Comments by "EarthSurferUSA" (@EarthSurferUSA) on "misesmedia" channel.

  1. A true free market, (Laissez-Faire, or as close to it as we can get), is very dynamic and the most exciting thing that man has ever experienced. I own a business, a one man show, in a small industry that really has no regulation, (RC car and scooter modified gas engines), just the theft of taxes. There are new companies starting and failing all the time, and I am happy to say my toughest competition , (in sales only), does really bad work. I have seen several 14 year old kids, (kids into the go-ped scooter), try to start their own business in this industry. I sell my product all over the world to "individuals", and even from Qatar, I get along with them great on the phone. It is too bad the left does not realize how exciting, prosperous and civil we can be,---when we have the individual liberty to trade with money. "Consumerism"? I don't think it means a thing in reality. Show me one person on Earth who is not a consumer.
    5
  2. "You will own nothing, and be happy." Good luck with that son.
    4
  3. Those books would help preserve civilization, but the writes of Ayn Rand would make it free to flourish.
    4
  4. I disagree a bit. I think communism partnered with the churches and are using them for indoctrination, but old values are being lost. Yes, it is a citizen owned free market that communism seeks to destroy, but it is also "Individual Liberty", that it seeks to destroy. A "group" does not have to be destroyed, it can be infiltrated, (Anybody for a Tea party?) I would put the top 2 goals of communism as "individual liberty", and a "citizen owned free market", that are in the center of the target.
    4
  5. Would it not be nice if young people did not have to get involved in politics, so they can instead chase their individual desires and do great things in what is left of our free market? I know we have to be involved, because our liberty is under attack by collectivism right now. But I want to live, and I want our children to live in a society where we are free to chase our dreams, because government properly protects our individual liberty so we are able to chase those dreams. "I went to college to become a mechanical engineer, and I graduated a stupid political activist", (a great T-shirt print explaining our education today). If we can get government/courts to protect our liberty 100%, (like the first 100 years of the USA), than we do not have to become political activist, but we can advance mankind with our interests and our brains in the free market that is suppose to be part of our liberty.
    4
  6. In our nation based on "individualism", the citizens do not have a "collective" ownership of the nation. That would be parallel to anything from a cult in the So-Cal desert to the horrific communism of the entire world. We have individual ownership, and it is earned in the free market by any individual who wants to try the excitement of capitalism. The rest of your argument seems to support the need for a "separation of business and state", so the rest of us can compete in what is suppose to be "our" free market. Who does capitalism belong to, us or the government? What you are living through, is the take over of our capitalism, and your liberty to do business with each other,--and compete. Immigration should be encouraged, but with productive people who can add value to themselves in our free market. That is exactly why my Great Grand parents moved from Poland to the USA in the early 1900's. Boy, do I wish I could thank them.
    3
  7. Mr. Ron Paul made a joke around the 3:30 mark about adding a party for competition, and he replied to that comment made to him, "I have been waiting for a second party". I get that, but he does not get what I am about to say. Do you remember the actual grass roots Tea Party? I was part of it in 2008, (not 2010 when the republicans took it over that Rush recognizes), and I can tell you that when ever you have a group of people, (who usually have mixed ideologies in reality), that group can be infiltrated by the progressive/collectivist mentality, and will be, as the Tea party was. We need a voting system that costs nothing to run for office, (or as close to nothing as possible), so any individual can run for office and win solely based on their personal merits and not their political affiliation or their pocket book. Let me see a commie beat a natural law guy in that election. It will not happen anywhere in Western Culture, if the natural law guy is well spoken. Tom Woods? I alwyas say, If you never join a group, you will never be told what to think. But this is true also. If you never form a group, it can never be infiltrated by progressive/communists. It is impossible to infiltrate the individual with a brain for liberty. That is why if we want to save individual liberty, we have to make it so all individuals can run and win office based on their merits.
    3
  8. "What would it even mean to have economic equality?" There are many nations that have economic equality. They are all a citizenry in poverty. That is the only "equality" that is possible.
    2
  9. Money does not make education better. What is taught (especially philosophically), makes all the difference in the world. Today, a child of the age of 2 learning how to talk, is correctly, by human nature, discovering the world around him/her. Building concepts more effectively than the average college graduate can today.
    2
  10. Mr. Woods, talking of Ron Paul, when he went to Florida to speak about us needing to open trace with Cuba. I don't understand why we think lassiez-faire free market is compatible with communism. I look at the free market correctly, that it is part of our individual liberty, our opportunity, and the only way a individual can chase any dream of producing something that did not exist before, raising the standard of living like we have proven over 100 years ago. Opening trade with communist nations is orchestrated by governments, not by citizens. As we have seen in the last 35 years with China, one of the business partners in the deal loses, and that would be the nation based more on individual liberty. Proper capitalism is not compatible with communism, just like islam is compatible with anything else. Now if a communist nation will grant their citizens individual liberty, we can do business together as citizens, and become friends making money together. But other than that, with doing business with communist nations, we have seen nothing but international redistribution and more government interventions in our business, dissolving our liberty even more.
    2
  11. Private security agencies would not be the creators of law or the interpreter's of law, but only the enforcer of established laws that protect individual liberty. If they don't do that job well,---we can fire them. In that free market environment, and established law based on natural law, security agencies would strive to uphold liberty in order to have clients. If the court system does not uphold individual liberty as the highest standard, we can fire them too, and file criminal charges.
    2
  12. I am not one of those kids who ask what song was played at the beginning. I just recognized it as Henry Rollins, a song called "shine". Some of the lyrics went like this: "No such thing as spare time, no such thing as free time, no such thing as down time,---all you have is life time go!" I don't know his politics, but that song is a pretty hard hitting message to inspire every individual to be the best they can be, and not "let the tiny little arrows shot my way", slow you down.
    2
  13. When I was a child in the 60's and 70's (still on the gold standard), we use to talk about Fort Knox and all the gold it stored for our gold standard monetary policy. When we went off the gold standard,---------------------------------------------what happened to all that gold?
    2
  14. The term "self determinism", (as it pertains to one individual "self" and means nothing else), is out of context when applied to a group of people. No 2 people in any group think exactly the same, but every human individual has a "self". Who is to determine what that "self" is? A group, or the individual who owns it? "Self determinism" can only be applied to a individual who lives in a society where individual liberty and its free market are protected by law. The word "self" is defined by the individual, not any group, and can only exist in a society that protects individual liberty.
    2
  15. Yea yea, that is what we are told, "Get a job". Well, I did that a lot and came up with a better plan. After learning from both college and my employer's, I started my own business. Any communist nation can provide some jobs, so I think our goals should be higher than that. After experiencing my own business that I was only able to start because I built up my skils, I never want a JOB (Just Over Broke), again.
    2
  16. Sorry, I never trust a man who says "China and Russia are nothing to worry about." I never trust a man who says communism, (the bombs and/or ideology), is nothing to worry about. I see people comments who like this guy, (I don't understand that really), and then a lot of comments from Jew haters and the such. Does this guy always attract these mentalities? It seems to me, David Stockman is not a good fit in the Mises organization. I hope to not hear a speaker of such fantastical emotionally boring speech, (that we hear from leftists all the time, speculation with no expressed or accurate basis), here again.
    2
  17. The only way to have "equality of results", is if everybody is in poverty, and that would be done by force.
    1
  18. Covid (a manufactured flu bug that was released), did not shut down our economy. People did. Was it a typical communist attack on what is left of our free enterprise? Par for the course?
    1
  19.  @Paul-A01  "Equality of Opportunity is not obviously wrong." "So the only way you can get equal opportunities is level all outcomes." Are you speaking with contradictions, or do you believe somebody should cap opportunity of everybody?
    1
  20.  @ye333  "That makes you a god that could "give" or refuse other people equal opportunities. And in a human society, the quantity and the selection mechanism of such gods is the key issue." In free enterprise, (citizen owned as it started in the US, before Lobbyists), the "selection" is what ever your mind this is possible. Every industry we built started out that way, and we had to have individual liberty protected by law to do it. Not sure if you are talking about a God, or a dictatorship though.
    1
  21. what ever your mind "thinks" is possible.
    1
  22.  @billmelater6470  "Equality of Opportunity taken in the materialistic sense is wrong but taken purely in the legal sense is perfectly fine." That depends if the law is actually "lawlessness", as pertaining to the freedom of man. There is no shortage of legal lawlessness today. Basically, if a law infringes on individual liberty, it is lawlessness.
    1
  23. By the way, the word "protectionist" in economics, did not exist until the outsourcing to communist nations started. The word has been used ever since to let communist governments take advantage of more capitalist nations,---by claiming "doing business with communism is capitalism". Does anybody here believe that their individual right to use their brain to do business,---is communism? Capitalism and communism---are not compatible. "Protectionism" is a word used to help you ignore that fact. USA doing business with communism is not the same as the citizens of Michigan doing business with the citizens of Florida, (for example).
    1
  24. "Protectionism", would not exist with out governmental intervention in our business. If it existed in a true free market as a means to keep your competitors down, then it would actually be a crime against your competitions individual liberty's right to compete fairly. There is a big difference between government protecting our right to compete with each other, (our individual liberty in a free market society), and directing your production to communist nations. This is why the word "protectionism" did not exist, economically speaking, until our wealth making capability, (production), was directed by our own government,---to communist nations.
    1
  25. That would be closer to 99.97% aren't privy to this information.
    1
  26.  @petruflorintofoleanu5865  I learned something about history lately. It is all biased. Be careful of what you study.
    1
  27. Mankind's history. Poverty, struggle, poverty, struggle, group warfare, thousands of years. The age of reason. The renaissance, the advent of math and science, and the industrial revolution. Civility and prosperity though production of individuals and free trade. Ayn Rand > Murry Rothbard!
    1
  28. What good is all the great information from Mises, if we don't have a political bridge to get into office? If there were a pathway for liberty minded individuals to get into office, we would be there effectively. If I were in office, I would be consulting with Mises every day, for the sake of human freedom.
    1
  29. I am glad he brought to light the change in 2000 of pain killer policy, and I agree with him so far that is the incident that caused this situation of many addicted Americans. But I fail to see the logic of how making more addictive drugs legal will stop people from becoming addicted. Would this man put out a kerosene fire with gasoline? I hope the Mises institute isn't blemished too much with this one.
    1
  30. Much like when I was employed by somebody else, I never like the phrase, 'Human Resources", I don't think I like the term "Remanent" as I am in some kind of group. Our philosophies of Individualism are "Dominant", if we lived under them. I think Mises and the Ayn Rand institute should become friends, and see where it goes from there.
    1
  31. What about the first 120 years of the American economy? Built from the wilderness, it was as close to Lassiez Faire as any economic system ever was, where prosperity grew like never before, and poverty reduced like never before. We grew so fast we were able to win WW1 with only about 4 generations of our existence. I am a small business owner in an industry with very little regulation, (none directly actually), where we compete with no government intervention, and I can not express enough how exciting it is to be a part of that, to compete with that. I am sure I can safely assume that every economist, and most individuals in today's world would say "Lassiez-Faire is crazy", (they assume it is lawless, but any crime against an individual's liberty is suppose to be a crime, weather from an individual, a group, a competitor, or the government). But if you rephrase it for most individuals, they will agree: "The closer we can get to Lassiez-Faire economics, (where individual liberty is protected by law), the more civility and prosperity we will be able to earn.". As soon as the government gets involved in our free market, you have socialism, favoritism, and a growing burden against your ability to compete. I did not have to read about it from a book. I actually experience some of the last free market on the planet and trade all over the world, (still semi free actually, but as close to Lassiez-Fair as exists today), and like I said, I can not express enough how exciting it is to use your mind to prosper in OUR free market. Individualism and our free market is life itself, as it is human to think and achieve. I am not interested in comparing "mixed economies" of different levels. To me, it is all the same, stealing our free market and our liberty from us, and none of it condemns using the gun to do so. I just think our society would be marvelous, if we lived by a simple principle that stealing is wrong. Was I told to go for my dreams, so my efforts could be stolen from me by means of taxes for the purposes of redistribution and government criminal funding? That is the immoral reality we are forced to live with. The categories of economies are very simple really. You only have 2 choices. You are either free to compete in any industry you want for profit, (and create new industries) which also creates opportunity for others, or you are hindered by government intervention and not allowed to compete, like the Tucker automobile in 1946. It should be easy to see which is moral, but nobody in, or recently out of college has had any experience with individualism and their right to compete in business. I hope they do not vote their own potential away, but how could they not if they don't know what kind of economic system will let them reach their personal potential? I want my liberty back, and I want my free market back.
    1
  32. We are suppose to elect people not to protect our individual interests, but our individual liberty, (as it is the proper role of government to protect individual liberty so we can follow our interests in our free market, not to destroy our liberty and ability to compete.). The business lobbyists make Congress rich by paying them ,(in some way of several), to secure market share with favors, instead of ability. Now, lets compare this to marriage. You marry a lady, and you make a deal to represent each other through thick and thin. But she meets another guy who has more money, (the lobbyist), and she cheats on you and sleeps with him. You find out about it, and get mad. Who do you get made at? The person you made a deal with, or the person who made coaxed her to break that deal? Which is suppose to have integrity here, to honor a deal? "Getting mad a corporations first, (as we are taught, "ONLY" and "ALL"), instead of government first, is like blaming the guy who slept with your wife". You made a deal with your wife, as we make a deal with who we elect, but we are taught to blame only the homewrecker, the lobbyist partner of the person who promised to represent you. Do you expect your wife to have more integrity for the deal you made with her, or are we suppose to blame the homewrecker because he did not have any promise to you?
    1
  33. To the people who complain about the music on this vid. Try listening (and understanding) the words that are being said, and you won't hear the music.
    1
  34. I would like to find a book about as many American success stories of the USA, from rags to riches, with no lobbyists, during the industrial revolution. I think we need to know who those hero's are, especially if the products we still use today, (or a variation of them), might not exist if one man/woman had not thought of it. I want a book of Hero's who brought something of value into existence, that did not exist before. I want a book, like only a free society can tell, that shows the Hero's, no, the GODS of useful material goods! I am torn between the names, "HERO", and "GOD" in this context, to create in a free market things of value that did not exist before,--and the opportunity they provided others, possibly even hiring their future competition, (which we should embrace as good,---just be better). :) Does that book exist Mr. Woods?
    1
  35. Free enterprise was created by free people in the USA to do so, (mostly). That is why we were able to build the USA into the most prosperous nation of citizens in record time from the wilderness. Free enterprise is not compatible with communism (or any kind of government rule over a citizenry), because a dictatorship does not recognize the individual liberty protected by law that allowed us to create free enterprise and prosper.
    1
  36.  @alexcipriani6003  "He knows arithmetic but we are in a world that uses calculus and differential equations" Not out of our public schools, or even most collage curriculum's. We graduate kids from HS today who can't even count change. Every communist agrees with you though, by calling this man a "simpleton". "Repeating socialist and Marxists in economic talks gives uneducated vibes." Now what philosophies were you educated from?
    1
  37. Big fan of the Mises organization, but not really of this gentleman. His premise seems to be speculative questions that may have a chance to discover reality, but I think he comes to conclusions of what reality is, (stops at the speculation stage of discovery), before he gets there. When some others speak here, (like the good Judge Andy Nap.), I can connect with depth. I can't connect with depth with this gentleman, because I see too much speculation.
    1
  38. No economist will admit this, but free enterprise was created by a free citizenry, (mostly in the USA, the industrial revolution), who had "individual liberty protected by law" as the right to start businesses and create industries that got mankind out of poverty (Again, mostly in the USA). The reason why Free Enterprise and communism are not compatible to the core of philosophy, is because Communism does not recognize individual liberty at all. It was 1978 when Communist China decided to give "semi private free enterprise" a try, and our federal government handed over our business to communism. Every company from Western Culture who went to China to produce, is partly responsible for giving our free enterprise to Communism so it can fund itself, (and dominate the world). Now, for Environmentalists as taught in college. If Environmentalism is about saving the planet, (from production, wealth making for free a citizenry.), and not advancing Communism around the world,----------------then why are EPA regulations not imposed on our trade agreements with Communism? The Environmentalism is not about saving the planet. It is about destroying Western Culture and advancing Communism. All we need is a good court system to keep things clean with lawsuits from a effected citizenry against the company who may have dirtied their area. Again. Why does Communism get a free pass with EPA type regulations? I just told you. If you don't get it, sue your schools. :) Doug in Michigan
    1
  39. I do not believe production dropped at all, let alone "significantly" through the 1950's and 60's, in fact, it rose. EVERYTHING WE BOUGHT WAS MADE HERE!!! But it is true, the Tucker automobile and anything else he could have produced,---never hit the market,---and I know why! It was actually a form---of "criminal" protectionism.
    1
  40. "Equality" When ever I see a car, (usually not a nice car), with that "Equality" sticker on it, (You know, the 3"x 4", approx., blue background sticker with a yellow "Equal" sign in the middle), I try to get an opportunity to tell them, (and this is my quote), "The only thing that be Equal, is Poverty!". Ain't that the truth.
    1
  41. I am sure that the word "consumerism" was invented by the left, (as something bad to talk about), just like the word "Protectionism" was invented by the left just after our government shipped our production to communist nations, (as if they own production rightfully). I still don't understand their definition of consumerism and tie it with reality, so I have come up with this conclusion when ever the left is trying to explain something to us. I have a decent 130 IQ, with engineering as a background. If I can't understand what they are saying, and be able to tie it to reality,---they are most likely full of crap.
    1
  42. Sorry, correction. The Tea party actually started in the spring of 2009, just after bush and obama spent a boat load of money before our children can even earn it. The real grass roots Tea party started before obamacare, and were full of people who were not politically active, (other than voting). It was the only actual grass roots movement that I know of, and after 30 years of both parties shipping our production to communist nations, (Is capitalism and communism compatible?), I was there in Grand Rapids Michigan.
    1
  43. It was 1978 when global government's, (including the USA government), talked communist china into trying "semi private business", but free market capitalism and communism are not compatible. Walmart was already a big chain in what was left of our free market, and even boasted "Made in the USA" before the world trade organization decided to redistribute our wealth making capabilities, (production) to communistic nations. So what the USA government needed, was a retail outlet to sell all this china made junk to Americans. As our wages went down, as production was shifted by governments to communist nations, boy did those products sell. They said it was good for the American economy, to not produce things here. Business men today lack the proper philosophies that allowed them to create good business in the first place, and you can be sure government was looking for a retailer and found Walmart. That does make Walmart,----part of the state today.
    1
  44. Free market, Free market, Free market, Free market! But production is not important? The industrial revolution was not important? What ideology states that?
    1
  45. Rothbard is wrong here. It was the free market factory, (production), that got mankind out of poverty. It was 1978 when the communist globe talked china into trying "semi free market", like we have in the world today. It took about 10 years for the actually production to move in masses to communist china, but we can clearly see our decline after that. Poverty has grown in the USA in every city and every rural area by 100 plus percent. If you were old enough in the early 80's to see all the business in your area,---look now. But to get to the actual root of this redistribution of production to communist nations, understand this. The free market was not developed by governments. It was de4veloped by free individuals in a land with law that allowed them to follow their own self interests. That is individualism coupled with their ability to think and achieve. That is what created all the glory of mankind. Now if the free market is suppose to belong to each and every individual, (and it rightfully does), than how can capitalism be compatible with communism that does not recognize individual liberty at all? We are living through our decline of this perverted mixed economy,---and production was the target. Production or poverty. That is the real choice.
    1
  46. I could not listen to it all, (but got close). Mankind would not have risen from poverty without free market production. This particular argument is about a mixed economy of nations, with different ideologies, and how they can prosper with out production? (psssst--the only thing prospering in china is state control) I don't see this lecture in reality at all. I see it as a very communistic type argument.
    1
  47. It is throwing out your own property as waste. Like all private property, you need to be responsible for it. I may be out of context with the vid I did not listen to yet. But if you got rid of a junk car, and put it on my property. It is still your property that I would want removed by you, the rightful owner. Under your reasoning, if you threw something out but decided you want it back and dug into the garbage to find it, would it be considered stealing? Until somebody claims it, (like taking the junk car to a scrap yard for example), it is still your property. It is not true that abandonment of property means it is still not yours. That can only happen with a sale, or gifting. Try leaving the junk car in the middle of the road, and see if anybody knocks on your door. :)
    1
  48. May be you should study something productive that you have interest in. I don't know how a person would feel anxious by learning something that excites him/her. I got much better with studying in my college days, and test day did not even make me anxious if I knew the material. Look man, I barely graduated HS, but 15 years later, finishing up a couple of engineering degrees, (part time while working full time. no loans), in class with people who were already engineers in their company, I became the first person getting out of class on test day, still getting 90% grade or higher. Man, I can't express how cool that was. That taught me, your mind is like your body. The more you work it out, the better it gets also. A farm animal can not make the decision to keep learning things. Humans can, and it is human to think. Just learn something productive, and enjoy being human. :)
    1
  49. Privacy protects you from people who may not like you.
    1
  50. I think the Mises organization is the #1 source of information for individual liberty, with free enterprise created by the citizenry, left in the world. But the organization is missing Ayn Rand. That woman knew the difference between individual liberty vs. collectivism, and expressed it to the core of philosophy better than anybody else I have studied, or who probably ever lived,---including Murray Rothbard.
    1