Walter E Williams - The Free Market Is Not Allowed To Work

[@healthhavencom]

This dude is brilliant.

[@rsobies]

"How you own something that is you" by deciding what i can do with my body or what i can't, i can also allow other person to do something with my body. such behaviour means that i treat my self as an owner of the body. "You seem to think that everything what exists needs a owner" not everything, only the things that are scarce. there is always somebody that decides what he or she can or cannot do with the thing, such person is called owner.

[@RosarioXPS]

I did just as you said. The results showed just 2 videos on the first page. The second one was featured an old man reading out news headlines, with 22 views. Ill ignore that one. The first one was posted one week ago, many of the figures are taken out of context, his largest criticism is the size of government increasing. So long as China maintains high economic growth, and commodities do not crash, Australia will be fine.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

GREAT.

[@asouthernwriter]

If Ron Paul would have been President, this man should have been on his economic team! He's so right on so many levels!

[@Katalmach]

Yeah, I'm not saying the concept alone prevents them, they're just ways of everyone agreeing on what can be done and what can't be done in society. I'm also saying that the fact that a person cannot take a body part away from you because it is part of 'you' leads to functionally the same things as self-ownership. If people agree that self-ownership exists you can logically infer that a person cannot take any body part of another person whatsoever.

[@RosarioXPS]

Yes, because a comparison between wealthy people and gangsters is legitimate, and has no overtones of despise. By your definition, an overwhelming majority of individuals can be labeled as "any good gangster", everyone is trying to achieve their own self interests.

[@Katalmach]

The concept of private ownership arises not from the 'natural laws' or the social constructionism but from the necessity of having private ownership. The absence of private ownership and self-ownership would imply consequences that if found to be unacceptable would logically infer that private ownership and self-ownership is preferable, but not "true".

[@rsobies]

...which of those two solutions will be the most fair?

[@bsabruzzo]

I believe the concept of private property is this: if no body owns anything, then anybody can't possess something and others can take things at any time. So, if you are hungry and could die of starvation, but come across an apple that could save your life, you may take it, but others may take it from your hand or your mouth or your throat or your belly. See, even as you digest the apple, you can't possess it if there is not private property. And thus, life is no longer yours to possess either.

[@RosarioXPS]

I don't believe he ever said that the purpose of government was to satisfy market forces, he simply said that government policies are interfering with the operation of market forces. What system allows inhabitants to have the maximum opportunity to achieve? Is it one which tells people what they can and can't do for their own good as YOU see it, or is it one which allows people to seek their own individual goals?

[@Unevaluated]

Yes. That is exactly what happens. Never wondered why everyone isn't payed minimum wage? Competing employers bid up wages, wages work the same as every other price in the world and is subject to supply and demand

[@rsobies]

"Tell me the formula how you PROVE that you have more right on the land than i have" it is very simple. if you are the first person on the land and you have transform the land, for example you built a house, then you own it. we can not build two houses in the same place, so who sould have the right to build a house? the first person who was on this land or the second? i think you already know the answer. without private property there will be constant conflict amoung people

[@Willsturd]

Ok, What part of that do are you confused about?

[@rsobies]

"you can wear the same shirt because like you know shirts come in numbers" but to have another shirt, it has do be made first. i cannot make shirt and what if nobody wants to bother of making new shirt for me? if you dont own the shirt you wear and i have no shirt maybe you shouldn't wear it? what to do in such case? this is the question that i am asking again and have no answer from you.

[@Willsturd]

Before Smoot Halley, 6% unemployment. After Smoot Halley, unemployement sky rocket until mid WW2. Nobody has taught me Economics in history class. I've read many economic books and before WW1, there was still not free trade. That is why there were colonies and why European countries were at everyone else's throat. After that, there was globalization and a move toward free trade. Right now, we are considerably more peaceful as a whole than during the age of tariffs.

[@Unevaluated]

Yes, literally all economists agree. In fact literally everyone who has bothered to look at the data, this excludes you, agree, you'd have to deny reality to disagree. Protectionism is the fastest ticket to rising prices and stagnant economies, so good luck with that.

[@fzqlcs]

If in your mind you do not hold ownership rights, do you also hold you have no right to live? And if you do have a right to live, what is it based on?

[@Katalmach]

Private ownership does not have a truth value. It is not true or false, it is simply a mechanism for identifying relationships between persons and objects. Its value lies in the capacity of applying non-arbitrary rules to how property is established - particularly self-ownership. It is an imaginary concept, like any system of governance. Its usefulness is derived from the effectiveness and equity of the form of organization it brings.

[@Unevaluated]

Companies bid up wages. It's exactly what happened in North Africa in the 90s, and is a very simple Economic concept, if Directors didn't have to pay billions of dollars to get the best CEOs, they wouldn't.

[@marvel1978]

This guy has all the right moves. If he was a boxer he would be world champ.

[@onlyamanful]

It doesn't matter they don't redistribute the wealth, our federal income taxes all go to pay interest to the federal reserve.

[@Katalmach]

It's extremely difficult, yes, but possible and it's happened before historically. And in the end if you can't use the system to change things, at least you end up with more informed people which can be the seeds for change outside of the political machine. People should seek the truth even if they can't easily change reality. I don't claim I've found the truth, but might as well stimulate discussions to get on the right track.

[@Willsturd]

So what part of it is hardly true?

[@smilingbiter]

The left wing and Socialist will not like this presentation. The truth dismantles their negative beliefs.

[@Siegetower]

Of course it exists. My cars and land exist for the use of me and my family and anyone I voluntarilly choose to allow to benefit from those things, to the exclusion of all others. My tools, that I use to maintain and improve those things, are my private property for my exclusive use. My assets (capital) I send out into the market I voluntarilly allow others to use to grow that capital, generate return and grow my wealth - it's still my property Arguing against private property is arguing poverty

[@Katalmach]

Okay, I'm glad we agree. That's becoming increasingly rare on youtube. One more thing. You maintain that we are our bodies not that we own our bodies. If we do not own our bodies why do other people, logically, do not have the right to our internal organs then? I know this has been asked before, but please help me understand. Even if a kidney is part of my self, if a kidney is part of what I am, how can we logically infer that another person cannot take my kidney?

[@Katalmach]

What you're saying is that if people agree that a person cannot take another person's kidney then he cannot take that other person's kidney. Period. Then they will most likely agree on not being able to take any other body part either. So in the end what's the difference between self-ownership and what you propose? They might be different in viewing things, but they are functionally identical in their result.

[@rsobies]

you still didn't answer to my question? how many times do i have to repeat the same question untill you will be willing to answer it?

[@Katalmach]

And they both exist because people prefer the result - people not being able to take each other's body parts without permission. They just seem to be the same concept with different names. Both seem to be based on what could be called Universally Preferable Behaviour. If nobody else can take or affect your body parts without you permission, how is that any different from self-ownership?

[@Katalmach]

It would seem the concept overlaps entirely with private property over the body, since private property over the body is synonymous with exclusive rights to my body. Even if there is no ownership in the world what so ever, if no other person has a right to my body except me, then I cannot for the life of me, see any meaningful distinction between that and private ownership of my body.

[@Willsturd]

I take that as another yes. Would you agree then... When the government takes on the deficit, it does so independently from the private sector. ie. the 17 trillion dollar debt we are in, is not taken out by the private sector, but from the government.

[@Willsturd]

First of all, we will take it slow. Do you understand the difference between the private sector's economy, and the governments economy?

[@rsobies]

"Start to explain how private property solves this problem" i have already explained at the beginning of discussion. but i can repeated. only one person can use the piece of land, this is the fact. so if i came on the land where there is nobody i started to occupied it. so if there will be another person that want to use the same land there wil be conflit betwean us. the new person can use a force to get rid of me or accept my present and try find another free piece of land....

[@Katalmach]

It's oversimplification to believe that laissez-faire cannot be achieved because crony-capitalism has been the predominant system. There have been cases of a close approximation of the free market that have eventually been destroyed by the expanding government. People don't understand the dangers of arbitrary government intervention. If a majority understood that government that doesn't run on static principles is doomed to failure, capitalism would be achievable for a longer period.

[@1WEEBLE1]

punch line is great

[@Katalmach]

Yeah, I agree with that, I'm not saying anything against biology nor am I saying that biology implies private property. I'm asking from where do you logically infer that other people can't take a part of your body? That a part of your body is 'you' doesn't imply that other people cannot take it or apply force to it. I can recognize the personhood of someone, recognize that that body part is 'him', and still do horrible things without violating those concepts.

[@ZamolxisReborn]

look at history. freedom(economic or otherwise) is the rare exception, NOT the rule.

[@rsobies]

"why FIRST = right on the land" do you prefere peaceful cooperation or violence?

[@rsobies]

who can decide what to do with the part of your body?

[@Willsturd]

There is something you are not understanding because when the federal reserves decides to take borrow and print more money, they do it for the government, not for the private sector. The private sector does not have control over what the federal reserve. So what part are you not understanding?

[@rsobies]

"THERE IS NOBODY WHO OWNS IT" if so, why do you decide what to do with your body? you can decide that you want to have hairs cut. why do behave like you onw your hairs? if you don't own your hairs you don't have a right to cut it. "IT IS YOU YOURSELF" what does it mean that my body is myself? if i lose a leg does it mean that there is two myself? if not, who owns the leg?

[@rsobies]

i still didn't get an answer from you. i ask the question for the last time: what to do if two people want to use the same piece of land. if you don't answer it further discussion has no sense

[@rsobies]

"So what kind of scarcity you mean" for example if i build a shelter you cannot build your sheleter on the same place. if i want to eat the apple i pick from a tree you cannot eat this apple, etc. this is the scarecity that i am talking about.

[@jdreed68]

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods." - H.L. Mencken Great quote...

[@rsobies]

"people just take from nature and then they claim it is theirs thats all" property is quite silimilar to natural law. for example if you try to neglect gravity you will suffer painful consequences and if neglect neglect property rights they will end up with environment in which violence is continous.

[@fzqlcs]

Words mean things. To own: to legally possess, to have acknowledged domain over. My question again. Who owns you.

[@Katalmach]

How the hell does that justify rape. Self-ownership - Every person has inviolable and exclusive right to his body. That works hand in hand with private ownership. Your body is already owned by you. Thus someone saying 'I was first here' does not justify anything. Therefore private ownership cannot be just to justify rape. Rapists can ignore the law, but society has a clear guideline on what rules have been broken and can thus logically infer the need for punishment.

[@Katalmach]

then attempt to change what people like. those crises had nothing to do with the free market, mainly because it doesn't exist. It is a fallacy widely held by the public. Changing public opinion by debate, discourse and discussion is the name of the game. We've had immense changes in human thought, in memetics over the course of history. It can happen again, and if there's any chance for it then it's worth trying to go for the closest approximation of free market that we can.

[@ZamolxisReborn]

but government always interferes in commerce. you're living in a dream world if you think otherwise...

[@rsobies]

simple question: i found an aple and i am going to eat it. you want to eat it too. who should eat the aple?

[@teenagesatanworship]

you, you found it. unless you wanna give it to me?

[@Katalmach]

Why would everyone have equal rights to the Earth than? From where does this equal right to resources come from? Humans are everything but equal. We are not equal in virtue, talent, skill or the value we add to our society. An economy is needed to manage scarce resources. What system would a society of equals use to manage resources? It would seem extraordinarily hard to put in practice from various issues including the tragedy of the commons.

[@ampman76]

The right to own is derived from the right to live. Man must be free to think and act to live: free to think about what will further sustain his life, and then free to act upon that judgement. Consequently, the product of his thought + actions = property, that which he has made or earned. Any man who acts but has no right to the product of his actions is a slave. You act as if humans are not part of nature. Does a lion "take from nature" when he feeds on a zebra? Or is he a part of it?

[@Katalmach]

It isn't (or wasn't) a non sequitur because your point originally was that "It is a MADE UP concept". You now have expanded it to a "a made up concept that has no point of reference with reality" basically. All I intended to do was to show that being 'made up' as in abstract is not a sufficient reason for it to be true or untrue, far from it. If you say that private property has no point of reference with reality, then I'm not sure if that's true or false, I'd have to think on it a bit more.

[@RosarioXPS]

I was not aware that education was synonymous to brainwashing. Well in that case, the next time i am ill, i will seek out a witch doctor who has not been "brainwashed" by such things as medical school, or knowledge of the anatomy. I would much rather be treated by someone who doesn't understand basic, fundamental principles whilst simultaneously believing he is an expert in his field and that everyone else is out to sabotage him.

[@Willsturd]

No it is not. Once again. Explain to me why you need a nomination from the President and approval of the Senate to become a chair. You don't see that with any other private run corporation. Why the Reserve?

[@Unevaluated]

Want to explain China? India? Africa? all in the 90s, all had rising wages in free trade zones, unions were illegal.

[@Willsturd]

Ok. I take that as a yes. So do you understand that the Government acts independently from free market capitalism?

[@MrGman543]

the idea of voluntary exchange is more Utopian than creating a new "socialist man?" i would argue that "true capitalism" (anarcho-capitalism) is not Utopian and the idea of the state actually improving our lives is really the Utopian vision.

[@Willsturd]

Federal reserve is not part of the private sector. If it was truley part of the private sector, then why do you need a nomination from the president of the united states, and approval of the senate.... to be the chair of the Reserve? Is it starting to click with you now?

[@rsobies]

explain me one thing, i try to understand your logic: "nobody owns nothing from nature" does it mean that i cannot build a shelter on a piece of land? because then you cannot use exactly the same land. it means that i will limit you and other people. can i eat an apple? if nobody have a right t do nature does it mean that nobody can do anything?

[@rsobies]

"How big is 1 piece " big enough in order not to interfere with each other. you rejected my arguments, so i asked you to give your way to resolved conflicts in cases that i shown as an example and didn't get nothing

[@Katalmach]

Pretty much based on how you define *free* market. How free does it have to be? Completely lacking any sort of government intervention? Then it's really a question of whether anarcho-capitalism is utopian. Imo, We're still quite a bit far from a free market, but we're certainly closer than we were before 1600. A 100% pure free market, aka anarcho-capitalism - we're very far from that. Laissez-faire economy? Yeah, that's a lot more feasible, we're not there yet.

[@rsobies]

do you always insult people when you talk to them?

[@ZamolxisReborn]

pay a few millions to a politician, get billions in government contracts...THAT is why crony capitalism is THE ONLY possible for of capitalism! . paying off politicians is just good business.

[@Unevaluated]

Except it provides poor countries with employment, allows employers to bid up wages and improves the lives of humanity overall. Just look at China and other Eastern Asian Countries, business entry has slowed because wages have been bid up to a point where it isn't worth it any more, Africa will likely be the next source of cheap labour, until it's bid up there as well

[@rsobies]

"hen to act like this"made up" rule is some sort of natural law like gravity" i didn't say that property is like gravity. i explainded why you should respect private property and what rule should be apply in order to own something in peaceful way.

[@MrGman543]

the whole point of the free market is to run your own life, no other man has ownership to my body so he has no right to run my life. where did you get the idea i want my fellow man to run my life? i never said i get to decide what is Utopian, i said i would argue that the state improving our lives is Utopian.

[@RosarioXPS]

James goldsmith was not an economist, he was a businessman. He was a member of the "1%" which you despise so much, and made a career out of hostile takeovers and asset striping. He himself operated on a global basis, not exactly the best advocate for protection. Not only that, but you have presented no evidence to suggest any of your claims are true.

[@rsobies]

"Who gave you the right" who gave you the right to decide about part of your body? should i respect your rights, if it is just made up?

[@Willsturd]

Oh so you judge whether a corporation is part of the private sector based on a phone book? That is very questionable indeed. If you need government approval to be in charge of it, you obviously aren't part of the private sector. If you have a .gov website, and have to take orders from the president, you obviously aren't part of the private sector. Do you want me to go on how they share no characteristics with the private sector? or are you just going to counter with a phone book?

[@rsobies]

" i just claim it is mine so you go find another solar system " you can't own sun, because sun is not scarce. i can look at the sun at the same time as you. we don't interfere with each other. so there is no conflict betwean us.

[@Katalmach]

Sure, true capitalism can never be achieved as long as the state exists, I'm not disagreeing with you there. I'd love to get some Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism here, but that is similarly impossible without some incrementalism. Meanwhile we should aim for the closest approximation of lassiez-faire that we can get. I know it's not going to last forever because of the natural expansion of the state. I know it's a very difficult target, but what else can we do?

[@ivjdivfjalekvvjp]

I think the example he gave about conservatives isn't all that accurate. Most conservatives oppose farm subsidies and bailing out banks or automotive manufacturers.

[@rsobies]

"one side but someone steps on the same land from another side" then we are standing on two pieces of land and there is no conflict. i see you will not answer my question, except your insulting me it was nice talkig to you, bye.

[@rsobies]

"You self decide because it is a part of you" so this is only a rule made up by you. why should i respect it?

[@rsobies]

... there is no need to claim property rights on the sun

[@fzqlcs]

You said, "so you claim that people with no property rights have no right to live." I guess I must connect every dot for you. Everyone has property rights in themselves. You see, it is not so bad. BTW, the tone of your response shows you feel threatened. you should.

[@Unevaluated]

increases unemployment in THAT COUNTRY, the overall level of unemployment worldwide has not come down. Or would you prefer third world countries starve while overweight Americans get a nice 40k and benefits?

[@ZamolxisReborn]

"should" has NOTHING to do with it. it can, it does, and it will. grow up.

[@rsobies]

"thanks to science humans have today the ability to produce more than enough for everybody" can humans build two houses in the same place? can i wear a shirt the one you are wearing at the moment? i think even science can't do that.

[@ampman76]

But again you are wrong. My argument can't be used to justify rape, at all. Once again, just because you swap "property" with "rape", doesn't mean that the argument I used to get to "property" is invalid. I could arrive at the conclusion "Air is good" and you would swap 'air' with 'murder' and say my logic can justify anything, without even talking about how I arrived at "Air is good". Please think harder.

[@ampman76]

You're not even refuting my logic. You're replacing subjects in a sentence. Here is my logic "Man must be free to think and act to live: free to think about what will further sustain his life, and then free to act upon that judgement. Consequently, the product of his thought + actions = property, that which he has made or earned." You take the conclusion derived from that logic, swap out the subject with nonsense, and say you've refuted it. Once again, as is the norm, you are wrong.

[@fzqlcs]

small, brittle minds are a sad thing to witness. keep watching LibertyPen, you badly need it. sadly, your entire thought process is a non sequitur.

[@RosarioXPS]

Do you honestly not see how offensive your comparison is, not to free market advocates, but to the people who suffered from slavery and the ensuing discrimination. Globalization has not destroyed Australia, without international trade we could not support our ludicrous welfare system, our high minimum wage and our subsidization of PMV and TCF. Every year we have trade deficits, and yet we have had 20+ years of economic growth. Also, stop using the following words: serf cheerleading landlord

[@ampman76]

No, there is no right to rape, and it cannot be derived from the right to live, as I've shown that the right to own property can be. The killer can't say he has a right to kill, unless that killing is in legitimate self-defense, where his right to live is being infringed upon. My logic is very sound. You don't attempt to refute the derivation I laid out; instead you offer nonsense. The right to own property CAN and IS derived from the right to live. You're quite simply wrong.

[@ZamolxisReborn]

capitalism is controlling your own capital to pursue your own self-interests. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a VERY good way to make a profit is to get the government on you side. ...and that is why crony capitalism is the ONLY possible form of capitalism--because any good capitalist would try to buy himself the politicians! (that's just good economics; a lobyist is one of the best investments a business can make in terms of returns on investment)

[@Unevaluated]

I don't have time to argue with a tin foil hat socialist, economists are unanimous in China's soaring wages, an incredibly simple economic concept i wouldn't expect you to understand

[@LibertyFreedom1787]

Tragedy of the commons.

[@fzqlcs]

What a bunch of childish tail-chasing. I asked a simple question. By what basis to you have a right to live? The true basis for a right to live is property rights. Only the owner of property can legally and morally destroy it. To deny this is to be have constructed a mental roadblock that explains impeded progress

[@ampman76]

It does not justify rape because simply saying "the right to rape is derived from the right to live" doesn't make it true. You must provide an argument to show why it is -- just like I did, and which you still have yet to refute. You'd better stop. Your lack of intellect is showing.

[@RosarioXPS]

Ignoring empirical evidence and making vague assumptions, that's the way to go. I have mustered up several current examples, you have not demonstrated knowledge of a SINGLE textbook theory, its quite evident that you have never studied economics, and are thus unqualified to to speak on the subject, let alone make accusations.

[@ZamolxisReborn]

are you now seriously gonna try and tell me that people are NOT lazy?! what planet do you come from?!

[@RosarioXPS]

Absolute rubbish. There is no question AT ALL that China's living standards have improved drastically over the decades, the opening of markets played a significant role in this. I would challenge you to find any evidence to suggest otherwise.

[@Unevaluated]

That is a kindergarten view of the economy, please do some reading

[@Unevaluated]

You don't even understand supply and demand and you are trying to argue economics, please read a book.