Jacob Spinney's Blog - Latest Comments

Re: The State Is Not Great: How Government Poisons Everything

Ildar Masagutov — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:05:47 -0000

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

Re: The State Is Not Great: How Government Poisons Everything

Ildar Masagutov — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:11:57 -0000

watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re: Contact

jacobspinney — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 02:34:37 -0000

Do a search for debeers on mises.org and poke around.

http://www.google.com/search?c...

Re: Contact

Skyler — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:36:57 -0000

My friend and I got into a debate of socialism vs capitalism. He used the example of the de beers mining co as an example as to why the government should intervene in the economy. He talked about the millions that died working for this "evil" corporation. In one of your videos you said that only through the nationalization of the diamond mines was this abuse possible. Where have you heard this I need help to research this to see if de beers was trult a failure of capitalism or a government induced nightmare.

Re: An Open Letter To Sam Harris

Mojo Rhythm — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:24:12 -0000

Here is the problem with Libertarians: they conflate being "ignorant of basic economics" with "rejecting the Austrian School of economics". Both concepts are worlds apart.

Re: The Vegetarian Argument (rough draft)

Jared Bond — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:53:22 -0000

Hi Jacob! I came here because I was impressed by your political videos. Regarding
vegetarianism, I am a sympathizer, but I don't think improving health can be used as a key argument. I see someone else has posted a Weston A Price link, which
is a good start, but it also may lead to radical beliefs in the other direction. I'll add to that these links: http://180degreehealth.blogspo... and www.raypeat.com . It seems as though the commonly taught science of health and cellular biology is wrong at some very fundamental levels. But hopefully this won't be too unbelievable for someone who already does not trust the current system. There are so many things out there that the mainstream appears to be completely wrong about, that in my judgement it could only be conspiracy.

Re: A Blast From The Past

Timothy Conard — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:40:59 -0000

I'm unable to view this link without explicity allowing my Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 to do so.. I get a malware warning. :/

Re: An Open Letter To Sam Harris

J Cortez — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 01:01:57 -0000

I came across this by accident, many months after your posting.

I am agnostic/atheist and I am personally offended by the activist atheism that has come up in the past few years. In addition to their complete ignorance of economics, these people are just as intolerant if not more so than their opponents.

Thank you for your post.

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

kiaser211 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:35:26 -0000

If that premise were true, I'd agree, but it's not. As one that has read nearly every single non-fiction and essay of hers, I can attest that one of the more pleasing aspects of Rands work is that she focuses on the development and application of her philosophy instead of attacking others.

Her content aside, it is a breath of fresh air among the sea of books in which so-called philosophers or intellectuals spout out rhetoric and constantly attack other views.

Furthermore, any attacking she DID do was combined with the proof of theoretical demonstration or historical accuracy in order to objectively validate her vews. Rationality demands that one responds to the incorrect, but it does not demand that one keep up the response after the proof is unaccepted without any attempt to rationally refute. In her writings, she seemed to follow that rule much more than the alternative in which you claim, greenghost2008.

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

kiaser211 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:35:12 -0000

I would say flawed premise in the above post is the assuming of Capitalism also including non-economical functions of society, such as police, courts, and military.
Laissez faire Capitalism is the severing of all direct ties between government and economics. It does not involve non-economical functions, such a as the protection of individual liberties by arbitration of force in response of initiation of force (which initiation is improper).

Furthermore, just as a monopoly of a business in Laissez faire Capitalism can be correct, (by being the best, cheapest, and most available business in its market instead of using government force and jurisdiction to hold a forced monopoly), the PROPER non-economical functions of a government (sole arbitrator of force) is also correct.

Re: Contact

TommyEnns — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:46:46 -0000

So i came across your videos while in a giant debate against a friend of mine over socialism. As this debate began i was against socialism and communism but not totally for capitalism i am now completely on the side of capitalists and he keeps telling me im an idiot, ive used ideas from your videos over and over again but he just keeps saying im stupid. I would love to see you debate this fellow, i think it would make for a great debate.

Re: The State Is Not Great: How Government Poisons Everything

Anto — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:12:27 -0000

I can't believe you took the time to write that down. Haha.

Re: A Blast From The Past

Maty Aksenton — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:02:56 -0000

" feel free to peruse the essays and chuckle about how much of a hardcore atheist I was"

Why should we chuckle? Have you repudiated anything of the religious criticisms you articulated at that time?

Re: A Blast From The Past

slacker — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:58:17 -0000

Been trying to read your archived essays, but I keep getting a malware warning.

Re: The State Is Not Great: How Government Poisons Everything

LIBIntOrg — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:04:32 -0000

Thank you! As the song goes, if I were President, all day Ice Cream cones would only cost a cent.

Check out other Libertarians and friends at work worldwide at http://www.Libertarian-Interna...

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

jacobspinney — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:29:56 -0000

P.S. If you're interested in what my views are - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I'm sure it's nothing you haven't heard before.

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

jacobspinney — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:25:56 -0000

Hey Paul, I should note that this was an excerpt from the essay "Internal Inconsistencies in Arguments for Government: Nozick, Rand, and Hospers," which is written by David Osterfeld, which I linked at the bottom of the excerpt. I should make this more explicit so as to avoid confusion.

I'm sure that you are far more knowledgable of Rothbard and Rand's positions than I. But it seems to me that, if your assessment is correct, the only apparent difference between Rand and Rothbard's ideal systems is that Rand wishes for territorial monopolies over police, courts, and military while Rothbard advocates competition in the provision of them. If Capitalism is the absence of government, and she advocates government to take the role of these three activities, then how could you say that this is consistent with Capitalism? If anything, must you not admit that these are exceptions to Capitalism?

I would not consider myself a 100% Rothbardian, so I don't feel compelled to defend the parts of his philosophy that I disagree with. The point of this excerpt wasn't to say that Rand's views were vague. But rather that her objection of this conflict between providers A and B is also applicable to her own ideal system, and thus should not be used as a slam dunk case against the proposal of competing services.

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

Pbeaird — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:56:17 -0000

I don't agree that Rand did not spell out her own system. Leaving the details of specific institutions and practices to political science, as she said she was doing, her role as a philosoher is fulfilled by the detail she left, which goes some way beyong merely saying that the 3 functions of a proper government are police, courts and military. Those three are derived from the role of government as acting only in protection of individual rights (= freedom of choice and action), including property rights. Yet, as a philosopher, she also addressed government financing.

Rothbard's "system has much the same lack of specifics, as my analysis above and in the original paper I explore as "form of justice". George H. Smith, again back in the 1970s, a voluntaryist (if not anarchist), also published in libertarian publications his more detailed analysis of how Rothbard's system might work, showing that Rothbard was equally "vague"

Surely, one should base so important a decision about anarchism on something deeper than what is stated just above.

Re: Ayn Rand’s Contradictions On Government

Pbeaird — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:49:11 -0000

I am Paul Beaird. Someone on Facebook called my attention to this blog. While the attempt to show that my analysis contradicts Rand's is not ultimately successful. Today, I would say that territory does not answer the ultimate question. Because, what we are debating is whether or not there should be competition for protective servicew WITHIN any territory or jurisdiction. So, my "solution" does not really answer the question. I wrote that article in 1972 to 1974, when I was much younger.

Today, I would go against Rothbard's competing defense agency scenario on the grounds that it is neither anarchism (if that is taken to mean voluntarism) nor Capitalism.

I am working on a full paper on the subject, but that will materialize only after a few books and artilces, of much more importance than Rothbard, have been written and published. So, please don't let what follows stand as a full exposition.

Capitalism, in Rand's view and even Rothbard's, is the total separation between government and economic activity, so that government has NO economic activities. Socialism and its variants, such as fascism) is the total combination of government and economics. Rothbard's defense agencies for hire are the total combination of physical force and economic activity. The retort that all protective services, even those provided by government, must be financed and Rothbard's version simply incorporates voluntary choice and direct payment fulfills that requirement is an argument that does not work. I'll explain in what follows, but first recognize that Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism merges economics and protective services, instead of separating them, as does Capitalism.

Now, in the event of separate defense agencies coming into opposition on behalf of two parties, they need not engage in physical combat. They do need to arbitrate. That is the application of objective law to a decision about which party is go give way to the other. Law requires a venue for arbitration, and individuals, in the Rothbardian free-for-all market scenario, can prefer and purchase very different "court" venues. There need to be rules of evidence and courtroom procedures and other factors, which all taken together I call the "form of justice". Those, too, can vary widely and be purchased separately by the conflicting parties, or their defense agencies acting on their behalf.

Then there is the final step of resolution, or penalty, or punishment. And that can and will differ widely, according to the "court" applying the form of justice. In today's world culture, one can easily envision Shari'ah law punishments, including stoning to death and cutting off of hands, as a purchaseable version of "justice".

So, two things are evident. In the end, one side loses. He is dealt with according to the form of justice he did NOT prefer. His treatment is not voluntary. And his resistance to the other person's preferred form of justice can take place at the moment the defense agencies conflict, or in the selection process of which venue wil be selected, or at any step of the trial process, or at the time of naming or applying the resolution-penalty-punishment. But, how is he to resist? The only way to resist is by physical force. One cannot engage in a process of peaceful appeal forever.

So, untimately the prevailing defense agency or court or form of justice rules over the unwilling in just as exclusive a fashion as the monopoly over the legal use of force applied by a government. This is not anarchism, if that term is held to mean no monopolistic source of legal authority. It is not anarchism, if that term is held to mean full voluntarism.

To sum up again, Rothbard's "system" is neither voluntary for the losing party in any such conflict. Nor is it the lack of a government, if that term means an agency having exclusive legal use over physical force in a society.

It differs only in the idea of provate selction of a directly paid agency, its attendant "courts", their form of justice, and the final application of the resolution-penalty-punishment. Rand's method of indirect payment of law enforcement via a non-tax payment for contract adjudication (see her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society") avoids the collusion of government and market activity by avoiding defense-as-a-business. Hers is consistent with Capitalism. Rothbard's is the opposite.

To fill out this argument, there are arguments to be asked and I hope any and all readers will send them to me at pbeaird@yahoo.com. I don't care whether your tone is defense or antagonistice or friendly. It is the logic and factual concerns that interest me and will either dissuade me or find their way into my final re-write of the whole article published in Options (the Canadian libertarian magazine of the 1970s.

Thanks for this chance to update my thinking on the issue.

Paul Beaird

Re: Can Inaction Be Aggression?

C. Rakish Spagaletto — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:31:59 -0000

No aggression may be used against non-aggressors.

Re: A Vote For NOBODY Is A Vote For EVERYBODY

C. Rakish Spagaletto — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:28:46 -0000

Vote for Nobody. Nobody will participate in corruption. Nobody will ignore your concerns. Nobody will tell lies. Nobody will initiate violence against non-aggressors.

Re: Capitalist vs Socialist: Cutting (Rough Draft)

C. Rakish Spagaletto — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:24:04 -0000

You don't know what a free market is. Look up the non-aggression principle and then look up the homesteading principle. Combine both principles and there you have a free market. Once you get it, come back and look at your post and revise it.

Re: The Vegetarian Argument (rough draft)

C. Rakish Spagaletto — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:19:27 -0000

Because of our genetics and evolution, we will be far healthier if we eat animal meat and animal fat. Look up traditional diets. And check out this link.
http://www.westonaprice.org/ta...

Re: Contact

jacobspinney — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:31:17 -0000

A long time ago, I put an annotation in the video requesting to see the description. In the description I wrote -

"It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005. To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M). Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90). The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public."

My extremely liberal estimate of 39 million people is overshooting the true number you point out (4.5 million apparently) by a huge long shot. And yet, it STILL demonstrates the massive inefficiency of welfare.

Re: Contact

Andrew Parker — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:40:30 -0000

In response to your video of "Help the Poor by Ending State Welfare" that was posted about a year ago you asked in the comments:

Q: "Exactly how many were on welfare in 2005?"

I've looked into it:

A: ~4.5 million (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/program...

You need to make sure that you use the term "welfare" consistently. The $404 billion is the total number allocated to various social welfare programs. The number 2 million (families not individuals) is the number of TANF recipient families which is a small amount of the social welfare budget.

Once that distinction is made I found it fairly straightforward to find the numbers that you have been looking for. If the efficiency measure that you are using for the charities is applied to TANF then it seems to show an efficiency of ~90% with a reported 9.3% going to administrative overhead (see page 5 of http://www.acf.hhs.gov/program... found from the TANF "Data & Reports" page).

The entire $404 billion in 2005 of course includes other services such as:
* 26 million people receiving food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/q...
* 6.6 billion school lunches and breakfasts served (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefi....
* Workers comp
* the Unemployment Trust Fund
* Tax credits for the poor
* SSI, a part of social security.

Some of these may be higher or lower in your efficiency measure than others, but on the whole they are probably not too far off from the one quoted for charity organizations. Some are much better in fact: the social security program costs less than 1% to administer (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/ap... which is then possibly a similar number for SSI.

This means that your argument perhaps is that you do not think that the government should provide these services in the first place no matter how good it ends up being at providing them. That is a viewpoint that you can argue, but make sure that if you are going to use numbers for that argument you have got them right.

It would be nice if you updated the "Help The Poor By Ending State Welfare" video or the description of it to reflect these numbers so that other people are not mislead by your invalid reasoning.