Robert Murphy is probably the foremost intellectual in defence of freedom alive today. Keep up the good work. I know you feel lonely at times, especially in this insane socialistic political climate, but trust me we’re not alone.
The only problem is that the state already exists and it even has international support. So does world capitalism with the fight over markets. Who decides?
This video is a goldmine for anyone with friends that say crap like “oh silly anarchist, capitalism is evil and we need the government for everything!” Keep it up, Bob! We need more like you. Congrats on the wife, btw
@@YouLoveMrFriendly not sure tbh, it was 10 months ago, I probably had smth in mind but hard to say what it was. maybe I was thinking along the lines that distribution of resources by a body of government or by private markets consolidated into corporations can lead to similar issues... idk. I'm guessing, given the content of the video, that the other option would be a sort of anarchic stateless society, some modern tribal variation, post scarcity communist utopia, anarchic federations... who knows :p
I can't sit thru 'em all, right now, but they are correct about how the anarcho state should and would run, but the question is how to get there. Maybe we should go back to the borough idea, with each town more or less an autonomous unit. The hospitals would be as good as the communities were willing to make them. If it were all up to each borough to handle that, I bet you there'd be all kinds of charitable support for the hospital, and towns would consider it a mark of pride. "Oh yeah. We can do CAT scans, MRI, ultrasound, you name it. We had quite a few elderly in town, and no cardiologist, so we held concerts every Friday and Saturday night in the park, all summer long, and the TOWN hired a cardiologist, and gave him the equipment he asked for. We're all up-to-date, now." A good town can do that sort of thing as an organism, with or without a mayor making speeches.
The fight for freedom is not against the marxist professors, the fight for freedom is against the central bankers. Without the backing of the central bankers and their lapdog media, socialists wouldn't be relevant or as powerful. The central bankers are the head of the snake. Strike at the root.
At least with free markets, there are chances (never certainty!) for profit and success. With government, failure, demoralization, and eventually collapse is inevitable. No amount of force and fraud can possibly increase the amount or variety of goods and services!
*@Menaceblue3* he’s exactly like George Codtanza...if George was a Christian pacifist ancap with an IQ north of 150. So maybe not exactly like George. But there’s no denying he’s funny and does a killer George Costanza voice. :)
There's a great answer for the immigration question: Abolish welfare. Now only people who are invited can come and only hard working people want to come. Problem solved.
Actual fiat currency began with Lincoln needing a way to pay for the war. So to get people to take Greenbacks the government put a words that said Legal Tender for all debts public and private except for public interest on debt and import duties. Later on they shortened it to Legal tender for all debts public and private. This prevented the depletion of Gold and Silver reserves.
The problem with these theories is they don't work. They couldn't get anyone to invest in Turnpikes like the PA Turnpike without government guarantees and so the government ened up builting the Interstate Hwy precisely because of Mises problem of calculation. No one wanted to take the chance that different route would turn out to be more profitable like what happened with the railroads. Precisely because their is no way to build an run a network in an optimum manner as that can be predicted in advance. So instead they decided to interconnect cities of a certain size. They can't get a lot of investors interested in roads without no compete guarantees and even then only the new technology for toll collection allows collection based on use that is not overly expensive. Let say you want to cut traffic in New York where do you put the toll collection equipment? Charge everybody at certain times and then do you want people starting work at staggered times? This is no difenent than the use of taxes to get the proper investments for climate change.
The existence of the government allows such contracts. Railroads were heavily invested-on by entrepreneurs, alongside private roads in the US and Europe. Tolls existed in the first place. As an easy current example, consider narcostates in Latin America or their broken-down prisons where criminals create infrastructure themselves. Finally, in the US you'll find barely used roads or barely used ferries or barely used bridges. That's malinvestment. In Deng Xiaoping's China, malinvestment was limited to existing state companies, government whims, banks, and central bank whims, but now malinvestment there has increased under his more intervening successor, with roads leading to nowhere, empty buildings, and businesses without consumers, while entrepreneurs providing in-demand products and services compete with government. What seem to be a problem is exactly the point, the unwanted, unneeded, and costly roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure, etc, may not be needed or should not be invested in now. The costs are also hidden and distorted by government itself, since they make the currency, manipulate interest rates, and heavily tax ignorant citizens.
@@tinyleopard6741 Malinvestment is Elon Musk sucking up government and private investment in Space X. You want to invest in only that which produces profits so you wouldn't pay for roads because they would have never been built out fast enough to satisfy Henry Ford who wanted them built by government. You use government debt as another form of investment with a guaranteed return. So all this talk about small investors is just so much propaganda designed to take the small fish to the frying pan durring the next economic crisis.
Aviation kind of already works this way. They don't do inspections but I bet they would like to lol. I think it's obvious that they care more than the people in the regulatory regime.
What if the government pays private actors to do the job. In Sweden for example government is outsourcing fostercare of children to private businesses. Nobody knows how this is working out. Government pays (a lot)for it, but has very little control and has no good way to measure outcomes.
