And that. Okay.
This is where our world is really diverge because I don't
believe that we can have a functioning Society, where every
patient each has to know the implications of every
medication, they're taking, so they can fact.
Check the Doctor Who apparently is willing to be unscrupulous to
the extent that they can because they're aided and abetted and
encouraged to be corrupt by the existence.
So I don't, I don't I don't disagree with you that welcome
to Keith's. My don't try it on anyone and
the libertarian Institute The Economist.
Don Boudreaux responds to this claim called dumb individuals,
brilliant voters. Finally.
The proponents of government intervention are trapped in a
fatal contradiction. They assume that individuals are
not competent to run their own Affairs or to hire experts to
advise them. And yet, they also assume that
these same individuals are To vote for these same experts at
The Ballot Box. We have seen that on the
contrary. While most people have a direct
idea and a direct test of their own personal interests on the
market. They cannot understand the
complex chains of praxeological and philosophical reasoning
necessary for a choice of rulers or political policies.
Yet. This policy sphere of open.
Demagogy is precisely. The only one where the mass of
individuals are deemed to. Be competent.
So another words you can't run your own life for what you have.
A lot of information, but you can run the lives of 330 million
strangers for which you have no information.
It's completely ridiculous. Our choices are not between no
regulation and regulation. The reality is people are
constantly exchanging information about the
reliability of other people, products, Services organizations
companies corporations. Etc.
The real options are between one a coercively funded Monopoly on
regulation and to voluntarily funded competing organizations.
So, an example of number one in America would be the Food and
Drug Administration. They get coercive funding from
taxation, which gives them no incentive to provide a good
product or service and if people don't like their service, well,
they can't opt out of funding them.
Also when government Organizations fail.
They usually get more funding because they say, well, we it's
not that there's a problem in management.
We don't have a problem with our business structure or anything.
We just need more funding. It's really the taxpayers fault
for not giving us enough. It of course is never them.
Also. The FDA has a monopoly in who
gets to produce and trade what in the economy with regard to
Food and Drug. So if a and b are consenting
adults and they want to make a voluntary exchange, but the FDA
hasn't given it. Their stamp of approval, the
state is going to side with the FDA and forcibly.
Stop two. Consenting adults from making a
voluntary transaction. I mean, the the my body, my
choice, people are nowhere to be found when it comes to the
tyranny of the FDA. We always hear about how evil
monopolies are in the private sector and how they're going to
gobble up competitors and then jack up the price and give us no
other options, but when it comes to like the FDA or taxation, Or
the money supply or any form of Regulation or compulsory
education or the money supply then they say, yeah, monopolies
are absolutely mandatory. We can't have can't have any
competition, or even single-payer healthcare.
One of their biggest issues is literally one group.
Having a monopoly on Healthcare. Single-payer.
Not Polly. Payer not multi-payer
single-payer. They literally Advocate a
monopoly. So you know that I strongly
oppose needing a driver's license in order to vote, but
they'll happily require you to have thousands of licenses.
Before you can operate a business.
It's the big lie of there are no costs.
There's no downside to all of these thousands of licenses and
regulations. You have to comply with.
It doesn't affect the poor. It doesn't restrict output.
It doesn't lower the supply which increases the price.
It just keeps people safe, but if you need one drivers, License
to get into that voting booth. Well, then basically the black
population of America is never going to have a say again.
It's it's all backwards examples of voluntarily funded competing
organizations in the consumer protection or regulatory sector
would be places like Yelp Consumer Reports, Good
Housekeeping, number of different catalogs, even
YouTube. You have a lot of content
creators dedicated to reviewing products and services and making
Two videos you have certificates of authenticity.
This is a seal or small sticker on a proprietary computer
program T-shirt jersey or any other memorabilia or artwork,
especially in the world of computers and sports.
It is commonly a seal on paper authenticating a specific
artwork, which is made to demonstrate that the item is
authentic. These are also known as product
certifications. We have places like under,
right? Ders, laboratory, a global
safety certification company headed in Northbrook, Illinois
maintains offices in 46 countries established in 1894.
Also, there's a number of ssos Standards setting organizations
in organization whose primary function is developing
coordinating promulgating. Revising amending, reissuing,
reinterpreting or otherwise producing technical standards to
address the needs of a group of affected adopters.
Also referred to as Network standard organizations, if you
would like there will be a link in the description of technical
standard organizations. Now, with all of these
organizations, they are made of imperfect people and there's a
lot of shortcomings. So what Sam Cedar and his types
will often do is engage in the unobtainable Perfection fallacy.
When the arguments for and against courses of action are
assessed. It is important to remember that
the choice has to be made. The available Alternatives.
All of them might be criticized for their imperfections as might
the status quo. Unless one of the options is
perfect. The imperfections of the others
are insufficient grounds for rejection.
The fallacy of unobtainable perfection is committed when a
lack of perfection is urged as a basis for rejection, even though
none of the Alternatives is perfect either.
So, Sam Cedar isn't making a good point when he says, well,
standard and poor. And Moody's and DOW didn't see
the financial crisis of 2008 coming with Lehman Brothers and
bear Stearns there for Private Industry regulation is
completely unjustified. Well, the Federal Reserve wasn't
talking about it either. They're the ones who should be,
you know, allegedly protecting us from all this terrible stuff.
And of course, there were people in the private sector warning
about this such as Peter Schiff in his excellent book, wine
economy, grows and how it crashes people like Ron Paul, of
course, we're talking about the overinflated.
Housing bubble long before it bursts.
So the fact that you might be able to find many imperfections
in those organizations that I listed is not a justification
for the state. Having a coercively funded
Monopoly on regulation. The major reason that the free
market approach is superior both morally and economically to the
statist or the Sam Cedar approach to regulation consumer
protection employee protection. In business, you know,
protection is they do not recognize the legitimacy of the
only regulation that actually matters.
The freedom to disassociate with Bad actors, even in the private
sector, they'll often refer to this as discrimination.
If your refusal to associate applies differently to some
groups than others, but the main example is the state, you have
to fund the state to the tune of trillions of dollars.
And the state is constantly bailing out its friends in the
private sector. So you can have all Regulatory
studies of what's safe and what works and what's good, long term
in office. Good short-term.
If you don't have the recognized right to not chip in for things
that are evil immoral or things. You just don't like you, of
course, have the right to, but Sam Cedar doesn't recognize that
the ultimate check and balance is the ability to disassociate
with Bad actors, because Sam Cedar doesn't recognize that his
philosophy is a completely unjustified.
My friend a Sarkis tan, Twitter says, as long as the state, This
you will never properly, be able to answer who watches the
Watchmen. So in other words, when they
say, well, people are imperfect and there's criminals and
there's greed. So we need regulation.
What species do you want doing the regulating?
Their just as corrupt and unjustified as anyone else would
be? It's the equivalent of saying
marriages are imperfect there for the Catholic church.
Should have a monopoly on deciding who gets to marry who
for what reason? Well, the Catholic Church is
just made up of people there also imperfect.
So why should they get to rule? Maybe if they want to have some
guidelines and we could delegate to them like you would in a free
market regulatory setting. Well, then that would be
justified in people can choose to associate or not to associate
or choose to fund them or not to.
But when it comes to one group, having a monopoly on regulation,
you can never answer. Who watches the Watchmen.
Only a voluntarily funded competing organization rule of
law can address such a It coming Larkin, Rose puts it best in 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? Same careless, stupid and
malicious human beings and give them societal permission to
forcibly control. All the others.
Thank you for watching Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone and the libertarian Institute.