03 Oct 2012

I Am Taking Over YouTube

Economics, Federal Reserve, Shameless Self-Promotion, Tom Woods 51 Comments

I’m trying to clear out my browser tabs. Here are some backlogged YouTube appearances:

==> My interview with Redmond W. of Mises Canada, right after the QE3 announcement.

==> “Messengers for Liberty” episode 2 and episode 3. (I don’t turn to the Dark Side in Episode III, sorry to spoil it.)

==> My interview with Tom Woods when he guest-hosted Peter Schiff’s show recently.

UPDATE: Nice! They did a good job of highlighting this particular exchange from the Ron Paul / Paul Krugman debate. Start watching around 19:40:

51 Responses to “I Am Taking Over YouTube”

  1. skylien says:

    This woman who discusses with Schiff at 49 minutes into the video is so ignorant. It really hurts watching it. Paraphrasing: College can never be a lousy investment, no matter how much it costs… but she knows basic economics… right

  2. Lord Keynes says:

    Robert Murphy at 26.22:

    “… If there’s a group of people out there who can create money just out of thin air through their operations obviously they are redistributing the existing resources – existing goods – into their hands and out of the hands of the people who don’t have access to that money when it first comes out”.

    So you mean all business people throughout capitalist history who have created and used negotiable bills of exchange, negotiable promissory notes and negotiable cheques – and who have thus expanded the broad money supply – are all just thieves?!They all just engaged in evil theft of resources?. (note we don’t even have to invoke fractional reserve banking here).

    This type of libertarianism is profoundly anti-capitalist: you just don’t understand that anyone can create money – credit/debt money – and private sector agents (especially the business, commercial and mercantile classes) do it all the time.

    The money supply in capitalism is endogenous, it is elastic and can be expanded by debt money, and always has been ever since the Roman empire:
    W. V. Harris, ‘A Revisionist View of Roman Money’, Journal of Roman Studies 96 (2006), 1–24.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      So you mean all business people throughout capitalist history who have created and used negotiable bills of exchange, negotiable promissory notes and negotiable cheques – and who have thus expanded the broad money supply – are all just thieves?!

      No, because people were not coerced into accepting them on the basis of force being the foundation for TAXATION in those bills of exchange. In other words, if a business threatens you with force if you don’t pay 35% of your income, whatever it is composed of, in THEIR bills of exchange denomination, such that to avoid said force you go out and seek those bills of exchange in trade, during which time the business prints indefinite quantities of those bills of exchange for their friends (not you), then yes, that business would be stealing from you.

      You have to understand that when libertarians talk about inflation tax, redistributed wealth, Cantillon Effect, and “creating money out of thin air”, you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have to presume that the libertarian is criticizing a violence backed institution. They are not criticizing the actual printing of bills of exchange per se.

      To be fair to you, most libertarians do not make this clear every time they bring it up, because libertarians who discover these facts about our monetary system, know what the other is talking about, and it is a habitual given that each understands that the other is ultimately criticizing violence against individuals who committed no violence themselves. The arguments about inflation and redistribution and so on, are the technical arguments of how exploitation is specifically taking place.

      It is like a libertarian saying “This person was shot” and criticizing it, after which time you jump in saying “You mean libertarians are against people getting shot?” before you understand that the libertarian was presuming an act of aggression, not an act of defense.

      So for libertarians, anyone can issue any bills of exchange, negotiable promissory notes and checks to their heart’s content….as long as others are not in any way coerced into accepting them due to threats of force, either directly by way of accepting them and taking ownership of them, or indirectly by way of taxation and having a debt denominated in those notes imposed on you against your will, which you must pay or else you will get thrown in a cage.

      The rest of your comment is just fake moral outrage founded upon your initial misunderstanding.

      PS I hope you realize how absurd it is for an anti-capitalist like yourself to rail against anyone for being anti-capitalist. If you truly were morally outraged, then you would at least cease being anti-capitalist yourself, and become an advocate of capitalist money, capitalist security and protection, etc.

      • successfulbuild says:

        This is all nonsense because private banks create money.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          This comment is nonsense because banks creating money does not contradict anything I said.

    • Matt Tanous says:

      “So you mean all business people throughout capitalist history who have created and used negotiable bills of exchange, negotiable promissory notes and negotiable cheques – and who have thus expanded the broad money supply – are all just thieves?!”

      None of these people created money out of thin air. Sure, they made promissory notes, etc. but they only became money because they were accepted by the public as a medium of exchange on the market. (Besides, mostly none of that stuff was “negotiable” in any kind of fluid sense – they were tied to specific amounts of gold/silver/etc.)

      The state enforced “use this or we lock you in a cage” kind of money is fundamentally different. As is the fractional reserve promise of convertibility on par, which evaporates (while the bank is STILL OPEN, thanks to the state) as soon as people actually start demanding it because the promise is a lie.

      “you just don’t understand that anyone can create money – credit/debt money – and private sector agents (especially the business, commercial and mercantile classes) do it all the time.”

      Right…. the advocacy of private production of money is based in a lack of understanding that private production of money is possible. What drugs are you on? They sound fantastically euphoric.

    • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

      LK,

      I agree with your general argument, but I’d be wary of considering all debt as money. Obviously, there is a degree of ambiguity (non-liquid assets can affect money prices), but in a sense the degree to which something dollar-denominated is money depends on its liquidity. Several negotiable instruments allow businesses to raise money, but this isn’t the same as creating new money. An extreme example is a corporate bond, but the same goes for things like bills of exchange (i.e. claims on money).

      • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

        Although, I don’t think what you write refutes what you excerpted. The creation of these debts does redistribute resources.

      • Lord Keynes says:

        (1) “but I’d be wary of considering all debt as money.”

        Correct. But then where did I say or imply that all debt is money?
        My examples are limited to negotiable bills of exchange, negotiable promissory notes and negotiable cheques .

        (2) “negotiable instruments allow businesses to raise money, “
        ??
        Negotiable instruments sllow a private sectoir agent to buy commodities in return for their debt instrument. If negotiable, that instrument will expand the money stock (broadly defined) and mostl likely be passed on and used for further purchases until its final owner redeems it.

        It does involve “creating new money”, despite what you say.,
        .

  3. Lord Keynes says:

    So all of your comment above just reduces to: libertarianism opposes coercive taxation.

    Libertarianism is not against the creation of money “from thin air” per se.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Notwithstanding the fact that “coercive taxation” is a redundancy, you’re partially correct.

      Yes, as long as you don’t use violence or threats of violence against me to coerce me into accepting something you are offering for sale or for charity, then you can print a zillion pieces of paper all you want. If you can find willing accepters/buyers, then all the prosperity to you.

      There is a further caveat though. You also, according to libertarian principles, cannot use force against others to externalize your costs of producing said pieces of paper on others who do not consent to it. That would make your operation a coercive one, despite the fact that you are voluntarily agreeing with others to accept your pieces of paper. In other words, A can contract with B, as long as the contract does not imply or presuppose aggression against C.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Notice that when initiations of force are eliminated in the area of money production, then each individual who seeks to earn profits or incomes in producing a commodity for monetary purposes, would have to compete with every other individual who is legally free to do the same thing.

        Every individual would be able to produce pieces of paper with their faces on them, and offer them to others for use as a money.

        I hope that you understand that if everyone were legally free to produce and offer their own versions of money for others to use, then virtually nobody would use paper as a currency any longer, since each individual could produce paper at very little cost, and for a money to be a good money, people typically want something that is relatively highly valued. Of course, it is POSSIBLE that most people would come to accept your pieces of paper over everyone else’s, or someone else’s paper over yours, but I highly doubt it. Paper would almost certainly not be the money of choice.

        More valuable commodities would arise, commodities are relatively expensive to produce (and hence most likely to be useful as a store of value), relatively rare (so that people don’t need to carry tons and tons of it to make everyday exchanges), homogeneous (so that it can be split to facilitate different exchanges of different marginal utilities), and durable (so that it can be used over the long term).

        When people have monetary freedom, precious metals have historically arisen as the money of choice, and I see no reason why that would change if the state ceased using aggression and allowed people to choose their own money today instead of coercing them into finding US dollars to pay taxes in.

        The above analysis is the REAL, ACTUAL reason why you and so many other Keynesians, Monetarists, and others who want the state to “manage” the economy, HATE gold and silver. Gold and silver money LIMITS coercive state power to too low a level, that you and others cannot tolerate, because you need that coercive power to accomplish your economic advocacies of “stimulus” and what have you. Without the state having control over money, that would put a serious dent in the “necessary spending” that your dubious models require.

        Thus, you waste your years away trying to reconcile violence and peace, and you do so by attacking peaceful activity as inherently unstable, prone to persistent high unemployment, Hobbesian inevitability of statism, and other flotsam and jetsam attacks whose sole purpose is to discredit peace as undesirable.

        • successfulbuild says:

          This guy is nuts. There was more war and violence during those glorious “gold standard” years than today, and, to top it all off, those gold standard years were also backed up by the power of the government.

          • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

            There was more war and violence during those glorious “gold standard” years than today, and, to top it all off, those gold standard years were also backed up by the power of the government.

            I really doubt this. At best, the score is even.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            The holocaust, Stalin’s great purge, the dropping of the atomic bombs, all occurred when economies had central banks.

            I win.

  4. successfulbuild says:

    If money has to be backed by gold how can anybody just endlessly print their own currencies? That makes no sense…

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Who is saying that?

      • successfulbuild says:

        Rothbard. He said that there were be a free-market in money “only if” money is convertible to gold.

        Nuts like major freedom are like people who want to go to a geocentric theory of the universe. Gold was (supposedly) used for “thousands of years” as money, and for thousands of years the world was a literal hell-hole.

        For “thousands of years” people believed in Aristotelian physics, and it held its value because of social institutions people like Major_Freedom believe in, even though it was obviously incorrect.

        So what if something has lasted for thousands of years? That doesn’t prove anything, except how dumb people can be in the absence of democracies where information flows freely.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          SB, I didn’t approve your other comment with non-academic accusations against living people. Nothing good will come of you bringing those claims up.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Rothbard. He said that there were be a free-market in money “only if” money is convertible to gold.

          How is that anything like the state you said prior?

          Nuts like major freedom are like people who want to go to a geocentric theory of the universe. Gold was (supposedly) used for “thousands of years” as money, and for thousands of years the world was a literal hell-hole.

          No, I don’t want gold. I want a free market in money. As for those who would like to see gold as the money of choice, you are committing an argumentative fallacy against them by saying gold is because because when it was used in the past, bad things were happening. But that “logic”, I could say that because you believe in putting spaces in between words (which was invented 900 years ago), that you want us to live like they did 900 years ago.

          The one is not connected to the other. Things were bad back then but not because they used gold. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

          For “thousands of years” people believed in Aristotelian physics, and it held its value because of social institutions people like Major_Freedom believe in, even though it was obviously incorrect.

          What institutions?

          So what if something has lasted for thousands of years? That doesn’t prove anything, except how dumb people can be in the absence of democracies where information flows freely.

          Apparently democracy makes people dumb.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          “For “thousands of years” people believed in Aristotelian physics, and it held its value because of social institutions people like Major_Freedom believe in, even though it was obviously incorrect.”

          Aristotelian physics is a very good first crack at physics. There were no “institutions” holding it in place (the Catholic Church did not give a hoot about theories of momentum), and somebody is spouting off something they heard on the Discovery Channel!

  5. successfulbuild says:

    Also, taxation is no more force than property. With property, you say, I own this, and no one else can use this land, because I “mixed my labor with it…,” somehow. Even though in modern capitalist society all property has elements of both public and private initiatives, so in practice, Libertarians are actually saying, the rich can steal from the poor, but not vice versa. Furthermore, most property was already acquired and set in place years and years ago, before most people were even born, so they had no choice in the decision making process. We see how Libertarianism theoretically justifies tyranny. Finally, those “mixing of labor” arguments depend on the dispute resolution organization, so in other words, they are the ones who determine who can and cannot own property, and thus they are essentially a government.

    There is no way out of the above contradiction in Libertarianism.

    Finally, taxation is voluntary in that you’re free to get a job and acquire property or not. In Libertarian slavery (which block/Rothbard/etc. favored), you could be born into a situation where the land owners own the property, you are their tenants, and you have to agree to their rules, like it or not. They could even make it so you couldn’t leave. So taxation is even less oppressive than that situation.

    If you don’t want taxes, live like Thoreau or the mountain men who voluntary remove themselves from the communities (real Libertarians). Otherwise shut up.

    • Richie says:

      LOL!

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Also, taxation is no more force than property. With property, you say, I own this, and no one else can use this land, because I “mixed my labor with it…,” somehow.

      Ah, communism has found its way on this blog. How are you?

      So which blend are you? Proudhon? Bakunin? Marx? Lenin? Bauer? Czieskowski?

      Because someone protecting their food from violent confiscation is the same thing as the state pointing its guns at people forcing them to give their money. Yup, taxation is just like defending your life from thugs.

      Even though in modern capitalist society all property has elements of both public and private initiatives

      “Modern capitalist society” does not imply public property. Modern capitalist society implies private ownership of the means of production.

      so in practice, Libertarians are actually saying, the rich can steal from the poor, but not vice versa.

      Non sequitur.

      Furthermore, most property was already acquired and set in place years and years ago, before most people were even born, so they had no choice in the decision making process.

      The Earth was physically set in place years before you were born, and as such, you had no choice in what it looks like. Does this mean that the Earth is inherently exploitative, and unjustified?

      We see how Libertarianism theoretically justifies tyranny.

      Property is not tyranny. Violations of property is tyranny. You can tell when we consider tyrants of history. They were property violators.

      Finally, those “mixing of labor” arguments depend on the dispute resolution organization, so in other words, they are the ones who determine who can and cannot own property, and thus they are essentially a government.

      These DROs can be bankrupted by the customers, so the customers actually have determining power.

      There is no way out of the above contradiction in Libertarianism.

      Which contradiction? Are you saying you actually exposed one above? All I see are errors and fallacies.

      Finally, taxation is voluntary in that you’re free to get a job and acquire property or not.

      Taxation is not voluntary because A agreeing with B to trade with each other does not imply agent G has the right to coerce A and B to give a portion of the resources, and yet in taxation, G does that.

      It’s interesting how someone who claims to believe taxes is no more force than property, and then proceeds to say taxation is voluntary, not noticing that this implies property is voluntary.

      In Libertarian slavery (which block/Rothbard/etc. favored), you could be born into a situation where the land owners own the property, you are their tenants, and you have to agree to their rules, like it or not.

      Yes, they’re called parents. Oh my God, infants being raised by their parents. Damn you cruel world!

      They could even make it so you couldn’t leave.

      Libertarians are against initiations of force, including parents against children.

      So taxation is even less oppressive than that situation.

      Another non sequitur.

      If you don’t want taxes, live like Thoreau or the mountain men who voluntary remove themselves from the communities (real Libertarians).

      Libertarians already tried that, but you socialists came in and wrecked the place. Now we want it back.

      Otherwise shut up.

      I will as soon as the communist overlord tells me too. Until then, you shut up.

    • Jason B says:

      The main question I have here is, how on Earth does someone formulate these views? Specifically, “Libertarian slavery”.

      • Dan says:

        Go to Tom Woods page and check out the person he is debating. There is no shortage of people making bizarre statements.

        • Jason B says:

          In all honesty I’d rather not. It’s bad enough I have to read what he posts on Bob’s blog.

          Wait a second. I voluntarily read what successfulbuild posts. It happens to be quite taxing on my brain. Now I get it, voluntary taxation.

          • Dan says:

            No, it’s not from this guy. It’s some other guy making one of the most bizarre comments I’ve ever read.

      • Matt Tanous says:

        I find it very strange they can deal with the cognitive dissonance of decrying ownership of private property, when simultaneously claiming that private property needs to exist in consumers goods, and that possession is not instantaneous (i.e. “absentee ownership” is bad somehow, but what I call “absentee possession” makes perfect sense to them).

        • skylien says:

          Bingo. I’d like to see him if someone takes his breakfast away or his clothes..

          • successfulbuild says:

            haha. And this “Matt Tanous” guy is another troll who thinks FRB is a “fraud” and wants to artificially limit resources, which is what the gold standard does.

            Notice the friends and the cranks skylien keeps; no wonder he had to lie about my positions to make a point.

            • skylien says:

              SB

              You never really clear up your position. I guess because you are not able to. I asked you several times what you really are for, you didn’t respond. The only thing you say is that you want a society without coercion. Great me too!

              Else you utter endless non-sequiturs mixed in with insults…

      • successfulbuild says:

        So “Jason B” considers my views “crazy.” I already explained the “Libertarian slavery” position: you could be born into a Libertarian covenant where your parents agreed to essentially condemn themselves, and their offspring, to slavery. Walter Block calls this “voluntary slavery,” where you sell yourself into slavery, but really there is no such thing as voluntary slavery. Since you can sell yourself into slavery, being unable to pay off your debts (made more difficult by the fact that the money supply is artificially limited by the gold standard), property owners could come after your final piece of property, your body.

        Hans Hermann Hoppe talks about how Libertarian covenants have the right to expel people and so on, so Libertarianism is based on discrimination, things which are illegal in modern society. he even talks about how a wide variety of property owners could keep immigrants out, a viewpoint held by many other Libertarian racists such as himself.

        In regards to taxation, you have the right to democratically petition the government to make changes. In these Libertarian covenants, which are essentially wide areas of plantations, you do not even have that right: you have no right over your owners. So it’s even more like slavery.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          I already explained the “Libertarian slavery” position: you could be born into a Libertarian covenant where your parents agreed to essentially condemn themselves, and their offspring, to slavery.

          I already explained to you that this is not consistent with libertarian principles. One cannot sign contracts on behalf of another without their consent. One certainly cannot sign contracts on behalf of the unborn.

          Ironically, your worldview is based on some people signing contracts on behalf of the unborn, and forcing them into a particular statist regime. Why should people of today obey a constitution or democratic contract agreed to by prior generations? Interestingly enough, here is where people like successfulbuild invoke excuses like “Your parents agreed to it.”

          Walter Block calls this “voluntary slavery,” where you sell yourself into slavery, but really there is no such thing as voluntary slavery.

          Prove it, don’t just say it. Not saying I disagree or agree, just that I don’t see any substantiation on your part.

          Since you can sell yourself into slavery, being unable to pay off your debts (made more difficult by the fact that the money supply is artificially limited by the gold standard), property owners could come after your final piece of property, your body.

          Only if you agreed that your body is collateral. If you don’t, then it is aggression.

          Hans Hermann Hoppe talks about how Libertarian covenants have the right to expel people and so on, so Libertarianism is based on discrimination, things which are illegal in modern society.

          You discriminate everyday. You discern differences between people when making decisions as to who to deal with and who not to deal with.

          If you are heterosexual, then you discriminate against those of the same gender as you when it comes to who you choose to marry or have a relationship with. That makes you a sexist.

          If you don’t like rap music, then you discriminate against rap artists when choosing which music to buy.

          If you like having a mate shorter than you, then you discriminate against taller people. That makes you a “heightist.”

          You discriminate against people when you decide who enters and who does not enter your home. If you don’t let gangbangers into your home, then you discriminate against gangbangers.

          he even talks about how a wide variety of property owners could keep immigrants out, a viewpoint held by many other Libertarian racists such as himself.

          How is that an argument against him? Merely sloppily paraphrasing him is not a refutation.

          In regards to taxation, you have the right to democratically petition the government to make changes.

          Yes, you have the right to speak your mind, but not the right to act on your mind. In other words, the “right” you speak of is empty. It is like saying a prisoner has the right to yell when he is being lashed.

          In these Libertarian covenants, which are essentially wide areas of plantations, you do not even have that right: you have no right over your owners.

          They are not plantations, for plantations are based on slavery, and slavery, unwanted slavery, is against libertarian principles.

          So it’s even more like slavery.

          Democracy is the majority enslaving the minority.

          • successfulbuild says:

            As has been explained to major_dufus the difference is that in the modern state people have the right to democratically petition the government which they do not have in the Hoppean feudalist states. And it is feudalism. Serfs could trade among one another and some of them could leave in some forms of feudalism (although some were indeed fixed to their land) Feudalism was often protected by private armies as well.

            Major_freedom has also claimed that he’s “not a libertarian” and that he himself would go around trying to take property from others by force. That would force people even with a little cabin to try and seek the council of this “DRO” or “NPO” or whatever the hell it is. In fact, if you weren’t in some allegiance you’d have no rights at all.

            By Major_freedom’s logic, the people in Afghanistan who own the property from drug sales and enforce bizarre laws like that women should have their noses cut off for having an affair or for not properly dressing are totally justified. And slavery still exists in many muslim countries and in Africa as well. People join the Lord’s Resistance Army and other tribal gangs because those gangs control the lands and make all the rules. It’s basically a private enterprise and the same thing happens in Somalia.

            So this slavery is entirely justified according to Major_dufus and Libertarians.

            Hoppe:
            “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”

            That is slavery because there is no way to tell who is a “communist” or not. Anybody could make up a charge of “communism,” as shown.

            Major Dufus claimed I was a communist merely for pointing out something you could read in any political science/sociology textbook.

            Finally, Major Dufus inadvertently says something that is true:

            “By not trading away your wealth right now, you are causing the deaths of thousands of poor people in Africa who have no food. You are artificially restricting your supply. You are deciding not to help those people. You are oppressing them. ”

            I agree. I am stealing food from poor Africans, as we all are in the West. There is a new book out by an economist confirming everything the left believes in that poor countries generally have had extractive institutions set up that drain the wealth of the third world nations, condemning them to perpetual poverty.

            So every decade or so more people die because of modern economics than the amount killed by Stalin and Mao.

  6. successfulbuild says:

    Major_Freedom’s arguments are so dumb it’s amazing anybody could even write them.

    What major_doofas doesn’t understand is that you’re doing “work” on the land just by living. You’re also interacting with nature just by living: atoms are constantly going in and out of your body every second. So it is indeed a valid question to bring up as to when the “mixing of labor” implies actual ownership. I “mix my labor” with all the land merely by living!

    As for communism, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Benjamin Franklin made distinctions between personal items and massively owned private property. You could also make a buddhist/eastern religion argument along similar lines as they also believe everything is interconnected; but you don’t have to go to spiritualism, as I said, it’s backed up by physics, but this is interesting because Rothbard lied and said the Tao was Libertarian, when in the Tao-te-Ching it actually condemns positions and the rich.

    I bring up the fact that modern capitalist arrangements are often solely the result of past generations, and that corporations have power that previous generations have already put in place, that represents power over a society that the current generation had no input over, especially after a corporation has reached monopoly status. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktops because people thought it was better than Unix. And this scenario would be worse if you had a 100% gold standard — a standard you also likely had no influence over, by the way, and a society where land owners can essentially make people slaves.

    He/she replies that the earth is oppressive? What? The earth is natural, capitalism is a human created system. This is a false analogy.

    He also says that DROs could be “put out of business” by their customers. The modern US government could also be “put out of business”: just convince people to stop paying their taxes, voila, no more US government. This is especially true if you think the government is funded by taxation (it isn’t), but even in the MMT world it is true because taxation is what powers the fiat current system. You could say that you can’t boycott the government so easily, but you couldn’t boycott the DRO system easily either, especially if you had the Hans Hermann Hoppe slavery version of it where tenants are the whims of the royal governor. It would be easier to leave the US than it would be to leave his feudalist order. Google hans hermann hoppe’s name and “naked capitalism” where you can see his slavery laid out verbatim.

    These DROs are essentially governments where “rent” is used to justify the taxation, and you have no protection if you cannot afford to pay the DRO. Either that or you’re a slave, which is, as I said, worse.

    Ron Paul says that freedom is letting people starve to death. That is not freedom. It wasn’t freedom when coal mining corporations artificially limited the supply of coal to raise prices during the winter time. It wasn’t freedom when in India businesses decided not to sell food to poor people allowing millions to starve, even though there was plenty of food to go around. That is oppression. And those scenarios are made worse in parts of the world that resemble anarcho-capitalism.

    Finally, in response to my claim that Libertarians go live out in the wilderness, he says “Libertarians already tried that…” but that we “socialists came in and wrecked the place so you can’t do that.” The government exercised powers in those times that it no longer has today, but furthermore, you CAN still do that. As I said, the mountain men do it. Ted Kaczynski did it. It sounds to me like Major Freedom doesn’t have the strength of his/her convictions, and since he certainly isn’t doing anything important here, is just afraid to follow his Libertarian principles.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Major_Freedom’s arguments are so dumb it’s amazing anybody could even write them.

      Aw, you sound mad. It was rather easy to dispatch of your fallacies and errors.

      What major_doofas doesn’t understand is that you’re doing “work” on the land just by living.

      Which land? If I live and work where I am, I don’t live and work elsewhere. I don’t have any rights of ownership elsewhere.

      You’re also interacting with nature just by living: atoms are constantly going in and out of your body every second. So it is indeed a valid question to bring up as to when the “mixing of labor” implies actual ownership. I “mix my labor” with all the land merely by living!

      No, you don’t do that for ALL the land. Just the land you actually come into contact with, directly or indirectly through the use of tools or hired labor.

      As for communism, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Benjamin Franklin made distinctions between personal items and massively owned private property. You could also make a buddhist/eastern religion argument along similar lines as they also believe everything is interconnected; but you don’t have to go to spiritualism, as I said, it’s backed up by physics, but this is interesting because Rothbard lied and said the Tao was Libertarian, when in the Tao-te-Ching it actually condemns positions and the rich.

      What rambling nonsense. You are not a systematic thinker at all. You go from one thing to another without making a cogent argument.

      The philosophy that “everything is connected” is not backed up by physics. Physics is actually backed up by the philosophy that everything are distinct entities with their own properties and reactive behaviors. It’s why physicists use nuclear physics for studying atoms, and Einsteinian physics for launching spacecraft. The search for a theory of everything, string theory, is not a theory that would make the entire universe connected. Individual humans and individual consciousness present an unbreakable barrier that constrains all knowledge.

      I bring up the fact that modern capitalist arrangements are often solely the result of past generations, and that corporations have power that previous generations have already put in place, that represents power over a society that the current generation had no input over, especially after a corporation has reached monopoly status.

      This is just neoMarxist platitudes. The “production relations” do not have autonomous power over humans. For they are grounded in human ideas and intentions. Marx’s whole system collapses on this one single point. Human ideas control technology, not the other way around. There is no “current generation” that has no power over technology. Each individual sells or bequeaths his property to a subsequent individual buyer or inheritance receiver. There is no “current generation” that has no power. There are individuals who have power. If you were born in poverty, then work hard, earn a living, save, and then sell or bequeath your accumulated wealth to a subsequent individual or group of individuals. Don’t blame others for the fact that your particular history was crap.

      For example, Microsoft has a monopoly on desktops because people thought it was better than Unix.

      Doesn’t it suck that people can choose the better over the worse?

      And this scenario would be worse if you had a 100% gold standard — a standard you also likely had no influence over, by the way, and a society where land owners can essentially make people slaves.

      Epic non sequitur, based on a false premise. Can you get any more wrong? Land owners don’t enslave people just by owning land. If individuals didn’t own land, then what, are you suggesting groups of people can own land? Or should all land be owned by a central group of people, who you refuse to call a state for obvious reasons?

      He/she replies that the earth is oppressive? What? The earth is natural, capitalism is a human created system. This is a false analogy.

      I wasn’t making an analogy. I was using your flawed logic in another scenario to show you how it is flawed, since you couldn’t see it.

      I didn’t say the Earth is oppressive, I said you implied it when you said oppression derives from being born into a situation that you are not fully satisfied with, such that you have to go out and change it if you want to benefit. Well, according to that logic, the Earth is oppressive to you, because the same thing applies. Merely calling the one “natural” and the other “human created” doesn’t change the PREMISE that you used to justify your claim that there is oppression.

      He also says that DROs could be “put out of business” by their customers. The modern US government could also be “put out of business”: just convince people to stop paying their taxes, voila, no more US government.

      And how is that wrong?

      This is especially true if you think the government is funded by taxation (it isn’t), but even in the MMT world it is true because taxation is what powers the fiat current system.

      MMT is accounting tautologies with horrible, HORRIBLE theoretical interpretation of those tautologies. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Why does MMT attract so many commies? It’s like flies on cow turds.

      You could say that you can’t boycott the government so easily, but you couldn’t boycott the DRO system easily either

      You could boycott a DRO more EASILY. You are not threatened with violence to pay a DRO, so you can stop paying it if you want, and that DRO would lose money and influence. If you tried to stop paying taxes, you’ll get thrown in a cage by those who demand payment.

      It is the height of absurdity to claim that boycotting a DRO is just as hard as boycotting the state.

      especially if you had the Hans Hermann Hoppe slavery version of it where tenants are the whims of the royal governor.

      This is false. Slavery is against libertarian principles. “Tenants” would not have to work for a land owner. If they were born onto owned land, then the individual owner has the right to set the rules. If you are against this, then you would have to be against the state, since everyone born on US soil and lives on US soil, have to work 4 or 5 months of the year for the benefit of the state (since we pay that much in taxes). You are contradicting yourself as usual.

      It would be easier to leave the US than it would be to leave his feudalist order.

      A private property society is not feudalism, because those who work on the land are not forced to stay, and the owners are legally allowed to sell their land to whoever they want. Both of these are not present in feudalism.

      Google hans hermann hoppe’s name and “naked capitalism” where you can see his slavery laid out verbatim.

      I’d rather read the original sources.

      These DROs are essentially governments where “rent” is used to justify the taxation, and you have no protection if you cannot afford to pay the DRO.

      So I take it you want to free ride on others then if you don’t pay for your protection? You would rather live in a society where you don’t have to work, and others are forced to provide for you, and forced to pay for your protection? Is that it? Is your post nothing but a plea to be a parasite, and the means you use is to catastrophically fail at making anyone here feel guilty in any way? Please. Looters like you are all alike. Boohoohoo, I want what is yours, and I will try to paint you as evil if you dare refuse. Boohoohoo.

      Either that or you’re a slave, which is, as I said, worse.

      False dichotomy. Yay!

      Ron Paul says that freedom is letting people starve to death.

      He never said that. He said you have no right to point a gun at someone to take their wealth, so that someone else can benefit from it. Practically, that REDUCES the total quantity of wealth that is produced (and thus reduces the amount of loot that can go to your preferred ends), and ethically, it is not justified. If it were, then you should have no problems with me using force against you to confiscate everything you own and everything you earn (which I doubt you even do), save that which you need to barely stay biologically alive, so that I can give the wealth to those who need it more than you do. But we both know you’ll call the cops, and contradict your own ethic.

      That is not freedom.

      You are equating freedom with slavery.

      It wasn’t freedom when coal mining corporations artificially limited the supply of coal to raise prices during the winter time.

      That reduced shortages. By raising the price, everyone who wanted coal and was willing to pay for it, could get it. If they didn’t raise the price, then the coal would have been consumed prematurely, leaving people with no coal for the winter.

      You don’t understand economics.

      It wasn’t freedom when in India businesses decided not to sell food to poor people allowing millions to starve, even though there was plenty of food to go around.

      False. You are presuming infinite resources. Resources are scarce.

      That is oppression.

      No, that is free trade. By not trading away your wealth right now, you are causing the deaths of thousands of poor people in Africa who have no food. You are artificially restricting your supply. You are deciding not to help those people. You are oppressing them. You are causing their misery. You are doing exactly what you are claiming others ought not do. You are a hypocrite.

      And those scenarios are made worse in parts of the world that resemble anarcho-capitalism.

      Prove it.

      Finally, in response to my claim that Libertarians go live out in the wilderness, he says “Libertarians already tried that…” but that we “socialists came in and wrecked the place so you can’t do that.” The government exercised powers in those times that it no longer has today, but furthermore, you CAN still do that.

      False. The government still exercised eminent domain. You don’t know philosophy, physics, ethics, economics, or history.

      And what you responded with is a red herring. You didn’t even address my comment. You evaded it.

      As I said, the mountain men do it.

      And what happens when the socialists go and take over their land and wealth? Say the same crap again? Go and live…on the moon?

      Ted Kaczynski did it.

      Stalin did what you recommended. He killed more people than Ted Kaczynski. I win.

      It sounds to me like Major Freedom doesn’t have the strength of his/her convictions, and since he certainly isn’t doing anything important here, is just afraid to follow his Libertarian principles.

      Look in the mirror. Everything you are saying to me, you are doing the exact opposite.

  7. successfulbuild says:

    The statement that we are all tied to the universe was endorsed by Carl Sagan, who referred to people as “starstuff.” Brilliant quantum physicists have endorsed it as well, such as David Bohm, who even wrote a book on the subject. Given that Major_doofus is some nut who claims to be everything from a scientist to an economist we of course have to defer to expertise here, unless Austrian economists can provide examples of people who actually argued against it. But what I was referring to was the scientific FACT that atoms are coming in and out of our bodies.

    In fact, Robert Murphy says he’s into “physics” and “chaos” theory so he should be provide the source.

    I did NOT engage in a contradiction because I said it is wrong for people to be forced to be “tenants” (slaves) of the property owners/tribal thugs just because their parents were born there and yet support the state. As I said, one feature of a modern state that the Robert Murphy tyranny does not have is that you have the right to petition your government and everybody has democratic rights; therefore, I cannot be discriminated against on that basis.

    Major_doofus then rants and raves about my “marxist” opinion that corporations are long since entrenched and established by decision making and laws. That’s another FACT; it has nothing to do with Marxism unless only Marxism is concerned with the facts. The modern corporation is largely the result of governmental and judicial decisions made after the Civil War that people inherited. In fact, the corporation itself is nothing more than a legal device for concentrating capital in the hands of the few.

    Given that corporations receive all kinds of special legal protection, and subsidies from the government, Ron Paul’s claim that a man who doesn’t have insurance should be left to die, and that’s what “freedom is all about,” does not make a lick of sense, unless you believe only the rich should receive government protection. Corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying politicians for a reason, to receive public benefits, to control markets and leverage political power.. There is a byzantine mix of interconnected boards, webs, etc., in the fortune 500 with every company being virtually connected with every other, and studies have shown all of the fortune 100 companies have benefited from direct government intervention including many of which were saved from complete disaster. In fact, descendants of the robber barons are STILL a part of the Fortune 500, such as the DuPonts, the Rockefellers, the Fords, and so on.

    Nothing is surprising about any of this and this is modern capitalism. Of course the monopolies that exist, to some degree, exist only because they have the power of the state. In fact all companies exist as government entities. Given that the top 1% own over 60% of all business assets I think it is fair to say it is a form of corporate feudalism.

    So, as usual, it is the Libertarian kook who “doesn’t know history.”

    Next Major_doofus claims that the corporations raised coal prices solely because of increased demand is a lie. There were over 300 interlocking relationships and combinations in the 1800s, and one of them was among the Vanderbilt and Sloan to artificially LIMIT the supply of coal by suspending mining. That isn’t a case of the earth naturally limiting resources, that is a case of capitalists, of people with POWER, naturally limiting resources in a conspiracy to fix prices. This is called “price fixing” and it is taught in every economics textbook out there.

    Once again, Major_Dufus shows himself to be a fool.

    As for the DROs it wouldn’t be easier because you would have no protection in a tribal society if you left your protection agency. This is why in Africa people form into bands and stay there, because they themselves don’t want to be killed by a competing band.

    And why should I pay for protection of my property if I ‘own’ the property merely by ‘mixing my labor with it”? Why should I have to pay for a so-called “natural right.” That should be protected automatically, but of course it isn’t, because “anarcho”-capitalism makes no sense. If I couldn’t pay for my property, or pay someone to watch it for me, someone could just come and take it, and I would have no one to turn to.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      The statement that we are all tied to the universe was endorsed by Carl Sagan, who referred to people as “starstuff.” Brilliant quantum physicists have endorsed it as well, such as David Bohm, who even wrote a book on the subject. Given that Major_doofus is some nut who claims to be everything from a scientist to an economist we of course have to defer to expertise here, unless Austrian economists can provide examples of people who actually argued against it. But what I was referring to was the scientific FACT that atoms are coming in and out of our bodies.
      In fact, Robert Murphy says he’s into “physics” and “chaos” theory so he should be provide the source.

      Brilliant quantum physicists disagree with those brilliant quantum physicists.

      I did NOT engage in a contradiction because I said it is wrong for people to be forced to be “tenants” (slaves) of the property owners/tribal thugs just because their parents were born there and yet support the state.

      You didn’t just say that. It’s your lousy premises.

      As I said, one feature of a modern state that the Robert Murphy tyranny does not have is that you have the right to petition your government and everybody has democratic rights; therefore, I cannot be discriminated against on that basis.

      That requires tyranny against peaceful free choice.

      As I said, the right to “petition” the government is an empty one, because if you aren’t in the 50% plus 1, you’re screwed.

      Major_doofus then rants and raves about my “marxist” opinion that corporations are long since entrenched and established by decision making and laws. That’s another FACT; it has nothing to do with Marxism unless only Marxism is concerned with the facts.

      It is not a fact. It is a myth. As I explained above.

      The modern corporation is largely the result of governmental and judicial decisions made after the Civil War that people inherited. In fact, the corporation itself is nothing more than a legal device for concentrating capital in the hands of the few.

      The modern corporation is not an institution of capitalism. It is corporatism.

      Given that corporations receive all kinds of special legal protection, and subsidies from the government, Ron Paul’s claim that a man who doesn’t have insurance should be left to die, and that’s what “freedom is all about,” does not make a lick of sense, unless you believe only the rich should receive government protection.

      It makes sense if you instead looked to abolish government privileges to corporations based on force, rather than seeking to extend them to more people.

      Corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying politicians for a reason, to receive public benefits, to control markets and leverage political power.. There is a byzantine mix of interconnected boards, webs, etc., in the fortune 500 with every company being virtually connected with every other, and studies have shown all of the fortune 100 companies have benefited from direct government intervention including many of which were saved from complete disaster. In fact, descendants of the robber barons are STILL a part of the Fortune 500, such as the DuPonts, the Rockefellers, the Fords, and so on.

      Ron Paul is against corporate subsidies. He is more against them than every single democrat in Washington.

      Nothing is surprising about any of this and this is modern capitalism.

      Empty platitude.

      Of course the monopolies that exist, to some degree, exist only because they have the power of the state. In fact all companies exist as government entities. Given that the top 1% own over 60% of all business assets I think it is fair to say it is a form of corporate feudalism.

      Not necessarily. It is possible for that to occur in freedom, on the basis of relative productivity differences.

      So, as usual, it is the Libertarian kook who “doesn’t know history.”

      You haven’t shown that at all.

      Next Major_doofus claims that the corporations raised coal prices solely because of increased demand is a lie. There were over 300 interlocking relationships and combinations in the 1800s, and one of them was among the Vanderbilt and Sloan to artificially LIMIT the supply of coal by suspending mining. That isn’t a case of the earth naturally limiting resources, that is a case of capitalists, of people with POWER, naturally limiting resources in a conspiracy to fix prices. This is called “price fixing” and it is taught in every economics textbook out there.

      The Vanderbilts and Sloans were constantly frustrated by new competition when they tried that, and prices fell back down. It wasn’t until the state intervened on massive scales did these price fixings become entrenched.

      Once again, Major_Dufus shows himself to be a fool.

      once again, you haven’t shown that.

      Merely making a comment, and then ending with “you stupid idiot”, doesn’t make your erroneous comment any less so.

      As for the DROs it wouldn’t be easier because you would have no protection in a tribal society if you left your protection agency. This is why in Africa people form into bands and stay there, because they themselves don’t want to be killed by a competing band.

      you mean statist Africa. Gotcha.

      And why should I pay for protection of my property if I ‘own’ the property merely by ‘mixing my labor with it”? Why should I have to pay for a so-called “natural right.” That should be protected automatically, but of course it isn’t, because “anarcho”-capitalism makes no sense.

      there is a difference between making no sense, and being unable to understand and hence make sense of it.

      If I couldn’t pay for my property, or pay someone to watch it for me, someone could just come and take it, and I would have no one to turn to.

      So let’s take other people’s property and acquire protection so this taking of other people’s property will never happen again!

      LOL

    • successfulbuild says:

      “Brilliant quantum physicists disagree with those brilliant quantum physicists.”

      There are few as intelligent and qualified to write on the subject as Bohm was. But who are these physicists? There are no physicists who say Einstein physicists proves that we aren’t all connected or that refutes quantum mechanics etc.

      Hans Hermann Hoppe is NOT a physicist.

      Notice how Robert Murphy allows his students to openly lie about the beliefs of physicists and the academic community writ large.

      What next are you guys going to set up a charity asking physicists to debate the claim that “Einsteinian physics” refutes Bohmian quantum mechanics?

  8. Bob Roddis says:

    1. Major Freedom has the Patience of Job.

    2. The concepts of the NAP, economic calculation/miscalculation and Cantillon Effects are just not that complicated. We’ve explained them over and over and over and over and over again. Are our opponents that dumb or just dishonest?

    • successfulbuild says:

      What major_dufus and you advocate would justify the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan who murder people merely for being different. Hey, it’s their property, it’s their rules. They acquired it fair and square through the drug trade — they “mixed their labor with it.” In fact, that is the hoppean society taken to its logical conclusion, as shown from the quote above.

      And he said numerous things that are demonstrably false; it’s a fact that entrenched corporations have little to do with market forces and more to do with government. That would be made even worse in your society, which is why most societies resembling “anarchy” in the modern world are failures: they resemble capitalism too much.

      There are successful cooperatives and landless movements all over latin America.

      And yet, this “anarcho”-capitalism is two losers on the internet.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        As I said, the concepts of the NAP, economic calculation/miscalculation and Cantillon Effects are just not that complicated. And neither is the difference between crony capitalism and the free market which is central to almost every libertarian and Austrian argument. I’ve had my copy of “The Triumph of Conservatism” since 1973 (the book was published in 1963). It’s cheap too, $4.41 for a used copy.

        http://tinyurl.com/8hkco7d

        It’s pointless to “debate” with people who refuse to understand these simple concepts.

        • successfulbuild says:

          I don’t need to read it; I already know corporations and private property has historically been based on theft.

          And when did Ron Paul ever say he would abolish corporations? Nowhere. And in Gilded Age days, which fake “Libertarians” like Jeffrey Tucker lament about, corporations had even tighter networks and interconnections. The Rockefellers and other robber barons sat on dozens of corporate boards.

          In modern corporatism, corporate titans are largely part of networks they don’t understand and that are greater than themselves. They are mostly anonymous characters who work behind the scenes and they do not entirely control the financial markets nor do they control the networks they are a part of. Modern capitalism is far too complicated to be regulated with even a bretton woods, let alone a gold standard.

          In fact, modern capitalism has fewer examples of price fixing than the more laissez-faire version. It’s mostly in areas such as software that this exists, where there are problems with patent law which entrenches big corporations (what the Libertarian foolishly refers to as a “better product”).

          Here are books YOU need to read:

          The Invention of Capitalism — which shows that the beginnings of capitalist property were based on force, and based off kicking serfs of their lands so that the industrialists could build.

          Why Nations Fail (showing third world countries disproportionately have extractive institutions set up in them)

          corporation nation, which I largely used as the basis to refute Libertarian tyrant Major Freedom.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            As I said, it’s pointless to “debate” with people who refuse to understand these simple concepts. And you do not.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            The key attribute of corporations is limited liability. Whether that would exist or not would be determined by each particular private area by agreement of the parties. There is no established libertarian view on that, or at least there shouldn’t be.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            Regarding the implication that I somehow know nothing about western butchering of the third world, I posted these pages about Belgian abuse in the Congo in response to the commie MMT African “hut tax” narrative two years ago.

            http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/5066625414/in/photostream/

      • Major_Freedom says:

        What major_dufus and you advocate would justify the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan who murder people merely for being different. Hey, it’s their property, it’s their rules. They acquired it fair and square through the drug trade — they “mixed their labor with it.” In fact, that is the hoppean society taken to its logical conclusion, as shown from the quote above.

        No, libertarian ethics prohibits such initiations of force.

        And he said numerous things that are demonstrably false;

        Which things? You have demonstrably failed to show how anything I said is demonstrably false. You have demonstrably made a demonstrably false statement, demonstrably.

        it’s a fact that entrenched corporations have little to do with market forces and more to do with government.

        That was my argument to you. That wasn’t your argument. I had to point out to you that what you called capitalism, isn’t actually capitalism.

        That would be made even worse in your society, which is why most societies resembling “anarchy” in the modern world are failures: they resemble capitalism too much.

        Which anarchist societies?

        There are successful cooperatives and landless movements all over latin America.

        Any cooperative can be successful when it gets free money from the taxpayers.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        I haven’t been following your guys’ debate, but successfulbuild please stop calling him “major_dufus.” I don’t want to have to start editing comments.

    • Jason B says:

      “What major_dufus and you advocate would justify the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan who murder people merely for being different.”

      See Roddis, the things you’re advocating, non-aggression, produce murder via religious fiat. Bin Laden didn’t kill for the reasons he stated, in reality he was just a Hoppean.

Leave a Reply to Jonathan M.F. Catalán

Cancel Reply