I have a degree in two "social sciences", political science and sociology, from a reputable, well regarded and publicly funded Canadian university. In neither of my programs was there an economics requirement. I read Smith for one course, Keynes for a couple of courses, and Marx, Lukacs, and Gramsci ... I had to take 6 credits in a second language, 6 in fine arts, a bunch from humanities, and 6 from the sciences ... but no economics credits for a "social sciences" degree.
Math and physics TELL us this is so. Even from a strict utilitarian view, distributed systems are more capable and more resilient than monolithic systems. Plus, nature itself is infinitely distributed...from atoms and particles to cells and organs. We don't even control our own bodies, and we think central planning can even make the cut? I dont think so.
agree.. market monopolies and undemocratic rule are the real issues anywhere.. The social contract, and negative externalities are the reasons for government existence.. The social contract exists to provide equality in opportunity (not outcome) to all citizens.. The biggest negative externality is climate change, since the earth biosphere is a closed system.
All these debates are the same, people generally agree on the problem but see different solutions to combatting it. These solutions always have their own set of problems but dishonest people will pretend this isn't the case. It comes down to an individuals belief in what problem is worse. Are the problems with solution A worse than the problems with solution B? Ideologues are trapped into thinking they have the only answer and everyone else just needs to be re-educated. There are no solutions, only trade offs.
This guy equates a barbershop overcharging people to a nuclear power plant overcharging people. He literally says “Its the same thing”. Ummm, sorry but we can’t just keep sprouting up new power plants in the same areas to compete with the existing one. The case for zero government regulation is insane. Just look at what happened in Pennsylvania in the 70’s! The corporations left unchecked will always be corrupted, we can risk this with nuclear power.
stems from first principles. Property rights are keen and many, many thing stems from there. If we can do that well than there is no hope we could possibly do more complex things .
I just want to make this point is that social experiments are performed in countries like the USA and in China. They are just done at a State or Province level.
Nobody said that, the problem is that not all “regulations” directly relate to safety, many are nothing more than protectionism for established businesses.
@@eifelitorn at what timestamp? Also, you forgot to address the fact that not all regulations are safety related, pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
@@liquidsnakex any time he uses that "gun to their head" analogy... He just means regulations. And I didn't say that all regulations are safety related.
@@eifelitorn No, he means that if you don't do what the government wants, they will literally stick a gun to your head. Even if you're hurting nobody and what they're demanding is illegal. Go ahead and refuse to pay the government's protection money, then refuse to cooperate with their punishment for not paying it... they will absolutely send thugs to stick very literal guns to your head, just like the mafia would.
Free marketers are just as idealistic as the central planners. Neither of these systems work great, period. We just have to muddle through it as best as we can, with our eyes open to the shortcomings of each system, and learn what we can from each real world "experiment" with the hope of finding some decent trade offs.
You can't say that. Central planning has been tried and has failed countless times. A truely free market has never been attempted. Therefore you cannot say it would fail or that its comparable to a socialist economy.
@@neodark414 That's the same argument that socialist economists use: true socialism has never been tried. They always point out some petty deviation from the gospel that is interesting but irrelevant. We have mountains of data on free markets and planned economies and the verdict has been in for a long time. They have their strengths and weaknesses and we just have to accept the trade offs we can stomach.
Lol go and read the CA financial report. The State of California paid over a billion dollars for a covid website (I could make their site, alone, for less than $20k) Your centrally planned Utopia has proven to be a dumpster fire. The opportunity of tyranny and corruption is exacerbated by central planning.
The example you gave is a bad one. They almost always have consistent power. There was that winter storm that hit them hard and the electricity company couldn't keep up with demand for a short time. So the government would have done what differantly?
also, detroit has a very strict gov forced monopoly and we lost power yearly my whole childhood. its happened one time since ive been in tx for 16 years
From a personal perspective, optimizing for personal well being and the wellbeing of my "tribe", I'm in 100% agreement with the libertarian line of thinking (discussed in this video). But I think it's a bit drastic to say that putting any limits on individual freedoms is always bad, not even if it results in wide scope public good. Moreover, just like the power plant example that was discussed in this video clip, where it was stated that the decision to have a centralized powerplant can potentially emerge organically as a consequence of free market based decisions, a society deciding to involve the government in market decisions could also emerge as a natural consequence of free market based decisions. For instance, in industries like finance or healthcare there is heavy regulation because in the past swindlers preyed on the gullible and uniformed, forcing people into financial ruin, compromised health, or even death. Such regulations definitely limit the freedom to run your financial or healthcare business as you see fit, but it emerged out of a desire to minimize negative societal outcomes that the pre-regulated, free market was creating. It's something worth thinking about and considering I think.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” - Frederic Bastiat
@@AgoristsRising the natural tendencies are irrelevant when we live in an world created by modern humans instead of living like primitive animals, instead of the natural tendencies what is important is the tendencies of the artificial systems created by humans, and that's why the tendencies of an artificial market are different from the tendencies of an artificial state, and both are different to the natural tendencies of uncontacted peoples.
@@danielsan901998whether in a natural or artificial system, the tendencies of the organizers (aka government officials and their bureaucrats) are always good? 🤔
There's a city near Mumbai that is 100% privatized... And it's a death trap. Any economy needs a moral nucleus. Yes, morality is fluid but the alternative is worse
what would that change? Power attracts corruptible personalities, and central planning (public-entity ownership of all means of production) would still be inefficient without the market price mechanism.
@@galacticambitions1277 Even in a democratic system, the knowledge and expertise required for effective economic planning are highly specialized and complex. Simply electing people to make all economic decisions does not guarantee they possess the necessary skills or understanding of economic principles. Besides, elections do not address the information and calculation problems that arise in when a public entity owns all means of production. Without market prices and signals to provide information, democratically elected planners would struggle to efficiently allocate resources and meet consumer preferences. Democratic processes can be slow and subject to political interest, potentially leading to misallocation and distortions in decision-making. Besides, a model where a public entity, whether democratically elected or not, still faces the problems of inefficiency, lack of adaptability, lack of consumer choice, and lack of innovation.
“I would never wish to make anyone do anything” is a cute disposition, why was Hayek head over heels for Pinochet? Was it because of Pinochet’s staunch opposition to ‘coercion’? I’m not a terribly wealthy man (in fact, I’m struggling pretty hard at present), but I can’t help but feel royal when I hear the minarchist’s free market rabble. Antiquity’s economics has always been a degenerate psychology-which is to say, since time immemorial, the mercantile class has always been quite fucking stupid. Centralization happens in any case, capital couldn’t sustain itself without such centralization. ‘Anarcho Mercantilism’ will always create its own crises to keep itself afloat. World War II was spectacular for car companies, albeit rather ‘coercive’ for basically anyone else. Every bursting ‘economic bubble’ is the perpetual proof rendering ‘rational actor’ theory a farce-Laissez Faire is the name of the passive pig’s democracy. In the absence of sufficient centralization regulating unnecessary competition, I reckon bank robbery no less a victimless crime this century than it was in 1907-as if the IMF would dare let me get my grubby little hands on federal reserve dollars without some bank in between. The freedom of Austrian economics is nothing more than the freedom to gamble one’s self into ‘coerced’ submission. Sklavenschwein.
head over heels? show me the text to justify that, sir. Also, things are shit right now in econ and its extremely far anything austrians would prefer so i think your reasoning is completely shit. I would even assume you are prolly a progressive
All that happened in Chile was socialists getting a taste of what they were trying to enforce on others. What, are we supposed to have sympathy that a bigger fish came along and did to you what you were trying to do to us? Boo hoo, cry me a river. Libertarians are not pacifists, they’re only against aggression, not defensive violence. When your aggression robs us all of the ability to be free and instead insists that one must dominate the other, it’s tragic, but also an easy choice as to what the roles should be. Ultimately, you going on a “free helo ride” for trying to enslave me, is still more ethical than me going in a gulag for sharing opinions that your cult disapproves of.
@@liquidsnakex That economy should be completely void of the government. That's his argument in the entirety video to my understanding. His arguments in latter part of the video seem shallow 'if a business acts shady its between it's customers' government shouldn't interfere. Wrong doings and illegal activities of any business affect society in large. There's no isolation.
@@Shahzebfaheem no, you’re just doing what socialists usually do and conflating all libertarians with being anCaps, due to anCaps being more removed from the status who and thus easier to attack. Just because he’s blaming the current form of government for a lot (which is fair, as once you assume control over something you are responsible for the outcome), doesn’t mean he doesn’t think there’s no place for a better form of government. The overwhelming majority of libertarians are not anCaps, they still want courts, police, and military. Even anCaps still want those things, they just want more options and to pay for them differently.
@@Shahzebfaheem it is isolated even in that case vs imposed on everyone would you rather Microsoft fuck over its users and raise its prices 10% or the federal govt increase taxes 10% on everyone???
show me the one world govt the world works in anarchy, if govt is the be all end all we'd just have 1 this is the same naive thinking that anti-abolitionists had, that slavery was just the norm
The issue I see being neglected by libertarian idealism is the international community. We need governments to operate and protect our interests internationally. Austrian economics is just as dependent on an idealized human as Marxist
@@AgoristsRising idealized human behavior in Marx perspective is everyone gives a 100% of the efforts based on their abilities. There are no such thing as freeloading except for the rent seekers “bourgeoisie”. Once we re-educated them they will see the errors of their ways. Libertarians need human behavior to not use force to protect their monopolies in order for the free market to continue to function. A monopolist will move towards an oligarchy or a cartel to protect their power pushing down any competition, especially in situations requiring economies of scale, like railways and power companies.
Just using Mathematics doesn't make you Scientific. You need to make observations, and that's something economists don't do properly. You need to observe human behaviour in more detail to see how far it deviates from the "rational actor". Consider that modern capitalism benefits from the existence of a state and the captive workforce they control. Why do you think they offshored work to China? Because their state is authoritarian and controls their captive workforce more stringently. I would say that capitalism in its current form could not exist without coercion. What happens when you don't outsource enforcement and coercion to the government? Well, then you do it yourself and the end result is gang violence or something similar. Basically, humans left to their own devices don't play fairly, particularly when it is against an outgroup
market monopolies and undemocratic rule are the real issues anywhere.. China got foreign investment because of cheap labour.. now, China is outsourcing their cheap paying jobs, because of the rise of their middle class.. The social contract, and negative externalities are the reasons for government existence.. The social contract exists to provide equality in opportunity (not outcome) to all citizens.. The biggest negative externality is climate change, since the earth biosphere is a closed system.
@@MK-fk4kp yeah, just an example, government has a few reasons for existing. Coercion I believe is still a part of it. Not to say I like it, but this is something that humans have done for a long time, and I have no idea what our species would look like without it. The reason China's labour was cheap is due to their lack of bargaining power, both as a nation and individually. Now that they are middle class, as you note, they have more bargaining power. That's how I see it
@@AJ-hc5zo Nice :) I can't say that it's all my own, David Graeber influenced my thinking on this too. Once I read some of his books I found myself taking a step back and just looking at things a little like how I'd imagine an alien visitor would. The end result is that the profession of economics looks like, as you say, a theology and economists the high priests. Fits pretty well with historical civilisations too, the myth makers often have high status in society, probably because they keep the whole edifice from crumbling
@@AJ-hc5zo One thing I haven't figured out and probably would be very difficult is whether it couldn't be any other way. Do large scale societies by definition require some kind of "glue" be it religious myths or other myths? Or is it just some happenstance arrangement our species found itself in? Certainly a more interesting question than more of the usual "tune in for another showdown, capitalism Vs communism" 😂
This guy sound like a dangerous technocrat mixed with a libertarian, so far from the clips I’ve seen… He has some good ideas, I just think he makes the same mistake many smart people these days seem to be especially at risk of, and that is being blind to what they don’t know, their own ignorance seems to be something they think is not something they encounter on a regular basis and they are above the affects of. He is a super charged version of the old saying “A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”.
“I don’t want to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do”. Key argument against this is that poverty, destitution and inequality significantly constrains the freedom of the population. And libertarian capitalism has (to date) been associated with increasing inequality and destitution in certain locations (mainly Western countries).
People facing problems isn't a freedom issue. Freedom is being free from things, not being given things like shelter or wealth. You can twist it to say you need 'freedom' from poverty but that's a positive Vs negative rights argument. I believe it's a good thing to try to lift people up but those are privileges not freedoms. Operating from the starting point that the world doesn't owe you anything, which is the harsh reality of our existence, it's your job to secure anything you need, it's not some 'freedom' someone somewhere is going to provide for you out of kindness.
The overwhelming majority of libertarians still believe in keeping regular public courts (along with police and military), the ones that don’t still believe in having polycentric law courts, all still believe in mechanisms for policing fraud one way or another.
Lex u kill me 1st thought was Marcus Arilius..a stoic leader..but at the forword to meditations I saw it was Bill Clinton's favourite book..Well.. 2nd Thought education what are we educating kids to do..if we want a new world repetition clearly is not the answer.. 3rd Class..I don't know if u dealt with this before but goes back to education how did the Russians between the Revolution and WW2 send a man to space by giving opportunity to all.. Khrushchev..was a Ukrainian peasant who lead the U.S.S.R and stop WW3.. Here we are again...who TF will stop this shit now... Free Good education..not indoctrination
