Comments on: Capitalism—A Propaganda Story

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:57:18 +0000

And also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNM6HHJTUMM

Merry Winter Solstice to all by the way.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:47:18 +0000

Don’t forget Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism and Freedom, and the most important of all…Mind of the Market. :-)

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:44:32 +0000

A must watch for everyone of my home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=player_embedded

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:47:11 +0000

Don’t be so sure. The two parties are often accussed of being in the hip pocket of “corporate interests” but the ideal of rugged individualism and the ability to create more free markets still has a safe haven in the Republican party, no matter how uneasy their alliance with the Libertarians.

By: MJ

MJ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:09:10 +0000

Do a search for Smallest Political Quiz in the world. Short but informative.
Micheal Shermers book the Mind of the Market is about how evolution is a bottom up system so is the free market. Think of government as the “intelligent designer/s” of the economy or rather not so intelligent. As for monopoly corporations they could not exist in a true free market without government help. For example the housing bust was primarily caused by the Federal Reserve monopoly on money. The economist Milton Friedman once said “the greatest enemies of capitalism are government and businessmen.” Government has a monopoloy on law and order, post office, public schools, money and interest rates, etc etc. Capitilist like socialism when they don’t profit also they pass legislation to hinder their competitors(think patent laws for example)

By: MJ

MJ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:53:02 +0000

Here are some excellent books on libertarianism-there are two types minarchy and anarcho-capitalist-

Our Right to Drugs-Thomas Szasz
Libertarianism-A Primer-David Boaz
End the Fed by Ron Paul (ran for President 2008)
For A New Liberty-Murray Rothbard
The Road to Serfdom-Fredrick Hayeck (Nobel Prize Winner)
Human Action-Ludwig von Mises (Nobel Prize Winner)
Free to Choose PBS series and book by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (Nobel Prize Winner also in Economics)

And someone mentioned there are actually religous libertarians which is odd since most libertarians I think are of the atheist/agnostic types. I’m waiting for a Skeptic issue on economic fallacies(lots of Federal Reserve myths for example) and maybe an interview with libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. Suprising how many Skeptic readers defend statism.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:25:04 +0000

Why have a system in which people are left unmolested in whatever activities they choose to do, free to live their lives and keep what they gather during the course of it, and have a court system that punishes people who violate other people and serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes when instead you can have the courts and bureaucracy violate other people (presumably on your behalf or on behalf of those who you believe count) in order to change the temporary arrangement of material things? Sure, having a system in which people may only deal with each other on a voluntary basis may be the definition of a peaceful society, but there are more important things than peace, freedom, and happiness like making sure that certain people have certain amounts of stuff (in a moral code which says that having stuff doesn’t make you happy).

I don’t know DocDay, maybe he has a point. I like stuff, and surely if government is given the power to initiate force against people for the purpose of redistributing those resources at its discretion, surely the state will act on my behalf and not to my detriment. I mean who would propose that resources are produced and come into existence through processes other than confiscation? I mean it is not like investigation, science, and reason are necessary to understand the world we live in and therefore necessary to produce things within that world therefore making a system based on exclusively voluntary interaction the most conducive to education, peace, and prosperity? No no, we just need to seize control of static wealth and put aside the dynamic which brings that wealth into existence in the first place. I mean if we just have the state take what we want from people who have it and give it to us, how could that system ever break down and not provide us with those things any longer? It’s not like rich people will stop trying to be rich once we take away their ability to be rich or anything like that. There are no practical or moral implications to establishing a society premised upon arbitrary confiscation of property from the state and a moral code of self immolation. I think you are being hard on Christian, he seems to have a very good point.

By: DocDay

DocDay — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:57:10 +0000

I second Tim’s motion.

While I’m skeptical that you can “concoct a reasonable explanation of why [free-market economics] is flawed”, I’m skeptical of most everything. If you can reveal the flaws AND SHOW EVERYONE A BETTER WAY, I want to know about it right now so I can change my thinking and begin advocating that better way.

Please, Christian, get your scalpel out and do it.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:51:08 +0000

This characteristic of skeptics is one that I very much enjoy because it is the inverse of the rest of society and equally incorrect. The rest of society says that economics can be argued about, but not religion. Skeptics say that religion can be argued about, but not economics. Putting aside the fact that this blog seems to be about the Moore film more so than the Moore view points, why shouldn’t views about how resources come into existence and find their way into various hands have a skeptical eye applied to them?

You say you can apply a skeptical view of liberty in response to Mr. Shermer’s skeptical (skeptical now apparently meaning opposing) view of socialism (or as Moore puts it in the film, “democracy”). Okay, do it. Provide that view point. Would we not be enlightened by additional views and isn’t enlightenment the purpose of this website?

By: Christian

Christian — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:30:04 +0000

I only have one question for you, Dr. Shermer. What does political opinion have to do with skepticism? Politics, and how we choose our opinions, is a subjective choice based on values. While there are pragmatic elements to governing, a person’s views are not fodder for the skeptic. I could easily apply the same scalpel to your own Libertarianism and concoct a reasonable explanation of why your view of economics is flawed. I’ve noticed a lot of people in the ‘Skeptic Community’ wander off the reservation of rational thought and misuse their position and ability to reinforce their own subjective choices, especially when it comes to political thought. Micheal Moore has his political position and you have yours, and they will compete in the market place of ideas.