@@lspocza1 "Taron is right about oxy" No he isn't. He's claiming that NO ONE has ever been unaware that oxy was addictive which isn't true becuase there were plenty of times a wide variety of things weren't public knowlege and we gain knowledge through experience it's simply the human experience otherwise he's implying humans can automatically know everything which he can't say becuase he's not a mind reader.
And for not being building code enforcement inspectors. That is basically the entire right libertarian position on everything. If you can't pay someone who is more knowledgeable than you to tend to such matters, then you're screwed. Libertarian paradise, and Objectivist paradise, are great for those who can afford it. On top of that, for libertarians and Randroids, rich people can cut costs, hoard wealth, and commit crimes because the goal of capitalism is to "look out for number one." But, if you are a laborer who is tired of getting taken advantage of, it is unethical and possibly immoral to team up with your fellow employees in an effort to bargain collectively for a bigger piece of the pie. And apparently, it's ok for the wealthiest to collectively go on strike, as in Atlas Shrugged, but not for the average worker. Paradise indeed. But whatever. Praise Bob!
@@lspocza1 Yaron's argument is that the government should stay out of the way and let patients and doctors interact without interference but also people should fact check everything their doctors suggest with Google before trusting it but also doctors are only corrupt because the fda exists, and the fda corrupts them because...... reasons. And if they were utterly unfettered the magic libertarian fairy would make them trustworthy.
Didn’t you know that you need an engineering degree and a medical degree and an electrical degree, along with whatever other degrees you chose to have for your profession, just so you can function in life? /s
He said that the building collapse itself was an act of nature. It wasn’t. It was a defective and poorly maintained design partially due to the HOA, which is a form of government that Brook could’ve used in his argument but didn’t.
@@3ormorecharacters182 yup. Just read atlas shrugged 100 times and scream bloody Mary in the mirror 50 times. It boosts your immunity more than the 6th booster. Don’t forget the ivermectin milkshake. You might also need to take experimental drugs that have the potential to turn you into one of the avengers. But just remember, utilitarianism is generally the bad guy they beat up. Off to take my meds!!
Not exactly. He would say that in his world the rational are not sacrificed to the irrational. Sacrifice is never a good idea, and yet our culture holds it in the highest regard--unfortunately.
Even with rational, intelligent people, they aren't always going to have access to enough knowledge to make the best decisions. There is an asymmetry of information between the "sellers" and the "buyers" in the marketplace that just can never be negated by even the most intelligent of people looking to purchase a product or service.
Well there would be a lot more perfectly rational, intelligent people if there weren’t so many people like Sam Seder advocating for more government control over our minds.
@@whyamimrpink78 Wait... Sam is a nobody who is trying to punch up at Brooks, but you don't know who Brooks is? Do you ever look at your posts before posting them? Honest question.
All of you toxic people need to take a look at yourselves...realize that many people think this way and that your way of thinking is not right. You're allowed to see some merit to Yaron's points, as we do with Sam's points.
Haha. Yes motard, it's the left, not the right, which is propped up by dark money! The reason the right needs dark money, is that it costs money to propagandize bad ideas.
So here in Australia, every government funded infrastructure development has been super successful and long lasting. Every conservative government we've had (including the current one) has sold off assests and allowed private companies to build roads, hospitals etc.. they've been incredible drains on the taxpayer and provided no local employment as well as being spectacular failures that take literally triple the time to complete. I hate this guest so much.
@@sampats89 Why stop at infrastructure, then? Perhaps Australia could adopt other government institutions such as barbers, farms, grocery stores, matchmakers (for those who don't want the trouble of finding their own spouse), movie studios, furniture stores, auto manufacturers, cell phone providers, and toy companies. Would this be an improvement over what you currently have?
@@Shozb0t well you see, small businesses get government subsidies and tax benefits to incentivise people to start them as it provides local employment and community strength as well as making small towns viable and because big corporations don't need that. So I mean, nice attempted burn, but like most right wing attempts at banter, it's stupid.
@@sampats89 And what if Charlie wanted to start a business with his own money, but it was taxed away to help Richard start one? The only way that government can help start a business is by destroying the chance to start others. Government has no money of its own. I should point out that I am not right wing and not libertarian. If you like you can call me capitalist. Right wing: believes in the bible above all else. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-free trade, anti-science. Libertarian: believes in the "Nonaggression Principle" but has no philosophic basis for it. Many of them are anarchists. Anarchists are worse than communists. Leftist: nihilistic, emotionalist, anti-free trade, anti-science, anti-free speech. I cherish reason above all else. Reason made possible everything we have, except gravity and air.
@Hyperion 666 When I said that I am capitalist, I meant ideologically. But I am part owner of the company I work for. I participate in the stock purchase plan. And when I retire, the company will continue to make money for me. Are you angered by that? Why? When you say that capitalists exploit workers, what do you mean exactly? By what mechanism do they do this? I know that slave owners exploited slaves--that is easy to understand. But a company which offers money in exchange for a worker's time (and the worker can quit whenever he wants)--how is that exploitation? You can prove you are not a nihilist by promoting the liberation of all people, not just the ones you happen to feel like liberating. Your idea of liberalization has no meaning because you have no idea how it is to be applied--it's just a feeling you have, without shape. My idea of liberalization is quite simple: protect the rights of all individuals so that they are free to live their lives as they see fit. When you hire a teenager to mow your lawn, do you pay as much as possible or as little as possible? "As little as possible" means whatever amount is necessary to convince the teenager that mowing your lawn is a good idea. If you pay as little as possible, then why do you not consider it ok for others to do the same when they hire employees? To determine if a business owner who sits on a large pile of money is evil, we need to know how he acquired the money. Did he use fraud in any way? Did he use force in any way? If he didn't do either of those 2 things, then he is in the clear. He earned his money by producing and selling something that people want and are willing to pay for. If he sells something that everyone in the world wants, he will become very wealthy. But we become wealthy as well. We now have his products--as well as the products of every other business that makes a profit. And the fortune he has is but a small fraction of the wealth he has brought into the world. It is his material payment. He deserves it. But he deserves more than that. He deserves honor. When you deprive businessmen of honor and treat them like criminals for the sin of creating wealth, you pave the way for the sorts of businessmen who do not seek honor or justice. You get the businessmen you deserve, just as you get the politicians you deserve. Do not expect businessmen to remain good in a world in which you punish the good and reward the corrupt. Do you think it is wrong that so many businesses receive so many subsidies and other favors from government? You made it possible. A government with the power to give you stuff has the power to take your stuff away and give it to whomever it pleases (in so many ways). Now you know. Please re-think your political and economic strategy. The source of all evil in the world is the refusal to think.
Brooks: "I am not a complete subjectivist, as many libertarians are." Libertarians: "There is literally an invisible force that establishes property rights, independent from any individual, and which has no effect in any part of physical reality outside of my demented mind."
@@JayOne718 *an angry group of raiders takes a libertarians house* "Hey you can't take that the invisible libertarian force says this piece of earth mine"
So for Libertarianism to work we just need a society where: -Every person will have perfect knowledge and expertise to make an informed choice in literally every transaction they make. -Every person harmed will have the knowledge, time, and resources to identify the source of the harm and prove that harm in court. -No company will ever form a monopoly or otherwise rig the market, courts, or political system in their favor despite having every incentive to do so. -Every company will clean up after itself environmentally and pay it's employees the true value of their work, despite having no incentive to do so. Yeah, seems so much easier to achieve than a functioning Republic where the government is accountable to the people and so hires experts to intelligently regulate business to prevent abuse.
Exceptional points. You made it perfectly clear why libertarianism is a fantasy, and a nightmarish one at that, where taken to its conclusion we end up having a bunch of private armies fighting each other to take and protect existing territory, just like the warlords fighting in Afghanistan and Somalia. In fact, a libertarian who called in to MR a few years ago LITERALLY said that people would have private armies to enforce their property "rights" (which in this case would be just enforcement by the barrel of a gun, with no government to negotiate between different parties). But IMO, property rights are just bourgeois bullshit. Personal property is totally okay, private property isn't.
I think you have a different conception of what it means when a society "works" than libertarians and conservatives. Good example of how different you can define "working" would be the "libertarian" pilot project of Chile under Pinochet: -For libertarians, it is often seen as the shining example, in fact Pinochet collaborated closely with the Chicago Boys, the prophets of right wing libertarianism and the economic upswing after his massice privatization and deregulation campaigns was the inspiration for Ronald Reagans, Margaret Thatchers and Helmut Kohls economic policies in the 1980s and the reason why neoliberalism became the dominant economic philosophy. -If you ask the left or other more humanitarian minded people, the Pinochet Regime was an utter nightmare. 10s of thousands murdered or disappeared by the government. Political opponents thrown out of Helicopters. Brutal Police repression and state surveillance of the citizens. Massive and long-term empoverishment of the lower classes. Dismantling of social safety nets. And much much more. One mans "working society" is sometimes anothers death sentence.
You left out free markets. And Sam is right: there are no free markets. In order for markets to be free, according to Hayek, the market must decide the unit of exchange. So no national currency set by the State. The absurd thing is Hayek claims that the benefit of free markets will not happen with partial state interference. It's complete freedom or most of the supposed benefits that he outlined in his theories will not work.
Even if literally everything did work in accordance with these aspirations, it would still be a hellscape, since instead of anyone being spared harm by preemptive safety measures (which would be infringements on freedom), we'd have to wait every time for the person to be harmed to then seek a remedy for the harm afterward. Instead of regulating meat, where everyone is alive and fairly happy, you'd have the spouses of dead people suing restaurants who would argue that the victim could have died from other factors. Instead of death being the worst outcome, it would be a normal part of the contractual process.
@@whyamimrpink78 If I knew nothing about COVID-19, how would I have any idea what information on the internet was true vs false? I didn't know there'd be a pandemic, so I can't familiarize myself with the years-long records of validity and expertise of every site I go to and every comment I read. Also, why would my local doctor be an expert in a novel virus that started 6000 miles away? What if the "local expert" is a conspiracy theorist or just invents facts so that people will give him money for his Miracle Cure? How would I know any better than the town expert, such that I would know not to trust him? Small towns often have a small handful of business entities that have the police, the courts and the politicians in their back pockets permanently. It's cheap and easy, especially when we intentionally give them unlimited "freedom" to do it. And they're DEFINITELY politically motivated to prop up "experts" that will lie on behalf of the businesses. Also, ummm, people work for low wages all the time, because they need to eat. People work in awful conditions because they don't have unlimited options and time and energy like you think they do. The incentive of a company is to make profit. If it does so by gaining maximum workers and customers, it will do that. If it does so by bribing whoever is enforcing the law, then cutting corners and lowering wages, it will do that. "People are incentivized to act in perfect ways" is a fine philosophy, but in the real world they don't, and it doesn't just affect those people, it has external impacts that negatively affect the people who weren't part of the contract. And in that case, it is usually almost impossible to get fair value for what has been lost, especially when it is human life.
As a Libertarian they want you to learn about everything in the world but don't trust the people who know about those things and don't trust the people who taught those people about those things just blindly go through life and if you die you die. What a wonderful philosophy
When I was hit by a car, I told my doctors over and over how afraid I was of becoming addicted to the drugs they had started administering before I was even conscious. Every doctor I spoke to told me again and again there was nothing to worry about and, in my opioid addled state, I believed them. Of course, this led to an addiction during which my brain chemistry was so changed that discussions of personal responsibility and free choice become irrational. I was saved because my family and community didn’t thumb their nose at me and lecture me on personal responsibility, they actually got me healthcare. Millions of others were not so lucky. Libertarians retreat into a purely theoretical world because it’s easier than dealing with cold reality. It comes to this, do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? Do you want to bare the cost of the drug epidemic or don’t you? Because unless listen to the addiction experts, you will end up paying that cost one way or another. You may not like it but it’s called the social contract, unfortunately by the nature of reality you don’t get to opt out.
I want to be right, and effective. I shouldn't have to bear the cost of a drug epidemic unless I created, sold, or took the drugs. If the drug addicts attack me or my family for $$$ or out of insanity, I would expect reasonable protection from the government, but until they get there, I'm prepared for self-defense. I might choose to freely live in a sober society without drug addicts, or privately fund insurance for drug addiction, but why should I be responsible for your bad decisions? The social contract is not explicit, and how we trade in that contract is an ongoing negotiation.
@@MichaelRussell3000 you don’t get both sweetheart. You leave addicts on the street, you increase the crime rate and end up bearing the extra expense anyway keeping them incarcerated. I’m gonna say it one more time, it doesn’t have anything to do with what you deserve. You are dependent on other people and they are dependent on you whether you like it or not. Grow up.
@@MsSadieb I don't have any problem with addicts, They don't steal for me. Criminals fear me, even cop criminals. I say legalize all drugs and let the addicts take their hearts delight. That way we don't have to deal with them anymore. I understand the interconnection between people and I too was once a child and needed support, as all children do. But now I am an adult and I support myself and I have the value, the individual value, of self-sufficiency, as everyone should have. These things are good. These are strong values, they encourage freedom and liberty. Those who depend on others are always disappointed. You should think about that, on the other hand if you are the one who likes to be dependent I guess you like having other people take care of you and submitting to their power. Someday I will be old and unable to take care of myself and if I haven't stored up enough wealth then I to will be dependent upon the charity of others, And until then I will advocate for enlightened rational self-interest.
I'd say Yaron was a notch above typical libertarians who are either boneheads like Rubin, or hotheads that hadn't even thought about what they're going to say and just get angry and start shouting. He also doesn't describe himself as a libertarian, which is fairly good. Libertarian is supposed to mean maximizing liberty, rather than laissez faire neoliberalism or anarcho-liberalism, which in many ways are antithetical to liberty as they don't account for corporate authority and abuse.
@@valk5045 It is true that this guest has definitely thought his position through. But the bad news is that his position is that people crushed by buildings are receiving justifiable comeuppance for not sufficiently checking the concrete integrity of the building. Basically, unless you have perfect knowledge of literally everything, it's your own fault. Which is fine as a consistent philosophy, but applies to literally nobody in the world.
@@SteveGellerMusic did he? How would he make people obey his system that he admits isn't popular and isn't desirable? Everything hedges on humanity being comprised of special humans who behave like he wants them to. At which point, you can make up any system in which you manipulate people's desires to conform to the system you're putting them into, thus giving them "freedom" by essentially making them completely magically obedient. It all about "I believe people will become... will do... etc", but who will make them transform and what if they won't want to? (which they already don't)
@@NJ-wb1cz Yes. His system is nonsense, but it's consistent. People will either behave in perfect faith and knowledge, or they'll suffer every time they fall short of something, and the strong will survive and advance over the hills of dead bodies of losers. But it's ok because people will have a vested interest in staying alive, so they'll put in the 40-times-as-much-money-and-work into eating a sandwich at a restaurant than is necessary now.
I appreciated this guy more than any other "Libertarian" who has talked to Sam thus far. But....he has a selfish and overly-simplistic worldview as do all "Libertarians"
He didn't want to accept he was wrong at all. Example: the company has money that belongs to the stockholders. He was way off base. Stockholders don't get to contract to day I get "X" ROI which he tried to put forth because that's not how the stock markets work. Because boom/bust cycles exists. Stock holders according to law take a risk(Gamble) that "X" stock will do well and earn them "Y' amount of profit. The companies money isn't the stockholders and he said that it was no less than 5 times even when given the correct answer in a simplistic way. Can't take the guy serious as he had arguments that I heard in Highschool in the 90s in Alabama, which is extremely sad.
As long as it's a hypothetical he can make up anything. He didn't even get into HOW is this system stable. WHY would it exist. WHO will enforce it's existence if the majority of people don't want to live like that. It's just a fantasy in which every person is identical to himself so the love this particular ideology over everything, and this mindset somehow persists over the generations like in a hive mind so the weak government is never changed, never overthrown, never becomes more powerful.
@7 Haunted Days well it's a good thing Sam doesn't think that way, otherwise he wouldn't be able to talk with anyone who doesn't agree with him, let alone debate
I remember this guy debating Thom Hartmann years ago about the BP oil spill and he blamed the fishermen who makes about 40k a year for not all coming together and hiring a private inspector to visit the oil rigs.... totally nuts
Libertarians seem to believe: "People who are suffering are probably choosing to suffer, and we should get out of the way and better amplify that suffering."
Because most libertarians have spent their entire lives insulated from consequences by their parents' money. Hence why most of them grow out of it when they move out on their own.
@@williamjameslehy1341 This pretty much boils down to an ad hominem. How do you not see that people from every political tribe are saying this about 'the other tribes'?
@@mouwersor because it is objectively true in this case. American style right-libertarianism is an ethically bankrupt gutter ideology that could only ever appear to make sense to someone who can only understand poverty as an abstract phenomenon, as something that happens to other, inferior people.
@@williamjameslehy1341 If I was poor I would still be libertarian. Higher taxes for people with income and an addiction to government handouts just exacerbate the problem. In systems theory this is known as 'addiction'.
Libertarianism - Look here bud, you've got a club and a cave. Whoever can swing it harder wins. Outside of the club and cave example, it gets a little foggy, but trust me.
@@loudisloud2226 everyone knows that courts are filled with magical beings that will remain totally fair even though literally the entire country they live in including the roads they used to get to the court is completely owned by the corporations that they try to order around and don't have any real power over
@PostHawk So do anarchists. What anarchists don't believe in is a hegemony or monarchy but a simple collective of democratic Governments with no one leader. Essentially take away the President and Executive Branch and the majority and minority leaders and you have something similar to anarchy
@@darrenhood4033 what if a leader appears and unifies a substantial portion of the people and rewrites laws, as they have been doing all over the globe for thousands of years?
Corporations are just people is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. In reality, it is made simply to shift blame away from wealthy corporatists.
@@rvc121 In US law and the laws of many different countries, the corporate entity is recognized as distinct from individual identity. That distinction alone refutes the argument that corporations are just people. Second an individual cannot shed an individual identity, they cannot sell their identity. Corporations can be bought and sold and have ownership transferred. Yet another argument against them being just people. Corporations have a duty to the common good. They should pay fair wages, allow for competition, and pay their fair share of taxes. Let's not treat them as constant victims of government regulation. Regulations keep them accountable.
@@braddennis5442 corrporations are legal entity owned by people. that is why the owners have the same rights of any other human beings. The rights of life,liberty and prusuit of happiness. This is why it's important to say that they are corporation of people. If Bezos have rights he don't lose them as CEO of Amazon. I don't agree with you that they owe somthing to the public good. They are free People and if they are moral they try to live long and happy life. And yes in most cases that means earn more profits. They are the victim of government who try to force them to live for other people or the public good. It's specifically horrible that it happens in the US a country that was established to protect human rights. If you don't like what they don't work for them, don't buy their products, don't invest in them. But to assume they owe you or anyone else somthing except not use force against you is immoral, un-American and simply wrong.
The internet as we know it today is literally slower and more expensive because of corporations and private entities. It's been said a million times but these people really just don't live in reality.
''It's been said a million times'' That's not really the right approach to decide if something is true. How you say it seems to imply you're just jumping on the bandwagon.
@Jeremy As in, we paid for fiber internet across the country years ago, and companies took the money and ran. They are slow to update and modernized infrastructure because that would, of course, cut into profits. We are being overcharged and under sold.
I literally couldn’t believe this comment until it came out of Yaron’s mouth. I was thinking “there’s just no way”. This is the mind of libertarian conservatism. That the individual is somehow omniscient in all government and market factors. What a joke. In no real world will libertarianism survive.
Immoral: The government inspects the plane, the airline pays a bit more money and rolls their eyes at their lack of freedom. Everyone reaches their destination safely and conveniently. Moral: The airline tells the spouses of 200 dead victims that "oh come on, they knew the risks of flying. Heck, even the guy on the ground who was killed by the crashed plane landing on him should have known to get life insurance."
@@SteveGellerMusic why would the airline say the truth? There would be no regulations against lying and no one to enforce them. They can say that a terrorist captured the plane so it's the fault of Iran.
@@NJ-wb1cz Indeed. Also, if they made enough money as a business, they'd just shrug and accept that sometimes a plane would crash, and set aside some settlement money in case they were ever forced to pay. In case somehow the widow of the person they killed found some way to prove that the plane was faulty, and the judge wasn't convinced that "ehh, accidents happen sometimes."
Slavery is the logical conclusion of Free Markets. 1.Whoever the strongest person is will monopolize the resources necessary to survive. According to Free Markets, once they declare it theirs none else has claim. 2. Once resources necessary for life are monopolized, the rest of the population will have no choice but to engage in employment to gain basic necessities. 3. Since the monopolists or Owners can choose to pay whatever they want as the choices for workers are work or die, and since the government under a Free Market cannot enforce a minimum wage or other labor rights, Owners will naturally party the least amount possible, which is the same provided to a slave, barely enough to survive on.
Exactly. The idea that slavery wasn't a result of this "free market" that libertarians get so moist over is ridiculous. You know what _didn't_ allow (or cause) slavery? "Millions of regulations," as he and many other libertarians harp on about. You know what _did_ prevent slavery after abolition? Regulations. Funny that, eh?
@@FakingANerve He argues that it's slavery to pay taxes, but his premise effectively sides with slavery, regardless if he says he's "against slavery" on principle. No better irony than that.
@@amybly1400 Yaron gave explanations, reasons and/or examples for everything he said. I encourage you to watch the video again and listen to him carefully. But when you are listening, try not to be thinking: "This guy disagrees with Sam, therefore he must be wrong about everything." Actively consider what everyone says and evaluate it based upon what you know about reality. The key is objectivity. If you have any specific points, concerns, questions regarding this content, don't hesitate to ask me.
Specifically, Sam used government bailouts for COVID drug companies, and thus the poor who would otherwise no access to healthcare, and government investment in basic academic research (from DARPA for military advantage) as 'public goods' that SAM BELIEVED would not have been invested in otherwise. I guarantee that something like the inter web would have been funded and developed by private corporations if not for government investment, and rich people would have funded pandemic vaccines and research. The government funding encouraged waste and profiteering (theft), but the trade-off was time and public access to the product of the trade. That's why Yaron Brook said IT IS NOT TRUE that there would never be an internet or vaccine.
"there's no such thing as corporations it's just people" "There's no such thing as government, it's just people" If the argument doesn't work if you flip it. It's not an argument.
Except for corporations it's shareholders because they announce their business on the stick market for everyone to own shares. You can't do that with government. We lose money each year and can't own shares in any government property.
@@elijahrivera2858 For government it's taxpayers who are the "shareholders", government property is literally called "public property" because it's owned and financed by the people. That's why you can go to a public park and nobody will kick you out for trespassing like they can on private property.
@@elijahrivera2858 Corporations are only open to the "public" if they volunteer to be. Under "objectivist" libertarianism, there's no incentive to go public, an unregulated stock market is unusable. On the other hand, you do receive "dividends" from your government in the form of services. A government's purpose is to spend it's "profits" more efficiently than an individual could, so assuming you've elected a competent government: your gains per dollar invested in government are significantly higher on the mean/median than they are with stock investments.
@@TheFreeThinkingMan but you don't create profit or have a choice to not pay on public property. At least in a Corp you can sell your shares and leave. That's the difference. It's the incentive.
@@NoChance18 well it's also because these corps can get free subsidies and special interest if they go public. You don't if your private or have a private market, because it's private profits and losses. In corporations now it's private profits and public losses. There is a major problem there. A majority of the public doesn't use government services. Cops are not ready to do chores and deliveries for your business. Thats not what happens what happens is debt and taxes for stuff a majority of people don't use. Like welfare, treasury bonds, programs that reduce competition and manufacturing. I'm total these services are more harmful to the citizens.
@@yusufalhajj9814 Imagine thinking things like the consumer protection agency are bad lol. Imagine thinking that you should be able to get fucked over even harder by corporations than we do now. Imagine thinking child labor laws are bad. Worst of all, imagine thinking the government regulates and taxes big corporations TOO much right now LOLOLOLOLOLOL. So stupid dude. You don't know anything about labor, at all, and you want to try and talk policies. Go back to the little kids table. You are all like talking to little toddlers, seriously, like toddlers.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 that’s literally the dumbest shit I’ve heard. Crony capitalists sure. They require it. Not actual capitalism which is simply the free exchange of goods and services.
So every argument is “If we had my fantastical free market, [magical thinking w/ no data]” Magical thinking: -Profit seeking businesses would spend more on low profit potential research -Higher quality infrastructure would be built, maintained, and lead greater productivity despite tolls on all non-infra businesses -Doctors would become more uncorrupted and better medical results achieved because everyone would be more personally responsible
Yeah, because some people ignore regulations or manage to get past the system, if we remove regulations they will become completely honest because everyone will become an expert at everything... And why the heck would that happen if then literally anyone who's doing anything or has any power will benefit from keeping the people as dumb as possible? How the heck would everyone find time to research everything after they lose all of their social and work protections and become completely dependent on people who have more wealth and power than they do? It's really belief in completely detached magic at the heart of the system
Finally, someone who actually gets what''s wrong. In Sam's position, I would have nipped that in the bud. Without this important challenge at the outset, everything was just about it would all work in imagined world with no evidence. So same thing to laugh at 15 times in a row. Not funny.
20:55 Yaron Brooks on the Internet "the government did very little of it" yeah apart from inventing it, creating the infrastructure for it and creating the world wide Web, apart from it existing in the first place, what did the government do. It's like watching Monty Python's sketch about the Romans.
He said the internet "wouldn't be the same as it is today without corporations"... Which is true; In the sense that it would be infinitely better without them!
I could write a paragraph talking about how the modern internet is built based on ARPANET, which was an internal communications suite used by ARPA, an arm of the Department of Defense, but it's much easier and faster to just call Yaron Brooks an idiot.
@@VMonkies But his entire argument is based on the premise that he is in-fact a very intelligent individual. Literally that is his entire augment; If you are not an intelligent person and you suffer as a result of your ignorance while being taken advantage of by someone more capable... then you deserve it... The immorality does not lie in someone abusing their authority ( as in the example with corrupt doctors over-subscribing opioids) but in the negligence expressed by the ignorance of the abused... HELLO MIDDLE-AMERICA DO YOU NOT HAVE GOOGLE?!?!?!... You ACTUALLY believed your doctor???? They were just being 'smart businessmen' what the fuck were you doing? Not reading peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about the affects of opioid use?!?! Well thats where you fucked up LOL Begging for relief from chronic pain? MORONS! Do your research!
Yaron Brook failed his attempt with Vaush and now he tries with Sam. This guy just loves humiliation, Ayn Rand objectives in general are just embarassing.
@@tankieflanker4119 ironically enough, Vaush posted a video today taking down the very same MRA douche that couldn't articulate any of his ideas here like two weeks ago. I love how all these right-wing losers just go onto different lefty channels just to get absolutely bodied over and over again by different people. These guys absolutely crave the humiliation.
I am currently working on my degree in biochemestry and my doctor of medicine degree so I can be informed on what proceedures and drugs I take. I hope that is enough to make sure I know what kind of interactions I might have. I am also working on my structural engineering, meterials engineering, civil engineering and since I live where there was a fair amount of mining, a degree in geological engineering. It really would be nice to make an educated decision on the place we live in. My wife and I want to go on vacation sometime before we die so I am working on my aerospace engineering degree so I make an informed choice on the plane I get on. Oh I guess I need to work on a pilots license so I can be sure the pilots are up to my standards. In my spare time I need to figure out what degrees I need to make informed decisions on buying a car. No reason to rely on any other entities to support me in my desire to live a healthy happy life. I can do it all myself.
Surely, unless you are going to tRump Univarsity, you'll need an advanced doctorate in Higher Education, so you can judge the quality of all those qualifications..? 😉
When they say “the definition of the state is, ‘possessing the monopoly on the legitimate use of force...’” they are not kidding. But, they rarely follow the argument to the inevitable conclusion... the State legitimizes itself by force. The government’s entire job is to contain the State. If it doesn’t do THAT job, the military industrial complex will utterly consume the government. And, a society that says, ‘might makes right’ will fall to despotism. And capitalists will HAVE to have contempt toward the work force. Because the most efficient way to increase profit is to further exploit their work force MORE than they already do. George III never got less despotic, by choice. He had to be forced to. Andrew Carnegie had to be forced by a combination a lot of labour unrest, and government regulation, to pay a liveable wage, and invest in a liveable work place. Andrew tried to take the reins of the state from the government. He failed, mostly because public pressure forced him to. If there was no mechanism to stop them, corporations will always, by necessity, institute slavery of some kind.
Exactly this. They seem to think modern democratic governments just appeared out of nowhere rather than things that had to be forced on formerly monarchical or dictatorial governments as an organ to democratically control the state.
You could dig up John D Rockefeller himself and put him in my house, and he would wonder.. why does this nobody have better food, toys, entertainment, healthcare.. than I did? Thank you capitalism
@@gabebond9452 most of the people just want living wages, healthcare, and ability to buy a house. If we think that is a utopia for the wealthiest country then we are setting the bar exceptionally low.
@@komlat253 for some, I’m sure it is. Makes it hard to take the guy seriously, though, when the only time he can make points are in the context of wild and unrealistic hypotheticals.
man i can not wrap my head around Yaron's thinking. "perverse incentives create perverse results" but also "profit motive is A-OK nothing bad ever comes of it"
If profit is a bad incentive, does that meant that loss (the opposite of profit) is a good incentive? Where would anyone be if he lost money constantly.
@@noalowenstein6741 I am talking about profits and losses. They are opposites. I assumed that if you were against profits that you must be in favor of businesses having losses instead. But I wanted to point out that the world would grind to a halt if everyone lost money in every business venture. Profits are what happens when somebody produces something of value. I urge you to reconsider your stance.
@@Shozb0t this is a ridiculous argument. No one has ever argued that businesses should be driven by the “loss-incentive” and that all firms should bankrupt themselves on purpose. What are you even saying dude.
@@grahmthrush4924 If people are against profits (feverishly so, nowadays), it stands to reason that they would approve of the opposite. If you disagree, please present a third alternative.
Libertarian thought in a nutshell: Government can't do anything right because they are obsessed with power, but private interests motivated by greed will do the right thing.
Post office loses 3 billion dollars a year like clockwork every single year. You just watched government's ineptitude of handling the pandemic. Wake up and smell the coffee and give your self a shake if you thing the government bureaucrats will do the right thing. LOL
@@capitalistnick6041 You mean the only institution public or private that is required to fund its pension 75 years in advance? And I watched an incompetent government botch the handling of a pandemic. I also saw plenty of competent governments that believed in the purpose of government do a good job of handling it.
Brook perfectly articulates the fallacy underpinning libertarianism...that we're all equal Hobbesian Sovereigns freely entering into agreements with each other...sure, if you're buying a used garden hose at a flea market, but when it comes to employment, most of us are negotiating with employers who have orders of magnitude more power and wealth than we do (in my case it's a giant tech company). What libertarians are arguing for is feudalism 2.0.
@Packster Mosk do you know anything about the conditions of 19th century (industrial) capitalism? and where do you get the idea extreme poverty has ended at all? from capitalist organizations defining it themselves I'm guessing.
@Packster Mosk You could say govt gave them this divine right or that they built the power themselves through hard work, either way.. anyone born after "all" the land was owned are in no position to tell them to fuck off if they want to eat.
Wow. As someone who has worked in academia and science research, Yaron is way, way wrong on like every point when he brings it up. Had to pause to add my two cents. 1. He claims the vast majority of research is garbage. No. Basically all research is valuable. If I research the properties of material X and realize it won't work for a project, I can still write up a paper discussing my findings. Other scientists doing future studies can use my work as a basis of what to try - maybe they have a different application for Material X that I never considered, but my work helped them realize that it would be beneficial to try Material X. If that seems bizarrely specific, it really isn't. In fact, it happens all the time. Even negative results in science are progress. Hence the adage, "we stand on the backs of giants." 2. Government funding doesn't crowd out private businesses from investing in researching. Of the 4 research projects I worked on in my graduate degree, 2 were funded by private companies. Does he not realize how many colleges and researchers we have in this country? It doesn't crowd out, it gives more opportunities for science to be done. 3. The point about the "biggest innovations in human history happened in the 19th century" is just complete ignorance of the STEM field and how it operates. Yes, there were huge advancements (relatively) at that time, because many of these fields were still in their infancy at that time. Of course when a field is newer, when fewer people have worked in it for a shorter span of time, there is a ton of room for advancement. The reasons we don't see these types of things these days is a compounding issue. First, as fields progess they become exponentially more complex, requiring more specialization and study to get new advancements. This is why in the early 1900's huge advancements in Quantum Mechanics were made by a single person, but now these things require hundreds of scientists and many years. That's just how science progresses. Even still, we do have a ton of huge breakthroughs every day. The reason they aren't as noticable to the public is partly because of the education and specialization required to truly appreciate the contributions, but also that there are so many projects in so many fields that we can almost drown each other out. Whew. God, that pissed me off. If he was this wrong in my field, I can only imagine how incorrect he is in other topics that I don't have as great a grasp on.
Yes!!!! He is completely dismissing the underlying principles of science / research, like so many others who have limited knowledge, skills of the area they are discussing. I love your comment … thank you 🙏
In a country where Fox News is the most watched cable news station, Yaron thinks average citizens are qualified as building inspectors, pharmacologists, property rights lawyers and researchers.
Libertarians like Yaron don't care what happens to people. In his belief system, the worthy manage to make decisions which aren't fatal, and if deception or capitalist exploitation is in play, it's the individual's fault for falling for it. Caveat emptor! (But good news: the invisible hand of the market will eventually weed out bad actors because inevident ideal theoretical constructs will eventually manifest if you live according to libertarian holy writ.) Capitalism relies so much on getting one over on other people, of _course_ libertarians defend the opportunity to do so! To capitalists, it's like we're all playing a competitive game: they want to win. Tl;dr fuck libertarianism.
Isn’t he an Objectivist not a libertarian? They’re basically libertarians but more selfish and less realistic on economic policy. The libertarians worship Austrian economist and 20th Century liberal European thinkers while objectivist almost exclusively worship Ayn Rand. I’ll let you decide who is the more ridiculous of the two.
@@ephraimduke Objectivists are libertarians who only argue about "ideas" in the abstract so they don't have to demonstrate anything...."it would have happened anyway" mental masturbation...like "philosophical naturalism"...it's the only way these dum dums can feel like they made a sound argument.
Libertarians' critiques of government are often quite on point. The thing is, once they turn their attention to the 'free market', they immediately lose all capacity for careful consideration and espose this childish credulity which pours from their 'it's this simple, man' type of statements.
Exactly. Hence, the allure of libertarianism...for awhile. Then you turn 19 and understand things like social contract, societal debt, monopolies, public good, standard of living, incumbent power, discrimination, etc. exist and, not only are best addressed by government, they can ONLY be addressed by government. It's so frustrating because, outside of billionaires pushing this self-serving sophistry, most libertarian types are motivated by genuine and righteous disgust of very real unjust government overreach. But instead of working to fix those things, they keep trying to clear away the table thinking that we are best served by no collective governance.
Their understanding of gov’t is likewise overly simplistic. Once you see this, it becomes clear why even their best critiques of actual public policies seldom motivate constructive efforts to improve things… If markets are defined and facilitated by the rules of the road (regulatory infrastructure), then the “free market” is a myth that only preempts a more nuanced and accurate understanding of markets. And this myth is fueled by an even more fundamental & pernicious myth: gov’t as an alien force. If gov’t is the apparatus that WE the ppl form & task with regulating activities that have social consequences, then it’s not inherently violent and purely coercive like some kind of demonic force. It’s better or worse to the extent that it serves the public interest & promotes the free & open interactions of ppl & ideas, which is necessary to further define and articulate the public interest. Gov’t as other/alien (and thus “our” oppressive enemy) is one more anti-democratic myth intended to short-circuit thinking.
Their critiques are on point because libertarian leaning/adjacent politicians and organizations work explicitly to obstruct governmental functions. It's like claiming cars with flat tires drive like shit, slash the tires. And then say "told you so". It is just a self-fullfilling prophecy for them.
After 19 you realize governments and companies are both just large groups of people agreeing to work together to accomplish certain goals. Not magically different from each other.
I used to consider myself a libertarian, but it was mainly due to Sam and Micheal Brooks that I woke up from the idealized world I was living in. On the face of it libertarianism sounds good! But when you start getting into the details of how a libertarian society would function, you realize it simply could never work. It can’t work.
@@poltronafrau Chesterton once said that ideas are dangerous but to the man who is aware of a lot of ideas they are the least dangerous. I was young and not very inquisitive. And libertarianism was the first economic view that was explained to me and on the face of it, like most ideas when presented and not challenged, it sounded good. But, when one considers the arguments against it (which I never really engaged in the beginning) you’re right it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
It only works for him because he haven't lived in a world without guardrails for greed. So he assumes they are god given or something, just like Ayn Rand assumed that capitalists are inherently fair and want a fair competition, as opposed to then being FORCED to compete fairly by the government and when they aren't forced they will screw each other and everyone around them with any means they can get
@Roberta Mohamedally I wasn't referring to renumeration. I was referring to things like conquest, which has largely been driven by greed for anothers resources and wealth, pushing advancements in technology to facilitate victory. Also the greed and vanity of many in humanity has driven the advancement of architecture, sanitation, and the arts. Greed and desire for more and more, has certainly lended a hand to the advancement of humanity.
@Roberta Mohamedally yup most human technological advances been made to make life easier for people. Like mircowave ovens, make it quicker to cook food. telephones to have easier ways to communicate long distances. Medical advances really show it.. all those make it easier to coup with illness or injuries.
@@ryan7864 for millions of years humans ran around conquering each other, murdering, pillaging, taking each others territory.... I think you are confusing cause and effect, greed did not cause technology, we had eons of greed with no tech beyond fire and stone tools. Sure greed can be utilized to develop more technology, very pragmatic use of this ingrained human instinct, I give you that, but I would argue there are other ways to advance humanity that must be implemented as well.
@LoddyRiy Libertarianism isn't anti salvation. It's just solely about freedom. You are free to save poor people from their decisions just as long as you don't force others to do the same.
every libertarian i've heard sounds like a seclusionist wannabe while reaping the benefits of a collective society and civilization, while simultaneously having views that can only be afforded to those who are close to having affluenza.
Libertarianism started growing out in the 40s and 50s, the first generation in America with robust federal social programs and welfare, and a GI Bill that made single family houses (HOUSES) cost $5000 (with inflation) and made healthcare costs close to zero. These people instead of appreciating what they got (which were policies won through very hard victories by socialist, communist, labor unionist American organizations) and continued fighting for these things and more, instead thought of themselves as people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and anyone else that fell behind was through his own folly (the poor, black people, and so on). Incredibly frustrating history
No, the "free market" was the gilded age where income inequality was worse than it is today. The victories win by unions and collectivist came after the Great Depression. Social Security alone dropped elderly poverty by 70%. Libertarians are almost completely ignorant of history.
@@JuanGonzalez-sy7cs okay so that means the other 90 percent of the population should also do it then without reprocussions. Bit of a strange take. Kind of baby brain take actually. "Well they do it why can't I?"
@@dw8395 weird straw man. The point was that statists think: “I don’t trust anyone else to run their own life, but I definitely trust a group of liars, murderers, rapists, and thieves to run everyone’s lives for them” See how silly that sounds? How about everyone be left alone and the government just focuses on protecting our rights, meaning if someone’s lies cause you physical harm they can be prosecuted.
@@JuanGonzalez-sy7cs correct I don't trust anyone to run there own life. Your far to optimistic we are stupid animals with expensive toys and overly complicated lives, very few of us actually qualify as intelligent. The rest are just along for the ride thinking they know whats going on.
So, courts are part of one of the branches of government, and they intepret laws legislated by another branch of government, and expect them to be complied with.
@@cfrey1988 it’s amazing how much people hate regulations but forget if it wasn’t for those regulations you’d be working as a blue collar coal miner at 3 years old.
Sam doesn’t even debate these clowns as much as walk them through their own ideology and not be a “yes man”. He just asks basic questions and points out obvious fallacies and contradictions. They take themselves apart because their so deep in the forests of “false premises” that they can’t see.
@@kazuoua his entire ideology of you take absolute responsibility for your decisions is completely arbitrary. He says that the people in the condo were to blame when under his logic, nothing is stopping him from blaming the incompetent inspectors and owners. If there is no rime or reason for your ideology everything becomes a contradiction since everything can be argued from a different position and still fit his deranged logic.
@@anirudhadiga4576 I said before that his remarks on the condo were done in haste as he had to leave, probably to fly somewhere since he mentioned in his channel he was going to be traveling these days. I don't wanna comment on something he hasn't talked about before on detail but I can say from my point of view, that those affected by the collapse of the building should definitely sue and/or press charges. Unless it was clearly defined in the contract that the owners waived any responsibility for a sudden collapse of the whole thing, I doubt the people living there could reasonably expect for this to be a possibility. To give a different example, if I sell you an apple, it's not reasonable for you to expect a blade to be hidden inside it. If I don't let you know in advance, you're definitely in your right to press charges or sue me.
@@kazuoua The very core of his ideology is a contradiction. He believes A: Ownership of property is dictated by "reality", not government and B: that when we disagree about "reality", government decides who owns the property. He tries to resolve this contradiction by saying that government is merely determining who is correct, but that's just a word game. If government decides who's correct, then government decides who owns the property. Government is determining what "reality" is.
I give him credit for being ideologically consistent and not shying away from the implications of his belief system like most “libertarians” do. But of course he’s being consistent in his ideology of sociopathy.
@@Shozb0t said that people should be responsible for themselves if a building collapses on them because the condo association didn't address safety concerns EDIT: Condo association
I think the more ludicrous point of his is the idea that slavery wasn't all that profitable. Lol, OK dude. Just ignore the trillions of dollars of generational wealth in this country that social scientists have traced back to slavery. (Also, the 19th century was a golden age for colonialism, so there's that too)
True haha. You may not but I had. What I'm saying is that he fits that way more than you or me. I'm not part of history either! So I admire both sides that are able to make a name for themselves and create their own legacy (while still enjoying friends, having kids, etc, just like the rest of us)
@@divusartemis2045 He's that wolf with half health in the first room of Bloodborne that wrecks you when you don't know the controls, but as soon as you come back five minutes later with a weapon you obliterate him and he never respawns.
This. Communism is untenable in the long-term, but we have applied evidence of that. Libertarianism exists in the theoretical works of Nozick, Nock, and Rand. Every four years, Libertarian Party members get to vote for someone like Johnson or Jorgenson, feeling completely safe in knowing that they have a snowball's chance of winning. Libertarian voters can then wear their contrarian political street cred without ever having to worry about their half-baked ideas being put into actual practice.
@@DanielTheSexiest They overlap with neoliberal policies, but pretend to be separate from it because those aren't "real libertarians" (even though they tend to vote for them). The op is merely acknowledging that libertarians refuse to acknowledge any example of their policies in action.
@@nathanlevesque7812 the definition of failure is trying something and the result be different from one’s intention or expectation. Refusing to try something out of fear is not failure. A failure as a stand up comedian is one who goes on stage and everytime bombs. We know he sucks because there is evidence to prove so. An insecure person who refuses to go on stage out of fear of not getting a laugh is not a failure as a comedian (since for all we know if he faced his fears the audience would love him) but just a person afraid of an outcome. Socialism is a failure and the evidence is all around us. Libertarian policies don’t fail, most people are just too scared to implement them. Perhaps their fears turn out to be correct but until implemented that is simply an assertion devoid of proof.
In the Libertarianverse: "Hey, do you want to come over to my place and play video games?" "Could you send me the blueprints and maintenance history of your building? I wouldn't want to make a mistake. I'll be there about a month after you get me that documentation, assuming you have it. I don't visit buildings without documentation."
"Oh wait, I need to check into the manufacturing processes used to make the structural members of the building, and see if the companies that made them have had any safety issues with any of the other buildings constructed from their products. Oh and I'd better look into the electricians and the wire manufacturers and...you know what? Can we just do a rain check on that?"
The libertarian paradise is a society where everyone is constantly exhausted from studying to become experts at everything while also permanently on edge that they're going to get hurt because someone tricked them into using a dangerous product. But hey at least they can drive on private roads paid for with tolls, which is freedom, instead of driving on public roads paid for with taxes, which is tyranny.
@@peenus5120 And The Free Market (profits be upon its Invisible Hand) will make the toll road cheaper than the government road because in addition to the costs of building and maintaining the road, the tolls must also fund a holy Profit for the road's owner...oh wait. But if you'd like the price to be kept down, there have to be several _competing_ toll roads going between the same two destinations. I'm sure that won't have any undesirable results in terms of sprawl, the environment, or resource use. You would also need to have competing toll streets in cities, well unless each city was a -company town- privatized residence hub owned by a single company. I'm sure it'll work just fine.
@@sebc2s That only makes sense if you were anti-hierarchy. But no. You're not anti-hierarchy. You're perfectly fine with a boss controlling his employee's lives or landowner controlling his tenants lives or a debt collector controlling indebted people's lives.
@@MishaFlower That is absolutely ridiculous and shows once again that there is a huge swath of cultist sheep that have no idea what other views are claiming. The only thing I am fine with consensual agreements.
everything yaron says in the beginning, all of the broad stroke stuff, is like "yeah, i don't see a problem with that." but, once he gets into any kind of detail with anything else, he sounds like a complete lunatic. Feels like any other time i hear a libertarian explain their beliefs
Man those children certainly got what was coming to them from their unscrupulous behaviour of living in an apartment building that wasn't being properly maintained. As Yaron said, you pay the consequences for your bad decisions. Fair is fair.
All of this arguing from nature makes me come to the conclusion that libertarians have just updated Rousseau's Noble Savage to their version, the Noble Consumer, a perfectly informed citizen of Marketplace Earth who makes all of the right choices.
@@CapnZmanExactly. It requires an idealised, unrealistic version of human behaviour. In contrast, I could come up with an idealised, unrealistic version of government behaviour too.
Now: regulations + civil lawsuits = current amount of lawyers Brook’s world: fewer regulations + civil lawsuits = fewer lawyers What is in dispute here?
Oh by the way, coercion is illegal so when the civil lawyer contacts the plastic burner to settle the cancer bills, and the plastic burner says he's too busy burning plastic to determine if he caused the cancer, that is the end of the mediation. Also, nobody has any clue that there is a link between plastic and cancer because the plastic company isn't going to fund a study that is going to incriminate themselves
Yaron: *gives insane opinion on subject as fact* Sam: "That isn't true. We've interviewed multiple experts on the subject, and they all agree the opposite is true." Yaron: *has zero knowledge of said interviews, or the experts that sam had them with* "They're all politically motivated."
First there is no record on yt of those dozen interviews, nor them claiming that such things were true. There have also been hiatorical studies from US and the British colonies documenting the lack of wealth creation from slavery. I know you are emotional, and like that wierdo want to should "triangle slave trade" but that is completely unscientific. Furthermore, Yaron could have cited the amazing progress made post-slavery, before massive government regulation.
@@aarondickson1898 dude they interviewed 5 authors/historians just this month in regards to slavery, post war reconstruction, taxation pre and post war etc. They're there.
I started to think that, the more his acknowledged government grew. 🙄 "Oh, well, my government would stop you from _enslaving_ Matt." Prison labor, much?
That was Sam's entire argument. Like the Miami building. First he strawmanned by implying Yaron said libertarianism would be a utopia (he didnt). Then he used a simple example of a building collapse WITH government regulation.
@@cfcee It's the logical inference. Libertarians claim the world would be much better without or with extremely limited goverment. That is what utopian thinking is. But it's even worse. It's strawmanning Sam to claim that Sam was focuses on the utopian claim of libertarianism, because he really wasn't.
Yes, everything that they perceive as a wrong: government. Everything that the perceive as possitive: freedom (in capitals). Also, their views are almost always really black and white and focussing on examples in a vacuum.
@@cfcee Yaron's libertarianism is Utopian in the idea that if you just fixed this one thing by dismantling 99% of government that it would magically solve a bunch of problems without any clear logic to describe how. His vision of free market capitalism is extremely Utopian, he believes that the hand of the market will basically erase the human tendency to exploit others, somehow. That people who exploit others will be punished more under his system than our current one. That the free market will stop people from ripping other people off, somehow. The idea that the people who will end up with all the money (and therefore all of the power since there is no government) under Libertarianism will be the ones who provide the most benefit and standard of living to other people is ridiculous. Capital accrues in the hands of sociopaths who are most willing to externalize the costs of their economic activity on to others without laws and courts to regulate those externalizations, and yes even in spite of them without vigilance.
It is funny ... he speaks about the government being just some alien outside of society that comes in.. when the government its self are made up of people... lol
That's because one of the four pillars of Objectivism (which he promotes) is corporate capitalism, which is clearly a form of collectivism (which he decries). That's why the libertarians have to deny corporations don't really exist (as what they really are) they are just people. Right...just people who hide within the legal safety and anonymity of corporate structures to avoid responsibility for their behaving like sociopaths.
Sam: *points out a problem happening in the real world* This guy: “But Sam in the alternate reality that only I can see, bad things don’t happen. But if they ever did then my principle moral stance is it sucks to be you.”
Yep, I imagine all of his counterarguments ending with a big shrug and an 'OH WELL!'. It's all the government's fault except in his magical happy place where people are unreasonably responsible and anything that goes wrong is 'woops, mistakes happen.'
People in excruciating pain, when presented with an option to relieve that pain, if there’s a possibility for harm down the road will very often choose immediate relief. Pain is not a conducive state for rational thought let alone extensive research to exist.
Additionally, when they need to work to feed their kids, if doctors play down the consequences, you make the decision that will prevent homelessness. Which is reasonable.
reason is a slave of the passions anyway, even under the best of circumstances. to deify reason in the way modern leftists do is to deify a faculty whose only real purpose is to rationalize what one already wants
Yup. That was Ayn Rand’s whole schtick. The “greed is good” mentality appeals to a certain type of person who is very simplistic in their thinking and has the luxury of blithely hand-waving away reality in favor of a weird, selfish “utopia” that could never exist, and if it did, would be a grinding dystopia for all but a privileged few. That said, modern day America is a little too close to this kind of world for comfort as far as I’m concerned.
Libertarians: You only need the equivalent of seven advanced degrees in order to make informed decisions about the most high stakes things in your life. Sam: How much does education cost in your system? Libertarians: 100,000 btc. per semester because the government doesn't belong in education. Sam: Ok.
First of all, you don’t need 7 degrees to make good life choices, and believe me the government never gave you any. Second, education would be a lot cheaper without government intervention.
@@jolanjakers8380 Free market lowers costs exponentially, they left the internet alone and look what we got for free. Education would be free or nearly free under a laissez faire market. It would also be much better. How?
4:58 "...and everybody should pay exactly the same [taxes]." This sounds like Thatcher's poll tax which infamously meant that "a duke would pay the same as a dustman" - it was Thatcher's downfall.😄👍
"What I'm talking about is under freedom..." The problem with debating these guys is semantics. They like to redefine terms, make up concepts and ultimately have rules to keep whats theirs. Yet have no rules. They're position is unexplainable. Just imagine how bogged down the courts would be because there are no clear regulations. It is nice to see a civil discussion though.
@Odorless Kingsford I have yet to see one explain how would that begin or persist. In real human terms. How would a government become libertarian while also remaining at least a democracy, let alone anarchy. Libertarians propose to make life of citizens massively worse, at which point they will take matters in their own hands. Well guess what - they will take matters in their own hands at the slightest attempt to take shit from them by voting the morons who are doing this out of the government!
Exactly and he acts as if anybody has the time and money to file a lawsuit. Personally I was cheated by an employer, wage theft. I didn’t find out they were breaking the rules until later. But I don’t have money to hire a lawyer and I don’t have the time to spend months, maybe years in court with a decent chance they rule against me. This means most people are vulnerable to exploitation. They rarely have the means to do anything about it. This is why we need to government not to respond to exploitation but to prevent it from happening at all, at least to the best of their ability.
That's actually wrong. Regulations make things confusing and bog down the courts. It makes it extremely hard for regular people to understand the laws and for courts to apply it consistently. Regulations are often vague by design so that government has more discretion on how to apply them and to whom. Those who have the means to hire lobbyists and good lawyers can use regulations to their advantage. You guys are completely wrong on this one.
@Odorless Kingsford and Yaron couldn't agree more with you on this one. He rejects anarcho-capitalism. For objectivists, government is a necessary GOOD. Free markets cannot exist without government or rules. Yaron never argues for the dismantling of government, he argues for the separation of government and the economy in a similar way that some countries separate it from religion.
@@kazuoua so we loosen regulations and allow buildings to collapse so that we don’t bog down the courts with people suing for injustices done against them?
And he keep talking about "19th century", but I'm very sure a lot of things that the listed about that century actually happened in the centuries before!
@@YorickReturns That position is bs. While you are entitled to your opinion, the actions of our predecessors and ancestors can be either a benefit or a disadvantage to us today. The antecedents and descendants of predominantly white Europeans are still benefitting from the near 250 year long slave trade not to mention the stolen lands in the Western Hemisphere
@@stevenleonard7219 How does benefit equal responsibility? And why are you so sure that slavery does benefit the descendants of slave-owners or even benefited the slave-owners themselves? Serious question. I used to assume the same. So I'm not knocking you.
@@YorickReturns In their mind everything will do only affect yourself, like there are no effects on others and society. This talk about "personal responsibility" us used as an excuse for them to escape responsibility in their fantasy world. That example of the Florida building, it's like saying if I kill someone the only consequence is that I can be called a murder and to bad for the dead person because it's his fault for failing the responsibility from protecting himself from me.
Sam doesn’t believe objective reality exists. He believes in a subjective and arbitrary “reality.” That’s why he can only assert the way things “are” because he isn’t certain of the objective realities like Yaron is. You’ll need proper context in order to understand what Yaron means by reality, he is an Objectivist, not a Libertarian.
@@bradbecker8982 Exactly! Sam can't see the real world, because he's focusing on things that happen on the real world. On the other hand, Yaron is free to perceive the real world as it is, through the power of speculation and thought experiments. All this subjectivity of looking at material conditions, historical precedent, and analysis of the interplay of power and incentives is bringing Sam to total blindness. I wish he could be more like Yaron, and free his mind from the weight of having to deal with petty facts. Yaron can perceive beyond concrete things, into the objective, totally real reality.
@LoddyRiy “objective” refers to the facts related to the measurable objects and related entities in existence. Often times when someone asserts something as “true” they neglect to include, consciously or not, whether they mean subjectively, intrinsically, or objectively “true.” Values come from the facts of reality. A subjective assertion is one detached from objects in existence. An intrinsic assertion is also a subjective assertion against reality, but intrincisists do not see it that way, they think values and facts are intrinsic yet evade the fact that to a Christian, Islam is subjective, and vice versa. All a bunch of claims that are so far subjective and will probably never prove to be objectively true. Subjective and “intrinsic” claims are all vices, not values. Sam is full of vices and he wants to use government force to implement them onto you and all of us. Yaron thinks that’s evil, rightfully so. Seder likes to make a lot of claims but the only true claims are the ones tied to objective reality, which Yaron was on to discuss about.
@@frechjo I can’t tell if you believe what you’re saying or if that’s sarcasm. What I can tell is that you have never read the objectivist metaphysics.
Oh that's rich. The "I don't believe in force" argument. Libertarianism depends on the acceptance of property rights. Property as a concept depends on the use of coercion and force to deny what are otherwise freely available resources from other people. Without that coercion, everyone can forage from the bushes they find, hunt and fish for the animals they eat, travel wherever they want unimpeded, take shelter under any tree or in any cave they want, make tools and clothing and other useful things from whatever resources they find, etc. You don't get to ownership and property until someone decides to attack or kill other people for using what is otherwise a natural resource that anyone can use. The concept of property rights doesn't even make sense unless a society is large enough that it requires a more complex means of distributing resources than simple hunter-gatherers can provide.
Private property as we know it are just land reforms imposed by the state, or in the case of America, mass murder by the government. I can think of one country that made land reforms optional and that was Czarist Russia and it wasn't that popular. See the Stolypin reforms.
Libertarian: corporate corruption of gov't is the issue Everyone else: yeah totally Also Libertarian: if we just give the corruptors the power everything will be fine Everyone else: wait...what?
I think you got this backwards Yaron is arguing against GOV intervention. Didn’t hear any concern about corporations. He has like a 6 hour class on the corporations and defends their form usually
@@Businessblend Thank you for pointing out another totally reasonable libertarian belief that it's not corporate interests corrupting the government, but government intervention that perverts corporate interests towards pure profit and away from their true philanthropic purpose. I'm sure his class needed to be 6 hours in order to safely perform such a mind-bending feat of mental gymnastics.
@@dinksunker sure corporations lobby the government and that’s called Cronyism. It’s bad. But it’s bad that government even has the power to do favors for these corporations in the first place. Take away the gov power in the economy and business wouldn’t lobby. Businesses don’t have an obligation to be philanthropic. They have an obligation to make money.
You have the wrong understanding of power and corruption. Power means *forcing* people to act or think against their will, for example, kidnapping them, imprisoning them or torturing them. In a capitalist society, no corporation has this ability. They can offer you something so attractive and cheap you'd find it hard to resist but you still have the choice. You can still say no or pick something different. They can also refuse to serve you but that is not power. Power would be for you to force them to serve you. In a capitalist society, only government has actual power and corruption comes from people attempting to direct this power to advance their agendas but government should obey no particular interest, not even if that happens to be one shared by a majority. Government should procure justice in the sense that everyone receives what they deserve. And you deserve what you worked for.
@@Businessblend But, corporations make no money without the consumer for which they have no obligation to be philanthropic. If consumers say they are tired of corporations only caring about their shareholders and boycotted their brand, you would see such a turnaround in their outlook regarding the bottom line and shareholder only matters view would go out the window. Corporations only exist because of consumers, not shareholders.
Dude acts like there is no cost component of profit. “There are bridges to nowhere!” “The government funds research that will never get used!” So what? You can’t find a needle in a haystack if you don’t take a pitchfork to the whole bale. His arguments are all “No you don’t want the hay. You want the needle.”
Enjoy the right to profit without paying for the right. A corporation will never get drafted, serve in jury duty, will never be expected to help the country in any positive manner. How corporations uses the roads that citizens pay for. They want the right to benefit from the country to have the right to profit and doesn't want government to interfere with the profits they are allowed to make only because they got freedom from the same government they don't want to inferring.
Those bridges to nowhere are often in Alaska and they connect small villages/towns to the bigger cities for supplies, and not to mention oil fields. So his view that there shouldn't be bridges in remote locations because reasons, even though those people need supplies...
He clearly doesn't understand science. In science, even research that doesn't provide hypothesized results is still helpful and useful information that researchers can build on. Science illiteracy is a fkn epidemic in this country.
"Everyone knows that opioids are addictive" "anyone can do a quick google search" Implying that actually NOT everyone knows lol. Then he says that if you use your brain, you can separate the lies from the truth. Also LOL at that statement...
Also the fact that the doctors and sales people pushing OxyContin are trying to do "you harm" for a profit. This fits in his belief of what government is there to do. "the role of government is to protect rights, to protect individual rights. It's to leave you alone to make choices based on your values. Based on your pursuits. Based on your choices. To leave you alone to do all that and to protect you from other people who want to do you harm" (Yaron at 2:40)
People do harm to themselves all the time with their own choices. Opiods is no different, as long as it's the individuals choice to take the drug. If drugs were legalized the crime surrounding them would plummet. People nowadays don't trust an individuals brain because we're not taught to think. We're taught to think with our hearts and sacrifice for one another which only leaves us shackled to our weakest. Individuals being left alone and allowed to thrive makes the world better for everyone. Government is full of people who have no ability and desperately try and regulate those with ability into the ground. It has to do with control and thinking with your feelings leaves you open to being manipulated and exploited for others gain. Everyone should just mind their own business.
@@johngleue “everyone should just mind their own business”. but how’s that supposed to work when we are inherently reliant upon each other for survival?
This Libertarian who claims not to be a real Libertarian within 2 minutes of this debate has inhaled too much burning plastic to make his brain this damage
Yeah, I mean at first I was "well, if slavery wasn't capitalism, then let's redistribute the wealth it created; pay off the descendants of black slaves, compensate colonies of European countries, give everybody the right to their natural ressources, etc. and then let's have free market capitalism". Then he even denied that and I was like "okay, whatever".
It did not create wealth overall, but was hugely destructive. To believe otherwise you must believe that those black slaves were more productive as chattel than as they would have been as free men allowed to use their minds. Yours is a very old, very misguided and destructive belief.
Libertarians are the kind of people who would rather personally check every aspect of the food supply chain and sign a personal contract with McDonalds guaranteeing the safety of their food every time they buy a cheese burger, rather than have any regulations that ensure that it is safe.
The building analogy ruined him...he started getting heated and said he had to run because the people who paid for the property owner's "mistakes" were 150 or so dead people and their families who didn't in any way just say to themselves "I think I'll go live in an unstable building and take that risk knowingly".
You are incapable of understanding nuance. He said they accepted some risk by living there. EVEN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. He's not villifying them, simply not allowing that idiot to conflate government regulation to complete risk mitigation, and the disappearance of personal responsibility
@@cfcee Womp womp, reality proved Sam right, a building in Florida collapsed and 54 people are dead and counting. We need government intervention and regulation.
To be fair, he did talk for 45 minutes and probably did really have to go. It doesn't seem like he was ashamed of his answers one bit--he didn't appear to want to leave the debate over them--he's a true believer in them.
Slavery wasn't the only reason why wealth in the 19th century went up. The dislocation and murder of natives, and also the MASSIVE handout to rail companies to help settle that stolen land.
He really blamed the people who died in the collapsed building for not knowing the building would collapse.
@@lspocza1 "Taron is right about oxy"
No he isn't. He's claiming that NO ONE has ever been unaware that oxy was addictive which isn't true becuase there were plenty of times a wide variety of things weren't public knowlege and we gain knowledge through experience it's simply the human experience otherwise he's implying humans can automatically know everything which he can't say becuase he's not a mind reader.
And for not being building code enforcement inspectors. That is basically the entire right libertarian position on everything. If you can't pay someone who is more knowledgeable than you to tend to such matters, then you're screwed. Libertarian paradise, and Objectivist paradise, are great for those who can afford it. On top of that, for libertarians and Randroids, rich people can cut costs, hoard wealth, and commit crimes because the goal of capitalism is to "look out for number one." But, if you are a laborer who is tired of getting taken advantage of, it is unethical and possibly immoral to team up with your fellow employees in an effort to bargain collectively for a bigger piece of the pie. And apparently, it's ok for the wealthiest to collectively go on strike, as in Atlas Shrugged, but not for the average worker. Paradise indeed. But whatever. Praise Bob!
@@lspocza1 Yaron's argument is that the government should stay out of the way and let patients and doctors interact without interference but also people should fact check everything their doctors suggest with Google before trusting it but also doctors are only corrupt because the fda exists, and the fda corrupts them because...... reasons. And if they were utterly unfettered the magic libertarian fairy would make them trustworthy.
Didn’t you know that you need an engineering degree and a medical degree and an electrical degree, along with whatever other degrees you chose to have for your profession, just so you can function in life? /s
He said that the building collapse itself was an act of nature. It wasn’t. It was a defective and poorly maintained design partially due to the HOA, which is a form of government that Brook could’ve used in his argument but didn’t.
I see Sam debating a Libertarian and it's an instant click to watch lol
Same
@John Player you joined TH-cam one day ago. You ever consider not trolling and instead working on fixing your life?
Agreed. But he didn't win this one. It was a tie until his obnoxious wrap-up at the end.
I remember watching ur videos when i was like 13 lol throwback
Sam got killed
"If someone were to try to take advantage of me, I would simply not fall for it."
I didnt know the “everything proof Shield” argument worked outside of elementary school playgrounds
Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?
"I'm built different bruh." Just more elegant.
@@3ormorecharacters182 yup. Just read atlas shrugged 100 times and scream bloody Mary in the mirror 50 times. It boosts your immunity more than the 6th booster. Don’t forget the ivermectin milkshake.
You might also need to take experimental drugs that have the potential to turn you into one of the avengers. But just remember, utilitarianism is generally the bad guy they beat up.
Off to take my meds!!
Because government doesn't do that already
This guy lives in a fantasy world where everyone is perfectly rational, intelligent, and has the best interests for everyone in mind. Pure fantasy.
Not exactly. He would say that in his world the rational are not sacrificed to the irrational. Sacrifice is never a good idea, and yet our culture holds it in the highest regard--unfortunately.
You not only don’t understand his position but you also have the vile position of philosopher king, disgusting.
Even with rational, intelligent people, they aren't always going to have access to enough knowledge to make the best decisions. There is an asymmetry of information between the "sellers" and the "buyers" in the marketplace that just can never be negated by even the most intelligent of people looking to purchase a product or service.
Free market only works if there is no disparity of information. It's caveat emptor writ large.
Well there would be a lot more perfectly rational, intelligent people if there weren’t so many people like Sam Seder advocating for more government control over our minds.
It’s funny cuz brook’s fans were acting like Sam would be scared after brook issued the challenge lol. Sam isn’t a coward like crowder.
He has fans?
@@doctorthirteen5727 I was about to ask the exact same thing lol
@@dylanbutts1628 "Brooks's fans"
Yaron brooks is a top tier libertarian, but that's still not good and still makes no sense.
@@whyamimrpink78 Wait... Sam is a nobody who is trying to punch up at Brooks, but you don't know who Brooks is?
Do you ever look at your posts before posting them? Honest question.
And this is what the grifters on the right are afraid of. An actual exchange of ideas, not shouting over someone and saying you have more followers.
It's actually what we're craving. I'm 20 minutes in and haven't disagreed with the guest yet.
@jordy drop So you think people in collapsed buildings are to blame for what happens to them?
@@dominoep of course, because it didn't happen to him. And if it didn't happen to him, whoever it happened to must have deserved it.
@@jordydrop yikes
All of you toxic people need to take a look at yourselves...realize that many people think this way and that your way of thinking is not right. You're allowed to see some merit to Yaron's points, as we do with Sam's points.
I wish right wingers could feel embarrassment. It would save the rest of us a lot of trouble.
Honestly lol
@@aarondickson1898 lolwut?
@@aarondickson1898 the more you copy paste this the smarter you look
Haha. Yes motard, it's the left, not the right, which is propped up by dark money!
The reason the right needs dark money, is that it costs money to propagandize bad ideas.
@@aarondickson1898 cope
“I don’t think government should build infrastructure, i don’t think that’s been beneficial historically” LMAOOO 💀
So here in Australia, every government funded infrastructure development has been super successful and long lasting. Every conservative government we've had (including the current one) has sold off assests and allowed private companies to build roads, hospitals etc.. they've been incredible drains on the taxpayer and provided no local employment as well as being spectacular failures that take literally triple the time to complete. I hate this guest so much.
@@sampats89
Why stop at infrastructure, then? Perhaps Australia could adopt other government institutions such as barbers, farms, grocery stores, matchmakers (for those who don't want the trouble of finding their own spouse), movie studios, furniture stores, auto manufacturers, cell phone providers, and toy companies. Would this be an improvement over what you currently have?
@@Shozb0t well you see, small businesses get government subsidies and tax benefits to incentivise people to start them as it provides local employment and community strength as well as making small towns viable and because big corporations don't need that. So I mean, nice attempted burn, but like most right wing attempts at banter, it's stupid.
@@sampats89
And what if Charlie wanted to start a business with his own money, but it was taxed away to help Richard start one? The only way that government can help start a business is by destroying the chance to start others. Government has no money of its own.
I should point out that I am not right wing and not libertarian. If you like you can call me capitalist.
Right wing: believes in the bible above all else. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-free trade, anti-science.
Libertarian: believes in the "Nonaggression Principle" but has no philosophic basis for it. Many of them are anarchists. Anarchists are worse than communists.
Leftist: nihilistic, emotionalist, anti-free trade, anti-science, anti-free speech.
I cherish reason above all else. Reason made possible everything we have, except gravity and air.
@Hyperion 666
When I said that I am capitalist, I meant ideologically. But I am part owner of the company I work for. I participate in the stock purchase plan. And when I retire, the company will continue to make money for me. Are you angered by that? Why?
When you say that capitalists exploit workers, what do you mean exactly? By what mechanism do they do this? I know that slave owners exploited slaves--that is easy to understand. But a company which offers money in exchange for a worker's time (and the worker can quit whenever he wants)--how is that exploitation?
You can prove you are not a nihilist by promoting the liberation of all people, not just the ones you happen to feel like liberating. Your idea of liberalization has no meaning because you have no idea how it is to be applied--it's just a feeling you have, without shape. My idea of liberalization is quite simple: protect the rights of all individuals so that they are free to live their lives as they see fit.
When you hire a teenager to mow your lawn, do you pay as much as possible or as little as possible? "As little as possible" means whatever amount is necessary to convince the teenager that mowing your lawn is a good idea. If you pay as little as possible, then why do you not consider it ok for others to do the same when they hire employees?
To determine if a business owner who sits on a large pile of money is evil, we need to know how he acquired the money. Did he use fraud in any way? Did he use force in any way? If he didn't do either of those 2 things, then he is in the clear. He earned his money by producing and selling something that people want and are willing to pay for. If he sells something that everyone in the world wants, he will become very wealthy. But we become wealthy as well. We now have his products--as well as the products of every other business that makes a profit. And the fortune he has is but a small fraction of the wealth he has brought into the world. It is his material payment. He deserves it. But he deserves more than that. He deserves honor. When you deprive businessmen of honor and treat them like criminals for the sin of creating wealth, you pave the way for the sorts of businessmen who do not seek honor or justice. You get the businessmen you deserve, just as you get the politicians you deserve. Do not expect businessmen to remain good in a world in which you punish the good and reward the corrupt. Do you think it is wrong that so many businesses receive so many subsidies and other favors from government? You made it possible. A government with the power to give you stuff has the power to take your stuff away and give it to whomever it pleases (in so many ways). Now you know. Please re-think your political and economic strategy. The source of all evil in the world is the refusal to think.
Brooks: "I am not a complete subjectivist, as many libertarians are."
Libertarians: "There is literally an invisible force that establishes property rights, independent from any individual, and which has no effect in any part of physical reality outside of my demented mind."
What I'm reading is he thinks he's a Jedi.
@@doctorthirteen5727"Hey man that's my house! You can't steal that!"
"This isn't the house you're looking for..."
@@JayOne718 *an angry group of raiders takes a libertarians house*
"Hey you can't take that the invisible libertarian force says this piece of earth mine"
@@jayhollows5729 They're really like hyper hippies.
@@JayOne718 they are hippies with polo shirts, dumb tennis ball pseudo fursonas and guns
So for Libertarianism to work we just need a society where:
-Every person will have perfect knowledge and expertise to make an informed choice in literally every transaction they make.
-Every person harmed will have the knowledge, time, and resources to identify the source of the harm and prove that harm in court.
-No company will ever form a monopoly or otherwise rig the market, courts, or political system in their favor despite having every incentive to do so.
-Every company will clean up after itself environmentally and pay it's employees the true value of their work, despite having no incentive to do so.
Yeah, seems so much easier to achieve than a functioning Republic where the government is accountable to the people and so hires experts to intelligently regulate business to prevent abuse.
Exceptional points. You made it perfectly clear why libertarianism is a fantasy, and a nightmarish one at that, where taken to its conclusion we end up having a bunch of private armies fighting each other to take and protect existing territory, just like the warlords fighting in Afghanistan and Somalia. In fact, a libertarian who called in to MR a few years ago LITERALLY said that people would have private armies to enforce their property "rights" (which in this case would be just enforcement by the barrel of a gun, with no government to negotiate between different parties). But IMO, property rights are just bourgeois bullshit. Personal property is totally okay, private property isn't.
I think you have a different conception of what it means when a society "works" than libertarians and conservatives.
Good example of how different you can define "working" would be the "libertarian" pilot project of Chile under Pinochet:
-For libertarians, it is often seen as the shining example, in fact Pinochet collaborated closely with the Chicago Boys, the prophets of right wing libertarianism and the economic upswing after his massice privatization and deregulation campaigns was the inspiration for Ronald Reagans, Margaret Thatchers and Helmut Kohls economic policies in the 1980s and the reason why neoliberalism became the dominant economic philosophy.
-If you ask the left or other more humanitarian minded people, the Pinochet Regime was an utter nightmare. 10s of thousands murdered or disappeared by the government. Political opponents thrown out of Helicopters. Brutal Police repression and state surveillance of the citizens. Massive and long-term empoverishment of the lower classes. Dismantling of social safety nets. And much much more.
One mans "working society" is sometimes anothers death sentence.
You left out free markets. And Sam is right: there are no free markets. In order for markets to be free, according to Hayek, the market must decide the unit of exchange. So no national currency set by the State.
The absurd thing is Hayek claims that the benefit of free markets will not happen with partial state interference. It's complete freedom or most of the supposed benefits that he outlined in his theories will not work.
Even if literally everything did work in accordance with these aspirations, it would still be a hellscape, since instead of anyone being spared harm by preemptive safety measures (which would be infringements on freedom), we'd have to wait every time for the person to be harmed to then seek a remedy for the harm afterward.
Instead of regulating meat, where everyone is alive and fairly happy, you'd have the spouses of dead people suing restaurants who would argue that the victim could have died from other factors. Instead of death being the worst outcome, it would be a normal part of the contractual process.
@@whyamimrpink78 If I knew nothing about COVID-19, how would I have any idea what information on the internet was true vs false? I didn't know there'd be a pandemic, so I can't familiarize myself with the years-long records of validity and expertise of every site I go to and every comment I read. Also, why would my local doctor be an expert in a novel virus that started 6000 miles away? What if the "local expert" is a conspiracy theorist or just invents facts so that people will give him money for his Miracle Cure? How would I know any better than the town expert, such that I would know not to trust him?
Small towns often have a small handful of business entities that have the police, the courts and the politicians in their back pockets permanently. It's cheap and easy, especially when we intentionally give them unlimited "freedom" to do it. And they're DEFINITELY politically motivated to prop up "experts" that will lie on behalf of the businesses.
Also, ummm, people work for low wages all the time, because they need to eat. People work in awful conditions because they don't have unlimited options and time and energy like you think they do. The incentive of a company is to make profit. If it does so by gaining maximum workers and customers, it will do that. If it does so by bribing whoever is enforcing the law, then cutting corners and lowering wages, it will do that. "People are incentivized to act in perfect ways" is a fine philosophy, but in the real world they don't, and it doesn't just affect those people, it has external impacts that negatively affect the people who weren't part of the contract. And in that case, it is usually almost impossible to get fair value for what has been lost, especially when it is human life.
As a Libertarian they want you to learn about everything in the world but don't trust the people who know about those things and don't trust the people who taught those people about those things just blindly go through life and if you die you die.
What a wonderful philosophy
What?
Libertarians lose when you prove that if you have no Government, people will group together and form power structures anyway, call it something else.
@@perryjohnson6461 that's exactly it
L😅😊😊😊
When I was hit by a car, I told my doctors over and over how afraid I was of becoming addicted to the drugs they had started administering before I was even conscious. Every doctor I spoke to told me again and again there was nothing to worry about and, in my opioid addled state, I believed them. Of course, this led to an addiction during which my brain chemistry was so changed that discussions of personal responsibility and free choice become irrational. I was saved because my family and community didn’t thumb their nose at me and lecture me on personal responsibility, they actually got me healthcare. Millions of others were not so lucky. Libertarians retreat into a purely theoretical world because it’s easier than dealing with cold reality. It comes to this, do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? Do you want to bare the cost of the drug epidemic or don’t you? Because unless listen to the addiction experts, you will end up paying that cost one way or another. You may not like it but it’s called the social contract, unfortunately by the nature of reality you don’t get to opt out.
This is a horseshit excuse. You are the only one in control of your behavior.
I want to be right, and effective. I shouldn't have to bear the cost of a drug epidemic unless I created, sold, or took the drugs. If the drug addicts attack me or my family for $$$ or out of insanity, I would expect reasonable protection from the government, but until they get there, I'm prepared for self-defense. I might choose to freely live in a sober society without drug addicts, or privately fund insurance for drug addiction, but why should I be responsible for your bad decisions? The social contract is not explicit, and how we trade in that contract is an ongoing negotiation.
@@MichaelRussell3000 where exactly in the story did I make a bad decision?
@@MichaelRussell3000 you don’t get both sweetheart. You leave addicts on the street, you increase the crime rate and end up bearing the extra expense anyway keeping them incarcerated. I’m gonna say it one more time, it doesn’t have anything to do with what you deserve. You are dependent on other people and they are dependent on you whether you like it or not. Grow up.
@@MsSadieb I don't have any problem with addicts, They don't steal for me. Criminals fear me, even cop criminals. I say legalize all drugs and let the addicts take their hearts delight. That way we don't have to deal with them anymore. I understand the interconnection between people and I too was once a child and needed support, as all children do. But now I am an adult and I support myself and I have the value, the individual value, of self-sufficiency, as everyone should have. These things are good. These are strong values, they encourage freedom and liberty. Those who depend on others are always disappointed. You should think about that, on the other hand if you are the one who likes to be dependent I guess you like having other people take care of you and submitting to their power. Someday I will be old and unable to take care of myself and if I haven't stored up enough wealth then I to will be dependent upon the charity of others, And until then I will advocate for enlightened rational self-interest.
A typical “libertarian.”
The more you talk to them, the more layers of government they keep adding to their argument.
I'd say Yaron was a notch above typical libertarians who are either boneheads like Rubin, or hotheads that hadn't even thought about what they're going to say and just get angry and start shouting. He also doesn't describe himself as a libertarian, which is fairly good. Libertarian is supposed to mean maximizing liberty, rather than laissez faire neoliberalism or anarcho-liberalism, which in many ways are antithetical to liberty as they don't account for corporate authority and abuse.
Yes, almost as if they haven't thought their position through. Almost.
@@valk5045 It is true that this guest has definitely thought his position through. But the bad news is that his position is that people crushed by buildings are receiving justifiable comeuppance for not sufficiently checking the concrete integrity of the building. Basically, unless you have perfect knowledge of literally everything, it's your own fault. Which is fine as a consistent philosophy, but applies to literally nobody in the world.
@@SteveGellerMusic did he? How would he make people obey his system that he admits isn't popular and isn't desirable? Everything hedges on humanity being comprised of special humans who behave like he wants them to. At which point, you can make up any system in which you manipulate people's desires to conform to the system you're putting them into, thus giving them "freedom" by essentially making them completely magically obedient. It all about "I believe people will become... will do... etc", but who will make them transform and what if they won't want to? (which they already don't)
@@NJ-wb1cz Yes. His system is nonsense, but it's consistent. People will either behave in perfect faith and knowledge, or they'll suffer every time they fall short of something, and the strong will survive and advance over the hills of dead bodies of losers. But it's ok because people will have a vested interest in staying alive, so they'll put in the 40-times-as-much-money-and-work into eating a sandwich at a restaurant than is necessary now.
I appreciated this guy more than any other "Libertarian" who has talked to Sam thus far.
But....he has a selfish and overly-simplistic worldview as do all "Libertarians"
It’s actually pleasant to hear two principled actors politely debating and discussing ideas.
He didn't want to accept he was wrong at all.
Example: the company has money that belongs to the stockholders.
He was way off base.
Stockholders don't get to contract to day I get "X" ROI which he tried to put forth because that's not how the stock markets work.
Because boom/bust cycles exists.
Stock holders according to law take a risk(Gamble) that "X" stock will do well and earn them "Y' amount of profit.
The companies money isn't the stockholders and he said that it was no less than 5 times even when given the correct answer in a simplistic way.
Can't take the guy serious as he had arguments that I heard in Highschool in the 90s in Alabama, which is extremely sad.
As long as it's a hypothetical he can make up anything. He didn't even get into HOW is this system stable. WHY would it exist. WHO will enforce it's existence if the majority of people don't want to live like that. It's just a fantasy in which every person is identical to himself so the love this particular ideology over everything, and this mindset somehow persists over the generations like in a hive mind so the weak government is never changed, never overthrown, never becomes more powerful.
@7 Haunted Days well it's a good thing Sam doesn't think that way, otherwise he wouldn't be able to talk with anyone who doesn't agree with him, let alone debate
Yep! the problem with Libertarianism is that it's too consistently, inconsistent
I remember this guy debating Thom Hartmann years ago about the BP oil spill and he blamed the fishermen who makes about 40k a year for not all coming together and hiring a private inspector to visit the oil rigs.... totally nuts
Libertarianism is great...if you're a renaissance man/woman with boundless stamina. Doctor, attorney, civil engineer, soldier, et cetera, all-in-one!
Shell will probably shoot the private inspector honestly, it’s cheaper
Libertarians seem to believe: "People who are suffering are probably choosing to suffer, and we should get out of the way and better amplify that suffering."
Who claims we need to amplify the suffering..?
Because most libertarians have spent their entire lives insulated from consequences by their parents' money. Hence why most of them grow out of it when they move out on their own.
@@williamjameslehy1341 This pretty much boils down to an ad hominem. How do you not see that people from every political tribe are saying this about 'the other tribes'?
@@mouwersor because it is objectively true in this case. American style right-libertarianism is an ethically bankrupt gutter ideology that could only ever appear to make sense to someone who can only understand poverty as an abstract phenomenon, as something that happens to other, inferior people.
@@williamjameslehy1341 If I was poor I would still be libertarian. Higher taxes for people with income and an addiction to government handouts just exacerbate the problem. In systems theory this is known as 'addiction'.
Libertarianism - Look here bud, you've got a club and a cave. Whoever can swing it harder wins. Outside of the club and cave example, it gets a little foggy, but trust me.
The courts will do the right thing, or whatever, who cares? lol
also libertarians: freedom duh!
@@loudisloud2226 everyone knows that courts are filled with magical beings that will remain totally fair even though literally the entire country they live in including the roads they used to get to the court is completely owned by the corporations that they try to order around and don't have any real power over
@PostHawk So do anarchists. What anarchists don't believe in is a hegemony or monarchy but a simple collective of democratic Governments with no one leader. Essentially take away the President and Executive Branch and the majority and minority leaders and you have something similar to anarchy
@@darrenhood4033 what if a leader appears and unifies a substantial portion of the people and rewrites laws, as they have been doing all over the globe for thousands of years?
Crowder started watching but couldn’t understand half the words so he got his dad to watch it for him.
I got a theory that his mom is in the background slapping his dad telling him what to tell crowder to do.
Ouch lol. Funny because it's true. Heck I can even admit I didn't grasp about 30% of what was said here lol.
No he went back to watching Trump's whining and crying interviews on Fox
@@kpax45 At least Trump’s vocabulary is at his level so his brain didn’t hurt afterwards.
Sam: *stroking his ego for bombing in Steven’s show dishonestly*
Ben: Let’s just move on please…
😂
"There are no corporations. Corporations are people. "
I guess there's no government then. Governments are people.
Yes
Corporations are just people is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. In reality, it is made simply to shift blame away from wealthy corporatists.
@@braddennis5442 corroporations are just people who organised in a specific way. How is that shifting blame form anyone to anyone?
@@rvc121 In US law and the laws of many different countries, the corporate entity is recognized as distinct from individual identity. That distinction alone refutes the argument that corporations are just people. Second an individual cannot shed an individual identity, they cannot sell their identity. Corporations can be bought and sold and have ownership transferred. Yet another argument against them being just people. Corporations have a duty to the common good. They should pay fair wages, allow for competition, and pay their fair share of taxes. Let's not treat them as constant victims of government regulation. Regulations keep them accountable.
@@braddennis5442 corrporations are legal entity owned by people. that is why the owners have the same rights of any other human beings. The rights of life,liberty and prusuit of happiness. This is why it's important to say that they are corporation of people. If Bezos have rights he don't lose them as CEO of Amazon.
I don't agree with you that they owe somthing to the public good. They are free People and if they are moral they try to live long and happy life. And yes in most cases that means earn more profits. They are the victim of government who try to force them to live for other people or the public good. It's specifically horrible that it happens in the US a country that was established to protect human rights.
If you don't like what they don't work for them, don't buy their products, don't invest in them. But to assume they owe you or anyone else somthing except not use force against you is immoral, un-American and simply wrong.
The internet as we know it today is literally slower and more expensive because of corporations and private entities. It's been said a million times but these people really just don't live in reality.
''It's been said a million times''
That's not really the right approach to decide if something is true. How you say it seems to imply you're just jumping on the bandwagon.
What do you mean slower? Maybe you don't remember dial up 25yrs ago.
@Jeremy As in, we paid for fiber internet across the country years ago, and companies took the money and ran. They are slow to update and modernized infrastructure because that would, of course, cut into profits. We are being overcharged and under sold.
? A private company has brought fibre internet to my property! FTTP.
"You died in a commercial plane accident due to the lack of gov regulation? Its your fault you didn't inspect the plane yourself." - Yaron Brook
I literally couldn’t believe this comment until it came out of Yaron’s mouth. I was thinking “there’s just no way”. This is the mind of libertarian conservatism. That the individual is somehow omniscient in all government and market factors. What a joke. In no real world will libertarianism survive.
Immoral: The government inspects the plane, the airline pays a bit more money and rolls their eyes at their lack of freedom. Everyone reaches their destination safely and conveniently.
Moral: The airline tells the spouses of 200 dead victims that "oh come on, they knew the risks of flying. Heck, even the guy on the ground who was killed by the crashed plane landing on him should have known to get life insurance."
@@SteveGellerMusic why would the airline say the truth? There would be no regulations against lying and no one to enforce them. They can say that a terrorist captured the plane so it's the fault of Iran.
@@NJ-wb1cz Indeed. Also, if they made enough money as a business, they'd just shrug and accept that sometimes a plane would crash, and set aside some settlement money in case they were ever forced to pay. In case somehow the widow of the person they killed found some way to prove that the plane was faulty, and the judge wasn't convinced that "ehh, accidents happen sometimes."
For ancapistan to work every person would need perfect access to all information and act in a completely logical way. We would need to be a hive mind.
Slavery is the logical conclusion of Free Markets.
1.Whoever the strongest person is will monopolize the resources necessary to survive. According to Free Markets, once they declare it theirs none else has claim.
2. Once resources necessary for life are monopolized, the rest of the population will have no choice but to engage in employment to gain basic necessities.
3. Since the monopolists or Owners can choose to pay whatever they want as the choices for workers are work or die, and since the government under a Free Market cannot enforce a minimum wage or other labor rights, Owners will naturally party the least amount possible, which is the same provided to a slave, barely enough to survive on.
I can't wait to see what libertarians respond with.
Exactly. The idea that slavery wasn't a result of this "free market" that libertarians get so moist over is ridiculous. You know what _didn't_ allow (or cause) slavery? "Millions of regulations," as he and many other libertarians harp on about. You know what _did_ prevent slavery after abolition? Regulations.
Funny that, eh?
@@FakingANerve He argues that it's slavery to pay taxes, but his premise effectively sides with slavery, regardless if he says he's "against slavery" on principle. No better irony than that.
As if the behavior of slaves was not regulated 🙄
Libertarians and these so-called anarcho-capitalist are just neo-feudalist.
To be Tim Pool, He's literally being like Lord Farquaad "some of you may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".
@L I guess Thor would be Deontological as he defeats Thanos, so he would probably, give him a good thwack with his hammer Mjölnir
@L Sure, but first I want to know: what would a milliner think of Tim Pool?
@@noktilux4052 They'd think he was ice giant shit.
**presents literal evidence and history to Yaron**
Yaron: "No, that's not true!!"
Historical interpretation can be off if your premises are flawed. Check your premises.
"Not twoo!" FTFY
@@Shozb0tbut he didn't actually refute him, just said, "that's not twue!" without providing any evidence.
@@amybly1400
Yaron gave explanations, reasons and/or examples for everything he said. I encourage you to watch the video again and listen to him carefully. But when you are listening, try not to be thinking: "This guy disagrees with Sam, therefore he must be wrong about everything." Actively consider what everyone says and evaluate it based upon what you know about reality. The key is objectivity. If you have any specific points, concerns, questions regarding this content, don't hesitate to ask me.
Specifically, Sam used government bailouts for COVID drug companies, and thus the poor who would otherwise no access to healthcare, and government investment in basic academic research (from DARPA for military advantage) as 'public goods' that SAM BELIEVED would not have been invested in otherwise. I guarantee that something like the inter web would have been funded and developed by private corporations if not for government investment, and rich people would have funded pandemic vaccines and research. The government funding encouraged waste and profiteering (theft), but the trade-off was time and public access to the product of the trade. That's why Yaron Brook said IT IS NOT TRUE that there would never be an internet or vaccine.
"there's no such thing as corporations it's just people"
"There's no such thing as government, it's just people"
If the argument doesn't work if you flip it. It's not an argument.
Except for corporations it's shareholders because they announce their business on the stick market for everyone to own shares. You can't do that with government. We lose money each year and can't own shares in any government property.
@@elijahrivera2858 For government it's taxpayers who are the "shareholders", government property is literally called "public property" because it's owned and financed by the people. That's why you can go to a public park and nobody will kick you out for trespassing like they can on private property.
@@elijahrivera2858 Corporations are only open to the "public" if they volunteer to be. Under "objectivist" libertarianism, there's no incentive to go public, an unregulated stock market is unusable.
On the other hand, you do receive "dividends" from your government in the form of services. A government's purpose is to spend it's "profits" more efficiently than an individual could, so assuming you've elected a competent government: your gains per dollar invested in government are significantly higher on the mean/median than they are with stock investments.
@@TheFreeThinkingMan but you don't create profit or have a choice to not pay on public property. At least in a Corp you can sell your shares and leave. That's the difference. It's the incentive.
@@NoChance18 well it's also because these corps can get free subsidies and special interest if they go public. You don't if your private or have a private market, because it's private profits and losses. In corporations now it's private profits and public losses. There is a major problem there.
A majority of the public doesn't use government services. Cops are not ready to do chores and deliveries for your business. Thats not what happens what happens is debt and taxes for stuff a majority of people don't use. Like welfare, treasury bonds, programs that reduce competition and manufacturing.
I'm total these services are more harmful to the citizens.
If that guy doesn’t have a podcast called You’re on Yuron he’s doing life wrong.
"""he’s doing life wrong."""" Well, you can bet on that, he's a libertarian.
@@coletrickle1775 I know right lol. Imagine wanting to live life not attached to the government tit.
@@yusufalhajj9814 Imagine thinking things like the consumer protection agency are bad lol. Imagine thinking that you should be able to get fucked over even harder by corporations than we do now. Imagine thinking child labor laws are bad. Worst of all, imagine thinking the government regulates and taxes big corporations TOO much right now LOLOLOLOLOLOL. So stupid dude. You don't know anything about labor, at all, and you want to try and talk policies. Go back to the little kids table.
You are all like talking to little toddlers, seriously, like toddlers.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 that’s literally the dumbest shit I’ve heard. Crony capitalists sure. They require it. Not actual capitalism which is simply the free exchange of goods and services.
@@yusufalhajj9814 Capitalism isn't perfect. It needs regulated and corrected.
So every argument is “If we had my fantastical free market, [magical thinking w/ no data]”
Magical thinking:
-Profit seeking businesses would spend more on low profit potential research
-Higher quality infrastructure would be built, maintained, and lead greater productivity despite tolls on all non-infra businesses
-Doctors would become more uncorrupted and better medical results achieved because everyone would be more personally responsible
and also, very likely, the shrimp would be free tomorrow - I'll just throw in that extra incentive too, because why not
Yeah, because some people ignore regulations or manage to get past the system, if we remove regulations they will become completely honest because everyone will become an expert at everything... And why the heck would that happen if then literally anyone who's doing anything or has any power will benefit from keeping the people as dumb as possible? How the heck would everyone find time to research everything after they lose all of their social and work protections and become completely dependent on people who have more wealth and power than they do? It's really belief in completely detached magic at the heart of the system
Finally, someone who actually gets what''s wrong. In Sam's position, I would have nipped that in the bud. Without this important challenge at the outset, everything was just about it would all work in imagined world with no evidence. So same thing to laugh at 15 times in a row. Not funny.
Thank you Sam for telling him he’s wrong about addiction. What he said was ridiculous, I’m sorry.
Sam just dismantled this guy just like every other libertarian that crosses his path.
Facts...
He did not dismantle Dave Smith
@@truman9578 yeah him and Dave smith had a pretty good convo
@@aarondickson1898 ok Crowder we know it's you.
@@truman9578 True. Dave comes preunassembled
20:55 Yaron Brooks on the Internet "the government did very little of it" yeah apart from inventing it, creating the infrastructure for it and creating the world wide Web, apart from it existing in the first place, what did the government do. It's like watching Monty Python's sketch about the Romans.
He said the internet "wouldn't be the same as it is today without corporations"...
Which is true; In the sense that it would be infinitely better without them!
His premise that it “would’ve happened anyway” is laughable.
I could write a paragraph talking about how the modern internet is built based on ARPANET, which was an internal communications suite used by ARPA, an arm of the Department of Defense, but it's much easier and faster to just call Yaron Brooks an idiot.
🤣😂🤣
@@VMonkies But his entire argument is based on the premise that he is in-fact a very intelligent individual. Literally that is his entire augment; If you are not an intelligent person and you suffer as a result of your ignorance while being taken advantage of by someone more capable... then you deserve it... The immorality does not lie in someone abusing their authority ( as in the example with corrupt doctors over-subscribing opioids) but in the negligence expressed by the ignorance of the abused... HELLO MIDDLE-AMERICA DO YOU NOT HAVE GOOGLE?!?!?!... You ACTUALLY believed your doctor???? They were just being 'smart businessmen' what the fuck were you doing? Not reading peer-reviewed studies from Harvard about the affects of opioid use?!?! Well thats where you fucked up LOL Begging for relief from chronic pain? MORONS! Do your research!
Yaron Brook failed his attempt with Vaush and now he tries with Sam. This guy just loves humiliation, Ayn Rand objectives in general are just embarassing.
Yeah, Vaush absolutely fucked this clown raw for two hours straight lmfao
@@tankieflanker4119 ironically enough, Vaush posted a video today taking down the very same MRA douche that couldn't articulate any of his ideas here like two weeks ago.
I love how all these right-wing losers just go onto different lefty channels just to get absolutely bodied over and over again by different people.
These guys absolutely crave the humiliation.
@@VMonkies Now wait a second... we don't kink shame here ;)
Its cuz this guy doesn't understand fundamental principles of governments he getting fucked from 2 different angles bro
@@VMonkies Vaush needs to find better interlocutors. Socdem MRA master race incoming.
You can say the most perverted and vicious things in a very civil way but you're still espousing pure evil
Leftists do this all the time.
I am currently working on my degree in biochemestry and my doctor of medicine degree so I can be informed on what proceedures and drugs I take. I hope that is enough to make sure I know what kind of interactions I might have. I am also working on my structural engineering, meterials engineering, civil engineering and since I live where there was a fair amount of mining, a degree in geological engineering. It really would be nice to make an educated decision on the place we live in. My wife and I want to go on vacation sometime before we die so I am working on my aerospace engineering degree so I make an informed choice on the plane I get on. Oh I guess I need to work on a pilots license so I can be sure the pilots are up to my standards. In my spare time I need to figure out what degrees I need to make informed decisions on buying a car. No reason to rely on any other entities to support me in my desire to live a healthy happy life. I can do it all myself.
Every libertarian is a renaissance man!
Fantastic
Surely, unless you are going to tRump Univarsity, you'll need an advanced doctorate in Higher Education, so you can judge the quality of all those qualifications..? 😉
Such exaggeration. I have no degree in those subjects and can still make informed decisions. It's called common sense.
When they say “the definition of the state is, ‘possessing the monopoly on the legitimate use of force...’” they are not kidding. But, they rarely follow the argument to the inevitable conclusion... the State legitimizes itself by force. The government’s entire job is to contain the State. If it doesn’t do THAT job, the military industrial complex will utterly consume the government.
And, a society that says, ‘might makes right’ will fall to despotism. And capitalists will HAVE to have contempt toward the work force. Because the most efficient way to increase profit is to further exploit their work force MORE than they already do. George III never got less despotic, by choice. He had to be forced to. Andrew Carnegie had to be forced by a combination a lot of labour unrest, and government regulation, to pay a liveable wage, and invest in a liveable work place. Andrew tried to take the reins of the state from the government. He failed, mostly because public pressure forced him to. If there was no mechanism to stop them, corporations will always, by necessity, institute slavery of some kind.
Capitalist's best accessory, is the side blinders. They don't want to see the negative results of their unethical decisions.
Exactly this. They seem to think modern democratic governments just appeared out of nowhere rather than things that had to be forced on formerly monarchical or dictatorial governments as an organ to democratically control the state.
You could dig up John D Rockefeller himself and put him in my house, and he would wonder.. why does this nobody have better food, toys, entertainment, healthcare.. than I did?
Thank you capitalism
This whole debate:
Y: makes a claim
S: refutes claim
Y: backpedals and talks about his utopia
we have most of the populace dreaming of some sort of utopia. Almost nobody speaks of what we can accomplish in our lives. Really sucks.
U T O P I A
@@gabebond9452 most of the people just want living wages, healthcare, and ability to buy a house. If we think that is a utopia for the wealthiest country then we are setting the bar exceptionally low.
Well isn't that the whole idea lol
@@komlat253 for some, I’m sure it is. Makes it hard to take the guy seriously, though, when the only time he can make points are in the context of wild and unrealistic hypotheticals.
man i can not wrap my head around Yaron's thinking.
"perverse incentives create perverse results" but also "profit motive is A-OK nothing bad ever comes of it"
If profit is a bad incentive, does that meant that loss (the opposite of profit) is a good incentive? Where would anyone be if he lost money constantly.
@@Shozb0t what the ever living fuck are u talking about
@@noalowenstein6741
I am talking about profits and losses. They are opposites. I assumed that if you were against profits that you must be in favor of businesses having losses instead. But I wanted to point out that the world would grind to a halt if everyone lost money in every business venture.
Profits are what happens when somebody produces something of value. I urge you to reconsider your stance.
@@Shozb0t this is a ridiculous argument. No one has ever argued that businesses should be driven by the “loss-incentive” and that all firms should bankrupt themselves on purpose. What are you even saying dude.
@@grahmthrush4924
If people are against profits (feverishly so, nowadays), it stands to reason that they would approve of the opposite. If you disagree, please present a third alternative.
Libertarian thought in a nutshell: Government can't do anything right because they are obsessed with power, but private interests motivated by greed will do the right thing.
Post office loses 3 billion dollars a year like clockwork every single year. You just watched government's ineptitude of handling the pandemic. Wake up and smell the coffee and give your self a shake if you thing the government bureaucrats will do the right thing. LOL
Or…. The government steps in and stops “greed” that is force. Your problem is you want social engineering…
Private interests can’t take your rights, oppress you or put you in jail
@@capitalistnick6041 You mean the only institution public or private that is required to fund its pension 75 years in advance?
And I watched an incompetent government botch the handling of a pandemic. I also saw plenty of competent governments that believed in the purpose of government do a good job of handling it.
@@shortchubbyneckbeard1681 Yes, because private interests won't just become the de facto government if our existing government was abolished.
Brook perfectly articulates the fallacy underpinning libertarianism...that we're all equal Hobbesian Sovereigns freely entering into agreements with each other...sure, if you're buying a used garden hose at a flea market, but when it comes to employment, most of us are negotiating with employers who have orders of magnitude more power and wealth than we do (in my case it's a giant tech company). What libertarians are arguing for is feudalism 2.0.
Yeah
@Packster Mosk being born to a privileged class that owns important land and capital.
@Packster Mosk do you know anything about the conditions of 19th century (industrial) capitalism?
and where do you get the idea extreme poverty has ended at all? from capitalist organizations defining it themselves I'm guessing.
@Packster Mosk You could say govt gave them this divine right or that they built the power themselves through hard work, either way.. anyone born after "all" the land was owned are in no position to tell them to fuck off if they want to eat.
@Packster Mosk Before the factories were owned by merchants, they were owned by nobility.
Crowder fans saying Sam is actually the one who is scared to have a real debate: 🦗 🦗 🦗 crickets
Don't be silly. Not one Crowder fan watched this whole hour😏
an hour is like 12 Sargons, that's way too long to engage in thinking
@@sheriffmusa5495
No, but Crowder and his dad certainly did; they watch the show daily and adjust their schedule around Sam's.
And say what you will about him but I think Yaron is a way better debater than Cower.
@@thesensiblesocialist For better or worse, Yaron actually knows what he believes and can articulate it. He just believes really shitty things.
Wow. As someone who has worked in academia and science research, Yaron is way, way wrong on like every point when he brings it up. Had to pause to add my two cents.
1. He claims the vast majority of research is garbage. No. Basically all research is valuable. If I research the properties of material X and realize it won't work for a project, I can still write up a paper discussing my findings. Other scientists doing future studies can use my work as a basis of what to try - maybe they have a different application for Material X that I never considered, but my work helped them realize that it would be beneficial to try Material X. If that seems bizarrely specific, it really isn't. In fact, it happens all the time. Even negative results in science are progress. Hence the adage, "we stand on the backs of giants."
2. Government funding doesn't crowd out private businesses from investing in researching. Of the 4 research projects I worked on in my graduate degree, 2 were funded by private companies. Does he not realize how many colleges and researchers we have in this country? It doesn't crowd out, it gives more opportunities for science to be done.
3. The point about the "biggest innovations in human history happened in the 19th century" is just complete ignorance of the STEM field and how it operates. Yes, there were huge advancements (relatively) at that time, because many of these fields were still in their infancy at that time. Of course when a field is newer, when fewer people have worked in it for a shorter span of time, there is a ton of room for advancement. The reasons we don't see these types of things these days is a compounding issue. First, as fields progess they become exponentially more complex, requiring more specialization and study to get new advancements. This is why in the early 1900's huge advancements in Quantum Mechanics were made by a single person, but now these things require hundreds of scientists and many years. That's just how science progresses.
Even still, we do have a ton of huge breakthroughs every day. The reason they aren't as noticable to the public is partly because of the education and specialization required to truly appreciate the contributions, but also that there are so many projects in so many fields that we can almost drown each other out.
Whew. God, that pissed me off. If he was this wrong in my field, I can only imagine how incorrect he is in other topics that I don't have as great a grasp on.
Yes!!!! He is completely dismissing the underlying principles of science / research, like so many others who have limited knowledge, skills of the area they are discussing. I love your comment … thank you 🙏
In a country where Fox News is the most watched cable news station, Yaron thinks average citizens are qualified as building inspectors, pharmacologists, property rights lawyers and researchers.
Libertarians like Yaron don't care what happens to people. In his belief system, the worthy manage to make decisions which aren't fatal, and if deception or capitalist exploitation is in play, it's the individual's fault for falling for it. Caveat emptor! (But good news: the invisible hand of the market will eventually weed out bad actors because inevident ideal theoretical constructs will eventually manifest if you live according to libertarian holy writ.)
Capitalism relies so much on getting one over on other people, of _course_ libertarians defend the opportunity to do so! To capitalists, it's like we're all playing a competitive game: they want to win.
Tl;dr fuck libertarianism.
@@FMagl you would be the first ingredient in Soylent Green
Fox news has consistently been shown to have some of the most misinformed viewers over the last two decades.
Average citizens? Did he say that? Honestly now.
At least they have jobs, unlike the average Sam Seder watcher.
Oh, no, not another one of these, "I'm not really a Libertarian" guys.
lol funny thing is the cookie cutter conservatives claim they're libertarians while the cookie cutter libertarians end up rejecting the label
Isn’t he an Objectivist not a libertarian? They’re basically libertarians but more selfish and less realistic on economic policy. The libertarians worship Austrian economist and 20th Century liberal European thinkers while objectivist almost exclusively worship Ayn Rand. I’ll let you decide who is the more ridiculous of the two.
Technically he's correct. He's an Ayn Rand "objectivist" and while there is a lot of overlap, they aren't necessarily the same
@@ephraimduke I think the difference is that an objectivist reaches libertarian economics from a philosophical basis which is laid down by Ayn Rand.
@@ephraimduke Objectivists are libertarians who only argue about "ideas" in the abstract so they don't have to demonstrate anything...."it would have happened anyway" mental masturbation...like "philosophical naturalism"...it's the only way these dum dums can feel like they made a sound argument.
Libertarians' critiques of government are often quite on point. The thing is, once they turn their attention to the 'free market', they immediately lose all capacity for careful consideration and espose this childish credulity which pours from their 'it's this simple, man' type of statements.
Exactly. Hence, the allure of libertarianism...for awhile. Then you turn 19 and understand things like social contract, societal debt, monopolies, public good, standard of living, incumbent power, discrimination, etc. exist and, not only are best addressed by government, they can ONLY be addressed by government.
It's so frustrating because, outside of billionaires pushing this self-serving sophistry, most libertarian types are motivated by genuine and righteous disgust of very real unjust government overreach. But instead of working to fix those things, they keep trying to clear away the table thinking that we are best served by no collective governance.
Their understanding of gov’t is likewise overly simplistic. Once you see this, it becomes clear why even their best critiques of actual public policies seldom motivate constructive efforts to improve things…
If markets are defined and facilitated by the rules of the road (regulatory infrastructure), then the “free market” is a myth that only preempts a more nuanced and accurate understanding of markets. And this myth is fueled by an even more fundamental & pernicious myth: gov’t as an alien force.
If gov’t is the apparatus that WE the ppl form & task with regulating activities that have social consequences, then it’s not inherently violent and purely coercive like some kind of demonic force. It’s better or worse to the extent that it serves the public interest & promotes the free & open interactions of ppl & ideas, which is necessary to further define and articulate the public interest. Gov’t as other/alien (and thus “our” oppressive enemy) is one more anti-democratic myth intended to short-circuit thinking.
What would libertarians do about monopolies? They are coercive institutions.
Their critiques are on point because libertarian leaning/adjacent politicians and organizations work explicitly to obstruct governmental functions.
It's like claiming cars with flat tires drive like shit, slash the tires. And then say "told you so". It is just a self-fullfilling prophecy for them.
After 19 you realize governments and companies are both just large groups of people agreeing to work together to accomplish certain goals. Not magically different from each other.
I used to consider myself a libertarian, but it was mainly due to Sam and Micheal Brooks that I woke up from the idealized world I was living in. On the face of it libertarianism sounds good! But when you start getting into the details of how a libertarian society would function, you realize it simply could never work. It can’t work.
Why not?
Ok I’m glad you turned yourself around but why do you think it sounds good??? It sounds completely stupid on the face of it!
@@poltronafrau Chesterton once said that ideas are dangerous but to the man who is aware of a lot of ideas they are the least dangerous. I was young and not very inquisitive. And libertarianism was the first economic view that was explained to me and on the face of it, like most ideas when presented and not challenged, it sounded good.
But, when one considers the arguments against it (which I never really engaged in the beginning) you’re right it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
Exactly
@@dublingranam3489 roads, for one
The "greed is good" mentality has rotted this gentleman's brain.
Greed has its uses. I would argue it has lended to ther advancement of humanity (technology primarily). But it does need guardrails.
It only works for him because he haven't lived in a world without guardrails for greed. So he assumes they are god given or something, just like Ayn Rand assumed that capitalists are inherently fair and want a fair competition, as opposed to then being FORCED to compete fairly by the government and when they aren't forced they will screw each other and everyone around them with any means they can get
@Roberta Mohamedally I wasn't referring to renumeration. I was referring to things like conquest, which has largely been driven by greed for anothers resources and wealth, pushing advancements in technology to facilitate victory. Also the greed and vanity of many in humanity has driven the advancement of architecture, sanitation, and the arts. Greed and desire for more and more, has certainly lended a hand to the advancement of humanity.
@Roberta Mohamedally yup most human technological advances been made to make life easier for people. Like mircowave ovens, make it quicker to cook food. telephones to have easier ways to communicate long distances. Medical advances really show it.. all those make it easier to coup with illness or injuries.
@@ryan7864 for millions of years humans ran around conquering each other, murdering, pillaging, taking each others territory.... I think you are confusing cause and effect, greed did not cause technology, we had eons of greed with no tech beyond fire and stone tools. Sure greed can be utilized to develop more technology, very pragmatic use of this ingrained human instinct, I give you that, but I would argue there are other ways to advance humanity that must be implemented as well.
We'll all suffer the fate of the Radium Girls in a Libertarian world.
You mean in a free world
@@desertsand8778 🤡
We're not free until rapacious capitalists have discarded us as broken playthings!
Remember: starving to death is always an option in a free world! 🌞
@LoddyRiy Libertarianism isn't anti salvation. It's just solely about freedom. You are free to save poor people from their decisions just as long as you don't force others to do the same.
@LoddyRiy I never said that poor people cause their own poverty.
every libertarian i've heard sounds like a seclusionist wannabe while reaping the benefits of a collective society and civilization, while simultaneously having views that can only be afforded to those who are close to having affluenza.
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
Libertarianism started growing out in the 40s and 50s, the first generation in America with robust federal social programs and welfare, and a GI Bill that made single family houses (HOUSES) cost $5000 (with inflation) and made healthcare costs close to zero.
These people instead of appreciating what they got (which were policies won through very hard victories by socialist, communist, labor unionist American organizations) and continued fighting for these things and more, instead thought of themselves as people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and anyone else that fell behind was through his own folly (the poor, black people, and so on).
Incredibly frustrating history
@@lionelmessi4953 You do realize that many of the problems you're complaining about were resolved by free markets and not "labor unions?"
No, the "free market" was the gilded age where income inequality was worse than it is today. The victories win by unions and collectivist came after the Great Depression. Social Security alone dropped elderly poverty by 70%.
Libertarians are almost completely ignorant of history.
They also love to toss around the word naive as if they dont follow the most absolutely deluded ideologu
This guy doesn't know that people will lie and kill for what ever they want lol
He is just one of them...pretending that he isn't.
Isn’t that what politicians (ie. The Government) are known for? Lying and killing for profit
@@JuanGonzalez-sy7cs okay so that means the other 90 percent of the population should also do it then without reprocussions. Bit of a strange take. Kind of baby brain take actually. "Well they do it why can't I?"
@@dw8395 weird straw man. The point was that statists think:
“I don’t trust anyone else to run their own life, but I definitely trust a group of liars, murderers, rapists, and thieves to run everyone’s lives for them”
See how silly that sounds? How about everyone be left alone and the government just focuses on protecting our rights, meaning if someone’s lies cause you physical harm they can be prosecuted.
@@JuanGonzalez-sy7cs correct I don't trust anyone to run there own life. Your far to optimistic we are stupid animals with expensive toys and overly complicated lives, very few of us actually qualify as intelligent. The rest are just along for the ride thinking they know whats going on.
"The courts decide, not the government" - people who think they're intelligent
@@cfrey1988 that was actually one of his better 15 seconds
The Government Courts are present to protect Libertarians
So, courts are part of one of the branches of government, and they intepret laws legislated by another branch of government, and expect them to be complied with.
@@cfrey1988 it’s amazing how much people hate regulations but forget if it wasn’t for those regulations you’d be working as a blue collar coal miner at 3 years old.
@@cfrey1988 your middle class and say your life has been hindered by the Government? I’m not reading anything else you say 😝
The world Yaron wants is unparalleled suffering. I cannot even imagine that hell.
You just throw people at companies, and the ones that don't die or get sued out of existence will do great! /s
This psychopath read _Leviathan_ and actually liked the war of all against all.
Just let go and relax into the truth
@@dranelemakol thanks for the advice. Libertarians have 0 political power so I shouldn’t worry.
Yaron wants a world where Jeff Bezos owns the moon.
Sam doesn’t even debate these clowns as much as walk them through their own ideology and not be a “yes man”. He just asks basic questions and points out obvious fallacies and contradictions. They take themselves apart because their so deep in the forests of “false premises” that they can’t see.
Can you point where did Yaron contradict himself?
@@kazuoua his entire ideology of you take absolute responsibility for your decisions is completely arbitrary. He says that the people in the condo were to blame when under his logic, nothing is stopping him from blaming the incompetent inspectors and owners. If there is no rime or reason for your ideology everything becomes a contradiction since everything can be argued from a different position and still fit his deranged logic.
@@anirudhadiga4576 I said before that his remarks on the condo were done in haste as he had to leave, probably to fly somewhere since he mentioned in his channel he was going to be traveling these days. I don't wanna comment on something he hasn't talked about before on detail but I can say from my point of view, that those affected by the collapse of the building should definitely sue and/or press charges. Unless it was clearly defined in the contract that the owners waived any responsibility for a sudden collapse of the whole thing, I doubt the people living there could reasonably expect for this to be a possibility.
To give a different example, if I sell you an apple, it's not reasonable for you to expect a blade to be hidden inside it. If I don't let you know in advance, you're definitely in your right to press charges or sue me.
@@kazuoua listen back, Sam did it already
@@kazuoua The very core of his ideology is a contradiction. He believes A: Ownership of property is dictated by "reality", not government and B: that when we disagree about "reality", government decides who owns the property. He tries to resolve this contradiction by saying that government is merely determining who is correct, but that's just a word game. If government decides who's correct, then government decides who owns the property. Government is determining what "reality" is.
A coherent enough argument to make me realize how simultaneously naive and cruel this individual’s world view is.
That is the definition of libertarianism.
It really frightens me that these people think Mad Max is a good reality to live in.
I give him credit for being ideologically consistent and not shying away from the implications of his belief system like most “libertarians” do.
But of course he’s being consistent in his ideology of sociopathy.
@@SrM90
What exactly did he say that is sociopathic?
@@Shozb0t said that people should be responsible for themselves if a building collapses on them because the condo association didn't address safety concerns
EDIT: Condo association
This dude thinks slavery ended in the US after the civil war and ignores prison labor schemes lol.
He also thinks there was a market incentive for slavery to end lmao
And international cheap labor
@@djoj20 yeah, that one really got me. That capitalism & profit would've somehow naturally phased out slavery, complete nonsense.
It's almost as if he's not all that bummed that slavery exists.
I think the more ludicrous point of his is the idea that slavery wasn't all that profitable. Lol, OK dude. Just ignore the trillions of dollars of generational wealth in this country that social scientists have traced back to slavery. (Also, the 19th century was a golden age for colonialism, so there's that too)
Yaron lives in an alternate fantasy world. And he is a terrible person after listening to everything.
Kids, good career, a part of history. Seems like a good person to me. What have you done? Made a couple people feel good about themselves?
@@phantasqLiving part of history. 🤣😂🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤦🏻♂️🤣😂😂🤣😂😂 I'd never once heard of him before this. 🤷🏻♂️
True haha. You may not but I had. What I'm saying is that he fits that way more than you or me. I'm not part of history either! So I admire both sides that are able to make a name for themselves and create their own legacy (while still enjoying friends, having kids, etc, just like the rest of us)
Having kids, a career and being present in a time line does not a good person make
@@phantasqLiving kim jong il had all that too. Guess he was the greatest person
Oh shit it’s the final boss of libertarians. Dave Rubin is crying so hard right now.
Lots of high level ideas being floated
@@divusartemis2045 He's that wolf with half health in the first room of Bloodborne that wrecks you when you don't know the controls, but as soon as you come back five minutes later with a weapon you obliterate him and he never respawns.
I really like “the final boss” expression! 🤣 Thanks!
Seriously? This guy is the big bad libertarian? I had no idea the idealogy was THAT paper thin.
Dave would be mad you didn’t identify him as as a “cLaSIcAl LiBeRAl😗”
The big thing missing from this conversation is the fact that dysfunctional governments *are run by* the "free market."
Exactly. Capitalists are running the government and make sure it serves them at the expense of everyone else down the ladder.
This. Especially America
Being a libertarian is having opinions without having to take responsibility of the failure of libertarian policy because no one would elect them.
Read that sentence again but slowly.
This.
Communism is untenable in the long-term, but we have applied evidence of that. Libertarianism exists in the theoretical works of Nozick, Nock, and Rand. Every four years, Libertarian Party members get to vote for someone like Johnson or Jorgenson, feeling completely safe in knowing that they have a snowball's chance of winning. Libertarian voters can then wear their contrarian political street cred without ever having to worry about their half-baked ideas being put into actual practice.
@@DanielTheSexiest They overlap with neoliberal policies, but pretend to be separate from it because those aren't "real libertarians" (even though they tend to vote for them). The op is merely acknowledging that libertarians refuse to acknowledge any example of their policies in action.
@@nathanlevesque7812 the definition of failure is trying something and the result be different from one’s intention or expectation. Refusing to try something out of fear is not failure. A failure as a stand up comedian is one who goes on stage and everytime bombs. We know he sucks because there is evidence to prove so. An insecure person who refuses to go on stage out of fear of not getting a laugh is not a failure as a comedian (since for all we know if he faced his fears the audience would love him) but just a person afraid of an outcome.
Socialism is a failure and the evidence is all around us. Libertarian policies don’t fail, most people are just too scared to implement them. Perhaps their fears turn out to be correct but until implemented that is simply an assertion devoid of proof.
Being a Libertarian always assumes that they have a right to own a piece of land.
lmao Sam's face when Yaron said it was the tenants' fault for moving into a building that later collapsed
that said, other than a few moments like those, Yaron did a really really good job in this debate
@@crenfick7750 "a really really good job" constantly interrupting Sam, yes.
@@PR--un4ub Projecting?
@@crenfick7750 uh no. No he didn't
It's like Ben Shapiro's answer to coastal areas dealing with rising sea levels. Which is selling your house to someone else before it happens.
In the Libertarianverse:
"Hey, do you want to come over to my place and play video games?"
"Could you send me the blueprints and maintenance history of your building? I wouldn't want to make a mistake. I'll be there about a month after you get me that documentation, assuming you have it. I don't visit buildings without documentation."
"Oh wait, I need to check into the manufacturing processes used to make the structural members of the building, and see if the companies that made them have had any safety issues with any of the other buildings constructed from their products. Oh and I'd better look into the electricians and the wire manufacturers and...you know what? Can we just do a rain check on that?"
The libertarian paradise is a society where everyone is constantly exhausted from studying to become experts at everything while also permanently on edge that they're going to get hurt because someone tricked them into using a dangerous product.
But hey at least they can drive on private roads paid for with tolls, which is freedom, instead of driving on public roads paid for with taxes, which is tyranny.
@@peenus5120 And The Free Market (profits be upon its Invisible Hand) will make the toll road cheaper than the government road because in addition to the costs of building and maintaining the road, the tolls must also fund a holy Profit for the road's owner...oh wait.
But if you'd like the price to be kept down, there have to be several _competing_ toll roads going between the same two destinations. I'm sure that won't have any undesirable results in terms of sprawl, the environment, or resource use.
You would also need to have competing toll streets in cities, well unless each city was a -company town- privatized residence hub owned by a single company. I'm sure it'll work just fine.
Dude in the libertarianverse:
"We don't have governments. How i could give you the blueprints and maintenance history of my building?"
lol
Right wing libertarians. Libertarianism is a vast sea spanning both wings.
Libertarians always sound like Lord Farquaad when I hear them talk: "Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."
"If things weren't so complicated as to need regulations, things wouldn't be so complicated."
-EVERY Libertarian Argument
Chairman of institute-named-after-author-of-fantasy-novels thinks that real life is unnecessarily complicated.🤷♂️
@@redlightmax makes sense because her ideology only worked in fantasy 😁
It is more like "We cannot trust anyone to be omniscient and incorruptible so we don't let them control people's lives.".
@@sebc2s That only makes sense if you were anti-hierarchy. But no. You're not anti-hierarchy. You're perfectly fine with a boss controlling his employee's lives or landowner controlling his tenants lives or a debt collector controlling indebted people's lives.
@@MishaFlower That is absolutely ridiculous and shows once again that there is a huge swath of cultist sheep that have no idea what other views are claiming. The only thing I am fine with consensual agreements.
everything yaron says in the beginning, all of the broad stroke stuff, is like "yeah, i don't see a problem with that." but, once he gets into any kind of detail with anything else, he sounds like a complete lunatic. Feels like any other time i hear a libertarian explain their beliefs
His income depends on him being a dogmatic egoist loon, he was a big wig in the Ayn Rand Institute...
We should start checking insane asylums if they have any escape patients.
Man those children certainly got what was coming to them from their unscrupulous behaviour of living in an apartment building that wasn't being properly maintained. As Yaron said, you pay the consequences for your bad decisions. Fair is fair.
Why don't commies want to pay the consequences for their bad decisions? Is it because they make bad decisions all the time?
@@cyablu6538 this comment is a joke right?
@@eelvis1674 ot course
All of this arguing from nature makes me come to the conclusion that libertarians have just updated Rousseau's Noble Savage to their version, the Noble Consumer, a perfectly informed citizen of Marketplace Earth who makes all of the right choices.
@@CapnZmanExactly. It requires an idealised, unrealistic version of human behaviour. In contrast, I could come up with an idealised, unrealistic version of government behaviour too.
Keep having them on, and dismantling their philosophy.
Yaron Brook: Simplify regulations so there will be fewer lawyers. Also Yaron Brook: civil lawsuits are how you determine if burning plastic is toxic.
Texas has taken the lead in tort reform, to great benefit.
Lawyers always find a way
Now: regulations + civil lawsuits = current amount of lawyers
Brook’s world: fewer regulations + civil lawsuits = fewer lawyers
What is in dispute here?
Oh by the way, coercion is illegal so when the civil lawyer contacts the plastic burner to settle the cancer bills, and the plastic burner says he's too busy burning plastic to determine if he caused the cancer, that is the end of the mediation. Also, nobody has any clue that there is a link between plastic and cancer because the plastic company isn't going to fund a study that is going to incriminate themselves
@@psrabe7444 Is this a hypothetical? Free enterprise doesn't need defending. It's actually how the real world works.
Government should protect your property rights, but not from a building collapsing. What a line to draw. 🤦♂️
The government will defend your right to own whatever you like, or at least, whatever the builder likes; or what survives"
Government should protect your right to own collapsing building. It's your choice what to own - collapsing or not collapsing building. Simple .
@@vg7985 you kind can own what you like, you just can't sell it or rent it or build it if its not up to code, no?
Bibs P well, if someone wants to buy my collapsing building why can't I sell. For few $ less maybe.
@@vg7985 You can, but not as a livable dwelling I dont think. Simply put, you putting yourself in danger is not the same as putting others in danger.
Yaron: *gives insane opinion on subject as fact*
Sam: "That isn't true. We've interviewed multiple experts on the subject, and they all agree the opposite is true."
Yaron: *has zero knowledge of said interviews, or the experts that sam had them with* "They're all politically motivated."
First there is no record on yt of those dozen interviews, nor them claiming that such things were true. There have also been hiatorical studies from US and the British colonies documenting the lack of wealth creation from slavery. I know you are emotional, and like that wierdo want to should "triangle slave trade" but that is completely unscientific. Furthermore, Yaron could have cited the amazing progress made post-slavery, before massive government regulation.
@@cfcee sources please - or you can go look at the palaces built by British slave merchants, they are all over the UK.
Lol! Love how your comment have attracted the three stooges! 😂
@@aarondickson1898 dude they interviewed 5 authors/historians just this month in regards to slavery, post war reconstruction, taxation pre and post war etc. They're there.
@@cfcee Yes there is, you may need to spend a bit more time digging. They do exist.
“I have to run” right after Seder points out that the entire basis for my position has been obliterated by my own arguments.
All his arguments are based on his “beliefs” not on facts.
Its the magic hand of the market ofcourse if you believe enough in it everything will become great
@@etienne6579
That is why all these sociopaths are also big believers in "the power of positive thinking."
It's always an argument from some mythical set of circumstances that will never exist. Libertarians have a blind spot for material conditions.
Coming from “facts don’t care about feelings” group.
@@Dwaynerade That's what happens when your "theory" is a fiction novel
Oh I see. He's not a libertarian, he's a conservative.
If you push them hard enough, plenty libertarians are conservatives
I started to think that, the more his acknowledged government grew. 🙄 "Oh, well, my government would stop you from _enslaving_ Matt." Prison labor, much?
Objectivism rejects conservatism and libertarianism.
@@YorickReturns except it doesn't. You can't punch people and say you're against fighting.
@@heavysystemsinc. Why don't you explain why you think Objectivism and conservatism and libertarianism are the same?
Anecdotal fallacies. That's the reality of free market BS.
That was Sam's entire argument. Like the Miami building. First he strawmanned by implying Yaron said libertarianism would be a utopia (he didnt). Then he used a simple example of a building collapse WITH government regulation.
@@cfcee It's the logical inference. Libertarians claim the world would be much better without or with extremely limited goverment.
That is what utopian thinking is. But it's even worse. It's strawmanning Sam to claim that Sam was focuses on the utopian claim of libertarianism, because he really wasn't.
Yes, everything that they perceive as a wrong: government. Everything that the perceive as possitive: freedom (in capitals). Also, their views are almost always really black and white and focussing on examples in a vacuum.
@@cfcee Yaron's libertarianism is Utopian in the idea that if you just fixed this one thing by dismantling 99% of government that it would magically solve a bunch of problems without any clear logic to describe how.
His vision of free market capitalism is extremely Utopian, he believes that the hand of the market will basically erase the human tendency to exploit others, somehow. That people who exploit others will be punished more under his system than our current one. That the free market will stop people from ripping other people off, somehow.
The idea that the people who will end up with all the money (and therefore all of the power since there is no government) under Libertarianism will be the ones who provide the most benefit and standard of living to other people is ridiculous. Capital accrues in the hands of sociopaths who are most willing to externalize the costs of their economic activity on to others without laws and courts to regulate those externalizations, and yes even in spite of them without vigilance.
Tons of comments suggesting Yaron is libertarian or ancap. He's much more of a traditional republican type, endorsing Romney and Reagan.
Is anyone gonna point out Yaron's contradiction of how corporations are just people, yet he speaks about the government as an entity.
It is funny ... he speaks about the government being just some alien outside of society that comes in.. when the government its self are made up of people... lol
Thats exactly what I was thinking! It made no sense lol
big brain idea: we should just label govt as corporations and these people will accept it
That's because one of the four pillars of Objectivism (which he promotes) is corporate capitalism, which is clearly a form of collectivism (which he decries).
That's why the libertarians have to deny corporations don't really exist (as what they really are) they are just people.
Right...just people who hide within the legal safety and anonymity of corporate structures to avoid responsibility for their behaving like sociopaths.
Sam: *points out a problem happening in the real world*
This guy: “But Sam in the alternate reality that only I can see, bad things don’t happen. But if they ever did then my principle moral stance is it sucks to be you.”
sam: points out historical facts
brooks high iq rebuttal: datts not twue
Yep, I imagine all of his counterarguments ending with a big shrug and an 'OH WELL!'. It's all the government's fault except in his magical happy place where people are unreasonably responsible and anything that goes wrong is 'woops, mistakes happen.'
What contention was false? Back it up with data
@@cfcee Brooks: Slave trade was not profitable.
Data: Cotton was sold for great profit and none of it went to the slaves.
People in excruciating pain, when presented with an option to relieve that pain, if there’s a possibility for harm down the road will very often choose immediate relief. Pain is not a conducive state for rational thought let alone extensive research to exist.
People in excruciating pain can't perform their jobs
I'm glad I started watching this channel again. Very intelligent comments, and heartfelt and thoughtful.
Additionally, when they need to work to feed their kids, if doctors play down the consequences, you make the decision that will prevent homelessness. Which is reasonable.
Exactly. To him, making a decision in immense pain is just real simple and has no influence on your choices. He is so deep in his own bubble.
reason is a slave of the passions anyway, even under the best of circumstances. to deify reason in the way modern leftists do is to deify a faculty whose only real purpose is to rationalize what one already wants
Oof, he basically said, "How dare you imply I should have empathy?"
These people are legitimately evil, by any meaning of the word I can come up with.
Newest right wing grift. "Corporations don't actually exist."
But at the same time, they're still people, with more rights than ordinary people, smh
This man's grasp of reality is tenuous at best
that's how they got scotus to redefine corporations as "people"....
Literally took being selfish and made it an ideology.
Based
Yup. That was Ayn Rand’s whole schtick. The “greed is good” mentality appeals to a certain type of person who is very simplistic in their thinking and has the luxury of blithely hand-waving away reality in favor of a weird, selfish “utopia” that could never exist, and if it did, would be a grinding dystopia for all but a privileged few. That said, modern day America is a little too close to this kind of world for comfort as far as I’m concerned.
@@liberator6 I agree
@@liberator6 I can't imagine not understanding the law of comparative advantage 😂
@@liberator6 define selfishness
Libertarians: You only need the equivalent of seven advanced degrees in order to make informed decisions about the most high stakes things in your life.
Sam: How much does education cost in your system?
Libertarians: 100,000 btc. per semester because the government doesn't belong in education.
Sam: Ok.
First of all, you don’t need 7 degrees to make good life choices, and believe me the government never gave you any. Second, education would be a lot cheaper without government intervention.
@@jiadizhang4107 ha ha! Bro what how explain?
@@jolanjakers8380 Free market lowers costs exponentially, they left the internet alone and look what we got for free. Education would be free or nearly free under a laissez faire market. It would also be much better. How?
@@Frank22164the internet in America is junk and expensive compared to every other first world country that nationalized it
@@Frank22164the current and ongoing greedflation clearly disproves the the delusion of the free market would lower prices
According to this guy all the profits from slavery just disappeared and none of them used their wealth to go into new businesses.
Brook keeps doing these and never comes off looking remotely sane, but props to him for the fun content.
4:58 "...and everybody should pay exactly the same [taxes]."
This sounds like Thatcher's poll tax which infamously meant that "a duke would pay the same as a dustman" - it was Thatcher's downfall.😄👍
"What I'm talking about is under freedom..." The problem with debating these guys is semantics. They like to redefine terms, make up concepts and ultimately have rules to keep whats theirs. Yet have no rules. They're position is unexplainable. Just imagine how bogged down the courts would be because there are no clear regulations.
It is nice to see a civil discussion though.
@Odorless Kingsford I have yet to see one explain how would that begin or persist. In real human terms. How would a government become libertarian while also remaining at least a democracy, let alone anarchy. Libertarians propose to make life of citizens massively worse, at which point they will take matters in their own hands. Well guess what - they will take matters in their own hands at the slightest attempt to take shit from them by voting the morons who are doing this out of the government!
Exactly and he acts as if anybody has the time and money to file a lawsuit. Personally I was cheated by an employer, wage theft. I didn’t find out they were breaking the rules until later. But I don’t have money to hire a lawyer and I don’t have the time to spend months, maybe years in court with a decent chance they rule against me. This means most people are vulnerable to exploitation. They rarely have the means to do anything about it. This is why we need to government not to respond to exploitation but to prevent it from happening at all, at least to the best of their ability.
That's actually wrong. Regulations make things confusing and bog down the courts. It makes it extremely hard for regular people to understand the laws and for courts to apply it consistently. Regulations are often vague by design so that government has more discretion on how to apply them and to whom.
Those who have the means to hire lobbyists and good lawyers can use regulations to their advantage. You guys are completely wrong on this one.
@Odorless Kingsford and Yaron couldn't agree more with you on this one. He rejects anarcho-capitalism. For objectivists, government is a necessary GOOD. Free markets cannot exist without government or rules. Yaron never argues for the dismantling of government, he argues for the separation of government and the economy in a similar way that some countries separate it from religion.
@@kazuoua so we loosen regulations and allow buildings to collapse so that we don’t bog down the courts with people suing for injustices done against them?
Where is the evidence of rampant physician corruption? That is totally unfounded.
If we pretend slavery is not a relevancy then we have no responsibility for the past
And he keep talking about "19th century", but I'm very sure a lot of things that the listed about that century actually happened in the centuries before!
You don't have any responsibility, except for your own choices.
@@YorickReturns That position is bs. While you are entitled to your opinion, the actions of our predecessors and ancestors can be either a benefit or a disadvantage to us today. The antecedents and descendants of predominantly white Europeans are still benefitting from the near 250 year long slave trade not to mention the stolen lands in the Western Hemisphere
@@stevenleonard7219 How does benefit equal responsibility? And why are you so sure that slavery does benefit the descendants of slave-owners or even benefited the slave-owners themselves? Serious question. I used to assume the same. So I'm not knocking you.
@@YorickReturns In their mind everything will do only affect yourself, like there are no effects on others and society. This talk about "personal responsibility" us used as an excuse for them to escape responsibility in their fantasy world. That example of the Florida building, it's like saying if I kill someone the only consequence is that I can be called a murder and to bad for the dead person because it's his fault for failing the responsibility from protecting himself from me.
Sam: we are talking about the way things are.
Yaron: Yeah, but that's not reality. Reality is what I think it is.
Sam doesn’t believe objective reality exists. He believes in a subjective and arbitrary “reality.”
That’s why he can only assert the way things “are” because he isn’t certain of the objective realities like Yaron is.
You’ll need proper context in order to understand what Yaron means by reality, he is an Objectivist, not a Libertarian.
@@bradbecker8982 😂😂😂
@@bradbecker8982
Exactly! Sam can't see the real world, because he's focusing on things that happen on the real world. On the other hand, Yaron is free to perceive the real world as it is, through the power of speculation and thought experiments.
All this subjectivity of looking at material conditions, historical precedent, and analysis of the interplay of power and incentives is bringing Sam to total blindness. I wish he could be more like Yaron, and free his mind from the weight of having to deal with petty facts. Yaron can perceive beyond concrete things, into the objective, totally real reality.
@LoddyRiy “objective” refers to the facts related to the measurable objects and related entities in existence. Often times when someone asserts something as “true” they neglect to include, consciously or not, whether they mean subjectively, intrinsically, or objectively “true.” Values come from the facts of reality.
A subjective assertion is one detached from objects in existence. An intrinsic assertion is also a subjective assertion against reality, but intrincisists do not see it that way, they think values and facts are intrinsic yet evade the fact that to a Christian, Islam is subjective, and vice versa. All a bunch of claims that are so far subjective and will probably never prove to be objectively true. Subjective and “intrinsic” claims are all vices, not values. Sam is full of vices and he wants to use government force to implement them onto you and all of us. Yaron thinks that’s evil, rightfully so.
Seder likes to make a lot of claims but the only true claims are the ones tied to objective reality, which Yaron was on to discuss about.
@@frechjo I can’t tell if you believe what you’re saying or if that’s sarcasm. What I can tell is that you have never read the objectivist metaphysics.
A lot of these "libertarians" wouldn't survive in the world they advocate for.
Then you should join them in advocating that world in order to punish them... right?
They would thrive. Though, Yaron is an Objectivist not a libertarian.
@@YorickReturns no because then I’d also have to live in that world. Do you people ever think?
@@Fearcely No, you wouldn't, because all these 'libertarians' would die.
“Slavery is immoral” says the person who wants to abolish the minimum wage and by doing so reintroduce slavery
Yes sir
Oh that's rich. The "I don't believe in force" argument. Libertarianism depends on the acceptance of property rights.
Property as a concept depends on the use of coercion and force to deny what are otherwise freely available resources from other people.
Without that coercion, everyone can forage from the bushes they find, hunt and fish for the animals they eat, travel wherever they want unimpeded, take shelter under any tree or in any cave they want, make tools and clothing and other useful things from whatever resources they find, etc.
You don't get to ownership and property until someone decides to attack or kill other people for using what is otherwise a natural resource that anyone can use. The concept of property rights doesn't even make sense unless a society is large enough that it requires a more complex means of distributing resources than simple hunter-gatherers can provide.
And that is where there NAP falls apart.
I’m guessing you don’t own any property
@@Greenlantern957 If the argument for private property depends on personal experience than it's no argument.
@@meegz149 that’s what I thought
Private property as we know it are just land reforms imposed by the state, or in the case of America, mass murder by the government. I can think of one country that made land reforms optional and that was Czarist Russia and it wasn't that popular. See the Stolypin reforms.
Libertarian: corporate corruption of gov't is the issue
Everyone else: yeah totally
Also Libertarian: if we just give the corruptors the power everything will be fine
Everyone else: wait...what?
I think you got this backwards Yaron is arguing against GOV intervention. Didn’t hear any concern about corporations. He has like a 6 hour class on the corporations and defends their form usually
@@Businessblend Thank you for pointing out another totally reasonable libertarian belief that it's not corporate interests corrupting the government, but government intervention that perverts corporate interests towards pure profit and away from their true philanthropic purpose. I'm sure his class needed to be 6 hours in order to safely perform such a mind-bending feat of mental gymnastics.
@@dinksunker sure corporations lobby the government and that’s called Cronyism. It’s bad. But it’s bad that government even has the power to do favors for these corporations in the first place. Take away the gov power in the economy and business wouldn’t lobby. Businesses don’t have an obligation to be philanthropic. They have an obligation to make money.
You have the wrong understanding of power and corruption. Power means *forcing* people to act or think against their will, for example, kidnapping them, imprisoning them or torturing them. In a capitalist society, no corporation has this ability. They can offer you something so attractive and cheap you'd find it hard to resist but you still have the choice. You can still say no or pick something different. They can also refuse to serve you but that is not power. Power would be for you to force them to serve you.
In a capitalist society, only government has actual power and corruption comes from people attempting to direct this power to advance their agendas but government should obey no particular interest, not even if that happens to be one shared by a majority. Government should procure justice in the sense that everyone receives what they deserve. And you deserve what you worked for.
@@Businessblend But, corporations make no money without the consumer for which they have no obligation to be philanthropic. If consumers say they are tired of corporations only caring about their shareholders and boycotted their brand, you would see such a turnaround in their outlook regarding the bottom line and shareholder only matters view would go out the window. Corporations only exist because of consumers, not shareholders.
Dude acts like there is no cost component of profit. “There are bridges to nowhere!” “The government funds research that will never get used!” So what? You can’t find a needle in a haystack if you don’t take a pitchfork to the whole bale. His arguments are all “No you don’t want the hay. You want the needle.”
Enjoy the right to profit without paying for the right. A corporation will never get drafted, serve in jury duty, will never be expected to help the country in any positive manner. How corporations uses the roads that citizens pay for. They want the right to benefit from the country to have the right to profit and doesn't want government to interfere with the profits they are allowed to make only because they got freedom from the same government they don't want to inferring.
Those bridges to nowhere are often in Alaska and they connect small villages/towns to the bigger cities for supplies, and not to mention oil fields.
So his view that there shouldn't be bridges in remote locations because reasons, even though those people need supplies...
He clearly doesn't understand science. In science, even research that doesn't provide hypothesized results is still helpful and useful information that researchers can build on. Science illiteracy is a fkn epidemic in this country.
So what? Do you really want politicians deciding how to spend your money?
@@Shozb0t are you saying you would rather have greedy big business running schools?
I have speech impediments too but I can’t stop thinking that him saying “fwee maaket” is funny. I feel kinda bad
"Everyone knows that opioids are addictive"
"anyone can do a quick google search"
Implying that actually NOT everyone knows lol.
Then he says that if you use your brain, you can separate the lies from the truth. Also LOL at that statement...
imagine googling if a medicine is okay for only papers to come up from that corporation saying yes it is okay. That is basically what he wants lol
Also the fact that the doctors and sales people pushing OxyContin are trying to do "you harm" for a profit. This fits in his belief of what government is there to do.
"the role of government is to protect rights, to protect individual rights. It's to leave you alone to make choices based on your values. Based on your pursuits. Based on your choices. To leave you alone to do all that and to protect you from other people who want to do you harm" (Yaron at 2:40)
People do harm to themselves all the time with their own choices. Opiods is no different, as long as it's the individuals choice to take the drug. If drugs were legalized the crime surrounding them would plummet.
People nowadays don't trust an individuals brain because we're not taught to think. We're taught to think with our hearts and sacrifice for one another which only leaves us shackled to our weakest.
Individuals being left alone and allowed to thrive makes the world better for everyone. Government is full of people who have no ability and desperately try and regulate those with ability into the ground.
It has to do with control and thinking with your feelings leaves you open to being manipulated and exploited for others gain. Everyone should just mind their own business.
Yes I found that “rich” in our current environment where almost a third of our people follow q-anon bullshit.
@@johngleue “everyone should just mind their own business”. but how’s that supposed to work when we are inherently reliant upon each other for survival?
This Libertarian who claims not to be a real Libertarian within 2 minutes of this debate has inhaled too much burning plastic to make his brain this damage
🤣🤣
“Slavery didn’t create wealth” -smoothest brain to ever exist
Yeah, I mean at first I was "well, if slavery wasn't capitalism, then let's redistribute the wealth it created; pay off the descendants of black slaves, compensate colonies of European countries, give everybody the right to their natural ressources, etc. and then let's have free market capitalism". Then he even denied that and I was like "okay, whatever".
Don’t you know, they only bought slaves because they were lonely. 🤦🏾♂️
No he said “swavewy didn’t cweate wellf
@@vogelvogeltje Mocking people's speech impediments is not a good look. Even if they are libertarians ;p
It did not create wealth overall, but was hugely destructive. To believe otherwise you must believe that those black slaves were more productive as chattel than as they would have been as free men allowed to use their minds. Yours is a very old, very misguided and destructive belief.
Libertarians are the kind of people who would rather personally check every aspect of the food supply chain and sign a personal contract with McDonalds guaranteeing the safety of their food every time they buy a cheese burger, rather than have any regulations that ensure that it is safe.
Can not believe Sam would even consider debating this guy seeing how many fewer subscribers he has than Sam. What a fucking nightmare!
Well I don’t think it should matter. That was like saying crowder shouldn’t debate Sam because he had very few subscribers
@@TheZachary86 that was the joke.
@@TheZachary86 I’ve got a telegram for you from The Joke, it read, “sorry I missed you”.
@@sargonsblackgrandfather2072 🤣🤣
@@TheZachary86
>>>>>>> Joke >>>>>>>
Your head
8(-_-)8
If we lived in a world like Yaron believes it would be a toxic dump.
Either that or a return to Feudalism...or both...
Oh come on... Haven't you vacationed in Somalia? No government = paradise.
Sounds like some sort of idiocracy...
It’s kinda is going that way as it is ..
He'd have us back with the Neanderthals!
The building analogy ruined him...he started getting heated and said he had to run because the people who paid for the property owner's "mistakes" were 150 or so dead people and their families who didn't in any way just say to themselves "I think I'll go live in an unstable building and take that risk knowingly".
The Big Pharma argument crushed him too. Right before the building. Oop! 👀 Gotta go
You are incapable of understanding nuance. He said they accepted some risk by living there. EVEN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. He's not villifying them, simply not allowing that idiot to conflate government regulation to complete risk mitigation, and the disappearance of personal responsibility
@@cfcee Womp womp, reality proved Sam right, a building in Florida collapsed and 54 people are dead and counting. We need government intervention and regulation.
To be fair, he did talk for 45 minutes and probably did really have to go. It doesn't seem like he was ashamed of his answers one bit--he didn't appear to want to leave the debate over them--he's a true believer in them.
Slavery wasn't the only reason why wealth in the 19th century went up. The dislocation and murder of natives, and also the MASSIVE handout to rail companies to help settle that stolen land.