If you believe 535 people have the right to coercively rule, 330 million strangers. You do not believe in equality. Welcome to Keith's. My don't tread on anyone and the libertarian Institute today. I want to go over an article by Anthony samaroff titled. How markets have delivered more economic equality. The image you see here is the concept of individualism, not just people doing their own thing on an island, but people respecting the individual
Judgment of others. By allowing them to voluntarily disassociate, whether it's with their time or their money that is people seeing each other as equals. On the right. However, we see the concept of a coercive collectivism where people are not treated as equals. Some people are having the right to initiate violence against others. In the material sense. However, we are the most equal
society that has ever been. A billionaire, has a Maserati or a Rolls-Royce, but he can't drive on the streets much faster than your I can. Yet. There was a time when the rich were carted around in horse drawn carriages. While most people walked the former is a form of equality, pineapples, and other tropical fruits were once rare and highly valued exotic items. In fact, Charles. The second of England is seen
being presented a pineapple. Really worth thousands of pounds in a 17th century painting, nowadays, the rich frequent Swanky restaurants, but most people in Western countries have access to more calories of quality food than they could ever eat. That's not all the richest person in the world, can't get that much better of a broadband connection. Then you can, or a much comfier pair of shoes bed or couch. In terms of the operations of day-to-day life. We are becoming more equal
increasingly. We everyone even those in third world countries have access to a smartphone, which can reach the internet and all the education, art music, culture, and social media that everyone else has access to a rich person has a flush toilet. You have a flush toilet, a rich person has water coming out of his Taps. You have water coming out of your TAP. So rich person has electricity, you have electricity. You can afford soap, you can eat fruit.
That is flown in from all over the world in every season, the richest Lord, in the world. A A hundred years ago couldn't even dream of the luxury that people who are considered impoverished in First World countries live in. Competing for resources under a socialist regime. Burgess admits to wanting to place institutions like Banking and finance, utilities Healthcare.
And Lord knows how many others under so-called Democratic control in the name of egalitarianism, but we have to wonder how the masses are going to vote on how the public gets access to telecommunications while still serving the user ultimately private business owners are answerable. To the consumer. It might look like they get to boss everyone around and make decisions. But if someone does a better, they are out of luck. They will be replaced by a competitor.
Removing. The market does not solve the problem of competition. If this is indeed a competition, there will still be plenty of competition for government contracts and favored positions. Even once institutions are under Democratic control. Ultimately someone is going to have to make decisions. When it comes to who gets what and they will wield a disproportionate dare. I say unequal amount of power and likely will get rather a lot more than most people excellent point by samaroff.
Your what is democratic politics. If not? A bunch of liars competing with, who has the best rhetoric to convince millions of ignorant people to vote for them instead of the other person. Ultimately, it is true that the more dollars you have on a free market, the more votes on what is produced. And by whom you get, but as I've explained, the excessive wealth of the rich is not stored under her mattress.
The only way they can keep it is if they invest in things that serve the public by creating better products and services. If they invest in lines of production, no one wants, they will lose the investment in this way.
The market to the extent that is, it is indeed a free market with only mutually, agreed-upon exchanges, forces and alignment of the interest of those who possess the The wealth with those of the consumers, the consumers decide what the rich have to invest in to stay rich with their votes, Jean, Jean Epstein mentioned over and over in the debate.
That those who make up the ranks of the working class control, a disproportionate amount of consumer spending and therefore have a more equal say in how our society functions than most people would think the issue of health care. We can pick the market. And socialism in the most seemingly inegalitarian case, which is the economics of life and death, namely Healthcare in a debate with me, Burgess expressed horror that on a free market.
A rich person could buy their way to the front of a queue for life-saving treatments. And said it would be better. If the state ration these things. This seems to make sense. If we take a steady-state view of the economy, but economies are not fixed. Suppose. There was only one surgeon who could perform the operation allowing the highest. Better to get first access to the surgeon. Would bring so much money in that. It would be possible to calculate.
How much time the surgeon should be performing operations for the very wealthy and how much time he should spend teaching others to perform the same procedures. It would send out a signal to all other surgeons, the issue of health care. We can pick the market against socialism in the most seemingly, in egalitarian case, which is the economics of Life and death, namely Healthcare in a debate with me. Burgess expressed horror that on a free market.
A rich person could buy their way to the front of a queue for life-saving treatments. And said it would be better. If the state ration these things. This seems to make sense. If we take a steady-state view of the economy, but economies are not fixed. Suppose that there was only one surgeon who could perform the operation, allowing the highest bidder to get first access to the surgeon. Would bring so much money in that. It would be possible to
calculate. Calculate how much time, the surgeon should spend performing the operation for the very wealthy and how much time he should spend teaching others to perform the same procedures. It would send out a signal to all other surgeons, that this is a desperately needed specialization and that they should stop what they are doing immediately to train up in the new style of operation. In the long term. Far more people would have access to the procedures at an affordable price.
Then if the state Merely rationed out access to places in the latter case waiting less would be huge and people would die for want of qualified surgeons. A strange form of Equalization tends to occur over time whenever the market is allowed to function is access to Healthcare in the u.s.a. Unequal at the moment, you bet. But this is only because the market is not allowed to function. So on top of things, like, Medicare Medicaid, the FDA occupational, license, sir.
All these major aspects that use coercion to violently, stop people from engaging in voluntary exchanges, which would lead to more competition and lower prices in the long run. We actually have examples of Cosmetics, decreasing in price over time. This is according to the foundation for economic education, for the top 10, most popular cosmetic procedures, displayed above for the last
year. None of them is increased in price since 1998, more than the Point two percent increase in overall consumer prices, meaning that real inflation adjusted price of all ten of those procedures has fallen over the last 18 years for the three, most popular procedures in 2016. Botox, laser hair removal and chemical peel. All, non-surgical, cosmetic procedures.
The nominal price for each has actually Fallen since 1998, by large double digit percentage, declines of 11.3% 21.7%, and Thirty four point, eight percent respectively. So one of the main things under government or Democratic control, is the police are the police, like really equal, do they listen to me? Just as much as they listen to Congress. I mean, surely Congress, they work for me. I'm basically the boss.
I should be bossing around the policeman telling them not to resist me. And whatever I say they have to abide by, or I'm going to shoot them if I see their hands moved too quickly, of course not. This is a joke. It has nothing to With egalitarianism, the government has a right to make executive orders. And if you don't follow them they cage you and shoot you. If you resist and that's equality to the been Burgesses of the world. What a fucking joke.
That is why at first hardly anyone could afford a computer. But because the greedy Rich opted for exuberance, rather than charity buying expensive computers rather than giving away their money to the poor. The companies that made those computers could afford to fund the research that led to relative supercomputers that you are reading this article today on affordable to you the title of the article.
I mentioned earlier from the foundation for economic education is if Eric surgery has a working Market. Why can't Medical Care? The example, on the left I used is Gordon, gekkos phone in Wall Street. So in the late 80s, this is the fat cat. This is the guy with all the money has a cellphone that none of us would be caught dead with today. Of course, we could see progress in all spheres of influence, where the state does not have a monopoly.
So, if we look at things, the market provides, you can actually develop a concept of trickle-down Economics where over time people, in lower income brackets, get access to products and services that a few Generations ago, only the rich had access to and when they had access to them, they were of lower quality. So things like books.
For example, a lot of people had access to books throughout history, but what percentage of people had access to the information, the average person has As a causal result of Wikipedia and Amazon books, and the Khan Academy and mises.org. I mean, there's there's an incredible amount of, you know, what you could call a quality, even though equality is not even desirable. But let's just look at food and beverages at your local grocery store.
You can go to restaurants that strictly cater to people in lower income. Brackets. Subway isn't thinking how do we get Elon Musk to eat here? Well, he's only one guy, you wouldn't even you'd hardly make. Any money, the goal is for there to be appeal to mass consumers. Things like, you know, alarm systems for your house property protection. One of the most important things
in life. We actually have a lot of data to back this up. This from Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal. He wrote a book called, who's
the fairest of them? All the truth about opportunity taxes and wealth in America. What he does is he looks at the percentage of households that own, these items, all households in 1970 and then pour, Households in 2005, the items he focuses on our washing machine clothes dryer, dishwasher refrigerator, stove microwave color TV video cassette DVD, personal computer, telephone cell phone and air conditioner. He actually sites to Dallas, Federal Reserve, Census Bureau
data. And what we see from this is that in every case of these vitally important things, as a causal result of there, being more of a free market in these areas more poor people into 2005 had access to these products and services, then all people in America did in 1970. So here is a competing concept of equality.
All persons have a duty to engage in only voluntary exchanges with others and have the right to not be de frauded, or aggressed against where's inequality could be described as a small group of people called government having the right to roll, hundreds of millions of strangers, with the threat of caging all, who disobey their arbitrary Commandments. I think one of the great lies, is that if the That does it. Well, that's what we all have in common were all involved with them. Therefore.
We'll all get equal access. If the state control something like Health Care. Well, the state currently controls education. Does that mean everyone is guaranteed in education now, so if the state monopolizes coercively funds and guarantees Healthcare doesn't mean you're going to get Healthcare in Cuba, they have, you know, all these guarantees, but you have people escaping their on trash rafts to get into a more for you. Market Society of America.
Finally, I'd like to quote Larkin Rose from his book. The most dangerous Superstition if human beings are so careless, stupid and malicious. That they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own. How would the situation be improved by taking a subset of those? Very same careless, stupid and malicious human beings and giving them societal permission to forcibly control. All the others. Thank you for watching Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone and the libertarian. Toot.