things from medical services to life expectancy to infrastructure to child mortality to crime all dropped in the 20 years in which Somalia had no functioning government. Things got better not worse. Why do you think that is?

Saying a free market would be like Somalia is like saying that a government-regulated market would be like North Korea. There are other issues to consider.

Libertarianism does not posit that a free market automatically means a perfect or even a great society. But it does posit that a free market system will ease poverty, increase wealth, and ensure peace at a faster pace than a statist one. At whatever level a culture/society starts at, they will improve and be better off in a free market rather than under state rule. Somalia started off in a mess, caused by its failed state circumstances. You cannot seriously expect to go from one day to the next, eliminate the state, and expect that overnight all that damage will sort itself out just because now -- a day later -- there's no state. You have to rebuild and accumulate wealth over time. And Somalia did remarkably well considering the mess it started from.

A society like the US, which is much better off (for the time-being!), would improve even more, rather than deteriorate, with less or even no government. But of course, if a meteorite wipes out DC overnight, that does not mean overnight improvement. After all, the government has wiped out many private institutions that would need to be in place to take over from the government in providing the services they put out of business.

On the other hand, the road towards more state control (which you, strangely continue to support and defend) leads to more deterioration of the society/culture. The US is doing better because of all the capital it accumulated during the century in which it functioned under little government intervention with regards to its economic matters. That wealth has been badly squandered, and now Americans are living off what remains, slowly but surely bankrupting the country though more government interventions, currency inflations, needless war, bailouts, surveillance, ad infinitum.

But make no mistake: whatever wealth the US as a nation has came about though free exchange in commerce, and was not the result of government regulation. The more government interferes, the slower the growth, until now it has reached the point where there is no growth, only debt. (The Treasury should be renamed the Department of Debt, because it has no money, only debt -- just like a majority of Americans.)

In sum: Somalis are improving. Americans are not. Whoever you are, I assure you, you started off in a much better place than the average Somali did. But look at their rate of change!


EDIT: Somalia also did not have a "free market" when it came to warlord gangs. Unless people had a choice as to which warlord to hire for protection or not, then that is not a free market when it comes to protection services. If allegiance to a particular warlord was voluntary, then you could more honestly make the claim that they had a "free market." Still, the situation is improving. And I think it would have improved faster had there not been the (UN-fueled) expectation of a future centralized government, had the UN not been financing groups towards this end, and had they not been incentivizing gangs to fight each other for position in a future "government."

There is nothing "free market" about forced conscription. I don't know why you would even say that.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

"The world is infested by armed gangs that call themselves governments. These people presume that they have a right to order us around, to take our money and other property as they please, and to make our lives as miserable as their interest and caprice dictate. Their numerous victims, unfortunately, often accept these preposterous presumptions as natural and proper. The development of this absurd situation goes back for millennia, and along the way many philosophers and others have offered various rationales for what is, on its face, a stupid and destructive arrangement of human affairs. Whatever the proffered explanations and rationales, however, most people accept the situation out of nothing but habit: it existed when they came into the world, and they never stumbled across any pressing reason to question or challenge it. Yet, very little serious thought is required to grasp its many absurdities and to become perplexed that human beings ever allowed themselves to submit so meekly to their own degradation and exploitation by the minority political class that composes the governments, their cronies, and their accomplices."

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

@Trancecoach
um..did you just take an analogy i made and make that your entire premise to defend your position?

sighs.
look man.
i am an anarchist.
i am not defending the government.
why you assume that i do not know..but if i gave that impression,then i apologize.

let me posit this for your perusal.

as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
the burden is on those who profess authority.

as an anarchist i agree that a free market can work quite well,BUT you have never once posited the counter balance to that equation.
because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice.

these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people.
and if they begin to falter and become suspect in regards to corruption.
they shall be discarded in favor of a new system.

so when you say the government is too large and bloated and needs to be made smaller..i agree.
BUT..you stop there.

are you implying that we have a free market now?
did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?
have you even been paying attention?

corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!
and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!
hundreds of thousands of humans dying and suffering so we can have cheap crap to buy.
its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it.

you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?

who or what will keep that behemoth in check?
what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?
(and i am not making a case FOR regulation by the way.kinda sad i have to caveat that).
do you understand what feudalism actually is?
we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state.
or as sheldon wholin called "inverted totalitarianism".

you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america.

so i am really trying to understand your position but if you are not willing to acknowledge that very real dynamic i dont know how i can take your position seriously.

then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist.
exploitation aint my thing.
though i dig libertarian socialist.
has a ring ya?

"I can just pull myself up by my shock, oh look, I don't have socks!"

Kevin O'Leary needs to be punched in the face. I know, violence is wrong, but when an uber wealthy fellow openly declares the world's poorest are a just a hard days work away from his status, he needs to punched in the face for it. Every time he says it someone has to inflict enough physical pain on him until he learns to stop doing it. He probably won't learn why, but at least he'll learn to stop.

I say that as someone largely pro-capitalist. Human beings are easily corrupted, and terrible people are drawn to wealth and power and work harder to achieve it. Capitalism at least pits them against each other in trying to get or make more stuff. The one thing that capitalism has a strong historically track record for is growth. It leaves more stuff for everyone to share, though it does nothing for distributing it better. Wealth redistribution schemes though invariably lead to less and less left to be redistributed. In short, capitalism rewards hard work(albeit not even-handedly) while socialism does not. Hard work means more stuff, less work means less.

Of course if you take either to extreme they are both awful, you've got to have a middle ground. Ideally you want that middle ground to be reached and agreed upon democratically. America is imperfect, terribly so, but it's IMHO a far, far cry closer to the ideal than most anywhere else in this regard.

Retailer strong-arming: So what? Movie studios do this to theaters all the time. So what if Best Buy only sells Apple -- in essence becomes an Apple store -- like all the other exclusive Apple stores? There will still be many willing and able competitors who will employ their entrepreneurial savvy by seeing the market need in selling non-apple tablets and make good money fulfilling that need that Best Buy may have (stupidly) stopped serving.

I repeat: Natural monopolies don't exist. And if they come about, they end up very short-lived because the world is full of competitors and competitor-wannabe's who will rush to fill any perceived market needs.

Misinformation: You find your trusted sources. The government is not one of them, I assure you. I, for example, trust way more the "Non-GMO Project" or the "Berkeley Ecology Center" far more than I would trust any (former-lobbyist/government kleptocrat) FDA-crony. Both of these (and many other) non-governmental organizations would still exist without government and in fact would be able to do more without government limiting what they can study or not about the products they inspect.

Patents: No, nothing good will ever come out of patents. If you want I will point you to countless articles I've read which show this to be the case.

New Technology: You're discounting reverse engineering? Why? If what you claim was so, then innovators would not even bother to patent, because then they could keep the technology "secret" forever. Clearly this isn't so. But, they get patents because they know of reverse engineering and other ways that the technology would be copied if they don't get a patent. In fact, right now, they can keep it "secret" by not getting patent. For example, Coca Cola does not have a patent on its secret formula for that very reason. Look it up.

The marginal utility of R&D: This is the standard old argument for patents. But you can find creative ways to make the inventions pay off. Did the music industry disappear because of piracy? No, it is making record profits, actually! Some companies would not be as mega wealthy, perhaps. Bill Gates would still be mega rich, but maybe not as rich as he is now. But, here you are complaining about extreme "inequality" while supporting the very structures which generate it.

Ignorance may be bliss -- but thankfully, we don't all have to be as ignorant as the least informed among us.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #9402 (supplied by member C-note) - video declared dead by member ant.