Jeffrey Tucker has an amazing ability to communicate old ideas in a refreshing and amazing style. I always find myself profoundly jealous of this ability.
The content is really fantastic, especially if you watch to the end and I'm completely hooked on Jeffery Tucker and his presentation talent and skills.
A brilliant intellectual synergy! Once Jeff mentioned the fairytale, its relevance to the defense of market economy struck me with the force of revelation. But how insightful to notice it!
This lecture reminds me of the guy who started with an unusually large red paper clip and traded his way to a HOUSE! All through voluntary trade! Look it up he has the whole list of things traded.
I think this entire talk was a Fairy Tale. You can't over simplify the entirety of the advancement in Capital and the increase in human population to the profit motive of capitalism. Advancements in Science, Health, and Technology are the main reasons why we have advanced as far as we have. It can either be through public collective efforts or private goals of capital gains that those advancements arise, not just one or the other.
@americanbandwidth "In Salk's case, he received millions of dollars of benefits for what he did, he deserved it. Great man. His wealth came from being World famous, getting free meals and upgrades on trips, and being hired due to his fame." I would say that this would be a discussion about his motivations for his vaccination. Since it wasn't monetary gains, which I view as the basis of Capitalism, then his motivations were more altruistic. At least I believe that there were.
@TWSceptic Without Capital, there wouldn't be capitalism either. There is a reason why I said "It can either be through public collective efforts or private goals of capital gains that those advancements arise, not just one or the other." There doesn't have to be monetary capital for those advancements to arise. It can be done through a collective effort of people who might have other motivations for it.
@americanbandwidth Local Taxes for Roads, Schools, Police, and Fire is the government. It is true that private businesses will always try to lower the costs of products so that they can make more of the profit with less costs. That doesn't mean that only private businesses are able to produce goods at lower prices, the government is also able to, if that is their incentive. At least with government you have more of a say in what goes on, than with a corporate private tyranny.
@justmoon3 I will accept your point entirely. I just think this got a little off topic from the speech itself. I just would say that I am all for people making as much money as possible, as long as they don't exploit the lives of other just to obtain it. I would also say that there are things of which can be done better through Government, and the same as true for businesses. All I care about it figuring out which is better for which.
@justmoon3 Your points are valid. It is only that they are not really counter points to mine, since the only points I was trying to make what that it is not ONLY through Capitalistic endeavors that society advanced to the point it has. I honestly don't think the speaker really offered any real specifics to back his points. Like just showing us a graph about the increase in capital and size of population, does nothing to show specifics as to why that happened.
@smartalex1972 Well he might be gay, but maybe not, he might just sound like that, we all know about the bodybuilders that sound like a WWF wrestler that like to engage in those activities, so don't judge a book by it's cover, and he has a family and kids, so I don't know, but his ideas seem the most important issue to me!
Well David, small world, I myself taught high school many years. And I did not use a lot of lecture. Students learn a lot when they are actively doing things. Reading fairy tales I understand; but I don't know what an Enchirito is nor an Outcherito.
@americanbandwidth I agree that the Government doesn't do things for profit, but it is not always about profit. At least when it comes to Government, some power resides in the people. As opposed to private companies where the power lies with those who have stock in it, or those who run it. The difference between Government and Business, is that ones main goal is the public, and the other is profit.
It's 2024, and it's come out that politicians acquire 100s of $millions in office, and not by producing anything. Some comes from the great evil of war, some from kickbacks from giving away "aid" money taken at gunpoint from citizens, some from market manipulations effected by the politicians. I wonder if you are still naive about government's motives, 12 years later.
@americanbandwidth I am not advocating complete control by Government, or advocating the complete lack of Capitalistic endeavors. I only really argue that you can't expect everyone to be better off because of the extremes of both ends of those ideas. You can't expect that everyone who does something for the betterment of Mankind will always receive a reward of Wealth. That's really my main annoyance about the video. That it looks at Capitalism as the greatest thing ever.
@americanbandwidth "Never reward bad behavior, The banks made there mess, they need to suffer for it." I agree with that. I don't carry over the idea that because people are unemployed that it was because of bad behavior. Also in the same that because someone is rich, is because of good behavior. Well one thing I know for sure is that if Salk wanted to release the polio vaccine for profit, then not filing a patent for it was the worst mistake he could of made.
@americanbandwidth I am sorry to tell you that I am not motivated by profit. I only view money as a necessity for survival in our modern day society. I wanna know how you feel about the Government bailing out several large banks and corporations on the brink of bankruptcy. I personally don't agree with the protection of the corporations who fail to survive in the natural selection of capitalism, but I do agree with the protection of people in the system who need bailouts.
David: How do you know that 1) you don't own people? 2) there is a right to suicide? 3) people may not coerce each other? 4) God must be the judge follows from us belonging to God? Could he have given judging authority to someone else? How do you know one way or the other? Are you saying that people have rights or don't have rights? In either case, how do you know that? Pardon me for asking hard questions. Best wishes.
You may ask why this or that. But how do we know why God does this or that? or why he should do this or that? How do we know that God has not delegated judgment to limited, biased beings? If you think that God has not delegated judgment, can you prove that? Does a lot of judgment take place? Is that judgment effective? Can we escape it? How do you know that we have no guidance as to who the charlatans are?
Could you imagine if Jeff Tucker walked into a Taco Bell where you where working and started asking about how much this is worth with his bow tie? You would think he was a crack head.
David: How do you know that you are the same as others? Aren't all men in fact different? And if you are they same as others, how does that imply that you don't own people? Haven't people always owned other people throughout history, in different degrees from complete slavery to bullying to boss-employee? How does the fact that we all don't own each other negate the possibility of person A owning person B?
David: How would a right to suicide prove that others had to help him commit suicide? How does lack of ownership of a person grant that person the right to be left alone to decide for himself? Suppose no one owns you. How would that give you rights of any sort? You are not your own, for you are bought with a price. (the blood of Jesus)
@americanbandwidth "He did get paid, he was hired because of his fame, that awarded him a job and life style at least equal to his income he would have had if he had patented the cure." That is true to say that out the personal outcomes that he received after the release of his non-patented vaccine, but that still doesn't counter my point about him doing it for more altruistic reasons. I guess I don't really see the point you were trying to make then.
Your federal government spends nearly 10,000 million dollars a day. Close to 200 million a day per state, or nearly $2500 a month per taxpayer. Carry on.
@rasetoi Fossil energy has always existed, why it wasnt discover before the 19th century then?. The 19th century is when we had the industrial revolution and even before the discovery of fossil fuels, living standars wre going up in mosto of the western world(England, France, Germany, USA, etc.). Sorry dude but it was because of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that fossil fuels were discover and put to productive use.
I don't like the way Jeff writes off socialism. The fact that it is horrible is not as obvious as we wish it were, and a better dismissal of it would help immensely. He's defending the fact that every scarce thing needs an owner that is NOT a collective. A simple illustration of this fact is the other fact that every collective contains individuals, some of whom will waste more than others. If the owner is the whole collective, those wasters end up wasting everything. The goal of preservation requires individuals to be the owners.
His talk of socialism is bullshit. If commonist nation could fight capital nation then he can not give the credit of capitalism that he is giving. Think of the damage if the penzilinn as a medicin would have bean used as capitalist profit. Then child death might be still be more. He is only a selfish stupid loser speaking crap.
Sturla Þórðarson I don't understand the connection you make between an ability for a communist nation to fight a capitalist one and the credit Jeff gives capitalism. Can you explain that more? When I think of penicillin as a medicine and how it could and would generate profit for free market capitalists, the chances that more children would die seem very remote. I think you might be confusing "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism," but I'm not sure. Perhaps if you explain more, I'll understand you better. In any case, Jeff is certainly not stupid, a loser, or speaking crap. I would agree that he is selfish. Everyone is selfish, but a lot of people are very dishonest about it, trying to make everyone else think they are not selfish. In order to thrive, I rely on selfishness in other people every day. If they were not selfish, I would be useless to them, lonely, and probably destitute.
Dave Scotese Thee thing is there has bean a capital in all history so in fact he is only rambling. It is not the capitalism that putt us forward. It was understanding of the world. The more whee became to know. The more whee suddenly could manage to produce. The free market. Is not free. It is always under control. to day whee are making it under control of the capital. Making the richer in better control to treat the poor badly. Like Napoleon told us religion was maid so the poor would not kill the rich. Killing the rich would be the most beneficial thing to the world. They are lazy stupid war lowers.of no use. There is nothing they do that is helping the world. They are only stupid waist speeding up the killing of all of us. The capital is only a idea. If whee where only controlled by being selfish. Then it be a waist of time to investigate the killing of a person. It is nothing new that capital has bean used to control. If you consider some kind of a social system. Then of corse you can have a benefit in it. What is more it is a benefit in it self to make humans more on the similar economic standard. It protects your mind from being deluded about your self as something special. When you might be only having the benefit of having a rich family. So the benefit of us only knowing more to make production lines and the understanding to max produce has done more to us than the idea of a capital. What is more the low payment is something that is killing the system. Since more persons with cash can make max production cheaper. Since you manage to have more persons that can by stuff. So max production can benefit.
Sturla Þórðarson First, a few corrections, if you don't mind. There has been (two e's in "been") capital in all history. Something put (with only one t) us forward, and you believe it wasn't capitalism. We (one e, and no h) can produce more when we have better understanding. Napoleon told us that religion was made (not 'maid') to prevent the poor from killing the rich. Many people who are rich are war lovers (with a V, not a W). People who only speed up the killing of all of us are a stupid waste (no i). You believe that investigating murder (the killing of a person) is a waste of time if we were (no h in "were") only controlled by being selfish. You believe that just by considering some kind of social system, of course (don't forget the U) you can benefit from it. You believe that the understanding of how to mass (no X; it's two Ss) produce stuff has done more damage than capital. Ok. I disagree with some of the things you wrote and I agree with many of them. First, I am curious about what "capital" means to you. To me, it simply means that there are individual people who "own" things (what people own is called "capital"), and the more people who respect that ownership, the better off everyone is. You don't appear to distinguish between people who are rich because they have provided many people with many benefits and people who are rich because they enslave other people. Do you see a difference between these two groups? You are very harsh on the people who love war, even suggesting that killing them would be a good thing. I see a bit deeper into the issue. They love war because it is a way for them to get rich, and this is because in war, the soldiers must effectively be slaves to their commanders. So those who love war because it makes them rich are the rich who get rich by enslaving others. I would not kill them. Rather, I would teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves. You claim that investigating murder is a waste of time for people who are controlled by selfishness. I think that you do not realize how selfish we must be to protect the people we love and the people we depend on. Perhaps by "selfish" you only mean "stupidly selfish." In that case, I totally agree, and Jeff didn't clarify that point very well. A selfish person will be very interested in investigating the murder of someone he or she loved. So did you really mean stupidly, or foolishly selfish? You believe that making humans more economically equal will have benefits. I disagree because we need motivation. When you even out the economic benefits, you destroy the motivation some people have to do good in the world. This happens both to poor people (who try to do good to earn money they need), and to rich people (who try to maintain their wealth because they like it). The poor, being made richer, will be less motivated to work, and the rich, being unable to earn as much, will be far less motivated to work. We end up getting a lot less done. What is more, it costs money to even out the economics. It's expensive, it hurts, and it has bad effects. When you get right down to it, we can force people to behave more like how we think they should behave, or we can let them do what they want and protect ourselves from any problems they might cause. I have found that forcing people is a waste of time and effort, as well as relationships. People who behave badly simply get to watch me walk away and stop interacting with them. This strategy has worked very well for me. I find that most people will change how they do things in order to maintain relationships, but if someone tries to force them to change, they will resist and make those around them unhappy. Perhaps you would enjoy reading about voluntaryism. I could give you a link, but YT will remove it, so you can use google to find it if you're interested.
Dave Scotese Many good things in your comment. You don't appear to distinguish between people who are rich because they have provided many people with many benefits and people who are rich because they enslave other people. Do you see a difference between these two groups? Yes I do. Wealth maid by personal deed and human benefiting is good. Still the benefit maid by pure interest is allowed to be to much. The capital should not be allowed to make benefit only on being a capital. It is making a lot of the problem. It is holding back the benefit of creation of works. The enslaving is bad. Still I think making roof on capital own like of value of 5 billion dollars would be nice. I think no one can claim to have so grate spot on more capital that big. Beside he is far above his own working. All above that should go straight in to some kind of a social system. Education and learning. You claim me very harsh on the people who love war, the suggestion on killing some one that lead lot of person in to killing is a justified thing. You say you see a bit deeper into the issue. They love war because it is a way for them to get rich, and this is because in war, the soldiers must effectively be slaves to their commanders. So those who love war because it makes them rich are the rich who get rich by enslaving others. I would not kill them. Rather, I would teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves. I say cut the both ends of the problem. Take them out and teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves. Still you can consider the need of protecting your self if attacked. So in a way this is problem that can not be dealt with as long as human decide to allow others to easy to control them. Showing that humans are in a way lacking self love. You claim that investigating murder is a waste of time for people who are controlled by selfishness. I think that you do not realize how selfish we must be to protect the people we love and the people we depend on. The error you are making like I see it is that caring for others is not the same as being selfish. It is the first step of going out of being selfish. When the value of others become stronger than the value of your self. Then that is a step out of being selfish. Not that it might not help you to make more value of your self to your self. Still that is not the concept of being real selfish. You believe that making humans more economically equal will have benefits. you disagree because we need motivation. You forget that you can still be motivated after having a live stile that is only helping your self to manage. What is more if whee are all allowed to manage. Then it harder to use that humans by the rich to do damaging things. Person that is poor can be manipulated to do crimes for food. On the other hand person that has a ok live is much harder to get in to doing bad things to others. So you might get less done. Still the things done are going to be more beneficial since there is going to be less bad things done to. Since works can be both damaging and make benefit. It is better to have less work and more change of it being beneficial. The idea it costs money to even out the economics is wrong. Work is like energy it can not be turned of. It can only change it form. If whee have 10.000 it is not going to reduce to 9000 since more than 1 person has it. What is more only saying it has bad effects. Is not the same as showing it has bad effects. About human behavior. It is based on what whee try to teach them and how whee teach them. So having more of us with good teaching is going to help us the most. That is in most cases. Still it can be hard to teach behavior when humans grow old. So you ended in a rather nice way. In the end I was talking about benefit. Mass production. Since it is the thing that has maid us benefit more to day than whee would else.
greetings to david in Slovenia. Now David, how do you know that 1) there is a right to suicide? 2) people have rights? You are not your own, for you are bought with a price. (The blood of Jesus)
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
Mr. Tucker is the best speaker so far in any Mises video I've seen. I am taking note of his techniquers, esp. the use of humor.
I am in love with this man, such briliance, such class, such a gorgeous voice... MARRY ME JEFFREY TUCKER!
Jeffrey Tucker has an amazing ability to communicate old ideas in a refreshing and amazing style. I always find myself profoundly jealous of this ability.
The content is really fantastic, especially if you watch to the end and I'm completely hooked on Jeffery Tucker and his presentation talent and skills.
I love how Mr Tucker tells a story
A brilliant intellectual synergy! Once Jeff mentioned the fairytale, its relevance to the defense of market economy struck me with the force of revelation. But how insightful to notice it!
We are very prosperous because we consume a lot of energy !
just beautiful!
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
@fritoman182 I love Jeffrey Tucker's stories. They always make me smile.
This lecture reminds me of the guy who started with an unusually large red paper clip and traded his way to a HOUSE! All through voluntary trade! Look it up he has the whole list of things traded.
my high school had magicians come in and make up facts and statistics about drugs...I would have cried if Jeffrey Tucker come to speak with us.
God! This is the funniest Jeff Tucker's video LOL EVER!!!
I think this entire talk was a Fairy Tale.
You can't over simplify the entirety of the advancement in Capital and the increase in human population to the profit motive of capitalism. Advancements in Science, Health, and Technology are the main reasons why we have advanced as far as we have. It can either be through public collective efforts or private goals of capital gains that those advancements arise, not just one or the other.
@americanbandwidth "In Salk's case, he received millions of dollars of benefits for what he did, he deserved it. Great man.
His wealth came from being World famous, getting free meals and upgrades on trips, and being hired due to his fame."
I would say that this would be a discussion about his motivations for his vaccination. Since it wasn't monetary gains, which I view as the basis of Capitalism, then his motivations were more altruistic. At least I believe that there were.
Socialist still exists because it has been promoted by the state (and at times "the church", which was the state)
@TWSceptic Without Capital, there wouldn't be capitalism either.
There is a reason why I said "It can either be through public collective efforts or private goals of capital gains that those advancements arise, not just one or the other."
There doesn't have to be monetary capital for those advancements to arise. It can be done through a collective effort of people who might have other motivations for it.
Superlike!!
@synestheticmonotony You can always submit your articles to the Austrian economics subreddit.
Mother of god that would be glorious.
@synestheticmonotony Actually, this was recorded right around the time when he was leaving.
only jeff tucker could romanticize the purchase of an enchirito in such a beautiful manner.
@americanbandwidth Local Taxes for Roads, Schools, Police, and Fire is the government. It is true that private businesses will always try to lower the costs of products so that they can make more of the profit with less costs. That doesn't mean that only private businesses are able to produce goods at lower prices, the government is also able to, if that is their incentive. At least with government you have more of a say in what goes on, than with a corporate private tyranny.
Marvelous!
@justmoon3 I will accept your point entirely.
I just think this got a little off topic from the speech itself. I just would say that I am all for people making as much money as possible, as long as they don't exploit the lives of other just to obtain it. I would also say that there are things of which can be done better through Government, and the same as true for businesses. All I care about it figuring out which is better for which.
I saw that graph in another Mises lecture in Colorado Springs. Does anyone know where to find that graph?
@justmoon3 Your points are valid. It is only that they are not really counter points to mine, since the only points I was trying to make what that it is not ONLY through Capitalistic endeavors that society advanced to the point it has.
I honestly don't think the speaker really offered any real specifics to back his points. Like just showing us a graph about the increase in capital and size of population, does nothing to show specifics as to why that happened.
@smartalex1972 Well he might be gay, but maybe not, he might just sound like that, we all know about the bodybuilders that sound like a WWF wrestler that like to engage in those activities, so don't judge a book by it's cover, and he has a family and kids, so I don't know, but his ideas seem the most important issue to me!
Anarcho-gentleman!
Well David, small world,
I myself taught high school many years.
And I did not use a lot of lecture.
Students learn a lot when they are actively doing things.
Reading fairy tales I understand;
but I don't know what an Enchirito is
nor an Outcherito.
So one may ask if it was the reformation that led to the wealth, Calvin & all?
@americanbandwidth I agree that the Government doesn't do things for profit, but it is not always about profit.
At least when it comes to Government, some power resides in the people. As opposed to private companies where the power lies with those who have stock in it, or those who run it.
The difference between Government and Business, is that ones main goal is the public, and the other is profit.
It's 2024, and it's come out that politicians acquire 100s of $millions in office, and not by producing anything. Some comes from the great evil of war, some from kickbacks from giving away "aid" money taken at gunpoint from citizens, some from market manipulations effected by the politicians.
I wonder if you are still naive about government's motives, 12 years later.
19:50 the most true and hilarious story ever!
@americanbandwidth I am not advocating complete control by Government, or advocating the complete lack of Capitalistic endeavors.
I only really argue that you can't expect everyone to be better off because of the extremes of both ends of those ideas. You can't expect that everyone who does something for the betterment of Mankind will always receive a reward of Wealth.
That's really my main annoyance about the video. That it looks at Capitalism as the greatest thing ever.
Those linear scale charts are deceiving. They would have looked similar at year 0.
@americanbandwidth "Never reward bad behavior, The banks made there mess, they need to suffer for it." I agree with that. I don't carry over the idea that because people are unemployed that it was because of bad behavior. Also in the same that because someone is rich, is because of good behavior.
Well one thing I know for sure is that if Salk wanted to release the polio vaccine for profit, then not filing a patent for it was the worst mistake he could of made.
@americanbandwidth I am sorry to tell you that I am not motivated by profit. I only view money as a necessity for survival in our modern day society.
I wanna know how you feel about the Government bailing out several large banks and corporations on the brink of bankruptcy.
I personally don't agree with the protection of the corporations who fail to survive in the natural selection of capitalism, but I do agree with the protection of people in the system who need bailouts.
Jeffrey Tucker, 2016
David,
How is it proven that people have "rights"?
If we are all sinners & antagonists of God,
how would we have any rights?
Anyone else think Jeffrey should be the next doctor? he does have the bow tie ;)
David: How do you know that
1) you don't own people?
2) there is a right to suicide?
3) people may not coerce each other?
4) God must be the judge follows from us belonging to God? Could he have given judging authority to someone else? How do you know one way or the other?
Are you saying that people have rights or don't have rights?
In either case, how do you know that?
Pardon me for asking hard questions.
Best wishes.
You may ask why this or that.
But how do we know why God does this or that? or why he should do this or that?
How do we know that God has not delegated judgment to limited, biased beings?
If you think that God has not delegated judgment, can you prove that?
Does a lot of judgment take place?
Is that judgment effective?
Can we escape it?
How do you know that we have no guidance as to who the charlatans are?
Could you imagine if Jeff Tucker walked into a Taco Bell where you where working and started asking about how much this is worth with his bow tie? You would think he was a crack head.
@scalp340 She obviously considers that to be the best option available.
David:
How do you know that you are the same as others? Aren't all men in fact different? And if you are they same as others, how does that imply that you don't own people? Haven't people always owned other people throughout history, in different degrees from complete slavery to bullying to boss-employee? How does the fact that we all don't own each other negate the possibility of person A owning person B?
as much as i love this video. the cashier at taco bell most certainly did not say that, and was not glad..... she works at taco bell!
@Hogbeast6 Please Elaborate.
David:
How would a right to suicide prove that others had to help him commit suicide?
How does lack of ownership of a person grant that person the right to be left alone to decide for himself?
Suppose no one owns you. How would that give you rights of any sort?
You are not your own, for you are bought with a price. (the blood of Jesus)
@americanbandwidth "He did get paid, he was hired because of his fame, that awarded him a job and life style at least equal to his income he would have had if he had patented the cure." That is true to say that out the personal outcomes that he received after the release of his non-patented vaccine, but that still doesn't counter my point about him doing it for more altruistic reasons.
I guess I don't really see the point you were trying to make then.
Your federal government spends nearly 10,000 million dollars a day. Close to 200 million a day per state, or nearly $2500 a month per taxpayer. Carry on.
@god0fgod OMG I was laughing soo hard from 19:50 - 21:40, I relate because I LOVE Taco Bell and totally can imagine his feelings.
@rasetoi Fossil energy has always existed, why it wasnt discover before the 19th century then?. The 19th century is when we had the industrial revolution and even before the discovery of fossil fuels, living standars wre going up in mosto of the western world(England, France, Germany, USA, etc.). Sorry dude but it was because of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that fossil fuels were discover and put to productive use.
one person dislikes Taco Bell's enchiritos
@intercourseman69 Haha a comedian!
I don't like the way Jeff writes off socialism. The fact that it is horrible is not as obvious as we wish it were, and a better dismissal of it would help immensely. He's defending the fact that every scarce thing needs an owner that is NOT a collective.
A simple illustration of this fact is the other fact that every collective contains individuals, some of whom will waste more than others. If the owner is the whole collective, those wasters end up wasting everything. The goal of preservation requires individuals to be the owners.
His talk of socialism is bullshit. If commonist nation could fight capital nation then he can not give the credit of capitalism that he is giving. Think of the damage if the penzilinn as a medicin would have bean used as capitalist profit. Then child death might be still be more. He is only a selfish stupid loser speaking crap.
Sturla Þórðarson
I don't understand the connection you make between an ability for a communist nation to fight a capitalist one and the credit Jeff gives capitalism. Can you explain that more?
When I think of penicillin as a medicine and how it could and would generate profit for free market capitalists, the chances that more children would die seem very remote. I think you might be confusing "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism," but I'm not sure. Perhaps if you explain more, I'll understand you better.
In any case, Jeff is certainly not stupid, a loser, or speaking crap. I would agree that he is selfish. Everyone is selfish, but a lot of people are very dishonest about it, trying to make everyone else think they are not selfish. In order to thrive, I rely on selfishness in other people every day. If they were not selfish, I would be useless to them, lonely, and probably destitute.
Dave Scotese Thee thing is there has bean a capital in all history so in fact he is only rambling. It is not the capitalism that putt us forward. It was understanding of the world. The more whee became to know. The more whee suddenly could manage to produce. The free market. Is not free. It is always under control. to day whee are making it under control of the capital. Making the richer in better control to treat the poor badly. Like Napoleon told us religion was maid so the poor would not kill the rich. Killing the rich would be the most beneficial thing to the world. They are lazy stupid war lowers.of no use. There is nothing they do that is helping the world. They are only stupid waist speeding up the killing of all of us. The capital is only a idea. If whee where only controlled by being selfish. Then it be a waist of time to investigate the killing of a person. It is nothing new that capital has bean used to control. If you consider some kind of a social system. Then of corse you can have a benefit in it. What is more it is a benefit in it self to make humans more on the similar economic standard. It protects your mind from being deluded about your self as something special. When you might be only having the benefit of having a rich family. So the benefit of us only knowing more to make production lines and the understanding to max produce has done more to us than the idea of a capital. What is more the low payment is something that is killing the system. Since more persons with cash can make max production cheaper. Since you manage to have more persons that can by stuff. So max production can benefit.
Sturla Þórðarson First, a few corrections, if you don't mind. There has been (two e's in "been") capital in all history. Something put (with only one t) us forward, and you believe it wasn't capitalism. We (one e, and no h) can produce more when we have better understanding. Napoleon told us that religion was made (not 'maid') to prevent the poor from killing the rich. Many people who are rich are war lovers (with a V, not a W). People who only speed up the killing of all of us are a stupid waste (no i). You believe that investigating murder (the killing of a person) is a waste of time if we were (no h in "were") only controlled by being selfish. You believe that just by considering some kind of social system, of course (don't forget the U) you can benefit from it. You believe that the understanding of how to mass (no X; it's two Ss) produce stuff has done more damage than capital.
Ok. I disagree with some of the things you wrote and I agree with many of them. First, I am curious about what "capital" means to you. To me, it simply means that there are individual people who "own" things (what people own is called "capital"), and the more people who respect that ownership, the better off everyone is.
You don't appear to distinguish between people who are rich because they have provided many people with many benefits and people who are rich because they enslave other people. Do you see a difference between these two groups?
You are very harsh on the people who love war, even suggesting that killing them would be a good thing. I see a bit deeper into the issue. They love war because it is a way for them to get rich, and this is because in war, the soldiers must effectively be slaves to their commanders. So those who love war because it makes them rich are the rich who get rich by enslaving others. I would not kill them. Rather, I would teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves.
You claim that investigating murder is a waste of time for people who are controlled by selfishness. I think that you do not realize how selfish we must be to protect the people we love and the people we depend on. Perhaps by "selfish" you only mean "stupidly selfish." In that case, I totally agree, and Jeff didn't clarify that point very well. A selfish person will be very interested in investigating the murder of someone he or she loved. So did you really mean stupidly, or foolishly selfish?
You believe that making humans more economically equal will have benefits. I disagree because we need motivation. When you even out the economic benefits, you destroy the motivation some people have to do good in the world. This happens both to poor people (who try to do good to earn money they need), and to rich people (who try to maintain their wealth because they like it). The poor, being made richer, will be less motivated to work, and the rich, being unable to earn as much, will be far less motivated to work. We end up getting a lot less done. What is more, it costs money to even out the economics. It's expensive, it hurts, and it has bad effects.
When you get right down to it, we can force people to behave more like how we think they should behave, or we can let them do what they want and protect ourselves from any problems they might cause. I have found that forcing people is a waste of time and effort, as well as relationships. People who behave badly simply get to watch me walk away and stop interacting with them. This strategy has worked very well for me. I find that most people will change how they do things in order to maintain relationships, but if someone tries to force them to change, they will resist and make those around them unhappy.
Perhaps you would enjoy reading about voluntaryism. I could give you a link, but YT will remove it, so you can use google to find it if you're interested.
Dave Scotese Many good things in your comment. You don't appear to distinguish between people who are rich because they have provided many people with many benefits and people who are rich because they enslave other people. Do you see a difference between these two groups? Yes I do. Wealth maid by personal deed and human benefiting is good. Still the benefit maid by pure interest is allowed to be to much. The capital should not be allowed to make benefit only on being a capital. It is making a lot of the problem. It is holding back the benefit of creation of works. The enslaving is bad. Still I think making roof on capital own like of value of 5 billion dollars would be nice. I think no one can claim to have so grate spot on more capital that big. Beside he is far above his own working. All above that should go straight in to some kind of a social system. Education and learning. You claim me very harsh on the people who love war, the suggestion on killing some one that lead lot of person in to killing is a justified thing. You say you see a bit deeper into the issue. They love war because it is a way for them to get rich, and this is because in war, the soldiers must effectively be slaves to their commanders. So those who love war because it makes them rich are the rich who get rich by enslaving others. I would not kill them. Rather, I would teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves. I say cut the both ends of the problem. Take them out and teach the soldiers how bad war is before they agree to enslave themselves. Still you can consider the need of protecting your self if attacked. So in a way this is problem that can not be dealt with as long as human decide to allow others to easy to control them. Showing that humans are in a way lacking self love.
You claim that investigating murder is a waste of time for people who are controlled by selfishness. I think that you do not realize how selfish we must be to protect the people we love and the people we depend on. The error you are making like I see it is that caring for others is not the same as being selfish. It is the first step of going out of being selfish. When the value of others become stronger than the value of your self. Then that is a step out of being selfish. Not that it might not help you to make more value of your self to your self. Still that is not the concept of being real selfish.
You believe that making humans more economically equal will have benefits. you disagree because we need motivation. You forget that you can still be motivated after having a live stile that is only helping your self to manage. What is more if whee are all allowed to manage. Then it harder to use that humans by the rich to do damaging things. Person that is poor can be manipulated to do crimes for food. On the other hand person that has a ok live is much harder to get in to doing bad things to others. So you might get less done. Still the things done are going to be more beneficial since there is going to be less bad things done to. Since works can be both damaging and make benefit. It is better to have less work and more change of it being beneficial. The idea it costs money to even out the economics is wrong. Work is like energy it can not be turned of. It can only change it form. If whee have 10.000 it is not going to reduce to 9000 since more than 1 person has it. What is more only saying it has bad effects. Is not the same as showing it has bad effects. About human behavior. It is based on what whee try to teach them and how whee teach them. So having more of us with good teaching is going to help us the most. That is in most cases. Still it can be hard to teach behavior when humans grow old. So you ended in a rather nice way. In the end I was talking about benefit. Mass production. Since it is the thing that has maid us benefit more to day than whee would else.
This feels like a TED talk. The oversimplification, the misrepresentation, the "make the world a better place" philosophy, even the type of humor.
greetings to david in Slovenia.
Now David, how do you know that
1) there is a right to suicide?
2) people have rights?
You are not your own,
for you are bought with a price.
(The blood of Jesus)
This guy's an obscurantist. His style of conveying ideas is to misrepresent concepts historically and semantically.
Context?
Functional Savants example?
wow............you are full of SHIT. keep this precious ability................Tucker is brilliant.