That and when he said (paraphrased) the reason people think government should exist is too important to be run by the busybodies and power mongers in govt.
Well we never stop to think that people speak wayyyy too much. Always talking, chatting, gabbing about something. To an excessive degree. Early man never spoke to the point of having conversations or tutorials. It was merely a tool to organise and cooperate. Consider what speaking actually is.
Watching an older video like this, you can really see how fantastic Tom looks now days. I hope he stays healthy and keeps championing liberty into the future!
Wow! A gem of an interview. I will be reading all the books brought up and listening to this and reflecting on it all. A lot of food for thought. Thank you.
Anarchy literally 'without a ruler'. Tom and Doug believe this will evolve into spontaneous order, IF people believe in private property. If people don't believe in private property, then you get a mess. So anarchy itself isn't enough to say if it's chaos or spontaneous order. But it's hard to imagine a situation where there is both no government and most people not believing in private property at all.
Absolutely brilliant. This should be piped in to the eyes and ears of the hoi polloi 24/7/365. "The whole system needs to be washed away..." Truer words have never been said.
THomas woods again hits the nail on the head. Would you like to be poor in the US or in Bangladesh? This in one sentence is the all the answers one needs.
Limited government requires that the People be the sovereign rulers of the state, while the government is just the hired help. That's how the LAW defines it; but then the government took over during the Lincoln era, and now they are the master while we're the servants.
Why is it that I have changed from watching Family Guy to watching Thomas Woods and Austrian economists for not only information but also entertainment? I'm so addicted to the elegance and simplicity of the entire Rothbardian/ Austrian thought.
I love how everything he says about Obama's health care is right. (chances of working:slim and none) "Austrian School of Economics" is the name, everyone.
@utubehayter Nice reading list that you have recommended, I get so tired of arguing with people that think that America's problem is that it has gotten away from the constitution instead of realizing that the constitution is what has led us to where we are now. I pass out copies of Hoppe's article and look forward to reading the others as well, It is too bad that Rothbard couldn't still be with us.
@Rensune I'm referring to the ideas put forth by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. It wouldn't be a confederacy because the "decentralized" power wouldn't simply be vested in a bunch of smaller governments but the services currently provided by the government would be provided by companies relying on voluntary market transactions. The most important element is that no one could claim fiat monopoly.
Excellent video! Every Libertarian / pro-limited gov't supporter should watch this video; you guys are anarchists and you just haven't realized it yet.
I was led here by a comment in another channel and was surprised at the poor viewership for the quality of content; yours is the first comment I found that’s less than 3 years old; in the same world in which “drag queen” videos are made to get 4 million viewers in 4 days. 🤦♀️ The West is doomed but we cannot give up.
"Limited government" is not on oxymoron-- "limited consent TO it,", is. Ever since Lincoln, the People only have the privilege to vote for this or that politician of their state or district, and their president. That's the LIMIT of their consent to the government. Other than this, the government is all-powerful, and controls every aspect of their lives. The People cannot vote to alter or abolish it, because they do not OWN it-- on the contrary, it owns the People. Along with the lobbyists.
Quite thought provoking... I would challenge everyone to think though a hypothetical scenario where government (with all it's armies and infrastructure) and it's laws disappear over night. While this would be impossible, I think it would be instructive in showing how society might cope and reorder to face the challenges that would ensue. Putting aside foreign nations for simplicity, I think you might find society with no need for a national or even state governments in the short run....
You have a point. But if that's the case then anarchism as a cooperative force is not exactly anarchism, and we need some level of cooperation in order to function as a society, making government a necessity to a very limited extent.
the private production of security is the last monopolistic link to fall in the transition to a free society. It is the most heavily debated. For an introduction to this topic, seek the relevant chapter in Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, or "the production of security" by Molinari. In general, the same problems with monopolization, bureaucratization, and coercion apply to the production of security also.
@utubehayter Thank you for the link to Leferve's article. I was thinking the same thing about people only thinking about the bill of rights, whenever I tell someone that the constitution gave power to the federal government they attack my intelligence and ask if I have ever read it. The other thing that drives me crazy is everyones love affair with Lincoln, people seem to think he was a paragon of liberty. Dilorenzo has opened my eyes about him, although I think that ignorance is bliss.
You've admitted that you don't even think for yourself, don't throw it at me. Those policies were ENABLED by Lincoln destroying the sovereignty of the states, like Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own." --Volume II, Chapter X
@myrelative You bring up a good point. Although anarchy would be great until governments formed, anarchy has no way of preventing states from forming. People could form groups that would steal others' property, just as they have throughout history and to this day. You're right, the world we live in is essentially a progressed state of anarchy. It seems that a "good" government would be necessary to prevent worse governments from forming. It's a dilemma that I'll have to think over.
Not true. Free markets would provide those few government services that are actually necessary more efficiently and less expensively than does monopoly government services. See Molyneux's free ebook, Practical Anarchy.
It's possible that as long as people believe that in principle a coercive monopoly (government) is a good thing, that you won't be able to constrain it's growth (let alone get it smaller).
Tom's a historian who has studied Austrian economics extensively, but he is technically not an economist. Still, his brief explanation of the ABCT and his lectures on the history of economics are unmatched.
@Rensune Whatever "order" or "leadership" we currently get from governments would still be provided without all of the other things governments do that we don't necessarily want. Currently, governments provide law and order (poorly) and also fight wars, prosecute us for consensual behavior, interfere with markets and peaceful interactions. All we wanted was a way to protect ourselves from violence and injustice and instead we have a violent behemoth that we cannot secede from.
Civility is based on knowledge, information. Our society is suffering from severe misinformation or malinformation propagated by media. Anarchy yes, but anarchy will only be chaos IF, the populations do not know EVERYTHING about needs. Government is supposed to follow laws that respect needs and government does not, so there are BIG problems. To assume the people will suddenly respect needs when they've been educated/exploited in only their wants to make them optimum consumers.
@20:31 [Bastiat] says there are three ways we can organize society: #1: everybody plunders everybody, #2: some people plunder other people, or #3: nobody plunders anybody, and for some reason, we consider #2 to be the ideal, the height of morality, the only way human beings can interact with each other,and it's considered crazy extremism that you would even consider that there might be the humane alternative of nobody plundering anybody.
(3) Tom Woods is definitely an anarchist given what he said in this video. It's true that he did not explicitly say "I am an anarchist," but it's also true that the views he expressed are only compatible with anarchism. See the question at 4:12 and Tom's answer following it. At 5:30 Tom says: "If we believe in absolute standards of morality the government *always* fails" (emphasis added by me). Assuming Tom Woods does believe in absolute standards of morality, he must be an anarchist.
Yeah, that's what the Founders meant by "governments are established among men to secure their inalienable rights." However they ALSO wrote that such governments derive their power by consent of the governed. That's clearly no longer the case, since the Lincoln administration made the federal government into a national oligarchy, vs. an international administration.
Yes he compared the two, but I don't recall him asserting that they are one and the same. I will take under advisement your recommendations on my writing style and enrolling at community college.
@utubehayter Was there something specific by Rothbard besides Anatomy of the State that talks about the constitution specifically? And can you post a link for Leferve's critique? I wasn't able to find one on mises or when I googled it, thanks.
"But what if they don't have any dollars to vote with?" It would certainly never be the case in a free market economy. In a free market the goal would be to serve as many as possible consequently at the lowest price. Prices fall in time when more and more market actors enter to supply the consumers with what is demanded - as competition rises and production costs get lower. More jobs will be created because of this and more people will earn money.
We ned to live by the motto: WE THE PEOPLE...we are the government, or, we should be...We have lost our values, and are so easily deceived with propaganda... For as many as I see awakening, I feel so sorrowfully helpless, as I see just as many sinking like a stone. Peace
@Humanicus I am talking about the root etymology of the word Anarchy, as well as the organizational skills of higher organisms. Of which principles are you referring to? Because what you just described is a confederacy.
@AlexanderLee1 How does a society maintain a limited government? I mean, after all it was what we used to have, but it never stays that way. I don't think it is an accident that most governments fail and restart every 300 or so years. I hate to think we are doomed to that fate.
Read Mises on socialism. He says that if a government controls everything then it eliminates the price system. If the price system is eliminated then the government does not know what to produce, how to produce it, and where the products should go etc. The same concept can be applied to several dozen monopolies. That many monopolies would still heavily distort the bidding of the price system and yield the same unsustainable results of a socialist society. Watch I pencil, it explains markets.
"With a free market everyone will depend on each other which equals zero wars." How do you suppose that depending on each other can result in zero wars?
not so my friend, that's what most people think it means, but anarchy has multiple definitions. "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)." - wiki cheers
In 1913, the money power of the country was taken away from the people. By constitutional privilege it belongs with the Congress, but it was given up in the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. But yet it has the power to determine the direction and use of money in our economy. If we could take that power back and put the Federal Resrve under Treasury, we start to be in a position of being able to control monetary policy on behalf of the United States
@bobdole57 Not necessarily. I just think that a very limited government might be necessity to prevent looter governments from popping up and taking over. I'm not sure about this yet, though.
It is a logical fallacy to assert that because the government does it, without the government it won't get done. And he didn't say health care is the same as car repair; he said it should be paid for in a similar way.
@bobdole57 Yes, I have been thinking about that question a lot recently. Governments have always in history grow as time goes on, until they collapse as a result of unsustainable regulations. I really don't know the answer, but at least we know the right question!
(1) Doug answers the question at 3:39 ("Unfortunately.... --this is the problem with limited government--it tends to grow like a cancer over the time...."). Basically he says that limited government is indeed an oxymoron (although he doesn't use that term) due to the fact that initially-limited governments always grow like a cancer over time to become big governments. Thus, "limited governments" are not really "limited" because they always grow.
The average five-year old could run a lemonade stand better than the government (but then they'd make him pay five hundred dollars for a permit or something, and then the FDA would close him down anyway for not sterilizing the dixie cups). I find it a little annoying that it is consistently seen as intolerable to have corporate sponsors for public services. What's wrong with Microsoft running a computer camp, or Caterpillar and John Deere using 1000 miles of highway as a product demo?
Well I think private property is either part of 'human nature' or the outcome of individuals following their self-interest (as a struggle against and for power) and as such the natural outcome of anarchy.
Strangely, any attempt to change direction regarding the status-quo inevitably leads to others charging those who advocate such change as "utopians." Radical change is indeed required since the current direction will inevitably lead toward the cultural and economic abyss.
I understand. I'm not debating any of that. The point I'm trying to get across is that statism is a disease. People need to recognize that before we can have any hope of treating it.
(2) Tom Woods also answers the question "Is limited government an oxymoron?" with a yes: 4:52 "Maybe there is no such thing [as limited government]. Maybe if you say 'this institution has a monopoly on the power to tax and a monopoly on the power to initiate violence, but it will simply restrain itself to a few itemized tasks'--I mean, to me it simply seems to unrealistic." Thus, Tom Woods also believes that "limited government" is an oxymoron.
"Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?" Let's see.... the government is "limited" by written laws that the government interprets. and enforces at its own final discretion. How could that _possibly_ could be an oxymoron?
***** That's the _point_, Einstein: it CAN'T. That's why the Founders never intendedthat kind of order, and why Libertopian goofballs are full of crap. You sound like a 12-year old trying to show off knowledge you don't have.
Because the government isn't limiting at all in reality. That's the obvious point you DUMBASS. Especially consider that one of the best ways I know to limit the government is through the budget. And with a fiat monetary system the government can expand and intervene in the economy far faster and greater than the tax base would otherwise allow. Did you even watching the fucking video?
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
"democracy is mob rule in a sportscoat". This man has left humanity with one of the best quotes of all time.
That and when he said (paraphrased) the reason people think government should exist is too important to be run by the busybodies and power mongers in govt.
Freedom is borders. Large centralised states with centralised governments is the recipe for oppression. 18:00.
A great quote should be followed by silence. He hit the nail on the head. These men don't chatter, they think about what they're saying.
The free market is where we all sit around and figure out what we can do for each other.
Well we never stop to think that people speak wayyyy too much. Always talking, chatting, gabbing about something. To an excessive degree. Early man never spoke to the point of having conversations or tutorials. It was merely a tool to organise and cooperate. Consider what speaking actually is.
Watching an older video like this, you can really see how fantastic Tom looks now days. I hope he stays healthy and keeps championing liberty into the future!
These two guys are the smartest guys in ANY room! Hooray!
Wow, I've never heard of Thomas Woods (I came to this video to hear Casey), but he's great too! Thanks for uploading.
Tom's podcast is the best!
Two great speakers who seem to have seen through the fog. Excellent
Excellent video. Please spread this around, we need more discussions on true freedom and replacing government with a voluntary society.
Excellent.. Thomas Woods is excellent...
This interview was amazing , point's so clearly
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Wow! A gem of an interview. I will be reading all the books brought up and listening to this and reflecting on it all. A lot of food for thought. Thank you.
This was excellent. These guys are both spot on!
Oh boy, so relevant
Anarchy literally 'without a ruler'. Tom and Doug believe this will evolve into spontaneous order, IF people believe in private property. If people don't believe in private property, then you get a mess. So anarchy itself isn't enough to say if it's chaos or spontaneous order.
But it's hard to imagine a situation where there is both no government and most people not believing in private property at all.
Awesome! I love this guy Doug Casey!! Best explanation of REAL LIFE ECONOMICS I'VE SEEN!!! GREAT!!
This is the best presentation ever to convert minarchists to anarchists.......period.
Absolutely brilliant.
This should be piped in to the eyes and ears of the hoi polloi 24/7/365.
"The whole system needs to be washed away..."
Truer words have never been said.
Woods and Casey! Why have I not found this sooner.
THomas woods again hits the nail on the head. Would you like to be poor in the US or in Bangladesh?
This in one sentence is the all the answers one needs.
"Mob Rule dressed up in a sport coat"- Bravo! Harris Tweed, I'm sure! :)
Limited government requires that the People be the sovereign rulers of the state, while the government is just the hired help.
That's how the LAW defines it; but then the government took over during the Lincoln era, and now they are the master while we're the servants.
Lol someone di dnt watch the video
Tom Woods going hard from 22:18 to 23:38. Love it!
god i love everyone from the austrian school. such a breath of fresh air.
This is an excellent introduction to basic morality, especially for those who need it most (D, R). Excellent quote from Tacitus via Casey.
What a great discussion. I added it to my favorites.
Why is it that I have changed from watching Family Guy to watching Thomas Woods and Austrian economists for not only information but also entertainment? I'm so addicted to the elegance and simplicity of the entire Rothbardian/ Austrian thought.
I love how everything he says about Obama's health care is right. (chances of working:slim and none)
"Austrian School of Economics" is the name, everyone.
wow Doug Casey and Tom Woods in one video? These guys are pretty much my two favorite speakers.
That's one great discussion, quite rare these days.
@utubehayter Nice reading list that you have recommended, I get so tired of arguing with people that think that America's problem is that it has gotten away from the constitution instead of realizing that the constitution is what has led us to where we are now. I pass out copies of Hoppe's article and look forward to reading the others as well, It is too bad that Rothbard couldn't still be with us.
so well put !
misesmedia never disappoints, keep great videos coming
Thanks for posting
@Rensune I'm referring to the ideas put forth by David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. It wouldn't be a confederacy because the "decentralized" power wouldn't simply be vested in a bunch of smaller governments but the services currently provided by the government would be provided by companies relying on voluntary market transactions. The most important element is that no one could claim fiat monopoly.
Excellent video!
Every Libertarian / pro-limited gov't supporter should watch this video; you guys are anarchists and you just haven't realized it yet.
This makes so much sense.
Ten years on, the stuff still hasn't fully hit the fan. Casey seriously underestimated the momentum of this train wreck.
Glad to hear Tom Woods came to the principled anarchy instead of the unprincipled "in between" capitalism and socialism.
I would expect this to have more views by now
I was led here by a comment in another channel and was surprised at the poor viewership for the quality of content; yours is the first comment I found that’s less than 3 years old; in the same world in which “drag queen” videos are made to get 4 million viewers in 4 days. 🤦♀️ The West is doomed but we cannot give up.
"Limited government" is not on oxymoron-- "limited consent TO it,", is.
Ever since Lincoln, the People only have the privilege to vote for this or that politician of their state or district, and their president. That's the LIMIT of their consent to the government.
Other than this, the government is all-powerful, and controls every aspect of their lives.
The People cannot vote to alter or abolish it, because they do not OWN it-- on the contrary, it owns the People.
Along with the lobbyists.
Great video
Quite thought provoking...
I would challenge everyone to think though a hypothetical scenario where government (with all it's armies and infrastructure) and it's laws disappear over night.
While this would be impossible, I think it would be instructive in showing how society might cope and reorder to face the challenges that would ensue.
Putting aside foreign nations for simplicity, I think you might find society with no need for a national or even state governments in the short run....
You have a point. But if that's the case then anarchism as a cooperative force is not exactly anarchism, and we need some level of cooperation in order to function as a society, making government a necessity to a very limited extent.
Thank you.
Good to hear!
I had a few vids a while back calling anarchists morons.. I've since taken those down..
haha.. * embarrassing*
the private production of security is the last monopolistic link to fall in the transition to a free society.
It is the most heavily debated.
For an introduction to this topic, seek the relevant chapter in Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, or "the production of security" by Molinari.
In general, the same problems with monopolization, bureaucratization, and coercion apply to the production of security also.
Share this, people...educate all!
@utubehayter Thank you for the link to Leferve's article. I was thinking the same thing about people only thinking about the bill of rights, whenever I tell someone that the constitution gave power to the federal government they attack my intelligence and ask if I have ever read it. The other thing that drives me crazy is everyones love affair with Lincoln, people seem to think he was a paragon of liberty. Dilorenzo has opened my eyes about him, although I think that ignorance is bliss.
Great interview.
You've admitted that you don't even think for yourself, don't throw it at me.
Those policies were ENABLED by Lincoln destroying the sovereignty of the states, like Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own."
--Volume II, Chapter X
Amen, amen!
Impressive stuff.
"[I'm] not a minarchist." - Tom Woods
@myrelative You bring up a good point. Although anarchy would be great until governments formed, anarchy has no way of preventing states from forming. People could form groups that would steal others' property, just as they have throughout history and to this day.
You're right, the world we live in is essentially a progressed state of anarchy. It seems that a "good" government would be necessary to prevent worse governments from forming. It's a dilemma that I'll have to think over.
Not true. Free markets would provide those few government services that are actually necessary more efficiently and less expensively than does monopoly government services. See Molyneux's free ebook, Practical Anarchy.
It's possible that as long as people believe that in principle a coercive monopoly (government) is a good thing, that you won't be able to constrain it's growth (let alone get it smaller).
Tom's a historian who has studied Austrian economics extensively, but he is technically not an economist. Still, his brief explanation of the ABCT and his lectures on the history of economics are unmatched.
Freedom exists where government does not.
@Rensune Whatever "order" or "leadership" we currently get from governments would still be provided without all of the other things governments do that we don't necessarily want. Currently, governments provide law and order (poorly) and also fight wars, prosecute us for consensual behavior, interfere with markets and peaceful interactions. All we wanted was a way to protect ourselves from violence and injustice and instead we have a violent behemoth that we cannot secede from.
Civility is based on knowledge, information. Our society is suffering from severe misinformation or malinformation propagated by media.
Anarchy yes, but anarchy will only be chaos IF, the populations do not know EVERYTHING about needs. Government is supposed to follow laws that respect needs and government does not, so there are BIG problems.
To assume the people will suddenly respect needs when they've been educated/exploited in only their wants to make them optimum consumers.
That was brain candy; My amygdala feels so good right now
@20:31
[Bastiat] says there are three ways we can organize society:
#1: everybody plunders everybody,
#2: some people plunder other people, or
#3: nobody plunders anybody,
and for some reason, we consider #2 to be the ideal, the height of morality, the only way human beings can interact with each other,and it's considered crazy extremism that you would even consider that there might be the humane alternative of nobody plundering anybody.
Anarchy is the opposite of Heirarchy.
That is what he should have said.
That is the TRUTH. I just realized that a couple of months ago...
(3) Tom Woods is definitely an anarchist given what he said in this video. It's true that he did not explicitly say "I am an anarchist," but it's also true that the views he expressed are only compatible with anarchism. See the question at 4:12 and Tom's answer following it.
At 5:30 Tom says: "If we believe in absolute standards of morality the government *always* fails" (emphasis added by me). Assuming Tom Woods does believe in absolute standards of morality, he must be an anarchist.
Yeah, that's what the Founders meant by "governments are established among men to secure their inalienable rights."
However they ALSO wrote that such governments derive their power by consent of the governed.
That's clearly no longer the case, since the Lincoln administration made the federal government into a national oligarchy, vs. an international administration.
Yes he compared the two, but I don't recall him asserting that they are one and the same.
I will take under advisement your recommendations on my writing style and enrolling at community college.
Favorited!
@utubehayter Was there something specific by Rothbard besides Anatomy of the State that talks about the constitution specifically? And can you post a link for Leferve's critique? I wasn't able to find one on mises or when I googled it, thanks.
24:50 Doug Casey, you're scaring me ...
Took the words out of my mouth. Coming back to this in 2020... Yikes
LOL 0:56 Doug looks like he has some radical hair with that tree behind him.
Tom you mean to say: How utterly removed it is from the government we were TOLD it was intended to be.
"But what if they don't have any dollars to vote with?"
It would certainly never be the case in a free market economy. In a free market the goal would be to serve as many as possible consequently at the lowest price. Prices fall in time when more and more market actors enter to supply the consumers with what is demanded - as competition rises and production costs get lower. More jobs will be created because of this and more people will earn money.
We ned to live by the motto: WE THE PEOPLE...we are the government, or, we should be...We have lost our values, and are so easily deceived with propaganda...
For as many as I see awakening, I feel so sorrowfully helpless, as I see just as many sinking like a stone.
Peace
Hokey Pokey, no Governmen, no traffic lights, better yet, protect yourselves, each to his own method....
It is hard to free slaves that revere their chains
Voltaire
11:00 is an important statement.
@Humanicus I am talking about the root etymology of the word Anarchy, as well as the organizational skills of higher organisms. Of which principles are you referring to? Because what you just described is a confederacy.
@AlexanderLee1
How does a society maintain a limited government? I mean, after all it was what we used to have, but it never stays that way. I don't think it is an accident that most governments fail and restart every 300 or so years.
I hate to think we are doomed to that fate.
I am from Denmark, I can testify to that :)
Read Mises on socialism. He says that if a government controls everything then it eliminates the price system. If the price system is eliminated then the government does not know what to produce, how to produce it, and where the products should go etc. The same concept can be applied to several dozen monopolies. That many monopolies would still heavily distort the bidding of the price system and yield the same unsustainable results of a socialist society. Watch I pencil, it explains markets.
"With a free market everyone will depend on each other which equals zero wars."
How do you suppose that depending on each other can result in zero wars?
not so my friend, that's what most people think it means, but anarchy has multiple definitions.
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)." - wiki
cheers
23:55
..when were dealing with politics we have a dramatization of peoples psychological abberations...
that is too perfect
In 1913, the money power of the country was taken away from the people. By constitutional privilege it belongs with the Congress, but it was given up in the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express. But yet it has the power to determine the direction and use of money in our economy. If we could take that power back and put the Federal Resrve under Treasury, we start to be in a position of being able to control monetary policy on behalf of the United States
@bobdole57 Not necessarily. I just think that a very limited government might be necessity to prevent looter governments from popping up and taking over. I'm not sure about this yet, though.
And government freedom requires consent, which we don't have-- and haven't had since Lincoln.
But I know better than to school a fool.
It is a logical fallacy to assert that because the government does it, without the government it won't get done. And he didn't say health care is the same as car repair; he said it should be paid for in a similar way.
Fantastic
A free market requires a free state, which requires true democracy; otherwise there is only oligarchy and opportunism.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called fascism, because it is the merger of state and corporate powers."
---Benito Mousilini
@bobdole57 Yes, I have been thinking about that question a lot recently. Governments have always in history grow as time goes on, until they collapse as a result of unsustainable regulations. I really don't know the answer, but at least we know the right question!
(1) Doug answers the question at 3:39 ("Unfortunately.... --this is the problem with limited government--it tends to grow like a cancer over the time...."). Basically he says that limited government is indeed an oxymoron (although he doesn't use that term) due to the fact that initially-limited governments always grow like a cancer over time to become big governments. Thus, "limited governments" are not really "limited" because they always grow.
The average five-year old could run a lemonade stand better than the government (but then they'd make him pay five hundred dollars for a permit or something, and then the FDA would close him down anyway for not sterilizing the dixie cups). I find it a little annoying that it is consistently seen as intolerable to have corporate sponsors for public services. What's wrong with Microsoft running a computer camp, or Caterpillar and John Deere using 1000 miles of highway as a product demo?
Well I think private property is either part of 'human nature' or the outcome of individuals following their self-interest (as a struggle against and for power) and as such the natural outcome of anarchy.
The term anarchy=chaos involves circular reasoning. It only got the definition of chaos, because people thought no gov't=chaos.
Strangely, any attempt to change direction regarding the status-quo inevitably leads to others charging those who advocate such change as "utopians." Radical change is indeed required since the current direction will inevitably lead toward the cultural and economic abyss.
I understand. I'm not debating any of that. The point I'm trying to get across is that statism is a disease. People need to recognize that before we can have any hope of treating it.
Have you heard of economic interdependence?
With a free market everyone will depend on each other which equals zero wars.
(2) Tom Woods also answers the question "Is limited government an oxymoron?" with a yes:
4:52 "Maybe there is no such thing [as limited government]. Maybe if you say 'this institution has a monopoly on the power to tax and a monopoly on the power to initiate violence, but it will simply restrain itself to a few itemized tasks'--I mean, to me it simply seems to unrealistic."
Thus, Tom Woods also believes that "limited government" is an oxymoron.
"Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?"
Let's see.... the government is "limited" by written laws that the government interprets. and enforces at its own final discretion.
How could that _possibly_ could be an oxymoron?
Hey, Kid- come back in 20 years.
***** That's the _point_, Einstein: it CAN'T.
That's why the Founders never intendedthat kind of order, and why Libertopian goofballs are full of crap.
You sound like a 12-year old trying to show off knowledge you don't have.
***** Wow missed it by 4 years.:D
That is Ken Burns, show some PBS respect, will you?!
Because the government isn't limiting at all in reality. That's the obvious point you DUMBASS. Especially consider that one of the best ways I know to limit the government is through the budget. And with a fiat monetary system the government can expand and intervene in the economy far faster and greater than the tax base would otherwise allow. Did you even watching the fucking video?
Pusing it @ 14:43, I am looking at the host's ring...
Is it masonic?